DOCSLIB.ORG

Vet. App. No. 20-1424 ______

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Vet. App. No. 20-1424 ______ Vet. App. No. 20-1424 _______________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________ IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR VETERANS CLAIMS _______________________________________ MARY STANLEY, Appellant, v. DENIS MCDONOUGH, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Appellee. _______________________________________ ON APPEAL FROM THE BOARD OF VETERANS' APPEALS _______________________________________ BRIEF OF APPELLEE SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS _______________________________________ RICHARD A. SAUBER General Counsel MARY ANN FLYNN Chief Counsel DUSTIN P. ELIAS Deputy Chief Counsel AUDREY L. LOZUK-LAWLESS Appellate Attorney U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs Office of General Counsel (027E) 810 Vermont Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20420 (202) 632-6789 Attorneys for Appellee _______________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________ TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .....................................................................................1 I. ISSUE PRESENTED ..........................................................................................1 II. STATEMENT OF THE CASE ............................................................................1 A. Jurisdictional Statement ..........................................................................1 B. Nature of the Case ..................................................................................1 C. Statement of Facts and Procedural History ............................................2 III. SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT ...................................................................5 IV. ARGUMENT .....................................................................................................6 V. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................... 16 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CASES Burger v. Brown, 5 Vet.App. 340 (1993)…………………………………………….14 Chudy v. O’Rourke, 30 Vet.App. 34 (2018)………………………………………….15 Fisher v. West, 11 Vet.App. 121 (1998)………………………………………………11 Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49 (1990)………………………….……………7, 16 Hersey v. Derwinski, 2 Vet.App. 91 (1992)…………………………………………..7 Hilkert v. West, 12 Vet.App. 145 (1999) …………………………………………....16 Procopio v. Wilkie, 913 F.3d 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2019)……...……………………..…12 Rogozinski v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 19 (1990)………….…………………………12 Shinseki v. Sanders, 556 U.S. 396 (2009)……………….…………………………16 United States v. United States Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364 (1948)………………..7 Vargas-Gonzalez v. West, 12 Vet.App. 321 (1999)…………………………………7 FEDERAL STATUTES 38 U.S.C. § 101 ............................................................................................... 7, 11 38 U.S.C. § 1116 ................................................................................................. 12 38 U.S.C. § 1521 ............................................................................................... 6, 7 38 U.S.C. § 1541 ....................................................................................................7 38 U.S.C. § 5103 ....................................................................................................9 38 U.S.C. § 7261 ....................................................................................................7 38 U.S.C. § 7252 ............................................................................................. 1, 12 FEDERAL REGULATIONS 38 C.F.R. § 3.2 .................................................................................................... 11 38 C.F.R. § 3.3 .......................................................................................................7 RECORD CITATIONS R. at 1-12 (January 2020 Board decision) ................................................... passim R. at 22-33 (October 2019 Supplemental Statement of the Case) ........................5 R. at 34 (DPRIS response) ........................................................................... passim R. at 35-36 (August and September 2019 DPRIS request) .............................. 4, 8 R. at 41-46 (April 2018 Board decision) ............................................................ 4, 8 R. at 60-77 (April 2017 Appellant submission) ............................................. passim R. at 78-96 (March 2017 Board transcript) .............................................................4 R. at 115-19 (September 2015 Board decision) .....................................................4 R. at 251-88 (Veteran’s Naval Reserve documents) ..............................................2 ii R. at 389-95 (March 2013 VA Form 9) ...................................................................4 R. at 399-431 (February 2013 Statement of the Case) ..................................... 3, 4 R. at 452 (February 2011 Request for Information) .......................................... 3, 8 R. at 458 (February 2011 Request for Information) .......................................... 3, 8 R. at 471-93 (November 2009 VA Form 21-534) ........................................ 2, 3, 10 R. at 499-500 (September 2010 Letter from the Veteran) .................................. 10 R. at 522-23 (May 2010 Notice of Disagreement) ..................................................3 R. at 527-29 (April 2010 rating decision) ................................................................3 R. at 534 (March 2010 Request for Information) ............................................... 2, 8 R. at 588-99 (March 2010 VCAA letter) .................................................................2 R. at 600-11 (March 2010 VCAA letter) .................................................................2 R. at 737-50 (February 2010 claim) .......................................................................2 R. at 789 (March 1998 application for marriage license) .......................................2 R. at 818 (April 1998 rating decision) .....................................................................2 R. at 828-33 (March 1998 application for compensation or pension) ....................2 iii IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR VETERANS CLAIMS MARY STANLEY, ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) Vet. App. No. 20-1424 ) DENIS MCDONOUGH, ) Secretary of Veterans Affairs, ) Appellee. ) _______________________________________ ON APPEAL FROM THE BOARD OF VETERANS' APPEALS _______________________________________ BRIEF OF APPELLEE SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS _______________________________________ I. ISSUE PRESENTED Whether the Court should affirm the January 28, 2020, Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) decision which denied entitlement to nonservice-connected disability pension benefits, where the Board’s decision is plausible and not clearly erroneous. II. STATEMENT OF THE CASE A. Jurisdictional Statement The Court has proper jurisdiction pursuant to 38 U.S.C. § 7252(a), which grants the Court exclusive jurisdiction to review final decisions of the Board. B. Nature of the Case Mary Stanley, hereafter “Appellant,” appeals the January 28, 2020, Board decision that denied nonservice-connected disability pension benefits from her late husband, Phillip E. Stanley, hereafter “the Veteran.” (Record (R.) at 1-12). C. Statement of Facts and Procedural History The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Navy from September 1961 to September 1963, and in active duty for training (ACDUTRA) and inactive duty for training (INACDUTRA) with the Navy Reserves. (R. at 251- 88, 492). In March 1998, the Veteran filed an Application for Compensation or Pension for a nonservice-connected pension, noting active duty service from September 11, 1961, through September 7, 1963. (R. at 828, 832 (828-33)). In April 1998, the Regional Office (RO) denied the Veteran’s claim because “[d]isability pension is payable only to veterans of wartime service” and his “service records show active service from 09/11/61 to 09/07/63, which is not during a wartime period.” (R. at 818). In February 2010, the Veteran filed another Application for Compensation and/or Pension listing his active service time from September 11, 1961, through September 7, 1963. (R. at 738 (737-50)). The Veteran listed the disabilities that prevented him from working were his “Lumbar spine condition, 66 yr old, 2 Heart stints, heart attack, COPD.” (R. at 747). In March 2010, the RO issued a letter to the Veteran requesting additional documents to support his application for nonservice-connected pension. (R. at 588-99). The Veteran responded that he had no additional evidence to give to VA to support his claim. (R. at 610 (600-11)). That same month, the RO also requested service records related to the Veteran’s dates of service in Vietnam. (R. at 534). The following month, in April 2010, the 2 RO issued a decision denying the Veteran’s claim for pension benefits because the evidence showed he had no wartime service, only active duty from September 11, 1961, to September 7, 1963. (R. at 527-29). In May 2010, the Veteran filed a notice of disagreement (NOD). (R. at 522-23). On September 27, 2010, the Veteran passed away and in November 2010, Appellant, his wife, filed an Application for Dependency and Indemnity Compensation, Death Pension, and Accrued Benefits, indicating she wanted to act as a substitute claimant. (R. at 471-93). In February 2011, the RO requested from the service department information for “pages from the personnel file showing unit of assignment, dates of assignment, participation in combat
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Not for Publication Until Released by the House Subcommittee on Defense Committee on Appropriations
    NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNTIL RELEASED BY THE HOUSE SUBCOMMITTEE ON DEFENSE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS STATEMENT OF VICE ADMIRAL LUKE M. McCOLLUM, U.S. NAVY CHIEF OF NAVY RESERVE BEFORE THE HOUSE SUBCOMMITTEE ON DEFENSE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS FISCAL YEAR 2021 NATIONAL GUARD AND RESERVE March 3, 2020 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNTIL RELEASED BY THE HOUSE SUBCOMMITTEE ON DEFENSE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS Contents INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................. 4 NAVY RESERVE FORCE ................................................................................................................................... 5 Commander, Navy Reserve Forces Command (CNRFC) ........................................................................... 5 Commander, Naval Air Forces Reserve (CNAFR) ...................................................................................... 5 Commander, Naval Information Force Reserve (CNIFR) .......................................................................... 6 Navy Expeditionary Combat Command (NECC) ........................................................................................ 7 PERSONNEL ................................................................................................................................................... 7 Civilian Skills .............................................................................................................................................. 7
    [Show full text]
  • US COLD WAR AIRCRAFT CARRIERS Forrestal, Kitty Hawk and Enterprise Classes
    US COLD WAR AIRCRAFT CARRIERS Forrestal, Kitty Hawk and Enterprise Classes BRAD ELWARD ILLUSTRATED BY PAUL WRIGHT © Osprey Publishing • www.ospreypublishing.com NEW VANGUARD 211 US COLD WAR AIRCRAFT CARRIERS Forrestal, Kitty Hawk and Enterprise Classes BRAD ELWARD ILLUSTRATED BY PAUL WRIGHT © Osprey Publishing • www.ospreypublishing.com CONTENTS INTRODUCTION 4 ORIGINS OF THE CARRIER AND THE SUPERCARRIER 5 t World War II Carriers t Post-World War II Carrier Developments t United States (CVA-58) THE FORRESTAL CLASS 11 FORRESTAL AS BUILT 14 t Carrier Structures t The Flight Deck and Hangar Bay t Launch and Recovery Operations t Stores t Defensive Systems t Electronic Systems and Radar t Propulsion THE FORRESTAL CARRIERS 20 t USS Forrestal (CVA-59) t USS Saratoga (CVA-60) t USS Ranger (CVA-61) t USS Independence (CVA-62) THE KITTY HAWK CLASS 26 t Major Differences from the Forrestal Class t Defensive Armament t Dimensions and Displacement t Propulsion t Electronics and Radars t USS America, CVA-66 – Improved Kitty Hawk t USS John F. Kennedy, CVA-67 – A Singular Class THE KITTY HAWK AND JOHN F. KENNEDY CARRIERS 34 t USS Kitty Hawk (CVA-63) t USS Constellation (CVA-64) t USS America (CVA-66) t USS John F. Kennedy (CVA-67) THE ENTERPRISE CLASS 40 t Propulsion t Stores t Flight Deck and Island t Defensive Armament t USS Enterprise (CVAN-65) BIBLIOGRAPHY 47 INDEX 48 © Osprey Publishing • www.ospreypublishing.com US COLD WAR AIRCRAFT CARRIERS FORRESTAL, KITTY HAWK AND ENTERPRISE CLASSES INTRODUCTION The Forrestal-class aircraft carriers were the world’s first true supercarriers and served in the United States Navy for the majority of America’s Cold War with the Soviet Union.
    [Show full text]
  • USS Valley Forge
    .. • USS VALLEY FORGE (CV-45) c/o Fleet Post Office CV45/A9-4 San Franoisc•, California Serial: 060 27 February 1952 DECLASSIFIED NAVHISTDIVINST 5500.1 ''r"""--Commanding Officer, U.S.S, VALLEY FORGE (CV-45)-- By: 0P..09892C ': o~~hief of Naval Operations '.Tis: (ll Commander Carrier Division FIVE (2 Commander Task Force SEVENTY SEVEN (3) Commander SEVENTH Fleet (4l Commander Naval Forces, FAR EAST (5 Commander-in-Chief, u.s. Pacific Fleet Subj: Action Report for the period 30 January 1952 through 22 February 1952 Ref: (a) OPNAV Instruction 3480,5 dated 1 July 1952 Enol: (l) Commander, CATG ONE conf ltr ser 05 dated 27 Feb 1952 V· \~ 1. In accordance with reference (a), the Action Report for the period of 30 January through 22 February 1952 is hereby submitted: PART I COMPOSITION QF OWN FORCES AND MISSION In compliance with CTF 77 dispatch 162350Z of January'l952, the USS VALLEY FORGE (CV-45), CAPTAIN OSCAR PEDERSON Commanding, with ComCerDiv FIVE (REAR ADMIRAL F,W. MC MAHON) embarked, departed Yokosuka, Japan, for the operating area orf 30 Janua'!"y 1952. On 1 February 1952 the USS VALLEY FORGE (CV-45) joined Task Force 77 close to the 38th Parallel on the east coast of Korea, The Task Force was commanded by REAR ADMIRAL JOHN PERRY, ComCarDiv O!JE, aboard the USS ESSEX (CV-9) and operated under Task Force 77 Operation Order 22-51 (2nd Revision) dated 6 December 1951, It was composed of USS ESSEX (CV-9), USS ANTIETAM (CV-36), USS VALLEY FORGE (CV-45), USS ST P~UL (CA-73), USS RiJDFORD (DDE-446j 1 USS O'BANNON (DDE-450), USS FLETCHER (DDE-445), USS H.J.
    [Show full text]
  • Navy and Coast Guard Ships Associated with Service in Vietnam and Exposure to Herbicide Agents
    Navy and Coast Guard Ships Associated with Service in Vietnam and Exposure to Herbicide Agents Background This ships list is intended to provide VA regional offices with a resource for determining whether a particular US Navy or Coast Guard Veteran of the Vietnam era is eligible for the presumption of Agent Orange herbicide exposure based on operations of the Veteran’s ship. According to 38 CFR § 3.307(a)(6)(iii), eligibility for the presumption of Agent Orange exposure requires that a Veteran’s military service involved “duty or visitation in the Republic of Vietnam” between January 9, 1962 and May 7, 1975. This includes service within the country of Vietnam itself or aboard a ship that operated on the inland waterways of Vietnam. However, this does not include service aboard a large ocean- going ship that operated only on the offshore waters of Vietnam, unless evidence shows that a Veteran went ashore. Inland waterways include rivers, canals, estuaries, and deltas. They do not include open deep-water bays and harbors such as those at Da Nang Harbor, Qui Nhon Bay Harbor, Nha Trang Harbor, Cam Ranh Bay Harbor, Vung Tau Harbor, or Ganh Rai Bay. These are considered to be part of the offshore waters of Vietnam because of their deep-water anchorage capabilities and open access to the South China Sea. In order to promote consistent application of the term “inland waterways”, VA has determined that Ganh Rai Bay and Qui Nhon Bay Harbor are no longer considered to be inland waterways, but rather are considered open water bays.
    [Show full text]
  • USNS Shoshone
    NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBILITY ASSESSMENT VESSEL: ex-USS Vancouver (LPD-2) USS Vancouver underway off the coast of Oahu, Hawaii in 1967. U.S. Navy photo by PH3 D.R. Hyder. http://www.navsource.org/archives/10/09/0902.htm Vessel History The amphibious transport dock ship USS Vancouver (LPD-2) was laid down on November 19, 1960 at the New York Naval Shipyard in Brooklyn, New York. It was launched on September 15, 1962, and commissioned on May 11, 1963. Vancouver was the second of three Raleigh-class LPDs; USS La Salle (LPD-3) was the third and last of the class. LPDs are named for cities that honor celebrated pioneers and explorers. Vancouver was named for the town of Vancouver, Washington. George Vancouver (1757-1798), British naval officer and explorer, commanded a British expedition that explored Puget Sound in 1792. After completing builder’s trials off New York n the summer of 1963, Vancouver proceeded to Norfolk, Virginia for shakedown training. On August 14 Vancouver steamed from there to its new homeport of San Diego, California via the Panama Canal. Following a brief stop at Acapulco, Mexico after assisting a disabled fishing vessel, Vancouver arrived in San Diego on 2 August 31. That fall Vancouver conducted amphibious operations and visited its namesake, Vancouver, Washington. In December, Vancouver displayed its capabilities for the new Secretary of the Navy Paul H. Nitze and several high-ranking naval officers. From February to May 1964, Vancouver underwent post-shakedown maintenance and repairs in Long Beach, California. In late June it steamed north to Vancouver, Canada for that city’s annual maritime festival prior to spending the July 4th holiday in San Francisco.
    [Show full text]
  • Naval Accidents 1945-1988, Neptune Papers No. 3
    -- Neptune Papers -- Neptune Paper No. 3: Naval Accidents 1945 - 1988 by William M. Arkin and Joshua Handler Greenpeace/Institute for Policy Studies Washington, D.C. June 1989 Neptune Paper No. 3: Naval Accidents 1945-1988 Table of Contents Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 1 Overview ........................................................................................................................................ 2 Nuclear Weapons Accidents......................................................................................................... 3 Nuclear Reactor Accidents ........................................................................................................... 7 Submarine Accidents .................................................................................................................... 9 Dangers of Routine Naval Operations....................................................................................... 12 Chronology of Naval Accidents: 1945 - 1988........................................................................... 16 Appendix A: Sources and Acknowledgements........................................................................ 73 Appendix B: U.S. Ship Type Abbreviations ............................................................................ 76 Table 1: Number of Ships by Type Involved in Accidents, 1945 - 1988................................ 78 Table 2: Naval Accidents by Type
    [Show full text]
  • Historical Review of Cruiser Characteristics, Roles and Missions
    Ser 05D /68 28 March 2005 HISTORICAL REVIEW OF CRUISER CHARACTERISTICS, ROLES AND MISSIONS SFAC Report Number 9030-04-C1 Distribution Statement A: Approved for Public Release; Distribution is unlimited FUTURE CONCEPTS AND SURFACE SHIP DESIGN GROUP (05D) NAVAL SEA SYSTEMS COMMAND 1333 ISAAC HULL AVENUE S.E. WASHINGTON NAVY YARD, D.C. 20376 Form Approved REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE OMB No. 0704-0188 Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing this collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden to Department of Defense, Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports (0704-0188), 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302. Respondents should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if it does not display a currently valid OMB control number. PLEASE DO NOT RETURN YOUR FORM TO THE ABOVE ADDRESS. 1. REPORT DATE (DD-MM-YYYY) 2. REPORT TYPE 3. DATES COVERED (From - To) 12/31/04 Ship Mission Study 04/04-12/04 4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 5a. CONTRACT NUMBER A Historical Review of Cruiser Characteristics, 5b. GRANT NUMBER Roles and Missions 5c. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER 0603563N S2196 6. AUTHOR(S) 5d. PROJECT NUMBER Sean Walsh, lead author, and a team of experts 5e.
    [Show full text]
  • After the War and Korea
    BETWEEN WARS Updated 08/15/2012 CHRONOLOGY 1946 Commander in Chief = Harry S Truman 22 January CVG-17 became CVBG-17 – a MIDWAY-Class air group, while squadron designations were unchanged. The four squadrons of CVG-17 that had joined HORNET in January 1945 would change designations three times over the next three years: 1943 1946 1948 1950 VF-17 to VF-5B to VF-61 Jolly Rogers VBF-17 to VF-6B to VF-62 Gladiators VB-17 to VA-5B to VA-64 to VC-24 in 1949 VT-17 to VA-6B to VA-65 Fist of the Fleet VA-64 became VC-24 in 1949, then VS-24 in 1950 and disestablished in 1956. A new VA-64 would join the Air Group in February 1950 – ex-VF-131 (later VF-21) The squadron probably did not use the “Fist of the Fleet” title until June 1949, the same date it adopted the “Fist” patch. 30 January Ens. Richard Bion Kinney was killed while on a check-out flight in SB2C-5 (BuNo 83225). The aircraft entered a spin about 5 miles north of NAAS Fallon, but crashed after three or four partial recoveries. 1 February The squadron prepared to move to NAS Brunswick, Maine, transitioning from the TBM-3E to SB2C-4Es in preparation for AD-1 Skyraiders. March The squadron moved to NAS Brunswick and began transitioning to SB3C-4E/5 aircraft. 1 June NAAS Fallon was reduced to a caretaker status, only 11 months after the station reached its peak operations. 28 June The Air Group, including VT-17departed for Cleveland, Ohio for the air races.
    [Show full text]
  • Is the Day of the Aircraft Carrier Over?
    AU/ACSC/217/1998-04 AIR COMMAND AND STAFF COLLEGE AIR UNIVERSITY IS THE DAY OF THE AIRCRAFT CARRIER OVER? by James Paulsen, LCDR, USN A Research Report Submitted to the Faculty In Partial Fulfillment of the Graduation Requirements Advisor: Albert St. Clair, CDR, USN Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama April 1998 Disclaimer The views expressed in this academic research paper are those of the author and do not reflect the official policy or position of the US government or the Department of Defense. In accordance with Air Force Instruction 51-303, it is not copyrighted, but is the property of the United States government. ii Contents Page DISCLAIMER................................................................................................................ ii ABSTRACT .................................................................................................................. iv THE POLITICAL SURVIVAL OF THE AIRCRAFT CARRIER................................... 1 CRISIS RESPONSE ....................................................................................................... 5 THE ORIGINAL SUPER CARRIER............................................................................ 11 GLOBAL REACH IN THE 1950S................................................................................ 16 AIRCRAFT CARRIER SURVIVABILITY .................................................................. 20 AIRCRAFT CARRIER ADAPTABILITY.................................................................... 25 CONCLUSIONS..........................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Combat and Crisis Experiences of Admiral James L. Holloway
    Combat and Crisis Experiences of Admiral James L. Holloway III Sam Cox, Director of Naval History, 2 December 2019 USS RINGGOLD (DD-500) After an accelerated graduation from the Naval Academy, Ensign Holloway’s first operational assignment was as Assistant Gunnery Officer in the commissioning crew of the new Fletcher-class destroyer USS RINGGOLD (DD-500,) reporting in December 1942. In the first months of 1943, RINGGOLD conducted sea trials and work-ups along the Atlantic coast and escort operations in the Caribbean until she transited the Panama Canal in July 1943 en route Pacific Fleet Operations. On 31 August/1 September 1943, RINGGOLD participated in the screen for the fast Carrier Task Force strikes by ESSEX (CV-9,) YORKTOWN (CV-10) and INDEPENDENCE (CVL-22) on Marcus Island, deep inside the Japanese outer defense perimeter, which was also the first combat action by the new F6F Hellcat fighter. Although LTJG Holloway detached shortly after the Marcus operation, RINGOLD maintained a reputation for excellence in gunnery accuracy, including (unfortunately) an accidental night attack (approved by RADM Hill) on the surfaced submarine USS NAUTILUS (SS-168,) on 19 Nov 1943, hitting the submarine at the base of the conning tower with a five-inch round on the first salvo, which fortunately failed to detonate, and the NAUTILUS was able to continue her mission. The next day RINGGOLD was then one of the first two destroyers to enter the lagoon at Tarawa where she was hit twice by Japanese shore battery rounds that didn’t detonate but holed the ship; as RINGGOLD fought the flooding she continued to bombard Japanese positions, providing the best fire-support to the Marines ashore on Tarawa on that bloody day.
    [Show full text]
  • 實戰或炫耀？中共航艦計畫之解析fighting Or Flaunting?
    南 華 大 學 國際暨大陸事務學系亞太研究碩士班 碩士論文 實戰或炫耀？中共航艦計畫之解析 Fighting or Flaunting? An Analysis on PRC’s Aircraft Carrier Program 研 究 生：蕭福星 指導教授：楊仕樂 博士 中華民國 101 年 4 月 24 日 I II 誌 謝 大學畢業逾二十年，再重拾書本倍嚐艱辛，本論文得以順利完成，萬分感 謝恩師楊仕樂博士的悉心教導及督促，授教期間，均不厭其煩，剴切指正，更不 斷啟發，令我茅塞頓開，獲益匪淺，使得在浩瀚書海當中，有如明燈般的指引， 師恩浩蕩，永銘五內，不敢或忘。 論文口試，承蒙林泰和老師、邱昭憲老師對論文細心指正及提供寶貴意見， 使論文內容更加完善周延，在此致上最誠摯的謝意。此外，由衷感謝張子揚老師、 馬祥佑老師及陳偉志兄，於浩瀚學海中，不斷提攜、解惑、鼓勵，不吝指導，深 深感謝這群惠我良多的良師益友。 最後，感謝胞弟福相獨力照顧年逾八旬老父，讓我心無旁騖專心學業以及 內人蔓麗在這段期間內的協助、鼓勵與包容，均是我完成碩士學位的最大支持， 謹以本論文獻給他們以及一切關心我的師長與朋友們。 蕭福星 謹誌于 南華大學 亞太研究所 中華民國101 年5月 III 摘 要 改革開放以來，中共海上貿易頻繁、石油航路及周邊的主權衝突，均聚焦在 海上，一般多認為中共發展航艦，就是為了上述實戰的需要，但在這種背景下卻 仍歷經二十餘年努力而未能形成戰力，只能說是航艦武力所需的技術門檻太高所 致。然而，另一種相對少見的相反觀點卻也存在：航艦技術並不困難，中共發展 航艦只是為了炫耀，用來彰顯其大國地位而已，優先次序並不高。這兩種相對立 的觀點究竟孰是孰非？本文從航艦武力的發展歷程、中共航艦相關軍備的發展狀 況，以及中共航艦實戰價值的分析，發現常見的觀點其實缺乏根據，相對少見的 相反觀點才較為可信。 關鍵詞：解放軍、航空母艦、艦載機、護航艦 I Abstract The People’s Republic of China turns its attention to sea power in recent years. After a development of more than two dacades in aircraft carriers, PRC has yet been able to put them into combat. Common interpretations believed that PRC urgently develop aircraft carriers for combat, but the technical challenge of aircraft carriers is too high to overcome. This thesis put forward an entirely different logic: PRC develops carriers to show off. Technologies of a carrier force are not particularly difficult and PRC have already possessed all of them. Combat value of Carriers is not high for the PRC. PRC just develops the carriers for the prestige and is not a high priority. Keywords : People's Liberation Army, Aircraft
    [Show full text]
  • Information to Users
    INFORMATION TO USERS This manuscript has been reproduced from the microfilm master. UMI films the text directly from the original or copy submitted. Thus, some thesis and dissertation copies are in typewriter face, while others may be from any type of computer printer. The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and photographs, print bleedthrough, substandard margins, and improper alignment can adversely affect reproduction. In the unlikely event that the author did not send UMI a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by sectioning the original, beginning at the upper left-hand comer and continuing from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. ProQuest Information and Learning 300 North Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346 USA 800-521-0600 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. DON’T GIVE UP THE SHIPS: UNITED STATES NAVAL OPERATIONS DURING THE FIRST YEAR OF THE KOREAN WAR DISSERTATION Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University By Duk-Hyun Cho, B.A., M.A. a|c afc a|e s|e afe The Ohio State University 2002 Dissertation Committee: Approved By Professor Allan R. Millett, Adviser Professor John F.
    [Show full text]