Blue Water Navy Veterans: Improperly Stayed Claims:
Under current law, only veterans who served in the Republic of Vietnam during the war are entitled to a presumption of exposure to Agent Orange when seeking compensation for conditions linked to herbicide exposure. Several diseases, including type II diabetes mellitus, prostate cancer, and lung cancer, are associated with exposure to dioxin as found in Agent Orange.
Herbicide use in Vietnam during the war is sufficiently documented that veterans who served in Vietnam are not required to furnish evidence of exposure. However, for veterans who served in ships offshore -- Blue Water Navy veterans -- there is a burden of proof to show direct exposure to herbicides. Some of these veterans may have been exposed to Agent Orange while they performed temporary military service in Vietnam, served on ships which docked in Vietnam or entered inland waterways, or entered Vietnam for other reasons.
The basis for VA’s limiting the presumption to veterans who served in Vietnam, its so called “boots on the ground” policy, was challenged in Haas vs. Nicholson. The case took several years to work its way through the Courts, and was ultimately not successful.
Click Here to View a Copy of the Haas Decision
During the later stages of the Haas litigation, the Chairman received letters from a number of Blue Water Navy veterans who claimed direct exposure who were objecting to VA’s decision to suspend the processing of their claims pending judicial resolution of the case. The Chairman not only agreed with these veterans, but questioned if the practice of staying direct exposure claims extended beyond this group. Under his direction, Committee staff reviewed VA’s handling of similar claims in a number of VA Regional Offices, and identified other claims that were wrongly held. In a letter to then-VA Secretary Peake, Chairman Akaka requested that VA lift the stay on direct exposure claims and help develop evidence to substantiate these claims.
Click Here to View Chairman Akaka's Letter to VA and VA's Reply
Soon after Chairman Akaka’s correspondence with VA on this issue, the U.S. Supreme Court elected not to hear the Haas vs. Nicholson case. This decision ended any further challenge in the Courts to VA’s boots-on-the-ground policy. VA resumed processing all compensation claims brought by Blue Water Navy veterans.Blue Water Navy veterans, as well as those veterans who served on air bases in Thailand during the Vietnam War, should include the location of their service when filing claims for compensation for illnesses they believe are due to herbicide exposure. Location of service enables VA to seek any available evidence to validate these claims.
In a letter to the former VA Secretary, Chairman Akaka expressed concerns about VA’s handling of direct exposure claims from veterans who served on Air Force bases in Thailand during the Vietnam War.
Click Here to View Chairman Akaka's Letter to VA and VA's Reply
Committee staff continue to monitor VA’s processing of claims submitted by Blue Water veterans and Thailand veterans, especially those from former dog handlers and military police. Oversight of such claims have revealed numerous cases in which VA neglected to first determine the locations of service before denying the claim to follow its own procedures. On March 30, 2010, Chairman Akaka contacted VA Secretary Eric Shinseki to urge that VA undertake another, more thorough, review of all direct- exposure denials following disposition of the Haas case.
Click here to review a copy of Chairman Akaka’s letter and Secretary Shinseki's letter announcing a full review of 16,830 claims
Through its oversight efforts, the Committee has collected information on ships with evidence or suggestion of service in Vietnam Inland Waterways. If you have additional information such as deck logs that you would like to share with the Committee, please mail copies to our office located at 412 Russell Senate Office Building, Washington, DC 20510.
Click here for a List of Ships with Evidence or Suggestion or Service in Vietnam Inland Waterways
Merchant Marines --S. 663, the proposed “Belated Thank you to the Merchant Mariners of World War II Act of 2009”
Note: The Committee has received inquiries regarding S. 663, the proposed “Belated Thank You to Merchant Mariners Act of 2009.” Although referred to the Committee, this bill has not has not been among legislation ordered to be reported for full Senate consideration. Any Committee Member, however, is free to bring up the bill for this purpose either at any Committee meeting to consider legislation, or as an amendment to a pending measure on the Floor of the Senate. The Chairman will not stand in the way of any Member doing so. For more information, please see below.
World War II Merchant Mariners: U.S. Merchant Mariners made vital contributions to the war effort during World War II by transporting supplies, personnel, and other material to where they were needed. At the end of the war, Merchant Marine vessels also carried several million GI’s back home. Their courageous and vital assistance to the U.S. Armed Forces in achieving victory must never be forgotten.U. S. Merchant Mariners were civilian employees during World War II, and their wartime work was under the control of the War Shipping Administration. Because they did not serve as Members of the U.S. Armed Services, they were not accorded veterans’ status after the war ended. Like many other civilian groups who assisted in the war effort, they therefore were not eligible for veterans’ service and benefits.
Several decades later, Merchant Mariners of World War II did achieve veterans’ status for the purpose of receiving benefits from VA. Under P.L. 95-202, enacted into law in 1977, the Secretary of the Air Force was authorized to determine whether service for the U.S. Armed Forces by a group of civilians, or contractors, was to be deemed active service for purposes of receiving benefits administered by VA. Following litigation, the Secretary decided on January 19, 1988, that Merchant seamen in oceangoing service during World War II met that standard. A number of other civilian groups who participated in war efforts have also gained veterans’ status as a result of a favorable determination by the Secretary.
During his first term as Chairman of the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs, Senator Daniel Akaka pressed the Department of Veterans Affairs to redouble efforts to ensure that those who served in the Merchant Marines during World War II were aware of their eligibility under current law for the full range of veterans’ health care and other benefits and services. This could be especially crucial for those of limited means.
Click here to see Senator Akaka’s letter to VA and VA’s response
Because World War II Merchant Mariners were not deemed veterans until 1988, they did not receive benefits available to former GI’s under the Servicemen’s Readjustment Act of 1944 , P.L. 78-346 , also known as the GI Bill of Rights . There have been repeated legislative initiatives, currently proposed in S. 663 and its counterpart, H.R. 23, to provide these Merchant Mariners with a financial benefit. This legislation would establish a Merchant Mariner Equity Compensation Fund which, if funded, would provide a monthly payment of $1,000 to eligible Merchant seamen of World War II.
Following its introduction on March 19, 2009, S. 663 was referred to the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs, as was a similar version of this legislation in the preceding Congress. As part of a hearing on pending legislation before the Committee in the preceding Congress, on May 7, 2008, the Committee heard several witnesses who testified about the bill, including Chairman of the House Committee on Veterans’ Affairs, Representative Bob Filner, and two former Merchant Mariners. At the time of the hearing, the bill was S. 961, introduced on March 3, 2007, and the companion bill was H.R. 23.
Click here to view the May 7, 2008, hearing
The proponents of World War II Merchant Mariner legislation believe that these seamen were wrongly denied GI Bill benefits. To compensate them and, and in recognition of their important wartime contributions, they propose that the nation honor its debt of gratitude by providing the monthly benefit described above.
Those who have concerns about S. 663 question the equity of singling out World War II Merchant Mariners for a special benefit when there are a number of other civilian groups who also contributed to the war effort and were also belatedly accorded veterans’ status for the purpose of receiving VA benefits. There are also significant concerns about establishing a benefit from VA not based on need or disability that is equal to the rate of benefits paid to a veteran with a 70 percent service-connected disability.
While not supporting S. 663, Chairman Akaka has not stood in the way of any Committee who wishes to bring the bill before the Committee for consideration for sending it to the full Senate for a vote. To date, no Committee Member has done so. Nor has the Chairman blocked any Senator from offering this legislation as an amendment to pending legislation on the Floor of the Senate, nor will he.
New Presumptions and Senator Jim Webb’s Amendment
Please note that Senator Jim Webb’s amendment affirming Congress’s authority to exercise a 60-day review of VA’s decision to add three presumptive illnesses – namely, Parkinson’s, Hairy Cell Leukemias, and ischemic heart disease -- to conditions linked to Agent Orange exposure during the war in Vietnam will not hold up benefits for these conditions.
Click here for VA’s press release on this decision
As part of an ongoing review of VA’s disability compensation program, the Committee has scheduled a hearing on VA’s Presumptive Decision-Making at 9:30 am on September 23, 2010. These proceedings are not intended to delay benefits for the three new conditions, but to provide Committee Members with a better understanding of the role of science and other elements in this process. You may view the hearing through the Committee’s website.
The New GI Bill and Efforts to Improve it
Please note that Chairman Daniel K. Akaka’s legislation, S. 3447, to improve the New GI Bill, may be significantly amended before it is enacted. It is not known at this time when that will occur. As this legislation is subject to change and does not have the force of law, it should not be the basis for any plans on the part of a veteran or a servicemember who is eligible for benefits under the New GI Bill.
Please do not contact the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs for advice on your benefits --the New GI Bill program is complex, and any questions about the program are best answered by a VA education specialist.
To reach a VA benefit specialist call: 1-888-GIBILL (1-888-442-4551)
Surviving Spousal Benefits—Righting a Wrong:
In November, 2008, Chairman Akaka received a letter from the widow of a veteran regarding the Treasury Department’s seizure of funds from her bank account to reimburse the government for the VA compensation check issued to her late husband the month that he died. The widow had not been notified in advance of this action. Unaware that the funds were no longer in her account, she wrote several checks to honor obligations that she unknowingly could no longer cover. Her bank responded with financial penalties.
The Treasury Department was acting on flawed instructions from VA. Under a 1996 law, surviving spouses of a veteran may, in fact, keep a VA disability or pension check for the month in which the veteran dies. After Committee staff intervention, the widow was reimbursed for the amount at issue and the bank agreed to drop the overdraft fees.
Further examination revealed that the widow’s experience was not an isolated case of poor administration, but rather the result of VA’s failure to update its computer systems and policy in this area. Many other widows or widowers of service-connected veterans over the preceding twelve years may have experienced a similar hardship after suffering the loss of a spouse.
On December 5, 2008, Chairman Akaka contacted former VA Secretary Peake to alert him to the Committee staff findings and to request that he take corrective measures. In his December 11, 2008, response then-Secretary Peake agreed to remedy this error.
Click Here to View Chairman Akaka's Letter to VA and VA's Reply
Special Separation Benefits – Overlooked Reforms:
Special Separation Benefits (SSB), a payment of the Department of Defense to servicemembers who retired between the ends of 1991 and 2001, are subject to an offset if the veteran receiving the benefit also receives VA compensation benefits. After the Chairman received a letter from a veteran who raised concerns about the amount of his SSB offset, the Chairman directed Committee staff to investigate VA’s policy in this area. The probe led to the conclusion that VA had not only incorrectly computed the offset in the veteran’s case, but was systematically doing so in other cases. Committee staff reported to the Chairman that the source of the error was VA’s use of the pre-tax SSB amount, rather than the after-tax amount in its calculation, as is required under law.
Senator Akaka wrote to former Secretary Peake requesting that the regulations be corrected to reflect the law and that he seek to identify veterans who had been harmed by the offset miscalculation. VA Secretary Shinseki agreed on both counts.
Click Here to View Chairman Akaka's Letter to VA and VA's Reply
Unilateral Hearing Loss – Ensuring Compensation:
Loss of hearing in one ear, a disability experienced by many OIF/OEG veterans, can pose significant limitations on an individual’s ability to successfully obtain employment in numerous fields, such as law enforcement. In the 110th Congress, the Committee was active in efforts to ensure that VA’s disability rating system reflects up- to-date research on hearing loss and compensates veterans accordingly.
Click Here to View Chairman Akaka's Letter to VA and VA's Reply
