0
0
0
I am a Vietnam veteran (1967-1968) who was exposed to Agent Orange while on operation along the Cambodian border. I have previously been diagnosed with MGUS by the VA which is now presumed to have been caused by duty in Vietnam. Yet my PACH (sp) Act claim has been denied as not combat related. Is this denial correct?
Posted 1 y ago
Responses: 3
If you are not doing so, have a Veteran Service Officer, VVA, DAV, or VFW help with your claim. Combat has nothing to do with Agent Orange exposure.
https://www.va.gov/disability/eligibility/hazardous-materials-exposure/agent-orange/#am-i-eligible-for-va-disabilit
https://www.va.gov/disability/eligibility/hazardous-materials-exposure/agent-orange/#am-i-eligible-for-va-disabilit
(1)
(0)
SGT Patrick Clark
Thanks for the great advice. I will contact somebody in your list. Sorry. I apologize, the letter said “not service related.” I also misspelled PACT. Again, I apologize.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
COL Randall C.
Agree. If the facts are as you state (Vietnam service between 1967-1968, physically served in the Republic of Vietnam and have MGUS), it's a clear presumptive condition.
Something must have been screwed up. I've seen cases where they didn't add DD214 service dates or locations into the claim when it was being considered and as such was denied (not saying this is the case for you ... just saying that they make mistakes).
One thing - if it IS from a screwup that shouldn't have happened, talk to the DAV Service Officer about doing a "clear and unmistakable error" (CUE) rather than just a regular appeal.
Something must have been screwed up. I've seen cases where they didn't add DD214 service dates or locations into the claim when it was being considered and as such was denied (not saying this is the case for you ... just saying that they make mistakes).
One thing - if it IS from a screwup that shouldn't have happened, talk to the DAV Service Officer about doing a "clear and unmistakable error" (CUE) rather than just a regular appeal.
(1)
(0)
0
0
0
Combat has nothing to do with exposure to Agent Orange. You must be misinterpreting the denial.
(0)
(0)
SGT Patrick Clark
Sorry. I apologize, the letter said “not service related.” Although I do not see the difference. Thanks for your advice.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google