This is a piece that Ed Ball of Shelby County Ohio County Veterans Service Office put together. It shows how VA adjudicators "throw things over the fence". It means to rubber stamp a claim DENIED to get it off their desk. Obviously a Clear and Unmistakable Error. So the Veteran has to now appeal. All this wasted time at what cost to the taxpayer? "I desire to file for Clear and Unmistakable Error for the following reasons: DOVA Togus Augusta ME Rating Decision Sep 11, 2013 Denial for multiple conditions based on “The evidence does not show that “conditions” were related to service. DOVA Boston VARO JFK Federal Bldg Boston, MA Rating Decision 11/18/2015 Denial for reopened claim is based on “evidence continues to show this condition was not incurred in or aggravated by military service. VA’s “Navy and Coast Guard Ships Associated with Service in Vietnam and Exposure to Herbicide Agents” clearly states USS Klondike (AR-22) anchored in Vung Tau Harbor repairing other vessels during April 1969 with deck logs showing that crewmembers went ashore.” Once the VA had reviewed my “service Personnel Files” to verify service in Vietnam, you would have seen that I was indeed onboard the USS Klondike in April 1969, and should have easily made the association of presumptive exposure to Agent Orange based on “crewmembers went ashore” entry. Based upon your own document, that should have been ample proof that my multiple disabilities were indeed caused by my military service through presumptive exposure to “herbicide agents”. I therefore offer this as evidence that a “Clear and Unmistakable Error” was in fact made by your rater, and that your Rating Decisions were in error. The term “crewmembers” would have included myself, as having gone ashore in Vung Tau during April 1969. I was never advised by the VA that I had to include such a statement in the claims process, in order to have the claim adjudicated in my favor. As the VA obviously have in their possession the evidence to show crewmembers did indeed go ashore would have been redundant. But in hind sight, in accordance with your M-21 manual, the lack of my statement, which at no time was I advised I had to make, was grounds for your denial, which simply contradicts your previous findings based upon the ships list for those of us proudly serving in direct support of Vietnam. To assist you further in verifying your previous declarations on your April 1969 findings for USS Klondike AR-22 let us review the Deck Logs found at https://catalog.archives.gov/id/24707683 On April 15, 1969 we find 00-04 Anchored at anchorage B-14 Vung Tau, Republic of Vietnam in 7 fathoms of water with mud and sand bottom with 60 fathoms of chain to starboard anchor. Ships alongside to port the USS Mark (AKL-12), lines doubled fore and aft to starboard the (YFR-890). The 20-24 entries we find that at 2031 While making a liberty run to Long Pier, Utility Boat #3 caught fire (Class C) was extinguished by CO2 foam and there were no casualties. This is a key piece of evidence that validates your VA ship list, because the Klondike did in fact authorize personnel to go ashore in Vung Tau if they were not in the duty section that day. Class C is in fact an electrical fire. As you know, the Navy “did not” maintain records of those going on liberty and the Deck Logs of this era clearly do not indicate the time Liberty Call commenced as modern day Deck Logs do while inport. But allow me to take the VA evidence just a step further to provide further merit and credibility to my claim as filed in 2012. On Saturday, 19 April 1969 you will find 00-04 the Deck Log entry further shows a water barge, (YW-26) with lines doubled fore and aft. I believe that should have been YW-126, but regardless, it was a water barge, based on the hull designation YW. This becomes significant in the view of the Institute of Medicine advises the VA Secretary, If a ship docked and took on potable water from Vietnam, crewmembers would have been eligible for a presumption of herbicide exposure only for the time the ship was docked (VA, 2008). Thus, exposure of this population to Agent Orange–associated TCDD via ingestion of freshwater was not considered to be plausible. A clear indication showing the IOM failed to take into consideration water barges while inport. For VA to deny the ship received water from the water barge while inport at anchorage would be an admission that the ship did indeed run their water distillation plant in contaminated harbor waters to create fresh water. Per NAVMED P-5010-6 Source water in harbors or ship navigation lanes is likely to be contaminated by fuel/oil slicks or other pollutant sources. How else would the ship maintain sufficient potable water levels to provide for bathing, preparation of foods, laundry, drinking water in a hot tropical climate, and provide for feedwater to the boilers in making preparation for getting underway if the need were to arise? Something ship Commanding Officers and their Chief Engineers take very seriously in maintaining ships operational commitments. Therefore, by your own admission, I did indeed go ashore on liberty, and even if I failed to do so, the ship was sufficiently contaminated with herbicides through either the water barge alongside, and or the operation of the shipboard water distillation plant. Keeping in mind IOM states “Equations 1–10 were solved using physical properties of TCDD in order to determine the percent of total TCDD in the feed water subject to codistillation. Thus, in the batch distillation process used in the NRCET study (Muller, 2002), a concentration of 40 ng TCDD/L in 1 L feed water would result in all 40 ng TCDD being distilled into the 0.1 L of product water, assuming 10% of the feed water is distilled. This demonstrates an enrichment of TCDD from the feed water into the product water with a product water concentration of 40 ng/0.1 L or 400 ng/L.” Furthermore, there were no exposure levels maintained for personnel in the Blue Water Navy, nor were there personnel exposure levels maintained for those serving in country of South Vietnam per IOM. I would further request you find in my favor based upon the VA’s clear and unmistakable error, as revealed in the evidence I have provided to reflect percentage of disabilities accordingly and provide the most earliest effective date as noted on previous filings for compensation."