Tinnitus: A Frequent Disability of C-123 Veterans. Should You File a Claim?

Yes. Absolutely submit a VA disability claim!

"It's a fact aircrews know well. Service members who work in and around aircraft are more likely to suffer hearing deficits!" (VA publication)

Aircrew duty in a C-123, C-130 and other military aircraft frequently causes (or worsens) hearing loss and/or ringing in the ears (tinnitus.) Hearing loss is the most common disability claimed by veterans and it is serious. Hearing loss and tinnitus is usually permanent, cumulative, and worsens with aging well past the years of your military service.

When a veteran submits a claim, the VA arranges a hearing test (a "Compensation and Pension Exam.") Then, if the problem meets VA standards, the vet is granted a disability rating, typically ten percent. In 2024 that's about $171 per month, tax-free, for the rest of your life. They also provide medical care with free audiology exams and high-end hearing aids if required. The compensation dates from the day VA receives a claim, so it makes sense to apply immediately if you believe you have the problem. Claims can be submitted on-line or by mail. Major veterans organizations such as DAV, VFW and the American Legion offer free claims assistance, as do all state veterans service departments and most counties.

It is important to know hearing problems can also lead to other, even more serious disabilities. The VA considers these "secondary conditions." Linking these secondary conditions to the initial hearing loss disability can lead to an increased overall disability rating, vital VA medical care for those problems and  greater monthly compensation.

Example: My college roommate had an incident during Army Reserve basic training in 1969 which affected his hearing and was documented. However, that documentation was misfiled into his dental records. Over the years following military service the hearing loss increased greatly and he was convinced (he resisted years of my urging!)  to submit a VA disability claim. He was initially granted a 30% disability rating due to the severity of the hearing problem but his secondary condition of depression related to hearing loss lead to a 100% total disability rating. He initially received a check for around $32,000 and qualified for full federal and state veterans benefits, something Reservists and National Guard personnel don't usually qualify for without active duty service.

This was a significant financial benefit, much needed in his situation. I referred him to Katrina Eagle, an experienced veterans attorney who discovered the "lost" Army documentation for the original 1969 hearing injury, and she convinced the VA to make this veteran's 100% disability rating retroactive - to 1969! The final check for that backdated VA compensation was well over $100,000.

That was certainly an unusual situation, but secondary conditions are important for the VA to address, both in medical care and compensation. Let's look at hearing injury secondary conditions:

Secondary Conditions Related to Aviation Tinnitus or Hearing Loss:

Migraine Headache Conditions Secondary to Tinnitus or Hearing Loss: (continued below)

Westover Maintainer Wins C-123 Orange Award & 12 months of retroactive benefits!

March was a lucky month for one 439th maintainer, a C-123 veteran whose claim for Agent Orange-related diabetes was granted back in 2015 BUT who wisely pressed further.

His persistence was recognized in January by the VA Board of Veterans Appeals. In Citation A21006352 BVA backdated his claim by a year and gave him twelve more months of retroactive compensation.

You might remember that VA granted C-123 vets our Agent Orange presumptive benefits in June 2015. The legal process was called a "liberalizing regulation," and ordinarily there is no retroactive compensation possible for claims ...almost all C-123 claims date from June 19 2015 on.

But not our happy maintainer! He took advantage of VA making a "clear and unmistakeable error" in his initial claim, and often when a CUE is involved, many date restrictions are waived in the interest of fairness to the veteran. 

Here's the judge's reasoning about the diabetes, the C-123 and the disability claim:

When C-123 related exposure occurs during reserve or guard service during a period of non-active duty, the effective date is June 19, 2015, the date 38 C.F.R. § 3.307 (a)(6)(v) became effective, which is what allows VA to consider C-123 related herbicide exposure as an “injury” thereby allowing service connection.  The law under 38 C.F.R. § 3.307 states an individual who performed service in the Air Force or Air Force Reserve under circumstances in which the individual concerned regularly and repeatedly operated, maintained, or served onboard C-123 aircraft known to have been used to spray an herbicide agent during the Vietnam era shall be presumed to have been exposed during such service to an herbicide agent.  For purposes of this paragraph, “regularly and repeatedly operated, maintained, or served onboard C-123 aircraft” means that the individual was assigned to an Air Force or Air Force Reserve squadron when the squadron was permanently assigned one of the affected aircraft and the individual had an Air Force Specialty Code indicating duties as a flight, ground maintenance, or medical crew member on such aircraft. Such exposure constitutes an injury under 38 U.S.C. § 101 (24)(B) and (C). If an individual described in this paragraph develops a disease listed in 38 C.F.R. § 3.309 (e) as specified in paragraph (a)(6)(ii) of this section, it will be presumed that the individual concerned became disabled during that service for purposes of establishing that the individual served in the active military, naval, or air service.

When C-123 related herbicide exposure occurs during a period of active duty, regular effective date rules apply under 38 C.F.R. § 3.400, because herbicide exposure is being conceded and applied under 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.6, 3.309 (a), and 3.307 (a)(6)(iii) & (iv).  

In the October 2015 rating decision, the RO recognized the Veteran’s exposure to C123K aircraft while stationed at Westover Air Force Base as part of the 439th Tactical Airlift Wing and working as an aircraft maintenance specialist in the Air Force Reserves from July 18, 1979 through September 3, 1981, based on military personnel records.  However, the RO erroneously failed to apply 38 C.F.R. § 3.400 (b)(2)(ii), which provides the effective date is the date entitlement arose, if claim is received within 1 year after separation from active duty; otherwise date of receipt of claim, or date entitlement arose, whichever is later.  

A review of the evidence of record reflects that on February 24, 2014, the Veteran filed both a formal claim for service connection for diabetes mellitus due to Agent Orange exposure.  Military personnel records added to the Veteran’s claims file in March 2014 reflect that the Veteran was assigned to 436th Original Maintenance Squad as an aircraft mechanic during his military service.  An April 2013 VA examination report reflects a diagnosis of diabetes mellitus, which was confirmed in November 2013. See Capri, June 2013; Medical Treatment Record-Non-Government Facility, February 2014.  Additionally, the evidence of record contained documentation, provided by the Veteran, showing contaminated C-123 located at Westover AFB being worked on by servicemembers assigned to 439th. 

It is undebatable, that at the time of the October 2015 rating decision, 38 C.F.R. § 3.400 (b)(2)(ii) was applicable and the regulation providing a presumption of exposure to herbicide was in effect.  

The correct facts, as they were known at the time, were before the RO in October 2015, the regulatory provision then extant was not applied, and the failure to correctly apply the regulation manifestly changed the outcome of the October rating decision.  This is not a case of a claim for retroactive benefits but rather the direct application of regulations in effect and evidence of record at the time of the decision.  The criteria for service connection was satisfied.  The record had evidence of a diagnosis of diabetes in April 2013, and the regulation establishing the presumption of exposure which established an injury during Reserve duty that is presumed to have been caused by that exposure.  

The Board finds that the clear and unmistakable error of law committed by the RO in the October 2015 rating decision, compels the conclusion, to which reasonable minds could not differ, that the result would have been manifestly different had the error not been made and the effective date of February 24, 2014 (the date VA received the claim) would have been assigned.  Therefore, the Veteran’s request for revision is granted and the October 2015 rating decision is revised to reflect an earlier effective date of February 24, 2014 for the grant of service connection for diabetes mellitus II associated with herbicide exposure. 

 

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 DECEPTIONS USED TO DENY C-123 AGENT ORANGE CLAIMS, 2011-2015

   Every C-123 Agent Orange claim ever submitted was denied until June 2015, but still, VA insisted it had no blanket denial policy. How else are ten years of 100% denials described? With instructions like the examples below, there clearly was an official blanket denial policy. This denied Due Process, misled Congress when it tried to help us, ignored VAM21-1MR and provisions of US statutes and Federal Regulations. It was deceptive and an amazing abuse of discretion.

    Look at the following list of promises of case-by-case consideration. All of them, however earnestly offered, are shown to be false in the memo authored by VBA's Agent Orange expert, Mr. James Sampsel. He wrote, "If we were to adopt a case-by-case plan, an additional problem would be how to determine whether a particular post-Vietnam C-123 crew member was flying stateside on a former Ranch Hand aircraft." 

    See the point? He's discussing VA adopting a case-by-case plan, making it clear VA never had one! Why? Because VBA wanted to avoid the "slippery slope" his memo warned of.

VA has the means to punish veterans making false claims, but veterans have nothing except outrage to deal with VA's abuse of discretion and false promises.

      – FALSE VA PROMISES OF PROPER C-123 CLAIMS  –

"Scouts' Honor?"

• "All claims are considered on a case-by-case basis." – former Secretary Shinseki

• "All claims considered on case-by-case basis." – Under Secretary Hickey

• "All claims are evaluated on a case-by-case basis." – VA Office of General Counsel

• "All claims are considered on a case-by-case basis." – VA Deputy Chief Consultant Post-Deployment Health

• "Claims accepted and reviewed on case-by-case basis." – Federal Register (VA per Dr. Terry Walters), May 11, 2011, December 26, 2012, May 23, 2014

• "Makes a case-by-case determination..." – VA Office of General Counsel

• "Evaluations...conducted on a case-by-case basis." – VA response to Senate Veterans Affairs Committee

• "VA decides these claims on a case-by-case basis." – VA C-123 Agent Orange web page

• "These claims will be decided on a “case-by-case basis" – VA Agent Orange consultant

• "All claims are evaluated on a case-by-case basis.” – VBA Director Compensation & Pension Service

    • "Claims are evaluated on a case-by-case basis." – VA Public Affairs

   – FALSE EXCUSES VA CITED TO DENY C-123 CLAIMS –

"I cannot tell a lie!...except about C-123s"

     VBA informed regional offices how to deny all claims, and when ROs asked CS for they were told how to deny C-123 claims (VBA and VHA leaders made similar statements.)
     Every one of these was eventually shown to be in error, yet VA has never made right the harm done affected veterans.

•  "Therefore, there was no exposure"

• "We have to draw the line somewhere" 

•  "VA has an overwhelming preponderance of evidence against exposure"

• "Comp Svc has never had a policy of supporting such "remote" or  "secondary" AO exposure"

•  “VHA has already informed CS that no C-123 exposure claims will be approved because there was no exposure” (Mr. Tom Murphy to Wes Carter and Major Marlene Wentworth, NC USAF on 28 Feb 2013, in his office)

•   "No amount of proof from whatever source will permit a C-123 claim approval. Because we've already determined there was no exposure." (Dr. Mike Peterson VHA to Wes Carter and Mr. Brooks Tucker [Senator Burr's staff] at Senate Hart Building meeting, May 2012)

•  "TCDD in post-Vietnam C-123s cannot be absorbed by the human body in any significant amounts and there is no scientific evidence for long-term health effects from such 'exposure' "

•   "Preponderance of scientific evidence does not support TCDD “exposure” in post-Vietnam aircraft and VA laws and policy do not generally support service connection on this basis"

•   "VHA and independent scientists have stated that this solidified TCDD could not be absorbed by the human body and could not cause long-term health effects"

•   "There is no legal basis for providing this disability benefit and insufficient scientific evidence to establish long-term health effects from any such 'remote' exposure"

•  "VA does not recognize such 'secondary' or 'remote' exposure to Agent Orange"

•  "VA regulations do not allow us to concede exposure to herbicides for Veteran's who claim they were exposed to herbicides after the Vietnam war while flying in aircraft used to spray these chemicals"

•  "Evidence was found not to be competent and sufficient in this case to establish a link or nexus between your medical condition and military service or to establish that such a link has been found by a medical professional

•  "No 'presumption' or 'acknowledgment' of exposure to AO based on indirect, secondary, or remote contact with aircraft or equipment previously used in Vietnam"

• "The majority of scientists on record, including those with VHA, state that any solidified TCDD in post-Vietnam aircraft is not active in the environment and cannot biologically enter the human body in any significant amount; therefore no TCDD 'exposure' "

•  "VHA's medical expertise on lack of evidence for long-term health effects speculative evidence for "high levels" of exposure from his supporters (CDC/ATSDR, NIH, USPHS, NIEHS, Committee of Concerned Scientists & Physicians) who are not qualified to provide the medical nexus"

•  "The potential for exposure to Agent Orange and TCDD and subsequent development of any adverse health effects from flying in potentially contaminated C-123 aircraft years after the Vietnam War is essentially zero.

•  “C-123 vets are 'Trash-haulers. Freeloaders looking for a tax-free dollar. I have no respect.'"

• "The potential for exposure to TCDD and subsequent development of any adverse health effects from flying in potentially contaminated C-123 aircraft years after the Vietnam War is essentially nonexistent. As a result, there is no scientific basis for VA to establish the  presumption of Agent Orange exposure among this group of Veterans."

• “The overwhelming preponderance of evidence is against such exposures, including a VHA website specifically stating such exposure could not have occurred” 

•  “Please tell veteran. "We are unable to verify or document that aircrew members were exposed to Agent Orange, resulting from Agent Orange residue or dioxin-contaminated aircraft or aircraft parts. Although residual TCDD. the toxic substance in Agent Orange, may be detected in C-123 aircraft by sophisticated laboratory techniques many years after its use, the Office of Public Health concluded that the existing scientific studies and reports support a low probability that TCDD was biologically available in these aircraft. “Therefore, the potential for exposure to TCDD from flying or working in contaminated C-123 aircraft years after the Vietnam War is unlikely to have occurred at levels that could affect health."

• “Veteran failed to prove his airplanes were the ones used in Vietnam

• “There is (no) evidence of exposure to herbicides during military service.”

•  "The C-123 veterans are not currently eligible for compensation"

•  "There was no exposure. (Consultant representing VA at June 2014 IOM C-123 hearing)

• "Current scientific review indicates that any residual herbicide in the post-Vietnam C-123s cannot be absorbed by the human body or cause long-term health effects."

•  "VA laws and policies related to Agent Orange exposure, whether presumptive or based on fact-found evidence, address exposure contact that occurs during the actual spraying or handling of the dioxin-containing liquid herbicide"*


• "TCDD is believed to persist in the metallic (or painted) environment with the lack of direct sunlight; however, its exposure risk is low due to lack of bioavailability and possible routes of exposure."

• "Therefore, it can be concluded that crews who worked on C-123 aircraft after they were used in the Vietnam War were not at risk of developing TCDD/Agent Orange-related health effects"

• "The scientific evidence available to establish a medical nexus in these cases is limited and the VA Office of Public Health has provided a medical opinion that it is insufficient to establish the required nexus. While your letter**focuses on the issue of potential dioxin exposure, it does not offer an opinion on the medical nexus issue nor does it address the potential for long-term health effects or disabilities resulting from service on the post-Vietnam C-123 aircraft."

    –––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

* Liquid Agent Orange only? A novel concept, but an outrageous one in toxicology. Agent Orange and its contaminant TCDD are deadly as a liquid, gas, solid or anything in between. The IOM concluded that, despite VA's "liquid" slight-of-hand. C-123 veterans were exposed via dermal, inhalation and ingestion routes of exposure.
** Mr. Murphy references the letter to Secretary Hickey from the Committee of Concerned Scientists and Physicians, which sought to satisfy the legal and scientific requirements for veterans' Agent Orange benefits per 38 USC and the VA's three eligibility statements in the Federal Register, i.e. exposure alone.

    ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

• Here is VA's first position statement from April 2011 addressing C-123 exposure inquiries. 

• The first point is correct: at that time, only Vietnam veterans had "presumptive exposure." The law was that other claimants would have to prove exposure on a fact-proven basis as we proceeded to do.

• The next four VA points were either disproved by the IOM or, with the third point, clearly CUE.

Veterans' Rights Violated – VA Ignored Veterans Claims Assistance Act of 2000

VA stalled my claims for five years, then closed them all without explanation!

 Ultimately, “[t]he government’s interest in veterans cases is not that it shall win, but rather that justice shall be done, that all veterans so entitled receive the benefits due to them.” Barrett v. Nicholson, 466 F.3d 1038, 1044 (Fed.Cir.2006).

There's a law for that but too often VA ignores it, breaching the government's duty to claimants. For the veteran it can be a great loss, but for the VA, it is never a problem when that law is violated. Specifically, the law is the Veterans Claims Assistance Act of 2000 (VCAA.) It reinforced and detailed a range of pro-veteran steps the VA must take to assist a claimant or appellant for VA benefits.

Key is the law's requirement that VA disability claims system be non-adversarial and pro-veteran. Congress has imposed on VA a duty to assist claimants. VA is required to notify a claimant of what information is required to obtain an award of the benefits requested. One significant part of the law imposes on VA the duty to obtain a veteran’s service records, service medical records, VA treatment records, and any other government records (such as Social Security Administration records) that reasonably may contain information supporting the claim. These duties on VA are supposed to significantly ease the burden on veterans in assembling the evidence needed to support a claim.

At least, that's the law. In practice, it's a law the VA obeys or violates at its pleasure. Abusing a veteran's VCAA rights and prejudicial errors per 38 U.S.C. § 7261(b)(2) also directly abuses rights under the US Constitution's Fifth Amendment and the Due Process Clause. Veterans and other citizens must obey laws or endure consequences. Violate a law, and once faces civil penalties, fines, loss of property, loss of civil liberties, imprisonment.

For VA and its officials, however, violating the Veterans Claims Assistance Act of 2000 carried no such penalties. When VA, in wrongly opposing a veteran, is slapped down by a Board of Veterans Appeals ALJ or the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, all that happens is punishment of the veteran! The worst thing for VA is a nasty comment from BVA or a CAVC judge. This is because when VA violates a veteran's rights under VCAA, rather than the vet's claim being corrected for VA's errors the claim is "remanded," – simply left unresolved and sent back to the same VA staffers who committed the violation to start the claims process all over again with a three to five year wait wasted.

So the veteran ends up "punished" by the claim being delayed yet further when the VA abuses the VCAA. There are no penalties for VA or its folks who deliberately failed the veteran. In fact, the VA actually benefits by delaying any medical care or other benefits. It denies or at least postpones paying any disability compensation, and it keeps veterans out of VA hospitals which helps keep existing appointment lines shorter.

In the case of C-123 veterans, VA ignores the VCAA, creating an adversarial rather than the statutory non-adversarial process, following the requirements of the law when and if it wanted to. Generally, VA has helped locate Social Security records (although it twice lost mine.) It generally locates service medical records (although it ignores mine from Bethesda Naval Hospital.) VA generally locates and acts on military service records (although it ignored my line-of-duty determinations, ignored details on my separation physical, and ignored both medical and military details on my PEB hearing, and ignored details of my Air Force Board of Correction of Military Records.)

But that's just me. VA also abused the VCAA rights of every other C-123 veteran. Their abuse cost us four years delay in getting our veterans into VA hospitals and able to use other VA benefits, such as CHAMPVA family medical care, nursing home, primary care, pharmacy, dental, audiology, prosthetics, survivor benefits and other vital services. Veterans pay the price for VA's abuse of us, but VA and its staffers have absolutely no consequences at all.

And in the weirdest setback concluding the entire claim process for me, last week (June 2016) the VA denied my 2012 claim for Gulf War issues (all veterans claims for Gulf War issues are denied) and somehow closed every other claim. No denial, no remand, no action of any sort!

VA hasn't acted to honor its statutory duty to assist, and operate in a pro-veteran, non-adversarial manner with a low threshold for the burden of proof. Here's how VA ignores the VCAA.

How VA violated VCAA and trashed C-123 veterans' rights:

I. The worst violations were VA's determined avoidance of official input from the DOD Joint Services Records Research Center (JSRRC) and suppression of that input for two years for two years after receipt. JSRRC informed VA's JSRRC Coordinator (Mr. James Sampsel) in March 2013 that the government had official records confirming C-123 veterans' Agent Orange exposures. Among other records, JSRRC provided Air Force and Center for Disease Control/Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry reports identifying the C-123's as "heavily contaminated with dioxin on all test surfaces" and "a danger to public health." The ATSDR's director informed JSRRC that C-123 veterans experienced a 200-fold greater cancer risk...but VA's JSRRC coordinator sat on these official government records for two years.

For two years VA blithely ignored the VCAA and doomed claims at the regional VA offices as well as claims appealed to the Board of Veterans Appeals. Withholding official government records directly abused veterans' rights under VCAA. No problem at all for VA, however a big problem for veterans who were forbidden VA medical care merely because of the preferences of VA staffers. VA has a duty to adhere to VAM21-1MR or invite CUE  (evidentiary development procedures provided in the Adjudication Procedure Manual are binding.  See Patton v. West, 12 Vet. App. 272, 282  [1999].)

Below is VBA's Agent Orange Desk explaining to other VA staff why VA opted to ignore JSRRC proof of C-123 claims, although no mention is made of why VA kept the evidence from claimants and the BVA considering such issues. Apparently a point was made that VA would only accept JSRRC reports which referenced military documents. No mention was made of VA having rejected Rear Admiral R. Ikeda (MD USPHS) and Captain A. Miller (MD USPHS) input, which was military because USPHS commissioned officers are by statute military officers. Further, VA regulations describe JSRRC as inputting to VA relevant "primary" evidence, not just evidence selected by the Agent Orange desk.

In this case, it was not USPHS evidence, but appropriately USPHS expert analysis of contemporary (1979-2010) military toxicology reports. As Admiral Ikeda was then Acting Director CDC/Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, such input seems both accurate and relevant, as well as military in nature. The question screams out..."how much proof does the Agent Orange desk demand to permit 'benefit of the doubt? Why set uniquely high standards for C-123 claims, rejecting JSRRC, DOD, CDC, NIH, USPHS, dozens of physicians and scientists, university researchers and VA physicians?'

II. Rather than be non-adversarial and even-handed in evaluating exposure claims per the law, VBA issued a 2012-2014 $600,000 no-bid sole source contract for monographs supporting VHA and VBA current policies and perspectives on herbicide exposures. That consultant's largest single target was C-123 veterans' hopes with the Institute of Medicine C-123 committee. VA spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on its favored outside consultant specifically for his coaching against and targeting of C-123 veterans' exposure proofs.

There were no studies allowed to support C-123 veterans' scientific position (we asked VBA for funding to prepare a pro-C-123 study but they didn't respond.) Veterans never could have funded the research provided pro bono by Columbia University, Oregon Health Sciences University, University of Texas Medical School and the many federal agencies like CDC.

All expert input supporting the C-123 veterans' scientific argument was unpaid – besides, the veterans had no source of funding and didn't spend a penny to counter the government's hundreds of thousands of dollars. VA wouldn’t even make copies of documents the C-123 chairman was asked by IOM to provide the committee. On the other hand, all input used by VA to obstruct the C-123 veterans was paid either by VA, Dow or Monsanto. When peer-reviewed articles were published confirming the veterans' exposures, VA immediately opposed their findings.

The scientists and physicians in Veterans Health Administration represent a huge body of knowledge, skill and talent, none of which came to help us. They followed their company line, which was “No!” Agent Orange claims. All of those experts opposed C-123 veterans' service connection. They must have seen the totality of the evidence and realized there was no "overwhelming preponderance of evidence" against us, but more likely, for us. It is easy to look at the past four years and see that these professionals should have established service connection for C-123 veterans within existing law and science. The law sets a low threshold of proof for veterans, but no amount of proof would make VBA honor our claims (as Mr. Murphy confirmed at his office on 28 Feb 2013.)

• Some of the many adversarial studies funded by VBA to oppose veterans were titled:
A. "Discussion Points Supporting Compensation Services' UC-123K Claims"
B.  "Investigations into the Allegations Concerning 2-4-5-T Herbicide"
C. "Investigative Report: Assessment of New Information on the Former UC-123Ks Post-Vietnam Issue"
D.  "Investigations into the Allegations of Agent Orange/Dioxin Exposure from Former Ranch Hand Aircraft"
E. "Supplement to Investigative Report: New Information on Former UC-123K Post-Vietnam Issue"
F. "Al Young Letter to Acting Secretary Gibson requesting reversal of IOM report conclusions"
G. "Al Young Letter to Dr. Mary Paxton, Institute of Medicine C-123 Committee Staff Director arguing scientific failure of committee report"
H. "Al Young Letter to Dr. Terra Irons to answer questions put to VA by Institute of Medicine C-123 committee."
• Some of the studies or efforts by VA to consider possible merit to the veterans' claims:
Oh...there weren't any. VA permitted no such effort. Actually, there was one, the IOM C-123 report. Although VA argued hard and spent huge funds against the veterans through its proxy consultant, IOM, contracted with VA's hopes of finally blocking C-123 claims, instead independently concluded VA had been wrong all along and veterans had been correct all along. The real preponderance of evidence agreed with the C-123 veterans.

VA only sought material to oppose C-123 veterans. VA only recognized material if useful by VA against C-123 veterans. Nearly all material VA had was paid for by VA. Everything supporting C-123 veterans was from other federal and state agencies, and physicians and scientists without any compensation for their input. VA bought input tailored to oppose the veterans or otherwise accepted it from the chemical industry. Veterans didn't buy evidence tailored to their objectives and never had funds to do so anyway. While the VA's consultant frequently referred to his monographs as "peer reviewed" there were not, as it is not acceptable for a researcher or author to select the reviewers himself. Peer reviewers should be objective, independent and not laymen or experts pre-selected by the author.

VA deliberately avoided uncovering or acknowledging any evidence or support for C-123 veterans. Their web pages discussing the C-123 investigation fail to mention a single resource not pre-selected to meet VA's policy objective. VA characterized all pro-C-123 exposure evidence as unacceptable because it conflicted with VA's predetermined policy objectives. Nearly all outside input VA sought was from its Agent Orange consultant, who previously also consulted with Dow Chemical against Vietnam Veterans' exposure claims, and two other scientists paid by Dow and Monsanto specifically to opine against C-123 exposures.

VBA's consultant also appeared as VA's proxy at the June 16 2014 IOM C-123 committee hearing to oppose the veterans' position. Without mention of his VA contract, nor the coordination of his IOM presentation and materials with VA, nor his role in 2009 recommending destruction of the C-123 fleet as toxic waste, he was an extremely authoritative and long-term dedicated opponent of all Agent Orange claims.

III. Acting in bad faith and utilizing resources known to be flawed in order to oppose veterans' claims, VA used without updating and correction the 2006 DOD Agent Orange site report used by VA to verify veterans' claims for non-Vietnam exposures. When a servicemember claims to have been exposed outside Vietnam, VBA checks against the DOD list and approves or denies the application.

The problem is the DOD list is seven years old, yet VA cites it in VARO decisions, and BVA cites it in appeals. It is fundamentally wrong for a government agency to permit use of a reference they know to be inaccurate. VA and DOD have rejected numerous entreaties by the C-123 Veterans Association to update their lists.

How does VA know the DOD list is unreliable? Because the list author himself, Dr. Al Young, prepared it for DOD in 2006 and then in 2013 proposed a contract for correcting identified errors and general updating. Nonetheless, VA approves or denies disability claims based on this terribly flawed document. It is as unacceptable error on VA's part.

Thus, VA violates the VCAA by knowingly deciding claims on flawed evidence, a "clear and unmistakable error."

From the first page of the consultant's report, "Investigations into Sites Where Agent Orange Exposure to Vietnam-era Veterans Has Been Alleged."

IV. Violating its duty to assist as well as performing in an anti-veteran manner, VBA opposed C-123 claims citing potential difficulty verifying aircrew or maintenance veterans' duty aboard specific former Agent Orange spray aircraft. Actually, this information was provided VA in 2011 by Headquarters Air Force Reserve Command and also by the Air Force Historical Records Agency. In any case, VBA in the spring of 2015 was able to identify eligible veterans by cooperating with other agencies such as Social Security and the Air Force

V.VBA and VHA orders to regional claims offices to deny C-123 disability claims violated VCAA by inappropriate guidance to those offices, and failure thereby to notify veterans of evidence needed to establish a claim. Specifically, veterans were not informed of proofs needed to overcome VHA and VHA's order to deny C-123 claims.

Further, VHA and VBA were proven wrong in their science since C-123 claims were first denied in 2007. As the Institute of Medicine C-123 report concluded, the aircraft were contaminated and the veterans were exposed and harmed. There was no new science behind the IOM conclusion but rather the proper interpretation of existing material. VA was simply wrong in its leap to construct unscientific arguments to block C-123 claims and was obviously anti-veteran and adversarial. By October 2011 VA had in-hand virtually all materials eventually found to be so persuasive by IOM in 2015 – VA should have been processing claims on a fact-proven basis from October 2011 on.

The proper VCAA pro-veteran approach should have been, if serious question existed as to the scientific foundation of the veteran's claims, to approve all applications until the science made clear the issue one way or the other. This is especially true considering the affirmation provided by ATSDR, NIH, US Public Health Service and the DOD JSRRC report in March 2013. VA clung to every possible negative interpretation it could devise and refused to admit an overwhelming body of evidence proving VA wrong...at the very least all that evidence introduced the "benefit of the doubt" which VA violated, despite the VCAA.

VI. VA has never permitted consideration of the possibility C-123 veterans might have been exposed.; no VA document released under FOIA questioned VA's consistent opposition to veterans or questioned whether the veterans might be correct. VA's adversarial as well as anti-veteran approach is quite clear and violated VCAA. Beginning with opposition to C-123 veterans VA never wavered.

VII. VA has never admitted locating any evidence supporting C-123 claims was ever identified by VA. Rejecting everything it disagreed with, VA was unscientific, and prejudicial in the extreme with blinders on regarding any contrary input.

VA denigrated every scientific and medical expert opinion supporting C-123 veterans as unpersuasive, lacking authority. Every scientist's input, even that from CDC and the National Institutes of Health as well as subject matter experts VA and IOM had previously relied upon, was immediately dismissed by VBA. VBA insisted its scientists were far more credible than experts who might not agree with them. VA insisted that its experts concluded that all evidence and expert input supporting veterans' claims of having been exposed to Agent Orange failed to create an element of doubt in favor of the veterans' claims.

"Overwhelming preponderance of evidence" is how VBA quite inaccurately described the VA's position against veterans. Four years of VA opposing C-123 claims eventually made perfectly clear that no matter how substantial the veterans' evidence and how unsubstantial the VA's, VA's was automatically but falsely characterized as an overwhelming preponderance of evidence.

VIII. VA created an in-house, novel and unscientific (per NIEHS) redefinition of "exposure" attempting to disqualify veterans' exposure claims. VHA's Public Health/Post Deployment Section redefined exposure to be "exposure = contamination field + bioavailability." This was introduced as a line in VHA's 2012 Society of Toxicology poster displays.

The redefinition was in contrast to standard definitions used elsewhere in VA, by the CDC, NIH and other authorities. It was even in contrast with VA's standard reference for definitions, Dorlands Illustrated Medical Dictionary.

VHA overlooked the fact that unique, home-made scientific definitions aren't scientific, especially when other federal agencies with statutory authority in the field label VA's exposure definition unscientific. "Whoever invented that certainly is no toxicologist" reported the director of a major federal research program. Veterans were invited by the Society of Toxicology to present a response at its 2014 conference, under sponsorship of the NIEHS.

IX. In a manner similar to VA's rejection of the March 2013 JSRRC exposure confirmation, VA also elected to ignore the expert input of Rear Admiral R. Ikeda, MD US Public Health Service and Acting Director, CDC/ATSDR.  USPHS commissioned officers are military officers, and her concurrence with earlier ATSDR findings of C-123 veterans' Agent Orange exposure was suppressed after its receipt in June 2013. Captain A. Miller, MD US Public Health Service, also submitted an expert medical opinion in March 2013 confirming veterans' exposure but as with all other evidence behind C-123 claims, VA's Agent Orange desk disregarded it and withheld it from VAROs and the BVA. Disregard for and suppression of these two expert military medical opinions was in clear violation of the VCAA.

Conclusion:
Violations of the Veterans Claims Assistance Act of 2000 were numerous and unrelenting. It didn't matter how much evidence supported veterans' exposure claims because VA predetermined it had "an overwhelming preponderance of evidence" regardless of all reason and without any real basis in fact. VA's policy of preventing C-123 exposure claims led it to conceal pro-veteran evidence such as the March 2013 JSRRC confirmation. Suppression of any evidence within the government's possession violated VCAA, and the JSRRC email was critical evidence kept from veterans and the BVA.

VCAA was violated more generally with VA's stubborn resistance to any scientific or medical evidence supporting C-123 veterans' exposure claims. This was anti-veteran and adversarial. This deliberately avoided admitting any benefit of the doubt due veterans.

That VA was wrong in all this is clear from the Institute of Medicine C-123 report to Secretary McDonald. Despite all its money spent to oppose veterans, science spoke louder than specie. Everything C-123 veterans said in 2011, and substantiated with government proofs, was proved valid in the IOM report. The IOM report was based mostly on proofs available to VA since 2011…proofs which should have permitted fact-proven claims except VA had already predetermined all such claims to be denied.

The VCAA failed C-123 veterans. Nothing in it prevented violation of C-123 rights by the VHA Post Deployment Health Section and the VBA Agent Orange desk in the Department of Veterans Affairs. Nothing in the law prescribes a remedy for such abuse of office or prevents its abuse again. The same VA staffers perform the same duties, electing whether to obey or disobey the VCAA.

Only veterans were impacted and only veterans paid the price for VA's campaign against us. Many of us are still barred from VA hospital and refused VA benefits – we are still paying the price.

What materials in government possession have been provided me by VA in meeting its duty under VCAA? NOTHING.