Allen Cates
501 Harwell Dr.
Lafayette, LA
70503
337-988-2236
January
17th, 2004
Ms.
Sandra McRainey
Air America LOG Editor
Dear Ms. McRainey,
I made a request to the Department of Defense
Civilian/Military Service Board (C/MSRB) to amend the nature of my
application and I have received notice that the amendment was accepted. The
application now includes “foreign” employees. A new notice has been
placed in the Federal Register to reflect the amendment. We now have an
additional 60 days to submit evidence pertinent to the determination of
whether the service of CAT/Air America, Inc. should be considered active
military service to the Armed Forces of the United States. The desired
evidence is that we supported the Armed Forces directly in South East Asia.
Denial or approval may be based upon semantics. In some instances we did
provide direct support, but for the most part we acted as proxies for the
Armed Forces when they were not able to act due to treaty restrictions. The
argument that I have presented is that most of the aircraft operated by
CAT/Air America, Inc. were United States Military aircraft on loan to us so
that we could perform paramilitary operations clandestinely. CAT/Air
America, Inc. operated on a series of Air Force contracts, but also operated
on USAID contracts. However many of the flights with aircraft on USAID
contracts actually were conducting United States Military operations.
Examples of evidence to prove this claim are the C-123 flights from
Peppergrinder at Udorn Royal Thai Airbase to landing strips in Laos. A classic example is USAF C-123K 57-6293 that was
administratively transferred from Tainan, after being converted from a
“B” to a “K”, to 315 Tactical Air Wing Phan Rang, South Vietnam.
That aircraft was then transferred, not sold, to Air America and assigned to
AID-439-342. The aircraft was believed destroyed while carrying a full load
of ammunition and white phosphorus from Peppergrinder to LS-69 where the
entire crew of mixed American and foreign employees were assumed to have
perished. The aircraft could not operate in Laos with a U.S. Military flight
crew. The AID contract is obviously a cover since ammunition distribution
would not be AID. U.S. Military personnel loaded the USAF aircraft in
Thailand. An Air America civilian crew than flew it to Laos where it was
shot down and the crew perished. The argument against approval by the C/MSRB
could be that we were not taking ammunition to U.S. troops. My argument is
that the U.S. Government needed an Air Force that was already trained, lived
in country and knew the area, and could operate legally in areas where the
U.S. Military could not go. Therefore, under public law 95-202 and DoD
Directive 1000.20, CAT/Air America employees qualify as active duty military
personnel with specific intent by the United States Government to act
accordingly, and should be granted veteran status with all benefits
available just as any other U.S. Military personnel. Evidence to support
this argument, or improvements to the argument are encouraged and
respectfully requested.