blue water navy fact sheet 2.4.2016

7/25/2019 Blue Water Navy Fact Sheet 2.4.2016

1/5

Agent Orange and Presumptions of Service Connection: Inland Waterways

and Blue Water avy !eterans

The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) remains committed to ensuring that Vietnam-era

Veterans receive benefits they have earned through their service. This commitment includes

determining presumptive service connection related to Agent Orange and other herbicide

exposure.

ongress has provided that a Veteran !ho "served in the #epublic of Vietnam during the

period beginning on $anuary %& '%& and ending on *ay +& '%+,& !ill be presumed to

have been exposed to an herbicide agent during such service. This presumption of

exposure may be used to service connect an herbicide-related disease and establish

entitlement to VA disability compensation.

VA interprets the phrase "served in the #epublic of Vietnam to refer to duty or visitation

on land (ground troops) or on the inland !ater!ays of Vietnam ("ro!n /ater 0avy)&

but not to include service in the !aters offshore ("lue /ater 0avy) or in the airspace

above Vietnam.

1n 223& the 4.5. ourt of Appeals for the 6ederal ircuit (Haas v. Peake) upheld VA7s

policy as a reasonable interpretation of the governing statute.

At the re8uest of VA& the 1nstitute of *edicine (1O*) conducted a revie! of numerous medical

studies related to !hether lue /ater 0avy Veterans !ere exposed to herbicides during Vietnam

service.

The 1O* determined in its report&Blue Water Navy Vietnam Veterans and Agent Orange

Exposure(2'')& that there !as insufficient evidence to conclude that lue /ater 0avy

Veterans !ere exposed to herbicides.

The medical and scientific evidence available at this time does not support extension of

the presumption of exposure to herbicides to lue /ater 0avy Vietnam Veterans.


2/5

A recent Veterans ourt decision& Gray v. M!onald" re8uired that VA re-evaluate and clarify

its definition of "inland !ater!ays. onsistent !ith the decision in Gray& the Department has

clarified that it defines inland !ater!ays& !hich are part of the #epublic of Vietnam for purposes

of ac9no!ledging Agent Orange exposure& as fresh !ater rivers& streams& canals& and similar

!ater!ays. ecause these !ater!ays are distinct from ocean !aters and related coastal features&

service on these !ater!ays is service in the #epublic of Vietnam. VA considers inland

!ater!ays to end at their mouth or :unction to other offshore !ater features& as described belo!.

6or rivers and other !ater!ays ending on the coastline& the end of the inland !ater!ay !ill be

determined by dra!ing straight lines across the opening in the landmass leading to the open

ocean or other offshore !ater feature& such as a bay or inlet. 6or the *e9ong and other rivers

!ith prominent deltas& the end of the inland !ater!ay is determined by dra!ing a straight line

across each opening in the landmass leading to the open ocean.

1n contrast& offshore !aters& !here exposure to Agent Orange !ill not be presumed& are the highseas and any coastal or other !ater feature& such as a bay& inlet& or harbor& containing salty or

brac9ish !ater and sub:ect to regular tidal influence. This includes salty and brac9ish !aters

situated bet!een rivers and the open ocean. ;xamples of offshore bays or harbors in Vietnam

include& but are not limited to Da0ang


3/5

"A#s

W$o are Blue Water avy !eterans%

lue /ater 0avy Veterans are those sailors and other Veterans !ho served aboard ships that did

not enter Vietnam7s inland !ater!ays.

Were Blue Water avy !eterans e&posed to Agent Orange%

The 4.5. military sprayed Agent Orange over the Vietnam land mass.


4/5

Isn't t$ere new science proving Blue Water !eterans were e&posed to Agent Orange%

0o& environmental health experts in VA7s Veterans


5/5

doctor >ust diagnosed type II dia4etes1 Am I still entitled to t$e presumption of Agent

Orange e&posure%

As a result of the remand by the ourt of Appeals for Veterans laims in Gray v. M!onald& VA

revie!ed and clarified its policy concerning inland !ater!ays !here exposure to herbicides !ill

be presumed. Although VA had previously considered =ui 0hon ay and >anh #ai ay to beinland !ater!ays& these t!o offshore bays are no longer considered inland !ater!ays under

VA7s policy clarification.

Although VA !ill no longer add ne! ships or ne! dates of service to the ships list based on their

presence in =ui 0hon ay or >anh #ai ay& VA has already established a presumption of Agent

Orange exposure for a number of ships entering those bays& including the >uadalupe7s April

'% service. VA !ill therefore continue to extend that presumption to cre!members !ho !ere

aboard the >uadalupe at that time. 1f you !ere actually aboard the >uadalupe !hen it operated

in >anh #ai ay in April '%& you !ill be entitled to the presumption of Agent Orange

exposure.

I served a4oard a s$ip t$at operated on 6an$ +ai Bay during April -./0< 4ut I $ave never

filed a claim for disa4ility 4enefits1 =y doctor >ust diagnosed type II dia4etes1 !A $as

already recogni(ed my s$ip's service on 6an$ +ai in -.//< 4ut not -./01 Am I still entitled

to t$e presumption of Agent Orange e&posure%

1f you !ent ashore in Vietnam at any point !hile performing active service& you are entitled to

the presumption of exposure to Agent Orange. Although your ship is already on the list because

it operated in >anh #ai ay in '%& !e are not adding the April '%3 period to the list because

it !as not service on Vietnam7s inland !ater!ays. ecause !e7re not adding the April '%3

period to VA7s ships list& that offshore service cannot be used to establish a presumption of

exposure to Agent Orange.

,

blue water navy fact sheet 2.4.2016

Documents