**Comment on AM 74 Proposed Rule\
**\
For the DEPARTMENT OF VETERAN AFFAIRS to move forward with this rule
change as written is an absolute insult to all Veterans who ever served.
The DEPARTMENT OF VETERAN AFFAIRS has no legitimate basis to issue such
a narrow ruling.

The DEPARTMENT OF VETERAN AFFAIRS has, in this proposed rule change;
placed a requirement, which appears to be contrary to regulations that
requires the DEPARTMENT OF VETERAN AFFAIRS to assist each Veteran in
providing and gathering the evidence required to fulfill their claim, on
each Blue Water Naval Vietnam Veteran for direct scientific evidence of
exposure to Dioxins. Yet via the presumption of exposure, as required by
Congress, other Vietnam Veterans aren't required to furnish that same
evidence, why? Possibly because the DEPARTMENT OF VETERAN AFFAIRS knows
that by separating the Blue Water Naval Vietnam Veterans from the other
Vietnam Veterans and requiring them to provide positive proof of
exposure, which they know to be almost impossible to provide at this or
any other time, will save the DEPARTMENT OF VETERAN AFFAIRS a tremendous
amount of dollars in claims.

The presumption of exposure was created by Congress because the positive
proof of exposure could not be provided, but the likelihood that there
was some ***[possibility of exposure]{.underline}*** clearly existed.
Now comes the Australian study that has provided two separate
governments with enough evidence that the ***[possibility of
exposure]{.underline}*** exist in so far as they now provide their Blue
Water Naval Vietnam Veterans with the presumption of exposure.\
\
Why not go back to the DEPARTMENT OF VETERAN AFFAIRS Commissioned paper
produced by Admiral Elmo Zumwalt from 1990? Admiral Zumwalt provided
information about wind drift of aerially sprayed defoliants directing
attention to the likelihood of drift carrying as far as 29 kilometers,
with the general direction of the winds blowing from land to the sea.
Doesn't this raise the ***[possibility of exposure]{.underline}*** for
the Blue Water Naval Vietnam Veterans, especially now that we know that
there is a ***[possibility of exposure]{.underline}*** due to the
seawater being distilled and consumed by the members of the Blue Water
Naval Vietnam Veterans? But the DEPARTMENT OF VETERAN AFFAIRS refuses to
accept this Official Government Sanctioned Study as anything other than
a poor attempt at establishing a ***[possibility of
exposure.]{.underline}***\
\
It seems as if the DEPARTMENT OF VETERAN AFFAIRS will not recognize a
scientific study by one of our staunchest allies, the Australians, then
why not allow the Institute of Medicine to examine and comment on the
Australian study which dealt with runoff of dioxin contaminated water
into the sea where it was processed by their ship\'s evaporators\...and
BTW, those ships were built in the USA as Charles F. Adams Class
Destroyers, so they used the same evaporation systems.\
\
Instead of making a rule change that denies the members of the Blue
Water Naval Vietnam Veterans the correctly bestowed "Presumption of
Exposure" that was clearly given them by congress. Shouldn't the
DEPARTMENT OF VETERAN AFFAIRS be making every attempt to assist the
members of the Blue Water Naval Veterans in gathering any possible
evidence of the ***[possibility of exposure?]{.underline}*** Why hasn't
the DEPARTMENT OF VETERAN AFFAIRS asked the Institute of Medicine to do
a mortality study on Blue Water Navy Veterans over the past ten years
and see what the results are? The reason for this failure on the part of
the DEPARTMENT OF VETERAN AFFAIRS is perhaps that would provide evidence
of a ***[possibility of exposure]{.underline}***. Thus there pops up
possibility of a large expenditure from the DEPARTMENT OF VETERAN
AFFAIRS budget, not to mention the perceived liability to tort claims
against the entire Government.

Now let's address the effect that the two studies might have on one
another if they were objectively AND honestly accepted by the DEPARTMENT
OF VETERAN AFFAIRS. The Zumwalt report indicates that there was a
possibility of a wind drift of the dioxins of probably up to 29 KM.
Remember that only indicates that the dioxins traveled by air only 29
KG's. This is only a speculation but I believe that it is reasonable to
believe that they drifted even further once in the waters of the Gulf of
Tonkin. Now the Australian study indicates two things; first, the
dioxins were condensed when distilled in the type of distillation
process that was commonly used in the ships during that era. Second, the
Australian study did indicate that the concentration of the dioxins was
effected by the amount of sediment in the water. But now I am sure you
know that it is reasonable to believe that the amount of sediment is
highly reduced when the seawater is 29 or more kilometers out to sea vs.
the estuarine waters near the coast. Thus, based on just these two
studies and the objective revelations they hold, it is reasonable to
believe that there was a ***[possibility of exposure]{.underline}*** to
the Blue Water Naval Vietnam Veterans. Thus they should be afforded the
***[presumption of exposure]{.underline}***.

Please address the reason that in all of the studies and updates that
have been made by the Institute of Medicine, none have made any
reference to the Blue Water Navy Vietnam Veterans being separated from
the term "Vietnam Veterans" that are discussed in all those studies and
updates. All of the studies only refer to "Vietnam Veterans" as a whole
group. For statistical purposes, all of the numbers that indicate
"Vietnam Veterans" used in these studies therefore must include the Blue
Water Naval Vietnam Veterans. So again, where is the affirmative
evidence that is apparently being used by the DEPARTMENT OF VETERAN
AFFAIRS in making the decision that Blue Water Navy Vietnam Veterans
were to be excluded from the presumption of exposure that is afforded to
other Vietnam Veterans that may or may not been exposed to Dioxin?

If the DEPARTMENT OF VETERAN AFFAIRS pays benefits to Blue Water Naval
Vietnam Veterans suffering from Chronic lymphocytic leukemia, why would
that disease be any different than the others on the list. Blue Water
Naval Vietnam Veterans suffer from all the \"Agent Orange\" diseases.

When making the statement of reason for this proposed rule change, the
DEPARTMENT OF VETERAN AFFAIRS indicated that it had a "long standing"
opposition to the Blue Water Naval Vietnam Veterans being included in
the presumption of exposure. Yet we only have to go back to the initial
passage of the Agent Orange Act of 1991 after the DEPARTMENT OF VETERAN
AFFAIRS had written the regulations which they then translated into
their internal manuals, and subsequently granted benefits to anyone who
had been awarded the Vietnam Service Medal and continued to do so until
2002. That\'s eleven years of precedence that goes starkly against this
proposed rule and clearly contradicts the statement of a "long held"
opposition to the Blue Water Naval Vietnam Veterans being included in
the Presumption of Exposure.

Finally, since the DEPARTMENT OF VETERAN AFFAIRS has refused to consider
any scientific evidence that proves against this rule, perhaps they
should refer to the 38 United States Code section of the original law,
which ends with the words:

*\"For purposes of establishing service connection for a disability or
death resulting from exposure to a herbicide agent, including a
presumption of service-connection under this section, a veteran who,
during active military, **[naval]{.underline}**, or air service, served
in the Republic of Vietnam during the period beginning on January 9,
1962, and ending on May 7, 1975, shall be presumed to have been exposed
during such service to an herbicide agent containing dioxin or
2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid, and may be presumed to have been exposed
during such service to any other chemical compound in an herbicide
agent, unless there is affirmative evidence to establish that the
veteran was not exposed to any such agent during that service.\"*

***[\"\...unless there is affirmative evidence to establish that the
veteran was not exposed to any such agent during that
service.\"]{.underline}***

It is clear that the DEPARTMENT OF VETERAN AFFAIRS has not in any way,
other than maybe someone's personal opinion, been able to establish any
Affirmative Evidence that the Blue Water Naval Vietnam Veterans do not
suffer from that same ***[Possibility of Exposure]{.underline}*** that
is afforded other Vietnam Veterans via the Presumption of Exposure.

Obviously, the DEPARTMENT OF VETERAN AFFAIRS has completely failed to do
any of the required proper due diligence in preparing this proposed rule
change and have relied on what appears to be a strong personal opinion
of someone within the Chain of Command and the desire to save budgeted
dollars for this Administration. Therefore, I strongly recommend that
the DEPARTMENT OF VETERAN AFFAIRS withdraw this proposed rule change and
re-establish the procedures that were in place prior to 2002, not to
mention the legal requirement to establish and comply with the
recommendations of the CAVA ruling in Haas. Such action would be clearly
in the best interests of the DEPARTMENT OF VETERAN AFFAIRS, and even
more important, the best interests of the Veterans that have volunteered
so honorably to served our Nation in a time of need.