08 May 2014

New Questions for Secretary Shinseki

First, members of the C-123 Veterans Association voiced their opinions regarding our joint stance on the demands for Secretary Shinseki's resignation. Most expressed their view that we depend on our major veterans organizations to address the broader issues facing us and will voice our individual concerns regarding the Secretary through them. The C-123 Veterans Association thus takes no stand on demanding changes and will continue our focus on exposure issues unique to our membership.

The Big Questions Yet To Be Asked of Secretary Shinseki and Other VA Leaders:

1. Why does VA invent special definitions of "exposure" to block veterans' exposure claims?

2. Why does the Secretary permit the Director, Compensation and Pension to block veterans' claims for Agent Orange exposure by stating the toxin in Agent Orange (TCDD) is harmless?* TCDD is acknowledged by VA and scientists everywhere as a potent human carcinogen.

3. Why does the Secretary and his staff explain that C-123 claims are decided on a "case by case basis" yet provides the regional offices with boilerplate denial language and orders to deny all such claims, despite the Yale School of Law finding that these vets are eligible for presumptive service connection?

4. Why has the VA fought release of C-123 Agent Orange documents for years, refusing Freedom of Information Act requests and even denying existence of materials posted right on their web pages?

5. Why the close cooperation between VA, the Army's Joint Services Records Research Center, and the Air Force on C-123 exposure issues? Why does VA block any updates to correct veterans' exposure history offered by Joint Services Records Research Center, and also block any possibility of a memorandum of understanding concerning C-123 exposures?

6. Why did the Air Force describe its position that C-123s were not contaminated nor the aircrews exposed as being "consistent" with the officia CDC/ATSDR finding that C-123 veterans were exposed to deadly dioxin, and have a 200-fold greater cancer risk? "Not exposed" seems inconsistent with "exposed" to most speakers of the English language.

And why did the Air Force describe the C-123s as "safe in their present configuration" when in fact all were smelted as toxic waste years before that statement to the Senate? At the time that prevarication was offered, the C-123s were smelted aluminum ingots.
quote from Compensation & Pension order to deny C-123 veteran's claim by insisting there are no adverse health effects from Agent Orange exposure

No comments:

Post a Comment

Got something to share? Nothing commercial or off-topic, please.