USS Fox Message Board
Register Calendar

  Author   Comment  
little steve

Posts: 2
For information to all hands: There have been several inquiries in posts pertaining to Fox's anchorage in Da Hang VN during west pac cruise Jun-Dec 1967 ,including my own(inquiry).After not finding any documenting evidence ,through research of my own,I hired an independent researcher to go to the National Archives and research Fox's deck
Logs for that time frame.However;thanks to a post by R.A.Brattain and a book{A View from the Deckplates} by Chief George Chambers,I was able to give him(researcher)a much more narrow search window.As for cost and time, that made a hugh difference.He was able to find and make copies of the documenting deck logs in about three hours.he also,called me that same evening to let me know that he had found the records I needed to prove the Fox did in fact anchor and dispatch small boat(s) ?to shore in Da Nang Vietnam.As per Deck Log-Remarks Sheet Date Tuesday 24 October,1967,the Fox at"0616 let go of anchor 0617 anchored in anchorage #21 bottom mud at fathoms 0642 secured anchor detail.Set normal anchor watch...................0748 Captain left the ship...........................?........................................................0812 anchored as before..................................................................................1216 anchored as before 1445 Captain returned 1535 Boats secured for sea" W J Byrd LTJG USN NOW THAT! Is a really detailed account and official military record of events which occurred that day. No mention of boat detail or dispatch of small boat or boats or captain getting on the boat or captain returning on the boat although it does say he returned.I guess hell he swam.And after he climbed back aboard at 1445, 1535 boats secured for sea. Anyhow,crew members and/or passengers of that/those boat/boats can file a VA claim for service connected disability for presumptive diseases if they can prove they put a boot on the ground in Vietnam .if anyone has filed or will file such claim please contact Gary Stephens aka little Steve @ 205 999-4900 or by email.also ,if anyone can remember any details as to boats or crew members/passengers your info will be appreciated thanks little Steve.

R G Stephens
R A Brattain

Posts: 15

Impact of the Court decision in

Gray v. MacDonald on the Blue Water Navy state of affairs

Procedural History.

The United States Court of Veterans Appeals ruled on April 23, 2015, that

the VA’s exclusion of bays and harbors from their definition of inland waters was irrational. The

time for appeal has expired and the

Gray case is now law.

What the Court Did

. The Court held that the VA failed to provide sufficient justification for

excluding the bays and harbors of Vietnam, more specifically Da Nang Harbor, from their

definition of inland waters. As the VA includes inland waters in their presumption of Agent

Orange exposure, this ruling could expand the presumption to include all ships that entered Da

Nang Harbor and possibly other bays and harbors. The Court stopped short of requiring such a

result, however, and provided the VA with an opportunity to re-write their regulation. The Court

also stopped short of adopting the definition contained in the 1958 Convention on the Territorial

Seas and the Contiguous Zone that would have included most bays and harbors in the definition.

The Court also specifically rejected a VA claim that the Institute of Medicine “confirmed” that

there was no likelihood of exposure to herbicides in Da Nang harbor.

Impact of New VA Regulation

. The impact of the new VA regulation could be dramatic.

Should the VA adopt the 1958 Convention’s definition of inland or internal waters, it will

encompass virtually every bay and harbor in Vietnam. This would cover approximately 90% of

the ships that deployed and should reduce the expected ten year $1 billion cost of HR 969/S 681

to approximately $100 million. Conversely, if the new regulation continues to exclude the bays

and harbors, the cost will remain the same requiring a significant offset such as “round downs.”

Unfortunately, there is no deadline for the VA to issue the new regulation. Accordingly,

Congress must consider the pending legislation without being able to apply any potential offset

as a result of

Gray. A Senate mark-up hearing on S 681 is scheduled for early October. This bill

currently has 20 co-sponsors. The companion House bill, HR 969, has 264 co-sponsors.

Future Litigation Efforts.

Obviously if the new VA regulation does not adequately address the

needs of Navy veterans who entered the bays and harbors of Vietnam, it will be challenged.

Military-Veterans Advocacy will file suit pursuant to 38 U.S.C. § 502 to seek judicial review. A

pending action in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia will determine

whether the District Court has jurisdiction to review VA procedural regulations excluding these

veterans. Another case pending in the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims will address the

exclusion of Nha Trang Harbor from the presumption of exposure. This case is actually stronger


Gray since there is documented evidence of Agent Orange infiltration into that harbor.

Plans Moving Forward.

Military-Veterans Advocacy Executive Director, Commander John B.

Wells, USN (retired) met with VA Deputy Secretary Sloan Gibson on July 6, 2015 to discuss the

Blue Water Navy issue. While the meeting was cordial, there have been no indications that the

VA will abandon their current position and extend the presumption exposure to the ships

operating in the bays and harbors or territorial seas of the Republic of Vietnam. One source,

deemed reliable, indicates that the VA intends to continue to resist the expansion of the

presumption. Military-Veterans Advocacy will continue to advocate for the expansion through

litigation, legislation and education. We are not giving up

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.