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.

Getting There Slowly - still hoping for VA to do the right thing!

The Old Sarge puts his faithful but tired C-123 out of its misery!

Support Comes In - Pressure Mounts on VA

C-123 veterans have been favored with strong support this month from Mr. John Rowan, National President of the Vietnam Veterans of America. Also, Independent Scientific Opinions were offered by Oregon Health Sciences University and by Columbia University.

No challenge or question has been raised about the dioxin contamination of the old Provider, nor about our aircrew exposure to all that dioxin which remained on the aircraft.

Next week, the USAF School of Aerospace Medicine runs their findings of a three-month investigation past Senate staffers who've been tracking our concerns (Mr. Brooks Tucker of Sen. Burr, NC) and we anticipate solid support from the Air Force. Last month the CDC's Agency for Toxic Substances & Disease Registry issued with everyone has been calling a "game changer"...directly challenging the VA's position against us, the ATSDR's official letter found that aircrews DID fly in a heavily contaminated aircraft, DID become exposed to the dioxin remaining from the Vietnam War, and DID suffer a 200-times greater cancer threshold. Further, ATSDR said the exposure was likely even more intense in the years 1972-1982 than when tests were finally done in 1994.

How much more of a case does a veteran have to make to the VA to get medical care for Agent Orange presumptive illnesses? We have had our flying buddies rejected by the VA and the Board of Veterans Appeals because no proof was available about the aircraft use in VN nor the specific aircraft contamination - because all such proof was withheld by the USAF Office of Environmental Law until released via the Freedom of Information Act in May 2011. Now that the information cited has been found, the VA develops new objections to allowing our crews and maintenance troops vital medical care. Now they say we weren't exposed to "enough" dioxin. Well, folks, the Institute on Medicine reports that there is no safe level of dioxin exposure. None. And in our case, tests show Patches and the other birds were exposing us to 200 times the safety threshold.

And what a delaying act the VA presents! This writer's own Agent Orange application for service connection (cancer, heart disease, diabetes, peripheral neuropathy, misdiagnosis, bad attitude) has been on the so-called "VA Fast Track" for 329 days. Thank goodness I'm already 100% for other issues or I'd have been devastated financially by now.

My senator's office called to say the VA was waiting for papers from another agency??? Huh? Takes a year to drop a memo to somebody and get a reply? Fast track? Off the track?

Letter to BVA Attorney Who Opposed Aaron Olmsted's VA Claims

Submitted today to Mr. Stephen Reiss, attorney with the Board of Veterans Appeals through the Veterans Law Review, the only email address I could find for him:

Mr. Stephen D. Reiss, Esq.
Executive Editor, Veterans Law Review
Room 841 (mail code 01A), Lafayette Bldg.
810 Vermont Ave., N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20420

Reference: Docket 06-42 315, C28 107-548

Dear Mister Reiss,

On 23 August 2007 you successfully represented the Board of Veterans’ Appeals in this case, with Judge Cohn denying the veteran’s appeal. Olmstead had claimed Agent Orange exposure while flying Air Force Reserve C-123K aircraft post-Vietnam, aircraft commonly used during that war for spraying Agent Orange.

In particular, Judge Cohn cited:

“While these planes may be of the type that were used in Vietnam to dispense Agent Orange from 1962 to 1971, there is no evidence that any of the planes on which the veteran flew dispensed Agent Orange in Vietnam or that there was any residual Agent Orange on the aircraft the veteran served on. Further, the veteran has not submitted any evidence that any of the planes on which the veteran served on. Further, the veteran has not submitted any evidence substantiating his contention that there was any residual Agent Orange material on the aircraft he served on. His assertion, standing alone, is not sufficient to show he had actual exposure to Agent Orange, years after it was used in Vietnam.”

I had a heart attack, cancer and heart surgery in April and thus had the time to look into these illnesses and what may have led them to my doorstep. I wondered about the planes which, like Olmsted (whom I don’t believe I ever met), I flew between 1972-1982. It took all of five minutes or so with Google to learn that most of these planes were indeed used for spraying Agent Orange, that in particular, Tail Number 362 (Patches) was used for Agent Orange and was tested repeatedly beginning in 1997 with positive results for presence of dioxin. Just ten minutes with Google provided everything I was concerned with, and FOIAs offered yet more interesting materials.

I learned that the Air Force (in the person first of Major Urlula Moul of the Air Force Office of Environmental Law) recommended keeping this type information “within official channels only.” Further, reports and correspondence regarding these tests and others were surfaced at the Office of the Air Force Surgeon, at Headquarters Air Force Material Command and at the Office of Secretary of Defense.

Mine is the profession of arms, not of law…your rules are confusing and perhaps meant to be so. However, I’m sure I may assume that had you known of the attached documents, you would not have presented to Judge Cohn that Olmsted wasn’t eligible for to service connection because the very documents he needed to have justice before the BVA were being withheld from him by the government.

Judge Cohn’s reasons cited for denial were easily able to be answered with documents withheld by the government, whatever may be the reasons individuals in those government offices had for their actions. No national security was involved at that or any other time regarding this issue. 

Bad acts and hiding evidence of harmful toxin exposure “within official channels” is certainly an effective way to prevent veteran’s Agent Orange claims, but cannot be an ethical, moral or legal justification for denying veteran Olmsted a just hearing from Judge Cohn and an effective and honorable presentation by you yourself. The Judge may have found against Olmsted but it certainly wouldn’t have been for the reasons cited.

(personal portion removed)

May I trust that it continues to be of interest to you, and to the Board of Veterans Appeals, that veterans such as Aaron Olmsted benefit from your commitment to accuracy and truth in all presentations before the BVA, and that if facts such as these are withheld from you by other government agencies, you will make right those wrongs dealt him, Olmsted’s survivors and C-123K/UC-123K veterans who find themselves similarly situated before the BVA?

Sir, help make this wrong right.

Respectfully,

Wesley T. Carter, Major, USAF Retired
Medical Service Corps

Complete Document Set Assembled - but you have to download

We've finally gathered a pretty complete set of all the documents uncovered thus far, adding explanations here and there, highlighting sections on pages where things seem more important...or more ridiculous, depending on your view! The doc set is too large to email as servers reject such big files...you'll have to click to download.


Today I got a call back from the office of Jim Willis, Oregon's Director of Veterans' Affairs, and those folks are going to see what can be done at their level...perhaps miracles?? No word from my senators, other than Sen. Burr's office. My kids haven't written lately, either. What's going on out there?


Let's hope we're all behind the same marching band: Our goal is "boots on the airplane" recognition of the C-123K as an Agent Orange Exposure Site. Seems that's the fastest route for now...certainly faster and cheaper than a lawsuit which other organizations, far bigger and far richer than we, are still struggling with. However...if that's what it takes...


I heard through Dee Holliday from Gabby Gadbois, first shirt of the 74th who wrapped up chemo today, only to have MRIs and CAT scans which showed the cancer spreading so much more than he'd feared.


Thanks to the folks who looked over the amateur "appeal" ...the best I could put together by myself, however, regarding the late Tim Olmstead's obvious injustice at the hands of the Air Force. This time, surprise, NOT the BVA's fault ...the judge ruled correctly in Docket 06-42 315, in that Tim had failed to present proof of his claim that the C-123s we flew were those used in Vietnam and had actually sprayed Agent Orange, and he'd failed to proof that there was Agent Orange residue on the airplane. Why did Tim fail in this? Because the Air Force, beginning with the Office of Environmental Law at HQ AFMC decided to keep this vital information "in official channels only" and that later, when the aircraft were destroyed by smelting in 2010, a misleading press release was crafted to tell a lie by saying otherwise truthful words.


Prevaricate is the word, where here the issue is the decontamination by destruction of valuable aircraft because of dioxin contamination. That's the news here...the destruction of the airplane, and the destruction because of Agent Orange contamination. But here, this kind of Public Affairs dishonesty coming out of the 75th's PA shop... deception, misdirection and frankly stupid issue-dodging (as they were told to do, I agree) should come to the attention of the Air Force PA professionals who care about their profession. 


American citizens and our news media expect and deserve an Air Force PA to eventually, slowly, perhaps regretfully...actually get around to keyboarding something approximating the truth. Not deal from the bottom of the PA deck of cards a crafty, sneaky, evasive, flim-flam handout solely meant to mislead the public. 


A fictional example which best comes to mind is a situation where, say, a crowded 747 crashes on your runway. The PA shop prepares, but does not distribute...they wait in case anybody notices...a press release describing the event as

"a rapid airframe disassembly activity, followed by an unscheduled base-wide mass casualty exercise. 324 body bags were utilized to provide extra realism. Coincidently, the base runway will be closed for the next few weeks for unscheduled repairs. In other news, volunteers of all blood types are invited to visit the base clinic, now accepting donations on a 24-hour a day basis."

 In the case of the C-123s, the Agent Orange Consultant to the Office of Secretary of Defense recommended removing from the draft PA release tainted words like "Agent Orange, toxin, dioxin" in his personal fear of a media "storm", a storm certain to alert, as he points out, aircrews and maintenance folks who'd turn to the VA for treatment of Agent Orange-presumptive illnesses. Gosh, the 505th, AFMC and the PA profession sure don't want that! One specific PS lie was the inference that the aircraft were without value, when in fact, the Air Force and GSA had been forced to go to Federal court to PREVENT the sale of the toxic airframes to eager buyers. Even the "rare and valuable" engines were to be smelted, but not mentioned in the press release. Somehow, I think a little birdie is going to wing its way to a responsible journalist's ear with this news...and the Air Force would be blessed if somehow this joke was corrected by the service itself. Good thing Disney got its airplanes before the well ran dry!


Oh..and don't forget, this week a member of the senior federal executive service made special mention was made of us "freeloading, trash-hauling Air Force Reservists" looking for a Congressman to feed us tax free dollars. Kind, respectful, Total Force- type welcoming words from the Office of the Secretary of Defense in the person of the Secretary's Agent Orange Consultant.


Guess he didn't feel our F4, AC-130, C-141, B-52, and other combat flyers met his high standard for patriotism and valor.

I imagine OSD feels a C-123 vet like Colonel Charlie Brown, by arranging to be a guest at the Hanoi Hilton after being shot down, was the epitome of the Air Force Reserve freeloader because Charlie even managed to get free meals and tax-free fish heads and rice plus other cool stuff from the North Vietnamese while a POW.


Complete Document Set

Air Force Sells Agent Orange Poison Airplanes to Disney for Movies!

In an inadvertent and quickly-regretted 1994 business move, the General Services Administration and the Air Force sold two surplus C-123K/UC-123K cargo aircraft to Walt Disney Films! Contaminated with dioxin from Agent Orange residue remaining from their Vietnam War years, the aircraft were released to an intermediate buyer, and the films made included Operation Dumbo Drop.

Stored aircraft before 2010 Destruction

Another problem: the surplus C-123K/UC-123K aircraft were so contaminated with Agent Orange that the entire fleet at the Davis-Monthan AFB "Boneyard" had to be stored in an out-of-sight, fenced in security area marked "Hazardous Material". Base workers were allowed near the airplanes only with hazmat suits, respirators and goggles, followed by decontamination. So why are three of these dioxon-contaminated aircraft still in museum display with the public allowed in close contact? The museums which received the contaminated aircraft include Pima Air Museum in Tucson (Tail #567 and 659), Kenosha Military Museum in Kenosha, WI, and the Minnesota Air National Guard Museum in St. Paul, MN. Further, there is a contaminated C-123K at the Robins AFB Museum of Aviation in Warner-Robins, GA.

Workers in required HAZMAT protection

The Air Force Museum received just such an aircraft when the C-123K/UC-123K were retired in 1982. Most were flown to Davis-Montan for surplus storage, but the famous "Patches"(which the author of this blog and his associates ourselves flew between 1972-1982) went to the Air Force Museum. Tests showed the aircraft, typical of all the spray aircraft from Vietnam, was "heavily contaminated" with dioxin. Special preparations costing $57,000 were completed before the aircraft was allowed inside the museum, and still only very limited public access is permitted. The aircraft is roped off to prevent the public from approaching, and when, on occasion, folks are allowed to walk through, it is a very quick walk through to limit exposure!


From our perspective as aircrews who flew these airplanes between 1972-1982, we had no hazmat protection. Nobody knew the dioxin was present in the aircraft although we knew Agent Orange residue remained and we couldn't clean it all out. But why, once Air Force tests completed in 1993 and later began to show the toxicity of the airplanes, why couldn't the Air Force let us know we'd been exposed? Why did (and still does) the Department of Veterans Affairs deny claims for Agent Orange exposure for veterans such as the late Aaron Olmstead, ruling in his appeal before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (C 28 107 548, dated 23 Aug 07) that he has no proof of flying Agent Orange-contaminated airplanes nor that the planes were actually the aircraft used for spraying Agent Orange. We now have the tail numbers, we have the Air Force tests, we have the Air Force official historical data, and we have expert testimony by the aircraft commanders, flight instructors, Stan/Eval flight examiners, maintenance officers, maintenance supervisors and other experts that eleven of our C-123K/UC-123K aircraft still had Agent Orange residue and stank of the lousy stuff!  
Judge Stephen Cohn of the Board of Veterans's Appeals should demand an explanation from the Government about why this evidence was deliberately withheld from Olmstead and his family. Aren't there any standards of ethical legal behavior in his jurisdiction?


What's it take to get a veteran with "boots in the airplane" to get his/her documented exposure to Agent Orange toxins recognized by the VA so that our cancers and other illnesses can be treated?

731st TAS Class Photo

VA Turned Down Agent Orange Claim by C-123K Flyer - IN ERROR

The late Lieutenant Colonel Tim Olmstead submitted a clam 
(C 28 107 548, dated 23 Aug 07) to the VA for service connection for diabetes, an Agent Orange-presumptive illness, based on his service flying with the 731st TAS at Westover and our C-123K/UC-123K aircraft which he stated were used for spraying Agent Orange in Vietnam and which had AO residue left on them.


The VA denied his claim. Citing the fact that he didn't serve in Vietnam, theVA's Board of Veterans' Appeals turned Tim down because he failed to provide evidence that the aircraft were contaminated. The finding reads 

"while these planes may be of the type that were used in Vietnam to dispense Agent Orange from 192 to 1971, there is no evidence that any of the airplanes on which the veteran flew dispensed Agent Orange in Vietnam or that there was any residual Agent Orange on the aircraft the veteran served on. Further, the veteran has not submitted any evidence substantiating his contention that there was any Agent Orange material on the aircraft he served on. His assertion, standing along, is not sufficient to show he had actual exposure to Agent Orange years after it was used in Vietnam."

Gosh, that's reasonable enough. No wonder Tim's claim and appeal were denied. He couldn't prove he was exposed to Agent Orange. But why not?


Easy. Because the VA and the Air Force stacked the deck against Tim, keeping from him the precise information cited above which he needed to prove his case.  Back in 1996 a JAG officer in the Air Force Office of Environmental Law, considering the dioxin information that "Patches" at the Air Force Museum and other aircraft then stored as surplus at Davis-Monthan AFB's Boneyard, "should be kept in official channels only"...and that means keeping the information from reaching veterans like Tim to have the evidence needed to claim well-earned VA benefits. With the Air Force itself taking an active testing role in determining that there was indeed Agent Orange residue and toxicity in the C-123K fleet, including the eleven spray aircraft from the 731st and then keeping that information "in official channels only", Tim and other veterans like him faced an impossible challenge. The Air Force had the proof. The Air Force kept that proof from Tim, and denied him his well-earned veteran's benefits. It wasn't a simple matter of Tim not finding proof available somewhere, or that proof actually not existing. It was hidden.
Here, the Air Force took active measures to hide information from veterans like Tim so they wouldn't know the details of their exposure. Active measures to hide the information to protect veterans' health. Active measures to hide information to qualify for receiving medical care from the VA. These bad acts on the part of the misguided personnel who tried to hide the C-123K dioxin toxicity mean that the VA should, at every possible occasion, grant the benefit of the doubt to each C-123 crewmember, ACM, aerial porter, maintainer and air evac veteran seeking service connection. 


From this writer's perspective, Tim is obviously due a reconsideration of his case due to the Government's misconduct in  restricting availability of essential medical information, and Tim's award should be backdated not just to the date of his claim submission, but to the date his disease is likely to have been diagnosed under Nehmer. Further, Stephen I. Cohn, Veterans Law Judge, Board of Veterans Appeals and James Terry who is Chair of the VA Board of Appeals, should inquire as to why the Air Force via their misconduct and unethical behavior, did not notify aircrews of their exposure once it was officially known. They should ask why the Air Force allowed its veterans to struggle to put together VA claims but withheld the evidence veterans needed receive the benefits the very tests  Air Force proved them eligible for! Amazing! 


What say you, Judge Cohn. What say you, Judge James Terry? What evidence do you allow the government (although not the honorable gentleman representing the VA before you that day...I'm certain he was not at fault)  to withhold at the expense of veterans who come before you seeking justice?

SECOND OPEN LETTER to Agent Orange Committee, Institute on Medicine

To: Doctor Richard Fenske, Chair and (in turn) Dr Erin Bell, Dr Scott Burchiel, Dr Janice Chambers, Dr Naihua Duan, Dr Peter Gann, Dr Mark Goldberg, Dr Nancy Kerkvliet, Dr Stephen Kritchevsky, Dr Michele Marcus, Dr Linda McCauley, Dr Alvaro Puga, Dr Jeremy Shefner and Dr Hollie Swanson

Dear Members of the Committee,

Please forgive me for submitting another such public letter so soon after first appealing to the Committee for special assistance. The facts of my first appeal remain as I submitted them, but this week I have learned of two additional issues which mean we can turn only to your Committee to respond on our behalf, or to Congress for a time-wasting multi-year effort for new law.

Yesterday I received responses from the Air Force for two Freedom of Information Act requests submitted earlier to the Air Force Material Command. Attached here is another copy of the Air Force Office of Environmental Law memo wherein the Judge Advocate General attorney representing the Air Force Material Command recommended keeping the information about C-123K dioxin toxicity “within official channels”, following multiple Air Force tests establishing that contamination.

What is here newly brought to your attention is correspondence from the Air Force Material Command prepared by the OSD Consultant on Agent Orange to the Office of Secretary of Defense. In discussing with AFMC officials the disposal of the toxic C-123K/UC-123K aircraft we flew back in 1972-1982, this retired colonel stressed the need for speed of the planes’ destruction because of media attention which might come like a “storm” and which might also inspire more veterans, this time, he specifies, the very veterans who flew the airplanes, to submit claims to the VA for Agent Orange exposure. That’s us.

The consultant, a senior executive in the Federal service with the highest possible impact on Agent Orange issues in the Department of Defense, wanted steps taken to prevent veterans’ awareness through the media which might attend to the shredding and smelting of the airplanes…a unique, once-ever step taken to prevent the impact of EPA regulations and various fines attending to the dioxin remaining on the aircraft. The consultant even helped craft the press release about the destruction of the airplanes by making sure words like “Agent Orange, dioxin, poison, toxin, contamination” were removed to help reduce the possibility of critical media attention. And prevent veterans learning about us having flown contaminated aircraft between 1972-1982.

Consider: How can we have both our rights and our health protected with this kind of active effort to keep us in the dark, away from sources of information concerning our health and our rights as veterans? I suggest…this can be made right only by special attention brought to officials by your Committee.

Can we ask your Committee to make the obvious conclusion that the Air Force and the Department of Defense have taken active measures to prevent our small group of aviators and maintenance folks from discovering we’d been exposed to dioxin?

Finally, in this second appeal to your Committee, I submit the copy of the late Lieutenant Colonel Aaron Olmstead’s 2007 decision from the Board of Veterans Appeals wherein his claim for service connection for diabetes was refused. Refused because Aaron was unable to provide essential, conclusive proof that he’d flown the contaminated C-123K/UC-123K aircraft in our squadron for which we now have the documents from the Air Force, released only via FOIA pressure many years after their creation. Aaron’s claim for diabetes (and now his widow’s concerns about that claim) was an appeal to protect his rights by having his case reconsidered by the Board of Veterans’ Appeals. Judge Stephen Cohn, hearing the case, rejected Aaron’s appeal specifically citing:

"while these planes may be of the type that were used in Vietnam to dispense Agent Orange from 192 to 1971, there is no evidence that any of the airplanes on which the veteran flew dispensed Agent Orange in Vietnam or that there was any residual Agent Orange on the aircraft the veteran served on. Further, the veteran has not submitted any evidence substantiating his contention that there was any Agent Orange material on the aircraft he served on. His assertion, standing along, is not sufficient to show he had actual exposure to Agent Orange years after it was used in Vietnam."

Aaron’s assertion could not be made effectively because the Air Force and DOD effectively prevented him and his Veterans Service Officer from the Disabled American Veterans of America from knowing about the evidence he needed. It should be obvious what Judge Cohn would decide if Arron had had the hidden information to submit in support of his claim!

I respectfully submit that the Committee should consider special action on your part, outside the scope of your established procedures, due to the consistent and completely effective efforts on the part of the Air Force and the Department of Defense (or at least, efforts by certain officials within those organizations) in taking active measures to prevent veterans from having the proofs and materials to establish Agent Orange exposure claims.

Please. Write both the Secretary of Veterans Affairs and the Secretary of Defense to draw their attention to this injustice done Lieutenant Colonel Olmstead and our other crewmates. Thank you.

Respectfully,

Wesley T. Carter, Major, USAF Retired
Chair, C-123K/UC123K Cancer Veterans

Attachments:

1. AFMC JAG Letter recommending restricting aircraft dioxin reside “to official channels only"

2. Case C28 197 548, VA Board of Veterans’ Appeals, denial of claim made by veteran Aaron Olmstead

3. Memorandum from Dr Alvin Young, Agent Orange Consultant to Secretary of Defense, recommending actions and in part, expressing concern that media attention may result in exposed veterans submitting claims