Update on VA use of AFSC codes for C-123 service:

Update on VA use of AFSC codes for C-123 service:

I argued with VA recently about their poor quality collection of eligible AFSCs for establishing C-123 service, and they apparently now will accept an AFSC on their list as well as a specific description of duties involving C-123 contact. They are covering aircrews, maintainers, AME and others. Most importantly, I believe this should help Aerial Port personnel apply and succeed with Agent Orange claims. Let me know.

    WTC

Their letters to/from me:

Sir,

Hello, Dr. Erickson spoke very highly of you and so it was nice to see your email.

BVA actions are a legal review process over which I have no jurisdiction, but I am happy to forward your email and the attachment to VBA and the office that handles Agent Orange related actions. 

I will ask that they review the unit name change from 33rd AES (Pittsburgh) to the 911^th and the occupational codes.  I will also make them aware that Mr. Dominic Baldini at JSRRC is available to address questions as necessary.

Thank you

Pat

V/R

Dr. xxx

Chief Consultant, Post-Deployment Health Services  (10P4Q)

Patient Care Services, 810 Vermont Ave NW, Washington, DC 20420

O: 202-xxx-xxxx

 

VA Motto: ICARE [Integrity-Commitment-Advocacy-Respect-Excellence]

 

From: Wes Carter <
Sent: Saturday, May 23, 2020 9:14 AM
To: Hxxxa R. 
Cc: xxxDomenic A CIV USARMY HQDA OAA AHS (US) <
Subject: [EXTERNAL] CONTINUED DIFFICULTIES RE: C-123 AFSC AND UNITS

 

Dear Dr. Hxxx,

Please forgive another intrusion on an issue involving C-123 veterans. We continue to have BVA claims denied on the basis of veterans having AFSCs not listed, or units not listed, or units which are the same organization but have changed names.

In on case most troubling to me, a widow's 2008 claim continues being denied by VBA and BVA. Her husband's AFSC 90250 (medical technician) is for aeromedical evacuation technician but isn't on the various lists, at least not those used by BVA to deny claims. Her husband's C-123 aeromedical evacuation squadron was the 33rd AES at Pittsburgh, now changed names to the 911th as shown on VA lists but her claim was denied by BVA disregarding that detail.

Once BVA has successfully denied a claim the veteran or survivor is lost unless able to afford an attorney and this woman, living on Social Security, is not so fortunate. 

Five years ago C-123 veterans won Agent Orange benefits. Four years ago I provided expert details to support her claim, and last year her claim was successfully opposed by BVA citing the AFSC and unit name.

I realize this is but one claim but it is a person, one of our veteran's widows and thus particularly important to every Air Force veteran. Please do what you can to invite Mr. Dominic Baldini at JSRRC to update VA on the basis of Air Force documents I've provided him, and do what you can to update BVA on the injustice they do blocking worthwhile claims.

Here is the BVA language used to prevent a claim's approval. Even though the text mentions medical crew members, the claim is denied because no listing of medical crew AFSCs is shown.  Fortunately, some BVA judges are less concerned with using the issue for preventing approvals and realize the problem, thus permitting flight nurses, flight surgeons and aeromedical evacuation technicians' claims to be considered even though not one of their AFSCs is listed.

VA has published a list of military units who had regular and repeated exposure to contaminated Operation Ranch Hand C-123s, used to spray Agent Orange in Vietnam, as flight, maintenance, or medical crew members.  VA has also published a list of specialty codes for military personnel who had regular and repeated exposure to contaminated Operation Ranch Hand C-123s, used to spray Agent Orange in Vietnam, as flight, maintenance, or medical crew members. Those codes for enlisted personnel are flight engineer/aircraft loadmaster (1130-1149), aircrew life support specialist (1220-1229), and aircraft maintenance specialist/flight technicians (4313-4359). Id. 

Thus, to warrant presumptive exposure based on contact with a C-123, a Veteran must have been stationed at one of the identified bases during the specified time period with one of the listed units. The Veteran must also have a military occupational specialty that entailed that he regularly and repeatedly operated, maintained or served onboard C-123 aircraft.

And from another BVA decision:

Can you please bring this to the attention of VA folks able to correct the injustice being done these claimants?

Thank you,

-- 

   Wes Carter

Ten Things Every Veteran Should Know About Agent Orange

(Dr. Loren Erickson is a retired Army physician and VA public health expert.)

1. Agent Orange was a herbicide and defoliant used in Vietnam

Agent Orange was a blend of tactical herbicides the U.S. military sprayed from 1962 to 1971 during the Vietnam War to remove the leaves of trees and other dense tropical foliage that provided enemy cover. The U.S. Department of Defense developed tactical herbicides specifically to be used in “combat operations.” They were not commercial grade herbicides purchased from chemical companies and sent to Vietnam.

More than 19 million gallons of various “rainbow” herbicide combinations were sprayed, but Agent Orange was the combination the U.S. military used most often. The name “Agent Orange” came from the orange identifying stripe used on the 55-gallon drums in which it was stored.

Heavily sprayed areas included forests near the demarcation zone, forests at the junction of the borders of Cambodia, Laos, and South Vietnam, and mangroves on the southernmost peninsula of Vietnam and along shipping channels southeast of Saigon.

2. Any Veteran who served anywhere in Vietnam during the war is presumed to have been exposed to Agent Orange.

For the purposes of VA compensation benefits, Veterans who served anywhere in Vietnam between January 9, 1962 and May 7, 1975 are presumed to have been exposed to herbicides, as specified in theAgent Orange Act of 1991.

These Veterans do not need to show that they were exposed to Agent Orange or other herbicides in order to get disability compensation for diseases related to Agent Orange exposure.

Service in Vietnam means service on land in Vietnam or on the inland waterways (“brown water” Veterans) of Vietnam.

3. VA has linked several diseases and health conditions to Agent Orange exposure.

VA has recognized certain cancers and other health problems as presumptive diseases associated withexposure to Agent Orange or other herbicides during military service. Veterans and their survivors may be eligible for compensation benefits.

• AL Amyloidosis
  A rare disease caused when an abnormal protein, amyloid, enters and collects tissues or organs
• Chronic B-cell Leukemias
  A type of cancer which affects a specific type of white blood cell
• Chloracne (or similar acneform disease)
  A skin condition that occurs soon after exposure to chemicals and looks like common forms of acne seen in teenagers. Under VA’s rating regulations, it must be at least 10 percent disabling within one year of exposure to herbicides.
• Diabetes Mellitus Type 2
  A disease characterized by high blood sugar levels resulting from the body’s inability to produce or respond properly to the hormone insulin
• Hodgkin’s Disease
  A malignant lymphoma (cancer) characterized by progressive enlargement of the lymph nodes, liver, and spleen, and by progressive anemia
• Ischemic Heart Disease
  A disease characterized by a reduced supply of blood to the heart, that can lead to chest pain (angina)
• Multiple Myeloma
  A cancer of plasma cells, a type of white blood cell in bone marrow
• Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma
  A group of cancers that affect the lymph glands and other lymphatic tissue
• Parkinson’s Disease
  A progressive disorder of the nervous system that affects muscle movement
• Peripheral Neuropathy, Early-Onset
  A nervous system condition that causes numbness, tingling, and muscle weakness. Under VA’s rating regulations, it must be at least 10 percent disabling within one year of herbicide exposure.
• Porphyria Cutanea Tarda
  A disorder characterized by liver dysfunction and by thinning and blistering of the skin in sun-exposed areas. Under VA’s rating regulations, it must be at least 10 percent disabling within one year of exposure to herbicides.
• Prostate Cancer
  Cancer of the prostate; one of the most common cancers among older men
• Respiratory Cancers (includes lung cancer)
  Cancers of the lung, larynx, trachea, and bronchus
• Soft Tissue Sarcomas (other than osteosarcoma, chondrosarcoma, Kaposi’s sarcoma, or mesothelioma)
  A specific group of malignant of cancers in body tissues such as muscle, fat, blood and lymph vessels, and connective tissues

4. Veterans who want to be considered for disability compensation must file a claim.

Veterans who want to be considered for disability compensation for health problems related to Agent Orange exposure must file a claim.

During the claims process, VA will check military records to confirm exposure to Agent Orange or qualifying military service. If necessary, VA will set up a separate exam for compensation.

5. VA offers health care benefits for Veterans who may have been exposed to Agent Orange and other herbicides during military service.

Veterans who served in Vietnam between January 9, 1962, and May 7, 1975, are eligible to enroll in VA health care. Visit VA’s health benefits explorer <http://hbexplorer.vacloud.us> to check your eligibility and learn how to apply.

6. Participating in an Agent Orange Registry health exam helps you, other Veterans and VA.

VA’s Agent Orange Registry health exam alerts Veterans to possible long-term health problems that may be related to Agent Orange exposure during their military service. The registry data helps VA understand and respond to these health problems more effectively.

The exam is free to eligible Veterans and enrollment in VA health care is not necessary. Although the findings of your exam may be used to inform your subsequent care, they may not be used when applying for compensation as a separate exam is required. Contact your local VA Environmental Health Coordinator about getting an Agent Orange Registry health exam.

7. VA recognizes and offers support for the children of Veterans affected by Agent Orange who have birth defects.

VA has recognized that certain birth defects among Veterans’ children are associated with Veterans’ qualifying service in Vietnam or Korea.

• Spina bifida (except spina bifida occulta), a defect in the developing fetus that results in incomplete closing of the spine, is associated with Veterans’ exposure to Agent Orange or other herbicides during qualifying service in Vietnam or Korea.
• Birth defects in children of women Veterans are associated with their military service in Vietnam but are not related to herbicide exposure.

The affected child must have been conceived after the Veteran entered Vietnam or the Korean demilitarized zone during the qualifying service period.

Learn more about benefits for Veterans’ children with birth defects. http://www.publichealth.va.gov/exposures/agentorange/benefits/children-birth-defects.asp

8. Vietnam Veterans are not the only Veterans who may have been exposed to Agent Orange.

Agent Orange and other herbicides used in Vietnam were used, tested or stored elsewhere, including some military bases in the United States. Other locations/scenarios in which Veterans were exposed to Agent Orange may include:

• Korean Demilitarized Zone
  Exposure along the demilitarized zone in Korea between April 1, 1968 and August 31, 1971
• Thailand Military Bases
  Possible exposure on or near the perimeters of military bases between February 28, 1961 and May 7, 1975
• Herbicide Tests and Storage Outside Vietnam
  Possible exposure due to herbicide tests and storage at military bases in the United States and locations in other countries
• Agent Orange Residue on Airplanes Used in Vietnam War

Possible exposure of crew members to herbicide residue in c-123 planes flown after the Vietnam War

9. VA continues to conduct research on the long-term health effects of Agent Orange in order to better care for all Veterans.

VA and other Federal government Departments and agencies have conducted, and continue to conduct, extensive research evaluating the health effects of Agent Orange exposure on U.S. Veterans.

An example is the Army Chemical Corps Vietnam-Era Veterans Health Study designed to examine if high blood pressure (hypertension) and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) are related to herbicide exposure during the Vietnam War. Researchers have completed data collection and aim to publish initial findings in a scientific journal in 2015.

Learn more about Agent Orange related studies and their outcomes here:http://www.publichealth.va.gov/exposures/agentorange/research-studies.asp

10. VA contracts with an independent, non-governmental organization to review the scientific and medical information on the health effects of Agent Orange.

VA contracts with the Institute of Medicine (IOM) of the National Academy of Sciences every two years to scientifically review evidence on the long-term health effects of Agent Orange and other herbicides on Vietnam Veterans. The IOM uses a team of nationally renowned subject matter experts from around the country to gather all the scientific literature on a topic, identify peer-reviewed reports, and then examine the studies to determine the most rigorous and applicable studies. The IOM looks for the highest quality studies. The IOM then issues its reports, including its conclusions and recommendations to VA, Congress, and the public.

---

About the author:
Dr. Ralph Erickson is an Army Veteran of the Gulf War (1990-91) and Operation Iraqi Freedom (2003). He retired with 32 + years active-duty service, during which he held a number of leadership positions to include:  Commander of The Walter Reed Army Institute of Research; Command Surgeon, US Central Command; and Director, DoD Global Emerging Infections and Response System (DOD-GEIS). He is a board certified physician in Preventive Medicine and Public Health. He received his medical degree from the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences  (USUHS), Masters of Public Health from Harvard University, and Doctorate of Public Health from Johns Hopkins University.

CALL FOR VOLUNTEERS TO LEAD C-123 VETERANS ASSOCIATION

My time at the stick is over, and crew rest and financial relief desperately sought! I haven't checked but maybe there is even a FAR about too much time on veterans issues by one individual??

Who feels led to offer time and talent for the next year, with our important new objective of working with VA to implement recommendations of the IOM? The worst of the struggle is over – now we find our aircrews and maintenance personnel from all three bases and start getting the word out.

VA will help just in their administrative changes. Web pages, training letters, press releases all will orient claims official, health provider and veteran. The major veterans organizations will all be carrying the news in their magazines and web sites and we on ours. I've asked VA about reaching out through DFAS, ARPC, TREA, ROA, AFA and other authorities and associations. VA's working group, in place since IOM briefed VA on January 8, seems to be their focal point for the many decisions and we need leadership to liaise with them.

I believe we need to stay an informal, funds-free organization welcoming all with a simple request to join us. We do now need to start identifying all who'd like to be members and start a more formal collection of names, their association with the C-123 and how they can document that, illnesses, claims, denials, survivors and whatever else comes to mind in our group's new leadership.

John, Charlie, Andy, Big John, Butler, Arch, Jim, Clancey, Al and Gail, MGB...everyone. Please work this out among yourselves and find us leadership for 2015 and beyond!

Finances. We have nothing in the piggy bank, obviously. I propose we raise voluntary funds of at least $2000 per year for travel expenses, and that really covers only two trips to DC. There will be much work with legislators, VA, military associations and others which will need to keep us busy. Example: my last trip for IOM Jan 6-13 was $1250 and we shouldn't ask our leadership to get soaked for such expenses personally,

The web sites run about $250 a year, and postage maybe $200 now that we don't need to blitz every senator with a $35 350 page 3-ring binder, or solicit interest from reports with one.

Chores, either done by the chairman or delegated to another volunteer:
1. web site and blog entries
2. correspondence with vets, legislators, military associations
3. close contact with VA to insure our needs are met with their program changes
4. PR...keep seeking interest from the press, promoted good coverage about us
5. a couple trips to DC each year; at least one guest appearance at the next annual meeting of the Vietnam Veterans of America and at the American Legion, our two key sponsoring veterans groups
6. I propose a poster display at the 2015 Society of Toxicology and the Association of Military Surgeons of the United States, telling the story of how we were screwed and how things worked out
7. work with the USAF Museum to amend Patches' history to cover our service
8. maintain contact with the Senate minority and majority leaders of the Veterans Affairs Committee
9. consider a more formal, permanent organization structure
10. STRATEGY, STRATEGY, STRATEGY for ongoing "guerrilla" advocacy of our veterans' issues, aka running an effective national campaign on less than pocket change!

Please find us a new chairman! If you want to pass the buck, nominate someone else and we'll crown him/her by popular acclaim!

C-123 Veterans Presentation to Institute of Medicine 16 January 2013

Fellow C-123 Veterans:

Opportunity: Friday I was informed by the Institute of Medicine, Agent Orange Committee (part of the National Academy of Sciences) that C-123 veterans have been scheduled for a brief afternoon presentation to the Committee to discuss C-123 Agent Orange contamination.

Background: Congress set up a process in which the VA must consider findings of the Institute of Medicine regarding Agent Orange issues. While their meeting on 16 January does not directly deal with our airplanes, it is our chance to bring the lingering contamination and the VA's stonewalling of our claims to their very public forum.

Under Secretary Allison Hickey

Many of the scientists who have weighed on to support us are well-known to the Committee. These scientists' letter of 29 November to the VA's Under Secretary for Benefits General Hickey firmly reenforced the basis for our VA claims, in particular the input from Dr. Jeanne Stellman, Professor Emerita at Columbia University's Mailman School of Public Health.

Dr. Stellman has been a firm supporter of C-123 veterans for this past year, ever since her first independent expert review of the many Air Force tests on Patches and other aircraft. Although the young scientists assigned by the VA to refuse our claims have tried to dismiss Dr. Stellman's findings, the Institute of Medicine knows her very, very well. Her work is cited throughout many of their reports, she has appeared as an exert witness many times, and has also been contracted to do many research projects on Agent Orange as used during the Vietnam War. Conclusion: she knows her stuff and blows away the VA's wonks...they just don't know it! Interesting that none of the VA scientists are cited in these reports. On the other hand, Dr. Stellman and the other experts (from other federal agencies as well as numerous universities) are perfectly objective as scientists and physicians, they have studied the C-123 exposure issue, formed their opinions, which are in favor of the veterans, and they defend that position (and us!) mightily. The only possible response from the VA is to ignore the letter, of course. No surprise. One gets the impression the VA respects only those experts employed by them, whose job it is to construct barriers to veterans' claims. 

Request: We need a volunteer speaker!

We continue to seek venues such as this with the IOM to set right our unfortunate situation - we've been exposed and nothing will change that, yet our duty remains getting our veterans essential care for the typical Agent Orange ailments confronting us. Our Association is looking for one of our vets in the Irvine area to represent us at the University of California meeting on January 16, 2013. If we don't find a "volunteer", I'll do it, flying there from Denver where we're vacationing with our kids. If one of you airline-types can still fit onto a jump seat, want to take this on and save me the airfare? I'll do an outline if you wish, and even text the entire presentation - the IOM has offered to print and distribute to the Committee for us, and place it into their conference records.

Let me know...I have to get my flight and hotel reservation if nobody signs up to volunteer.

Christmas suddenly and horribly changed for so many Connecticut families in Newtown. God bless and keep them all. 

Peace.

USAF School of Aerospace Medicine Releases C-123 Agent Orange Letter

The Commander, USAF School of Aerospace Medicine has finally released the long-awaited examination of the C-123 Agent Orange contamination issue and it is totally lackluster! A buck-passer. Actually, a stab in the back of all C-123 veterans! (update: on 18 Jun 2015 VA agreed with the Institute of Medicine that this USAF report was scientifically and mathematically flawed)

The USAFSAM spent several months looking over earlier toxicologist's testing of the C-123 fleet, particularly Patches (Tail #362) which had the most documented contamination by dioxin left over from Operation Ranch Hand in Vietnam. Released by the unit's commander, a physician, no note is made of the individual researchers who worked on the study, unlike most other such reports. 
For our veterans, this is a tremendous disappointment. The errors abound and are certain to be brought up in other forums, particularly the Senate and the VA itself.
Here's our take on the report. First, it is not new science or research, but rather an examination of earlier tests and reports because all the subject aircraft have been destroyed - because they were toxic! The report is written by a physician, not a scientist. If there were professional toxicologists or other scientists, their names were left off the report. Our points are:

1. The report fails to state that the ten years exposure inside the aircraft for the crews would be more harmful than levels of TCDD as detected twelve and 27 years after the airplanes retired - one should assume, though here they did not, that contamination was more intense in the years before authoritative testing was done

2. The report does give some wiggle room, if they'd use it, for the VA and the IOM to provide benefit of the doubt for crews. In the Blue Water Navy situation the VA went with the IOM simply because of the IOM statement that sailor's exposure couldn't be ruled out - here, the contamination is confirmed but a misleading conclusion invented out of the true facts to offer a pretense that exposure, miraculously, wasn't likely to be damaging in the long-term. This will be interesting news to the world's toxicologists!

3. Great weight is given the results of the 2009 tests conducted at Davis-Monthan, yet the author of that report told veterans that no conclusions should be drawn regarding dioxin exposure from his data. Further, even those tests confirm TCDD presence - 27 years after the aircraft were stored in the Arizona desert. Again, one reasonable conclusion would be that those 27 years in storage, preceded by ten years of our flying, allowed TCDD to degrade and allowed the TCDD to be released via wind and rain (which freely enters this old aircraft - famously, the crews wore raincoats flying it especially in the cargo area!) No report specifies the degree of contamination which existed in 1972 when stateside crews started flying these aircraft - no attempt was made to provide a retrospective analysis of the earlier levels of our exposure

4. The 1994 and 1996 Air Force tests, done by the military's own toxicologists, are mentioned but dismissed. Here, an excuse to discard these early results was the cautious statement by the researchers that further testing would be necessary to fully characterize the contamination - logical enough but not an excuse to dismiss the results! These original 1994 researchers did, very clearly, establish to their professional satisfaction the fact that the cabin and flight deck were "heavily contaminated" on 100% of their test surfaces, and this damning characterization was noted in today's release - then dismissed without justification

5. No mention is given of the testimony of Dr. Ron Porter, AF toxicologist from the AF Armstrong Labs who also co-authored the 1994 and 1996 tests, where he swore under oath the C-123 fleet was "a danger to public health" such that they couldn't be used or sold

6. No mention is made of the fact that Patches at the Air Force Museum took three separate decontamination procedures before it was reasonably safe to place inside the facility - but crews flew this specific aircraft for a decade, over twelve years before this testing - and others in the fleet were even more contaminated!

7. No weight is given to the fact that contamination of the C-123 would have to be more intense as post-Vietnam crews began flying them in 1972, and more intense before the veterans' own repeated efforts to decontaminate the airplane - many AF documents detail the early scrapping and washing of Patches and the other aircraft, removing gooey black substances, scrubbing with Dawn detergent as directed by AFMC Warner-Robbins - the airplanes would necessarily then have been more contaminated in 1972 before any testing which was first done in 1979 (and that was not a test for dioxin, only military herbicides which were confirmed to be present)

8. No mention is made of the ATSDR letter nor are the points of Dr. Sink's letter dealt with. He says the AF and VA have both contacted him and wishes the C-123 veterans "good luck", and stands behind his letter

9. And the big point: The report says not enough data could be located to draw a conclusion about aircrew exposure, but still it draws the conclusion that the aircrews were not exposed to enough for long-term health problems. This is a set of statements 180 degrees apart from one another
10. Various laws dealing with exposure to agents used in Vietnam generally group them as "military herbicides" - every single test done on these aged airplanes has confirmed the contamination of them by "military herbicides" - a fact not even touched upon in today's reports

C-123 veterans believe the AF is justifiably concerned about earlier sales of the C-123s to Disney Films and to South Korea and Thailand through the AF Security Assistance Center at Wright-Patterson. A bit embarrassing to tell another government we sold them dioxin-contaminated airplanes. This report has chewed over what old data could be uncovered, dismissed the military's own test conclusions, and constructed a denial of the aircraft even being contaminated!

Why didn't they simply say enough doubt exists to extend the benefit of the doubt, or clearly state there is a possibility, through remote to some degree, of aircrew exposure?

C-123 veterans agree with the report's conclusions that it would be virtually impossible for patients, paratroops, cargo attendants, and other passengers to have had any exposure. Veterans, however, feel strongly that the aircrews, maintainers and aerial port personnel absolutely were exposed.

Colonel Christian Benjamin, USAF MC CFS

Tell us, Colonel Benjamin. If these aircraft were being delivered to AFMC today, would you find them airworthy and safe for flight? Would any of these veterans' illnesses today been less likely to manifest themselves if they hadn't been exposed to such long-term duties aboard this "danger to public health?"

Frankly, this report smells of VA editing all over the place. Unwarranted assumptions are injected to construct an artifice that denies aircrew exposure, and obvious facts are ignored.  Maybe USAFSAM and AFMC leadership should have added their signatures to Colonel Benjamin's. Should USAFSAM welcome VA into to the Wright-Patterson blue-suit "Band of Brothers?"

Latest Version of C-123 Agent Orange Binder - 30 Mar 2012

Here's the updated version of our C-123 Agent Orange epistle, AKA "Trail of Tears."
Click Here: https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B88rlJ4p_859dVF4X0NvNEJTa0tQWFBYbFdnRktQdw

It has improvements in the date sequences and page numbering. Also, we've added a very important newly uncovered 1996 USAF report which used water-based swipes for one of the testing sequences on some of the C-123 fleet...this test wasn't for dioxin in particular but it was positive for military herbicides, and it is the broad category of "military herbicides" which various veterans' benefits are based upon and not dioxin in particular!

Why is it important that water was used on this test's swipes? Because the VA's position against the multiple USAF tests which we've been pushing him their face has been that those tests used the industry-standard protocol for a solvent...and the VA immediately created a hypothesis that only such solvents would have released harmful substances...and that crews couldn't have inhaled, ingested or absorbed the military herbicides by dermal contact. Note that when the 1994 and 1996 tests were done, no EPA protocol existed for the toxicologists to follow...yet, their conclusions have been reviewed in 2011 and 2012 and held to be still valid! Yes, we were exposed.

Somehow, in the back of my meager but darkly suspicious brain, I feel the VA would have been quick to develop an argument to any claim we'd make even if we showed them photos of toxins entering us by IM, IV, oral, sub-lingual, nasal, and every other route possible.

It has been suggested that we submit the binder for academic "peer review." I say the heck with that...we do "BEER REVIEWS" in this ancient but honorable flying squadron of amazing aging aviators!

Gee. Major. Is this required reading? Is there gonna be a test? Na...this is just a 430-page, 66MB reference work collecting all the materials we've found since April 2011, and my simple layman's attempt to get our veterans' case explained, simply using the VA and USAF documents that proliferate the record...the C-123K fleet was exterminated because it was contaminated - and here's the proof! You might consider printing parts of whatever you and your veterans service office (DAV, VFW, VVA, etc) feel appropriate to submit and buttress your VA disability claim.

Questions:
1. Isn't it a fact that every USAF and other official document dealing with the C-123K over the decades since the first tests were ordered on Patches in 1979 has labeled the airplanes "toxic, contaminated, Agent Orange, dioxin" or "military herbicide"and treated them (properly) as contaminated waste? answer: yes.
2. In 2009-2010 discussions about the C-123 toxicity and plans to destroy the airplanes, didn't OSD and AMFC officials arrange manage the event to prevent veterans who'd already been exposed from finding out about the dioxin problem, and the need to make sure those veterans wouldn't then get VA benefits - and didn't the officials discuss the fact that the veterans were indeed eligible for VA benefits because of the airplane's dioxin toxicity? answer: yes.
3. Why the heck did the USAF take action in 2010 to prevent already-exposed veterans from being able to get VA medical care? answer: anybody's guess but probably fear of publicity and blame for wrong decisions. This is what happens when military and civil service folks act without considering the impact on their personal honor and the broader good of the service.
4. And isn't it a fact that once our aircrews and ground personnel learned about the contamination the airplanes were suddenly not toxic after all? And already destroy?? Miracles? Or merely VA budget policy? answer: what do you think?

Chicago Area C-123 Veterans Needed for Interview!

We have fortunately attracted the attention of a network famous for caring about veterans' issues, and we hope for some great coverage next month.

For their reporters to look further into our C-123 Agent Orange claims they really want to interview any of our veterans or surviving family members in Chicago, or in the broader Illinois area. If that's you, or if you know where we can find such folks, please get an email to me or call!

And there's news coming out of Springfield, too!

     Wes