C-123 Regulation becomes FINAL on 22 October 2018

Three years on, VA on Monday October 22 2018 will make the C-123 regulations final.

This makes permanent and unchanged the C-123 interim final rule signed by Secretary Bob McDonald on June 19, 2015 following release of the pivotal Institute of Medicine C-123 Agent Orange report. In the interim rule, VA conceded that post-Vietnam C-123 veterans had been exposed and harmed by residual Agent Orange contamination in the aircraft.

The key point in this final adoption of the C-123 regulation is that there've been no changes whatever. VA received a great number of comments addressing retroactive exposure benefits, and shot them all down. Basically, VA held that exposure did not itself constitute an injury of the type that would make Reservists eligible for veteran status, much like a heart attack or broken bone on a UTA or Annual Tour would do. That destroyed any hope of our folks getting their claims back-dated, and only claims from June 19, 2015 forward are going to be compensated.

Below is the text of this important document:

Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 204 / Monday, October 22, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 53179

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS
38 CFR Part 3
RIN 2900–AP43
Presumption of Herbicide Exposure and Presumption of Disability During Service for Reservists Presumed Exposed to Herbicides
AGENCY: Department of Veterans Affairs. ACTION: Final rule.
SUMMARY: The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) is adopting as final an interim final rule published on June 19, 2015, to amend its adjudication regulation governing individuals presumed to have been exposed to certain herbicides. Specifically, VA expanded the regulation to include an additional group consisting of individuals who performed service in the Air Force or Air Force Reserve under circumstances in which they had regular and repeated contact with C–123 aircraft known to have been used to spray an herbicide agent (“Agent Orange”) during the Vietnam era. In addition, the regulation established a presumption that members of this group who later develop an Agent Orange presumptive condition were disabled during the relevant period of service, thus establishing that service as “active military, naval, or air service.” The effect of this action is to presume herbicide exposure for these individuals and to create a presumption that the individuals who are presumed exposed to herbicides during reserve service also meet the statutory definition of “veteran” (hereinafter, “veteran status”) for VA purposes and eligibility for some VA benefits.
DATES: Effective Date: This rule is effective October 22, 2018.
Applicability Date: This final rule is applicable to any claim for service connection for an Agent Orange presumptive condition filed by a covered individual that was pending on or after June 19, 2015.

VA grants 100% disability claim for C-123 Agent Orange Avascular Necrosis

Today I received a VA 100% service-connected disability decision for bilateral hip avascular necrosis, having had three replacements in four years. This disease is not automatically recognized by the VA as associated with Agent Orange exposure so I had to establish medical nexus with three MD letters, three BVA decisions, and two peer-reviewed journals.

This is in addition to earlier decisions of 100% disability for prostate and bladder cancers and 100% for loss of use of both feet, which was also Agent Orange related per diabetes @ 20%. I was also previously service-connected for Agent Orange exposure with 20% for IHD. I already had 60% for cervical spinal cord injury and 40% for lumbar spinal cord injury, 10% for tinnitus, plus 20% for shoulder injuries. What a mess I am!

The VA decision review officer agreed there was Clear and Unmistakable Error on my hypertension claim denied in 1992 because I was on AD when diagnosed in 1991. Correction took 24 years!

Final result: I'm still at the same 100% total disability (even with a total of 460%) because that's the top end of the VA scale. I was already there because of shoulder and spinal injuries but this is a moral victory in getting VA to recognize the exposures and the resultant illnesses. It is my hope that the avascular necrosis decision will help other veterans in their claims.

ANOTHER C-123 VETERAN'S AGENT ORANGE APPEAL TRASHED BY UNCARING BVA

WHAT A MESS! This elderly Massachusetts C-123 veteran served at Hanscom AFB before the 731st moved to Westover. His cancer claim was submitted years ago, and on appeal was heard in June...but was denied!

Read through it below. Look how the BVA and its aggressive attorney trashed this qualified veteran's appeal by simply ignoring everything the VA did last year in recognizing our Agent Orange veterans' benefits.

Their tact was to pretend the man wasn't a veteran...an issue resolved by Secretary McDonald's June 19 2015 Interim Final Rule which the BVA judge and the BVA attorney ignored, despite their duty under VCAA.

Citation Nr: 1622153 
Decision Date: 06/02/16    Archive Date: 06/13/16

DOCKET NO.  15-34 922 ) DATE
 )
 )

On appeal from the
Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Boston, Massachusetts


THE ISSUE

Whether new and material evidence has been submitted to reopen a claim of entitlement to service connection for chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL).


REPRESENTATION

Appellant represented by: Massachusetts Department of Veterans Services


WITNESS AT HEARING ON APPEAL

Appellant


ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD

J. Barone, Counsel


INTRODUCTION

This appeal has been advanced on the Board's docket pursuant to 38 C.F.R. § 20.900(c) (2015).  38 U.S.C.A. § 7107(a)(2) (West 2014).

The Veteran served on active duty with the United States Navy from April 1946 to April 1948, and on active duty as a member of the United States Navy Reserves from October 1950 to August 1952.  It appears that he had an additional period of active duty from August 1959 to August 1962 and a verified period of active duty for training (ACDUTRA) with the United States Air Force Reserves from October 28, 1962, to November 28, 1962.  Effective June 18, 1976, he was removed from Reserves status and assigned to the Retired Reserve.

This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a June 2015 rating decision by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Boston, Massachusetts, which declined to reopen the Veteran's claim of entitlement to service connection for CLL.

The Veteran testified before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge (VLJ) by videoconference in April 2016.  A transcript of his hearing has been associated with the record.


FINDINGS OF FACT

1.  In November 2012, the Board denied service connection for CLL.

2.  Evidence added to the record since the November 2012 Board decision is cumulative or redundant of evidence previously of record, does not relate to an unestablished fact necessary to substantiate the claim of entitlement to service connection for CLL.


CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1.  The November 2012 Board decision is final.  38 U.S.C.A. § 7104(b) (West 2014); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.160(d), 20.1103 (2015).

2.  New and material evidence has not been received to reopen the claim of entitlement to service connection for CLL.  38 U.S.C.A. § 5108 (West 2014); 38 C.F.R. § 3.156 (2015).


REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

VA has a duty to notify and assist claimants in substantiating a claim for VA benefits.  38 U.S.C.A. §§ 5100, 5102, 5103, 5103A, 5107, 5126 (West 2014); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.156(a), 3.159 and 3.326(a) (2015).  

The Veteran's petition to reopen the claim of entitlement to service connection for CLL was filed as a Fully Developed Claim (FDC), as a part of a VA program to expedite VA claims.  Under this framework, a claim is submitted in a "fully developed" status, limiting the need for further development of the claim by VA.   When filing a FDC, a Veteran is to submit all evidence relevant and pertinent to the claim other than service treatment records and treatment records from VA medical centers, which will be obtained by VA.  Under certain circumstances, additional development may still be required prior to the adjudication of the claim, such as obtaining additional records and providing a VA medical examination to the Veteran.  The notice that accompanies the FDC form informs a Veteran what evidence is required to substantiate a claim for service connection, a Veteran's and VA's respective duties for obtaining evidence, and information on how VA assigns disability ratings in the event that service connection is established.  See VA Form 21-526EZ.  Thus, the Board finds that VA's duty to notify has been met.

Moreover, there is no allegation from the Veteran that he has any evidence in his possession that is needed for full and fair adjudication of this claim, and the Board finds that the notification requirements of the VCAA have been satisfied as to timing and content.

With respect to VA's duty to assist, service, VA, and private treatment records have been associated with the claims file.  

Therefore, the Board is satisfied that VA has complied with the duty to assist requirements of the VCAA and the implementing regulations.  

For the foregoing reasons, it is not prejudicial to the appellant for the Board to proceed to a final decision in this appeal.

Analysis

Generally, a claim which has been denied in an unappealed RO decision or an unappealed Board decision may not thereafter be reopened and allowed.  38 U.S.C.A. §§ 7104(b), 7105(c) (West 2014).  The exception to this rule is 38 U.S.C.A. § 5108, which provides that if new and material evidence is presented or secured with respect to a claim which has been disallowed, the Secretary shall reopen the claim and review the former disposition of the claim.  

New evidence means existing evidence not previously submitted to agency decisionmakers.  Material evidence means existing evidence that, by itself or when considered with previous evidence of record, relates to an unestablished fact necessary to substantiate the claim.  New and material evidence can be neither cumulative nor redundant of the evidence of record at the time of the last prior final denial of the claim sought to be reopened, and must raise a reasonable possibility of substantiating the claim.  38 C.F.R. § 3.156(a).  

For the purpose of establishing whether new and material evidence has been submitted, the credibility of the evidence, although not its weight, is to be presumed.  Justus v. Principi, 3 Vet. App. 510, 513 (1992).  But see Duran v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 216 (1994) ("Justus does not require the Secretary [of VA] to consider the patently incredible to be credible").

As noted, the Board denied the Veteran's claim of entitlement to service connection for CLL in a November 2012 decision.  

The record before the Board at the time of the November 2012 decision included evidence of a diagnosis of CLL in 2007.  It also included the Veteran's service records, showing that he performed as an Air Reserve Technician (ART) from 1970 to 1973, and that he participated in ACDUTRA as required by his enlistment in the Air Force Reserves.  

The record at the time of the November 2012 decision also included the Veteran's contention that while working as an ART at Hanscom Air Force Base from 1970 to 1973, he was exposed to Agent Orange from C-123 aircraft that had been used to spray the defoliant in Vietnam.  In this regard, the Board noted that certain civilian positions in the military departments were filled by individuals who were members of the active reserves, which, in the case of the Air Force, were known as ART positions.  Jeffries v. Dep't of the Air Force, 999 F.2d 529, 529-30 (Fed.Cir.1993).  Although they are full-time civilian employees, ARTs "are also members of the Air Force Reserve unit in which they are employed.  In addition to their civilian assignments, ARTs are assigned to equivalent positions in the reserve organization with a reserve military rank or grade."  Id. at 530.  ARTs "are required to serve as members of the Air Force Reserve one weekend a month and at least fourteen days a year of annual training."  See http://www.afrc.af.mil/shared/
media/document/AFD-070125-046.pdf.  "On these weekend Unit Training Assemblies (UTAs) and during their annual two-week tour of duty, ARTs train with fellow reservists."  Id.    At all other times, however, ARTs were civilian employees.  Id. (noting that "[d]uring the normal five-day workweek, ARTs perform as civilians-maintaining and operating the Reserve facility in direct support of their unit").

The Board also considered the possibility of service connection on the basis of incurrence of CLL during a period of ACDUTRA as required by the Veteran's Reserves status.  The Board observed that ACDUTRA was defined, in part, as "full-time duty in the Armed Forces performed by Reserves for training purposes." 38 U.S.C.A. § 101(22)  (West 2002); 38 C.F.R. § 3.6(c) (2014).  The Board also noted that inactive duty training is defined, in part, as "duty (other than full time duty) prescribed for Reserves . . . by an authority designated by the Secretary concerned and performed by them on a voluntary basis in connection with the prescribed training or maintenance activities of the units to which they are assigned." 38 U.S.C.A. § 101(23)(A) (West 2014); 38 C.F.R. § 3.6(d)(1).  "The term 'Reserve' means a member of a reserve component of one of the Armed Forces."  38 U.S.C.A. § 101(26). 

The Board indicated that when a claim was based on a period of ACDUTRA, in order to establish entitlement to benefits, there must be some evidence that the disability for which service connection is being sought was "'incurred or aggravated' during the relevant period of service."  Smith v. Shinseki, 24 Vet. App. 40, 47 (2010) (quoting 38 U.S.C.A. § 101(24)(B); Acciola v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 320, 324 (2008); and McManaway v. West, 13 Vet. App. 60, 67 (1999) (citing Paulson v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 466, 469-70 ("if a claim relates to period of [ACDUTRA], a disability must have manifested itself during that period; otherwise, the period does not qualify as active military service and claimant does not achieve veteran status for purposes of that claim"). 

The Board noted that Veterans who serve on regular active duty are entitled to several presumptions-such as the presumption of sound condition at entrance to service, the presumption of aggravation during service of preexisting diseases or injuries that undergo an increase in severity during service, and the presumption of service incurrence for certain diseases which manifest themselves to a degree of disability of 10 percent or more within a specified time after separation from service-to assist them in substantiating their service connection claims.  38 U.S.C.A. §§ 1111, 1112, 1153 (West 2014); 38 C.F.R. § 3.304(b), 3.306, 3.307, 3.309 (2015).  However, where a claim is based on a period of ACDUTRA, the claimant "can never be entitled to the presumption of service connection" because "[b]y definition, the presumption of service connection applies where there is no evidence that a condition began in or was aggravated during the relevant period of service."  Smith, 24 Vet. App. at 47. "By contrast, for a claimant whose claim is based on a period of [ACDUTRA] to establish entitlement to benefits, there must be some evidence that his or her condition was "incurred or aggravated" during the relevant period of service."  Id.  

The Board further observed that while CLL was a disease associated with exposure to herbicide agents and thus subject to the presumption of service connection despite a lack of evidence of the disease in service, see 38 C.F.R. § 3.309(e) (2014), the logic of Smith precluded application of the presumption of service connection provided for by 38 U.S.C.A. § 1116 (West 2014).  The Board pointed out that the Veteran, as an ART, was also a member of the Air Force Reserve, and that his service would have been limited to ACDUTRA.  See http://www.afrc.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-070125-046.pdf. (discussing requirements of ARTS Reserve service).  The Board concluded that evidence showing incurrence or aggravation of CLL during any relevant service period was lacking, noting that CLL was not diagnosed until 2007, and that there was no evidence to suggest that the disease first manifested during any required period of ACDUTRA while the Veteran was an ART.  The Board determined that, regardless of whether the Veteran was indeed exposed to herbicides at Hanscom Air Force Base sometime between 1970 and 1973, without a showing that his CLL first manifested itself during a period of ACDUTRA, any ACDUTRA performed while an ART did not qualify as active military service, and Veteran status for purposes of the current claim has not been achieved. 

The Veteran sought to reopen his claim in February 2015.  In support of his petition to reopen, he submitted annual statements of Reserves credits for 1972 and 1973, as well as a July 1973 discharge order.  He also submitted written statements describing his work as an ART, maintaining that he was exposed to Agent Orange during that time, which included active duty.  

Also added to the record is the Veteran's April 2016 hearing testimony.  He reiterated his contention that he was exposed to Agent Orange during his time working at Hanscom Air Force Base as an ART.  He also stated that he worked on contaminated aircraft while on ACDUTRA.

As discussed, service connection for CLL was denied because the Veteran's employment as an ART did not qualify as active service, and because there was no evidence that CLL first manifested during any period of ACDUTRA.  Since the November 2012 Board decision, evidence added to the record includes the appellant's contentions that he was exposed to Agent Orange during his employment as an ART at Hanscom Air Force Base, and that he was also exposed during periods of ACDUTRA.  These contentions and theories of entitlement were before the Board at the time of its November 2012 decision and are therefore cumulative.  In consideration of the foregoing, the Board finds that as no new and material evidence has been submitted, the claim of entitlement to service connection for CLL may not be reopened.  

ORDER

New and material evidence having not been received, the petition to reopen the claim of entitlement to service connection for CLL is denied.



____________________________________________
K. J. ALIBRANDO
Veterans Law Judge, Board of Veterans' Appeals



Department of Veterans Affairs

VA Releases Newest C-123 Exposure Denials

In their most recent Internet posting, the VA's Public Health Division incorporates the results of the Air Force C-123 Agent Orange Report. In it they construct a false argument that crews weren't exposed when in fact, all scientific opinion is that we were! Three AF conclusions are cited by VA in their post and both the VA and AF have twisted scientific FACTS 180 degrees to deny the truth - aircrews WERE indeed exposed! (see their points below):

1. There indeed wasn't enough information or data to conclude how much any individual was exposed, but that cannot truthfully be used to deny that any of us were actually exposed. The lack of abundant data cannot be used to disprove a hypothesis when there is ample data indicating the certainty of exposure
2. Exposure in these aircraft was certainly more intense during Vietnam, and Ranch Hand aircrews were more greatly exposed, but this point cannot be used to create the false impression that post-Vietnam aircrews weren't also exposed - according to experts and testing data over the years, crews were exposed at a level greatly exceeding exposure by ground forces during the war
3. All evidence points to the fact that aircrews and maintenance personnel were indeed exposed to Agent Orange (TCDD) at an unsafe level, according to the CDC/Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry

Conclusion: VA Public Health is dedicated to preventing C-123 veterans' Agent Orange exposure claims, and to preventing any vet's case-by-case evaluation which may introduce the truth!

Here is the VA Internet post of 20 June which incorporates mistakes from the AF Report:

Some Veterans who were crew members on C-123 Provider aircraft, formerly used to spray Agent Orange during the Vietnam War, have raised health concerns about exposure to residual amounts of herbicides on the plane surfaces.

VA’s Office of Public Health thoroughly reviewed all available scientific information regarding the exposure potential. We concluded that the potential of long-term health effects for the post-Vietnam crews that flew or maintained these planes was extremely low and therefore, the risk of long-term health effects is minimal.

Testing for Agent Orange residue on planes used in Vietnam

The U.S. Air Force (USAF) collected and analyzed numerous samples from C-123 aircraft to test for Agent Orange. USAF's recent risk assessment report (April 27, 2012) (2.3 MB, PDF) found that potential exposures to Agent Orange in C-123 planes used after the Vietnam War were unlikely to have put aircrew or passengers at risk for future health problems. The report’s three conclusions:

1. There was not enough information and data to conclude how much individual persons would have been exposed to Agent Orange.

2.   It is expected that exposure to Agent Orange in these aircraft after the Vietnam War was lower than exposure during the spraying missions in Vietnam.

3.  Potential Agent Orange exposures were unlikely to have exceeded standards set by regulators or to have put people at risk for future health problems.

How Veterans may have been exposed

During the Vietnam War, the U.S. Air Force used C-123 aircraft to spray Agent Orange to clear jungles that provided enemy cover in Vietnam. At the end of the spraying campaign in 1971, the remaining C-123 planes were reassigned to reserve units in the U.S. for routine cargo and medical evacuation missions spanning the next 10 years.

Crew members aboard one of these post-Vietnam C-123 planes reported smelling strong odors, which raised concerns about Agent Orange exposure – but Agent Orange is odorless. These odors may have come from various chemicals associated with aircraft.

Health effects of Agent Orange residue

The health effects of exposure to Agent Orange residue on airplanes differ from direct contact with liquid Agent Orange. In liquid or spray form, Agent Orange can enter the body through inhalation or ingestion (such as hand-to-mouth contact or getting into food). But in the dry form – for example, adhered to a surface – Agent Orange residue cannot be inhaled or absorbed through the skin, and would be difficult to ingest.

The potential for health effects depends on the amount of Agent Orange present, as well as its ability to enter the body. After reviewing available scientific reports, VA has concluded that the exposure potential in these planes was extremely low and therefore, the risk of long-term health effects is minimal. Even if crew exposure did occur, it is unlikely that sufficient amounts of dried Agent Orange residue could have entered the body to have caused harm.

Research studies on Agent Orange

Research on the health effects of Agent Orange has been extensive and it continues. Diverse populations have been studied, including herbicide sprayers and manufacturers, other Vietnam-era Veterans, and those exposed during industrial accidents. This information helps us to determine what potential health effects may be related to different levels of exposure.

Find out more about research on health effects of Agent Orange.

VA benefits

If you have health concerns about Agent Orange, talk to your health care provider or local VA Environmental Health Coordinator.

Veterans not enrolled in the VA health care system, find out if you qualify for VA health care.

Although the risk of long-term health problems from exposure to Agent Orange residue on post-Vietnam C-123 airplanes is minimal, Veterans who believe they have exposure-related health problems may file a claim for disability compensation. These claims will be decided on a case-by-case basis.

Rest in Peace - Roy Menard

Our brother-in-arms, Roy Menard, gone today from his family, his friends and his nation. From Andy Lown:

 

Roy lost his battle with cancer this morning at 0300 hrs.  He was a dear friend and comrade to all of us.  He will be missed for his war stories, upbeat attitude, and his willingness to take the shirt off his back to help anyone in need.

There is no info available as to funeral arrangements at this time.  I will update when that info is available.

Andy