VA File-- Phillip Charles Cacioppo Page 1 at 15
Reply to Appeals Management Center May 6, 2013

Phil C. Cacioppo

April 28. 2013
Appeals Management Center

1722 Street Nw

Washington DC 20421

To Whom It May Concern:

On April 22, 2013 1 received notice from the AMC that additional information was
needed from me on my claim and that 1 had 10 days in which to respond. 1 have asked
for more time to reply.

You were replying to a Remand of my case of July 15. 2012 from the EVA. You were
required to provide additional information listed in the Remand but could supply none.
You also stated you could not locate my records from the NPRC. The statements from
my records that are relevant to this case are enclosed in this letter. If you need the entire
copy of my personal records from my days ofmilitaly service 1 will try to locate them for
you. but 1 assure you the only pertinent records are enclosed in this letter. Let me know if
you still insist on a copy of my entire records which will yield you no useful information
and more than double the size othis letter with exhibits lam now sending to you.

A green Notebook in which 1 presented testimony and exhi 2012 is enclosed. 1 do not believe this document is in my Crfile or you would not be
asking all these redundant questions. Please retain this Green Notebook and please do
not remove pages as it tells my complete narrative proving my exposure to herbicides. it
must be taken in total. I believe this contains all the evidence you need to decide my case
but 1 am providing additional information here as you requested. In this letter, 1 will
refer to my May 2. 2012 testimony as the Green Notebook as not to send redundant
information.

ln the Green Notebook 1 have documented my medical condition. You have sent my
records to the Kansas City VA medical record and you and are now awaiting word from
them. 1 am using this facility for work Dr. Chester Stone. You say
1 may require an examination and will be notified i so required. Also you stated in the
Remand that VA doctors may have to make an opinion on whether my herbicide
exposure while in Southeast Asia most likely led to my 
(NHL). lhave a rare form of NHL called Macroglobulinemia (WM)
which is incurable but may be treatable. Ex. 1 enclosed is the latest summary account of
the status of this disease which is the out of control growth of the protein lgM. The
latest count of 2223 is 9.3 times higher than the upper limit for this protein. Note
also the general progressive rise of the count. Under Item 5 below 1 have a second
opinion lab reports from a Dr. Mundis who is also treating me. He shows an count

 

VA File-- Phillip Charles Cacioppo Page 2 of 15
Reply to Appeals Management Center May 6, 2013

of 3375 which is 14.7 times higher than their upper limit. Yesterday May 7. 2013. 1
received a phone call from Dr. Stone and he indicated my cancerous IGM count made by
the VA lab showed a count of 3340 13.9 times the VA's upper limit) continuing the
high growth of the cancer cells reported by Dr. Mundis.

You have asked me to respond to a request for additional information in a specific format
and 1 will do so below.

1) Provide statements from medical personnel that relate to your disability during
service.

Idid not become ill with NHL during my service period 1967 through 1971. I seldom
went to the military doctor and if so only for minor problems.

This is a matter which should already be settled. was diagnosed with WM on April 20.
2007 at 6:30 pm. This was over 36 years after my service ended. The Decision Review
office (DRO) in St. Louis already acknowledged that have NHL and this disease does
not have to be incurred while in the service. it is one the 5 diseases most highly
associated with herbicide exposure. Please see Ex. 2 enclosed. Note that NHL has no
known intervening causes such as smoking. being overweight or lack of exercise. It is
most likely caused by environmental factors. Please see my answer to questions 5
below presents statements my medical personnel who are treating my condition.)

Furthermore, it has already a matter of fact that herbicides were deposited on the
perimeters of all the bases in Thailand (including my base UrTapao). Please refer to
and Ex 33. Anyone whose duties placed them on or near the perimeter of any of
the USAF Thailand bases (including UrTapao) must be considered exposed to herbicides
on a fact found basis. See M2171MR. Part IV. Subpart ii, Chapter 2. Section C. item q.
This is enclosed as Ex. 3A. Also please see the appropriate page from VA Compensation
KL Pension Service Bulletin of May 2010. This is labeled as Ex. 3B. This statement also
confirms the fact that herbicides of a dangerous nature were on the perimeters of the
bases in Thailand.

2) Provide "Buddy" certificates or affidavits (Witness Statements).

What I disclose below is highly confidential. In these 3 salient witness statements most
have provided a copy of their Performance Report or a copy of their DD 214. You
requested their service numbers and they are shown on these reports. These items must
be kept confidential because I am worried about identity theft and I must not betray their
confidence.

Please refer to Ex. 4 page 1 thru 5. Page 1 and 2 is a witness statement from 
Antonio A. LeonGuerrero. Ret. who personally knew me and I reported to shortly after
he arrived at UrTapao about May of 1970 when my tour was about half over. He is
willing to appear in person as a witness for me. In this letter he states:

VA File -- Phillip Charles Cacioppo Page 3 or 15
Reply to Appeals Management Center May 6, 2013

a) "The Radio Maintenance Work Center Building (where I worked) is located in close
proximity to the perimeter fence." Thus I was on or near the perimeter.

b) "The APR (Airmen Pert'ormance Report) only reflects how well you accomplish your
assigned duties and not location where the duties are accomplished." There were
complaints from the DRO that my performance reports did not reflect where I worked .
This is the reason. However. as you read further you will note that references to locations
are sometimes directly mentioned in the APR.

c) There were statements from the DRO that LeonCvuerrero did not know me and
was not in my chain of command. LeonGuerrero states did not endorse his (Phil
Cacioppo's) last in August 1970. instead I requested that of the Chief of
Maintenance. Captain William Temple to be the lndorsing ofticial to give more
"Credibility" to the of this outstanding Radio Repairman. This practice is
allowed only if the Airman meets certain criteria and the concurrence of the
Commissioned Officer in his higher chain of command." Please See Exhibit 6 pages 3
and 4. It is noted the Commander of the 1985 Communications Squadron. Lt Col Roscoe
T. Sheldon signed LeonGuerrero APR and in a previously submitted APR Lt Col
Sheldon also signed my appraisal Report (See April 1. 2010 testimony to DRO)
Therefore we had to work for the same Ground Radio Repair Group. Note also in 
LeonGuel-rero APR it is stated that he worked at a "remote location" the Ground Radio

Repair shop which implies it was on the perimeter.

Please note that in my Green Notebook presented to the EVA on May 2. 2012 there are
two additional witness statements from LeonGuerrero. 1 request you read them as
there is much further documentation in his witness statements that prove i worked on the
perimeter of the UsTapao Airbase.

Please see Ex. 5 page 1 and 2 for a Witness Statement from Patrick H. Kimmen. This
document is notarized and he was at UsTapao about the same time I was. His address
dates of service and phone i: are given so you can easily Verify who he is. This witness
statement has never been evaluated by anyone in the VA. He states:

d) "It was not unusual during my tour at UsTapao Air Base to see crews spray the
vegetation along the tlight line and near or on the Perimeter. The spraying crew would
use a large tank loaded on the back of a pickup truck."

e) "As an Air Cargo Specialist stationed at UsTapao RTNAB. Thailand I loaded and
unloaded barrels and 55 gallon drums of Agent Orange frequently."

0 "On behalf of Phil Cacioppo 1 want to state that I saw Ground Radio Repairman
working on or near the perimeter of UsTapao RTNAB, Thailand during my tour as an Air
Cargo Specialist trom September 1969 until September 1970."

Finally please see the Ex. 6 page 1. 2 and 3 from ch Paul w. Morasch, a retired US
Navy Flier. On page 2 he states:

VA File-- Phillip Charles Cacioppo Page 4 or 15
Reply to Appeals Management Center May 6, 2013

g) "In UsTapao. on the southern part of the point of the airfield, defoliation was so
complete that all ground cover had been chemically eradicated (Agent Orange was one of
the compounds used to achieve this). The debris was subsequently cleared by heavy
equipment. Larger vegetation. e.g. palm trees and such. were pretty much all that
remained. These open areas were meant to deny access to the airfield by 'unt'riendlies."
Air crewmen jokingly referred to these "safety Zones" as no "man's land," the same name
we applied to the areas surrounding the perimeter of the airtield at Cam Rahn Bay.
Vietnam."

He continues "As with any airt'ield, no matter now primitive, structures between and at
the ends ofmnways are always present, everything from midrt'leld air socks to Ground
Control Approach (GCA) outposts to radio and maintenance shacks at the ends of
runways. all of which are essential for our safety during takeoff and final approach. As
an observer I always saw radio and electronic maintenance and security force vehicles
either parked in and around, or transiting the area where these structures were located. I
would estimate the distances between the end stnictures and the base perimeter to be no
more than 100 to 200 meters."

Ex.6 Page 3 is Paul Molasch DD214 form which Verifies his military service.

This completes 3 of my most important witness statements. Please note there is
additional documentation and six more witness statements in my Green Notebook which
I know you will read.

Finally. 1 think it is important for you to see two aerial photographs ostTapao which
will help verify the above witness statements. Ex. 7A is an aerial photograph of UsTapao
circa 1970. Note the barren defoliated south side of the airstrip as described by my
witness statement of the us Navy Flier Paul w. Morasch above. Just as shown in the
photograph Mr. Morasch stated "In UsTapao. on the southern point of the airfield.
defoliation was so complete that all ground cover had been completely eradicated." He
also referred to it as "no man's zone" the same name we applied to the areas
surrounding the perimeter of the airfield at Cam Rahn Bay, Vietnam.

Please note in Exhibit 7A it shows by a red line the transportation route I took to my
work stations. Notice that it crosses this defoliated perimeter that I crossed on south end
of the base. This photograph also Verifies the statements of LeonCvuel'rero in
which he placed me on the perimeter in all 3 witness statement he wrote for me. I have
enclosed one of them which is Ex. 4. Ex. 7B shows a larger more clear picture of the
defoliated area on the south end of the runway as described by Mr Morasch. Please note
again that other complete witness statements by LeonGuel-rero and Mr. Moracsh
are in the green Notebook. Please recall I served with LeonGuerrero and he
personally knew me as we both work in the Ground Radio Maintenance Work Center. I
directly reported to him.

 

VA File -- Phillip Charles Cacinppo Page 5 of 15
Reply to Appeals Management Center May 6, 2013

Ex. 8 shows the present day Google Map of UrTaplm in which the foliage on the south
end of the runway has grown back. This map also shows the routes 1 took along the
perimeter to reach my work stations. in addition Ex. 8 shows the barracks in which I
lived in which were very near the perimeter. More on proof of my barracks proximity to
the perimeter is discussed in topic 7 below.

3) Stale and Local Police Reports.

lhave never been arrested. 1 have had 3 minor. nonrinjury traffic accidents in my 51
years of driving and was not at fault for any of these accidents. However, there were no
witnesses to verify the fact 1 was not at fault in the 2"d accident.

4) Employment Physical Examinations.

ltook a physical exam which 1 passed in 1979 to be employed by the Kansas City Power
and Light Company. 1 have no record of this exam but my disease of NHL had not
appeared at that time.

5) Medical Evidence from hospitals, clinics, and private physicians by which or by
whom you may have been treated after separation.

Please see Ex. 9 Page 1 and 2 attached. This is a letter from Richard Mundis, MD. a
Mayo Clinic trained physician who diagnosed my illness of WM. ln this letter to me he
discusses the serious nature of this illness and also states that "there is a very strong
likelihood that your indolent (Waldensirom) was correlated with your
exposure to Agent Orange during your time in the military." Please note Dr. Mundis
refers to Agent Orange as a general reference to all forms of herbicides was exposed to
while in Thailand. That is how the public refers to herbicide related diseases.

In addition please see Ex. 10 from my Sleep Apnea and Insomnia Therapist 7 Mrs. Anne
Wagner, M.S.. L.P.C. She states: "His Service in Thailand during the Vietnam
War exposed him to Agent Orange and there is much evidence to suggest that may be the
cause of his Waldenslrom's Macroglohulinemia. in my opinion. Phil will not be able to
work full time again."

As 1 mentioned previously the DRO has acknowledged that have NHL in my April 1,
2010 testimony to them. And you have the documentation from Dr. Mundis in that
testimony which shows he discovered the NHL illness within me.

The latest lab report from Dr. Mundls' office (See Ex. 1 . shows the cancerous 
protein at a count of 3375 which is 14.7 times their suggested upper limit. This should
help confirm my NHL cancer diagnosi from the VA which shows my cancer count
to be 3340 (as of May 6 this week) which is 13.9 times the suggested VA suggested
upper limit.

6) Letters Written During Service.

VA File -- Phillip Charles Cacioppo Page 6 or 15
Reply to Appeals Management Center May 6, 2013

ln this letter which is my Performance Report of February 5. 1970. 1 present which
may be one my most important pieces of evidence because it is stated in an official Air
Force document.

Please see Ex. 12 Pages 1 and 2 enclosed. You will note that in my evaluation it states
that "Sgt Cacioppo's contribution to the Bob Hope Christmas Show . makes this
airman truly one of the better airman in today's modern Air Force."

 

What is important here is that the Bob Hope Show was very near or on the perimeter of
the UrTapao airbase. Please see Exhibit 13 pages 1 thru 5 which is a letter trom George
Collins, 111 written April 1. 2011. have included the entire letter but please see page 2
in which George states that saw the "Bob Hope Christmas Show" twice at UrTapao.
The stage was between two barracks. The viewing area to see the show was on the

defolialed perimeter."

lhave corresponded with George who was at UrTapao at almost the same time 1 was.
Both otus were diagnosed with NHL in April of 2007. This demonstrates the long
dormancy period of this disease. Untortunately, George Collins died on
December 31, 2011.

Please see Ex.14 pages 1. 2 and 3 which show the pictures of the preparation for the Bob
Hope show. Page 1 states shows signage for "The Bob Hope Show UrTapao Thailan
Pages 2 and 3 show speakers in the background which 1 helped set up and installed the
wiring for all the speakers as part of my duties as a Ground Radio Repairman. Notice the
barren defoliated grass in the foreground which was once a jungle on Page 2 and
especially Page 3.

Neil the first Man on the Moon, attended this show in December 1969 5
months after his historic space flight. I also have his autograph on 1969 documentation
papers as further proof of my presence there. This documentation is in my Green
Notebook.

7) Photographs Taken during Service

There are several photographs that should be ofinterest to you. Please see Ex. 15. This
shows the construction of my barracks circa 19684970. The barracks extended the west
end of the UrTapao Airbase. Note the defoliation and barren landscape in the foreground
which is in from of the barracks and note also the barren landscape in the back of these
barracks. Thus former defoliated perimeter was at the front of my barracks and the back
of my barracks was the new perimeter which was also defolialed. This means the
barracks in which I lived in for 12 months was surrounded by herbicides sprayed on both
the from and back of the new Iw0rstory modular barracks. Note there was no air
conditioning for these buildings. necessitating that the windows and doors were always
open throughout the days and night which blew herbicide laden air into our living
quarters constantly.

VA File -- Phillip Charles Cacioppo Page 7 of 15
Reply to Appeals Management Center May 6, 2013

Please see Ex 16 which shows an aerial few of my barracks. Note the two story barracks
now mark the western perimeter of the base and you can see defoliation on the perimeter
and a guard tower as well which marks this new western perimeter. As mentioned this
new perimeter had to be constructed to house the new barracks in which I lived for 12
months.

Further defoliation around my barracks and additional photos can be seen in the enclosed
Green Notebook.

8) Pharmacy Prescription Records

Please see Ex. 17 and 18. This shows 1 was prescribed Provastatin to help control
cholesterol and Ergocalciferol a vitamin supplement. Note that 1 am being charged
by the VA for these medications as well as outpatient Physician visits as we continue to
monitor the cancer level in my blood which is causing it to thicken due to the large,
excess protein substances in my blood.

Ex. 19 will document that I am taking Clonazepam and Citalopram from pharmacy
which 1 pay for myself. These medications are to help me sleep.

Essentially my doctors are trying to prevent further damage to my heart because of the
thickness of my blood and the lesser amount of the red and white cells in my body which
is caused by my NHL.

I also took a major infusion of a drug Rituxan. an immunological agent. to help control
my Nl-lL. I took this drug in December/January of 2007/2008 and it cost about $44,000
retail. My private insurance paid for most of it. This is not a pharmacy prescription but a
hospital administered dnig. Ido not believe 1 retained these records but 1 will continue to
look for them if you so desire.

9) Insurance Examinations

lhave taken no insurance examinations because 1 have always maintained insurance
coverage. As noted in item 4 above I did take an employment physical examination in
1979. My NHL was not discovered until April 20. 2007 at 6:30pm.

10) Additional Information

In the Remand to may case of July 16. 2012 it was stated that the Defense Personnel
Records Information Retrieval System (DPRIRS), the Joint Service Records Research
Center and perhaps other entities would provide additional information on my
case. After 10 months of research. the AMC stated in a letter of April 17. 2013 to me that
you were unable to obtain any information on my case as requested by the EVA in their
Remand. 1 am not totally surprised because they do not have the detailed information

VA File Phillip Charles Caciappo Page 8 of 15
Reply to Appeals Management Center May 6, 2013

Well 1 have some information for you. Please see Ex. 20A. (It is enclosed as one exhibit
under the red tab of this book. This is a large. total map of UrTapao which an archivist,
Michael Bracey. found for me after working only a few hours. ((His rate is $55 per hour
and 1 have paid him a total of $501.50 for this service.) You will note. however. that he
could not find a legend. 1 believe the Radio Maintenance Shop in which 1 worked was
one of the structures with the number labels 2810 through 2826. Note that all of these
structures on the south end of the runway were on or near the perimeter. Whichever
structure it is. or indeed any of the nearby structures are on and near the perimeter.

Furthermore my bar-racks are shown on the west side of the base as number labels 2160
thru 2266 on the western perimeter. The 1969 Bob Hope Show was between the 3 story
concrete barracks labeled 2055 2257. My bar-racks and the Bob Hope Show were on
or near the perimeter.

1 ask your research organizations to find the legend and positively the Radio
Maintenance Shop, my barracks and the location of the Bob Hope Show . since they have
a duty to assist the veteran. Even if they cannot positively label the exact I
worked or lived in they are all on or near the perimeter. The absence information which is
all these research centers have provided proves nothing. 1 have the CHECO report. the
lerlMR manual regulations and the VA Compensation and Pension Bulletin discussed
above to prove my case to prove that herbicides were on the perimeter. And 1 have
specific witness statements. official reports and photographs to prove that 1 was on or
near the perimeter as discussed above.

 

11) The Memorandum of Recard -- Herbicide Use in Thailand by Alvin Young

Repeatedly the contentions of Alvin Young have been used to deny my claim in direct
contradiction to Manual M2171MR, Part IV, Subpart ii, Chapter 2. Section C, item q.
and the VA Compensation Pension Service Bulletin ofMay 2010. These are enclosed
as Ex. 3A and 313, respectively. and have been previously discussed.

Under the Freedom of Speech laws which I fought for as a veteran 1 must continue to
defend my rights. 1 know this is long section but the facts simply do not support Alvin
Young's contentions.

1n my Remand otlulyl6, 2012, Alvin Young's name is mentioned. Yet there is no
mention of any of the 9 witnesses who were at UrTapao and wrote witness statements
related to my service. indeed the Remand admits that "ii is not clear these research
services and reviewed any of the materials provided by the veteran."
Indeed, I see no mention of them doing so.

1n the Remand the very first request was stated:

Request from the Compensation and Pension Service complete copies of the official
Department of Defense monographs and reports that were reviewed in preparation of the

VA File Phillip Charles Cacioppo Page 9 of 15
Reply to Appeals Management Center May 6, 2013

Memorandum of Record 7 Herbicide Use in Thailand. Associate all written material
received with the claims file and provide copies to the Veteran and his representative."
The AMC has supplied absolutely none of this information to me or my

representative.

 

This report by Alvin Young has been used often to deny ill vetemns benefits that were
stationed in Thailand such as myself. Since you are unable to provide information which
supports Alvin Young's claim, I believe you must read my response where ldo provide
documentation to support my claim.

Alvin Young's claim completely contradicts the work of Kurt Priessman who uncovered
the CHECO report which was the basis for the VA conceding the "tactical herbicides"
were on the perimeters of all the USAF bases in Thailand. Careful examination of
Alvin Young's own report discredits itself. Although the AMC and the VA Research
services could not find it, Ido have in my possession a copy of Alvin Young's report
"The History of the US Department of Defense Programs for the Testing. Evaluation, and
Storage of Tactical Herbicides." Please See Ex. 21(the title page of the report) Ex. 22
which is page 12 from the same report. which is a very important page from Young's
report. On this page 12 under the title Summary it is noted by Alvin Young as he defines
"tactical herbicides" as those that were used in Vietnam. Alvin Young states:

"The exception to these Directives (in the use of herbicides) was the development of
"Tactical Herbicides" sprayed in combat military operations in Vietnam. or by the

Department of State approval as used in Korea adjacent to the Demilitarized Zone in
1968."

In Kurt Priessman' rebuttal to Alvin Young above comment he replies:

"The key statement is by "by Department of State approval". Both the
Memorandum. Subject: "Mission Policy on Base
Defense", November 1. 1969. required approval by the US. Embassy in Bangkok as well
as a well established chain which included the Thai Army. Additionally. the Project
CHECO Southeast Asia Report "Base Defense in Thailand", 18 February 1973 prepared
by Major Barnett and Captain Barrow for HQ PACAE, Directorate of Operations.
Analysis. CHECO CORONET HARVEST Division. states that bases did indeed request
permission through the Embassy. The Embassies of the US are arms of the Department
of State; therefore. the herbicides used in Thailand meet the requirement stated in (Alvin)
Young's submission."

AS documentation of Kurt Priessman's statement I present Ex. 20 With 50 pages. Notice
there are 19 separate cable messages. In most cases they are documents from the
American Embassy in Bangkok to Secretary of State Officials in Washington DC. Note
they are all telegrams all labeled to or from the Department of State. This confirms
Kurt Priessman's statement the more dangerous "tactical herbicides" used in Vietnam as
described by Alvin Young also required Department of State approval in Thailand. Thus
Alvin's Young statement that Department of State approval is needed for 'tactlcal

VA File -- Phillip Charles Cacioppo Page 10 of 15
Reply to Appeals Management Center May 6. 2013

herbicides" was tnle in Vietnam and also in Thailand because they were in fact using the
same "tactical herbicides."

[know these are voluminous statements but they are proof that State Department was
contacted in regard to tactical defense of the perimeters of the Thailand bases. (1 have
enclosed these State Department Cables as a separate tab 7 the middle white tab in the
Blue Notebook 1 am sending you.) Also please again refer to page 12 of Alvin Young's
report where he states:

"Herbicides used in Operation RANCH HAND for the defoliation of and crop destruction
projects. and the US Army Chemical Corps for vegetation control on perimeters. cache
sites, and similar militarysimportant targets were classified as "Tactical Herbicides: and
were formulated tested. evaluated and assigned "Military Specifications" by the
Department of Defense. They were not subject to regulatory oversight by the Department
of Agriculture. the Armed Forces Pest Control Board. or the Federal Committee on Pest
Control"

Now large pan of the Remand to me was that the AMC would supply information on the
chemicals used at UsTapao from the Armed Forces Pest Management Board (AFPMB).
Again none of this information was supplied to me. However in Alvin Young's own
words the AFPMB had no control over "tactical herbicides" used on the base 7 which is
what I was exposed to. "Tactical Herbicides" were the responsibility of the Department
of Defense not the AFPMB. Therefore records from the AFPMB on pesticides. if
provided. would be moot. Furthermore you have 50 pages of proof in Ex. 20 that the
Department of State and the Department of Defense through the us Embassy in Bangkok
were responsible for perimeter defense of the base. The AFPMB had no jurisdiction over
disposition of 'tactical herbicides" in defense of the base perimeter.

It should be note here that the term "tactical herbicides". which the VA uses to describe
herbicides used in Vietnam. is a term invented by Alvin Young. There was no such
combination of words until AlVin Young used them is his 2006 report.

A contemporary manual of the Vietnam era named the "Tactical Employment of
Herbicides" is apparently what Alvin Young is referring. No where in this Army Field
Manual of 1971 refers to the term 'tactical herbicides." Rather the discussion is about
commercial herbicides used as a tactical means of defense. See Ex. 23 the title page of
the 1971 Field Manual and important pages labeled Ex. 24 and 25 discussed below.

In this Manual it is stated:

1) On page 171; "Defoliation of Vegetation bordering and overhanging roads. paths. trails.
waterways, and railroads enhances security around friendly base camps. airfields.
ammunition dumps. ports. along railroads, waterways. and other location by providing
defensive fields of fire reducing possible ambush site." (Remember Url'apao was indeed
attacked on or about January 1 1, 1972 and one sapper was killed.)

VA File -- Phillip Charles Cacioppo Page 11 of 15
Reply to Appeals Management Center May 6, 2013

2) On page 272 of this same manual it is stated: "various commercial (my emphasis)
chemical compounds used as herbicides have been adopted for use in military operations.
Authority to use these chemicals must be obtained through proper channels as explained
in Chapter 4. (Base Commanders are given this authority through the Department of State
7 my note). Herbicides described below are nicknamed ORANGE. BLUE and

WHITE Then under section 272. ORANGE is defined as 50:50 mixture of 2.47D (n7
and 2.4.51 
Therefore these commercial herbicides were used as a tactical defense employment.
There was no such thing as "tactical herbicides" used in Vietnam and "commercial
herbicides" used in Thailand. These herbicides were one and the same. Alvin Young
appears to have invented the term "tactical herbicides" to deny ill Thailand Veterans their
rights as veterans.

 

Note in the Agent Orange Act of 1991 it does not require the exposure to "tactical
herbicides". but "to an herbicide agent containing dioxin or 2'4. dichlorophenoxyacetic
acid."

In the Alvin L.Young Collection on Agent Orange in a letter to Mrs. Cleary (1D 318)
believed to be written during the Vietnam War. he himself states that "two herbicides
known as 2.47D and 2.4.51 7 are used extensively in most countries of both the free
world and the communist bloc for selective control ofundesirable vegetation." He goes
on to state that two chemicals. 2.47D and 2.4.51 are now in regular use for weed control
in Asian countries such as But-ma. Thailand," (my emphasis). Therefore Alvin
Young. in his own words stated that the components of Agent Orange were used in
Thailand. This document from Alvin Young was submitted in my April 1. 2010
testimony to the DRO.

It should be noted that Alvin Young was compensated by the DOD. Dow Chemical and
Monsanto in his work on herbicides 7 always telling us of that these herbicides were
essentially harmless. I do not believe he can be considered an impartial. objective
observer when his funding entities are trying to prove these herbicides were harmless.

12) Department of State Directives

As noted the Department of State Directives are voluminous so I have place them in a
separate section of the Blue Notebook 7 the white middle tab labeled "State Department
Cables 7 Base Defense. As discussed in the CHECO report these directives from the
State Department are added proof that the State Department was involved. The
implication is that herbicide defoliation was used and permission from the Thai Embassy
was obtained as required by law through the Department of State.

[know these State Department Directives are voluminous. You may not have time to
read all of them but the depth and length of these directives show the need for high level.
State Department approval Thailand Base perimeter defense. They are noted as Ex. 20
Pages 1 through so. In Summarizing these memos note the following. In these Directives
you will tind;

VA File -- Phillip Charles Cacioppo Page 12 of 15
Reply to Appeals Management Center May 6, 2013

a) There are References to clearing the fields to detect the enemy and provide lines ot'
fire. This implies herbicide det'oliation was used. For example. see Ex 20, page 4 where
it is stated Clearing Trees. and grass along the perimeters to deny possible
cover to potential attackers and to provide clear fields of fire to base defenders."

b) On page 12 of this exhibit it is noted tllat the August 21, 1968 Department of State
Directive states that "73 Augmentees from Base Personnel" will be used for base
perimeter defense. This confirms the statement of MS gt LeonGuerrero who in his
witness statement of July 19. 2010 stated that (See Ex. 4. pages in Blue Notebook):
"The base policy is t'or all incoming personnel in the grades ot' E74 and below to undergo
training as a Security Force Augmentee. After the completion ot' such training, they are
required to perform one week of duty with regular security personnel patrolling the base
boundaries."

As an E4 1 did serve as a Security Force Au gmentee 7 and this is now verified by MS gt
LeonGuenero who personally knew me and the Department ofState Directive ot August
21. 1968.

c) Please see Page 48 which reveals that a cable telegram from Bangkok. Thailand is still
restricted. Is this the cable that specifically mentions herbicides?

d) Michael bracey, the archivist. has summarized some ot the State Department Cable
messages on pages 49 thni 51.

e) Finally. On page 52 Michael Bracey gives his Atfidavit of his work. In this
exhaustive archival research he only was able to look at declassified intormation so these
documents could be the most complete list you will have otunclassified documents from
the State Department concerning Thailand base security. As noted in his Atfidavit he
could only investigate declassified intorrnation so there could still be other classified

documents that we could not obtain. I believe this shows I have done my due diligence to
discover all the information that is available to me as a Thailand Veteran.

Note all of these State Department Directives were made before I arrived at UrTapao and
thus should have been in place when I arrived at UrTapao Nov 4. 1969.

13) Time of Exposure Io Herbicides

In the Remand there is reterence to the fact that they work looking for herbicide use when
1 was at UrTapao in 1969 and 1970. However. the herbicides were already in place when
I arrived there. More importantly. the Compensation and Pension Bulletin of May 2010
and the lerlMR manual states the herbicide exposure is granted ifit is within the
Vietnam Era time period which was detined as February 28. 1961 to May 7. 1975.

14) Other U-Tapao Perimeter Cases Decided in Veterans Favor

VA File Phillip Charles Cacioppo Page 13 of 15
Reply to Appeals Management Center May 6, 2013

The following cases with their Citation numbers listed were UrTapao veterans who were
in the Maintenance and/or Supply jobs which placed them on the perimeter. Note that
none were Security Personnel 7 but again worked in jobs like myself (a Ground Radio
Maintenance Repairman) that required their presence on the UrTapao perimeter. None
had specific in country Vietnam Service. All had one or more of the herbicide related
diseases;

Cilalion USAF Job Specially

 

1235821 Material Delivery Specialist

1218235 Cook

1300611 Electrical Navigation Equipment Repairman
1302333 Fireman

1132875 Supply Specialist

1135233 Weapons Release Supervisor on 3752's

 

15) Military Working Dogs My witnesses at U-Tapao; win Their Last Voices
Ever be Heard?

Time and time again 1 have submitted evidence relating to the Military Working Dogs
(MWD) of UrTapao. This intorrnation has consistently been ignored. These dogs are the
"Sentinels of human disease" and/or the proverbial "Canary in coal mine."

1n previous intorrnation sent to you (See Ex. 52 in the Green Notebook) a control group
was found consisting of Vietnam working dogs who had a 6.3% rate of cancerous
seminoma afler their duty in Vietnam. This is compared to only a4.7% seminoma rate
for continental based dogs. However, 1 obtained necropsy report for UrTapao dogs and
found that they had a rate of 10.8% seminoma. This would indicate that these UrTapao
dogs were exposed to more cancerous agents than the Vietnam dogs.

lhave since learned that some of the dogs that were sent to UrTapao to be put to death
were actually dogs trom other bases in Thailand. The revised data shows:

 

Dog location at of Seminoma
Continental US 4.7
Vietnam 6.3
UrTapao. Thailand 7.8
Ubon/Don Mating, Thailand 20.0
Takhli, Thailand 25.0

This would imply that bases in Northern Thailand were sprayed more heavily because
they were closer to enemy territory in Laos. However. the UrTapao dogs still had a
higher rate ofcanoerous disease than the Vietnam dogs. Thailand dogs probably had a
higher incidence of this disease because the herbicides were sprayed directly into the

VA File-- Phillip Charles Cacioppo Page 14 of 15
Reply to Appeals Management Center May 6, 2013

ground along the perimeter. Whereas in Vietnam it was done largely by aerial spraying
and thus dissipation and less concentration resulted.

ln the Green Notebook (Ex. 573). Dr. David Pinson. a Veterinarian and commented
that the incidence of seminomas in dogs in the US had a rate of approximately 

16) Summary

When lpresented my testimony to the EVA in Washington DC. on May 2. 2012. My
service advisor. George Sheets. informed me that my task was to inform and prove

to the EVA that was on or near the perimeter while stationed in UrTapao. The
following were already proven facts and this continues to be my belief:

l) The DRO concluded that 1 have NonrHodgkin's while giving testimony in
my April 1, 2010 hearing one of the 15 illnesses cause by herbicide exposure in
Southeast Asia during the Vietnam War.

2) Herbicides were sprayed on all the perimeteI's of all the bases in Thailand including Ur
Tapao based on the CHECO report. This is written in the VA Compensation and Pension
Bulletin of May 2010 and also the M2171MR Manual.

3) The Memorandum of Record written by Alvin Young contradicts the VA conclusion
stated above in item 2. Section ll of this letter disproves Alvin Young's insinuation
using his own words and the facts published during the Vietnam Era. "Tactical
Herbicides" is an invented term that only appears after Young's December 2006 report.

4) Therefore it should be my only responsibility to prove that was on or near the
perimeter of the UrTapao Base.

In Statement 2 above the Thailand Vet must then prove his exposure to herbicides of
daily work duties (MOS), performance evaluations or other credible evidence. Although
one of these criteria are sufficient, I have met all three of them.

Daily Work Duties (MOS): You have a total of 3 witness statements enclosed which
state that I worked on the perimeter. Please see Ex. 4
page 1 and 2 in this report written by LeonGuerrero
who personally knew me. You have 6 additional witness
statements in the Green Notebook

Also see Ex. 4 page 5 and which explains that enlisted men
with the rank of E74 and below were to perform augmentee
duty with the security police. This is also verified by the
Department of State Cable (See Ex. 20 page 12)

Performance Evaluations: See Ex.l2 page 2 which states that I worked on the Bob
Hope Show which has been proven to be on the perimeter.

VA File -- Phillip Charles Cacioppo Page 15 of 15
Reply to Appeals Management Center May 6, 2013

ouier Credible Evidence: My barracks was on and/or near the perimeterr So I
was exposed every single day even when was asleep at
night. Please see Ex 15 and 16.

lbelieve have supplied sufficient credible evidence to prove thar was on rhe perimeter
at the UrTnpao Airbase during rhe Viernam War.

Respecrtully submitted

Phil Cacioppo, USAF Veleranr UrTapno, Thailand from Nov 4, 1969 to Nov 4, 1970