GAO Criticizes DOD's Agent Orange Site Report

The Government Accountability Office has released its critical report entitled AGENT ORANGE: Actions Needed to Improve Accuracy and Communication of Information on Testing and Storage Locations."

Key point: Both VA and DOD have for decades relied on a fatally-flawed list prepared for DOD by Dr. Al Young, AKA "Dr. Orange." VA has employed his reports principally to deny veterans claiming exposure to Agent Orange. That's right...our famed nemesis has once again been found inadequate in the work he's done, while making millions from VA and DOD writing about this stuff. For years, VA adjudicators, the Board of Veterans Appeals and the US Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims have wrongly denied claims from veterans who claim exposure in locations or situations not listed in Young's report. C-123 vets were also denied for years, but won our presumptive exposure ruling in June 2015...despite Young's ceaseless efforts against us.

The GAO reported it plainly: VA seized on Young's incomplete report to refuse medical care and other benefits to veterans claiming Agent Orange cancers, ALS, diabetes, heart disease and other ailments. And Young's report, along with lots of other material gathered by VA, was fatally flawed.

At the Veterans Benefits Administration "Agent Orange Desk" run by Mr. James Sampsel, (who himself officially stated that veterans' Agent Orange disabilities is only "hype and hysteria.") VA had its boiler-plate denial ready to shoot down each and every claim of Agent Orange exposure outside Vietnam, It is important to grasp the great reliance placed by VA on Young's work, and the equal fact that Young has consistently argued against the various foundations for veterans' Agent Orange claims. His 2006 report on Agent Orange sites is but one example of VA's obstruction that led to the GAO report.

Even if discouraged vets opted to appeal Sampsel's use of the Young report to oppose claims, the Board of Appeals for Veterans Claims (BVA) also relied on Young to prevent exposure claims. For example, read this November 2014 BVA denial:

"In fact, Dr. Young's report, which provides the most complete data available on this subject, expressly found that there was there were no documents or records to validate the use of Agent Orange in Okinawa. In this case, the Board finds the exhaustive searches and related findings conducted by the various agencies/entities outlined above, to be far more probative than the Veteran's baseless assertions that he was exposed to Agent Orange/herbicides in Okinawa. Notably, the Veteran has not submitted any medical reports/literature or other evidence to support his claim of exposure, or that otherwise contradict the above findings."

And this:

"Upon review of the Alvin L. Young Collection on Agent Orange, which is part of the National Agricultural Library, the Department of Agriculture was unable to find any reference to the military use of any herbicidal agents, including Agents Orange and Blue, at Fort Jackson during the moving party's period of service. The motion for reversal or revision of the May 3, 2011 Board decision finding that the moving party was not entitled to service connection for diabetes mellitus, type 2, claimed as due to exposure to herbicides, is denied." 

Young's "expertise" on the Agent Orange topic was frequently cited in BVA denials:

"The RO associated with the record a February 2014 report entitled "Investigation into the Environmental Fate of TCDD/Dioxin" that listed Dr. Alvin L. Young as the primary author (the "February 2014 Report"). According to the attached biography, Dr. Young completed his PhD in herbicide physiology and environmental toxicology in 1968, and since then, has amassed more than 300 publications in the scientific literature, including five books on issues related to Agent Orange and/or dioxin. "

But neither the regional office claims adjudicators, nor the BVA, or even the US Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims bother to report the full story about Young, his 2006 report, or relationship to Sampsel. The Young-VA-Agent Orange story includes many revealing points:

1. Young's work supports VA positions disputing Agent Orange exposure and harmful effects
2. Young famously wrote that Agent-Orange-exposed vets were"trash-haulers, freeloaders looking for a tax-free dollar from a sympathetic congressman. I have no respect."
3. Even Young agrees his 2006 report was inadequate, however he didn't do this until he sought yet another VA contract to update it. In other words, his report was okay unless he could make more money
4. As for money, Young agreed he's made "millions" writing reports for the VA and DOD. He also got a $600,000 no-bid-sole source contract mostly directed against C-123 veterans' claims
5. Even while under VA contract at $26,000/month, Young wrongly insisted he wasn't representing VA when he appeared before the National Academy of Medicine to oppose C-123 claims while also failing to reveal his contract and close coordination with VA for input to the Academy. Fortunately, the Academy found that his work, and other from VA and DOD, has been found to be incomplete and also it wrongly minimized veterans' harmful AO exposure risks

My advice to every vet whose claim was denied citing Young's report: appeal based on the now-established fact that the 2006 Young report has been found flawed.

official photo from AFPMB newsletter

Back to the GAO report itself. One key finding was that DOD, sponsor of Young's 2006 report, agreed that the report was flawed but couldn't identify any process to improve it. I'm reminded of my frequent requests to both DOD and VA to help add C-123 spray aircraft to the list, but each agency refused. DOD said it was VA's duty, VA said they simply used what DOD provided and couldn't change anything. My letters to the Armed Forces Pest Management Board, where Young has lectured, were met with refusals to get involved. Interestingly, even though Young has (or had) contracts with the AFPMB as recently as 2017, nothing about him is found in AFPMB files. Guess they don't read their own official newsletter–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––>

My 2013 letters to LtGen Judith Fedder, DCS/Logistics, Installations & Mission Support, were similarly rebuffed. She answered,

Very disappointing. Especially so, reading in the November 2018 GAO report that DOD finally has agreed.

Below: The GAO report's six key conclusions:

The Secretary of Defense should ensure that the Under Secretary of 

Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment assigns responsibility for 

ensuring that DOD’s list of locations where Agent Orange or its 

components were tested and stored is as complete and accurate as 

available records allow. (Recommendation 1) 

The Secretary of Defense should ensure that the Under Secretary of
 Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment develops a process for
updating the revised list as new information becomes available.
(Recommendation 2)  

The Secretary of Defense, in collaboration with the Secretary of Veterans 

Affairs, should develop clear and transparent criteria for what constitutes 

a location that should be included on the list of testing and storage 

locations. (Recommendation 3) 

The Secretary of Veterans Affairs, in collaboration with the Secretary of 

Defense, should develop clear and transparent criteria for what 

constitutes a location that should be included on the list of testing and 

storage locations. (Recommendation 4)

The Secretary of Defense, in collaboration with the Secretary of Veterans 

Affairs, should develop a formal process for coordinating on how best to 

communicate information to veterans and the public regarding where 

Agent Orange was known to have been present outside of Vietnam. 

(Recommendation 5)

The Secretary of Veterans Affairs, in collaboration with the Secretary of 

Defense, should develop a formal process for coordinating on how best to 

communicate information to veterans and the public regarding where 

Agent Orange was known to have been present outside of Vietnam. 

(Recommendation 6)

C-123 Vets join in ProPublica's Freedom of Information suit against VA

Yesterday, C-123 Vets joined in ProPublica's Freedom of Information suit against VA.

ProPublica, winner of three Pulitzer prizes for its solid public interest investigative journalism, and the Virginian Pilot newspaper have conducted almost two years of an intensive Agent Orange investigation, with several articles focused on C-123 veterans' experiences. They sought information from the government but in response, the Department of Veterans Affairs has failed to honor the public's right to access information through our media for nearly two years.

The reporters have already uncovered a great deal of information about veterans' health and our children's health. Their rights under the Freedom of Information Act have been ignored for almost two years. The publisher and ProPublica's reporters have been forced to file suit in the US District Court of Washington for VA's failure to respect the law.

Yesterday, our C-123 Veterans Association joined in this suit. We believe the information sought about Agent Orange, about the VA contractors who opposed our own claims, and about VA personnel who obstructed our claims all needs to be made public. Our contribution to the suit specifically included justification for an immediate temporary injunction ordering the VA to comply or justify their refusal.

It's disappointing to have to waste money and time just to access information that the government stores that is otherwise publicly available and not classified or confidential. Too often, but particularly with the VA, federal agencies simply opt not to cooperate because FOIA requesters have a little recourse other than an initial request and an expensive lawsuit if that request is dishonored.

Two years ago, that was our experience. Paul Bailey and I had waited years for our Freedom of Information Act to be honored. But after some limited release, the VA simply didn't bother with anything else requested. Paul had even passed away while the VA stalled.

We had to go to court. Over $50,000 in legal fees later, the Department of Justice in representing the VA agreed to provide the materials requested. 

Finally.

ProPublica Seeks Federal Court Order for Release of VA Agent Orange Files

by Robin Fields
ProPublica and the Virginian-Pilot filed a lawsuit today in federal court against the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, accusing the agency of stonewalling requests for documents under the Freedom of Information Act.

The lawsuit, ProPublica’s second against the VA in two months, seeks a preliminary injunction compelling the government to immediately release correspondence about Agent Orange, an herbicide used to kill vegetation during the Vietnam War, including documents sent to and received by Dr. David Shulkin, the VA’s undersecretary for health. Shulkin has been nominated to be VA secretary by President-elect Donald Trump.

ProPublica and the Pilot have been reporting about Agent Orange for 18 months, documenting ongoing effects on veterans and their families. The FOIA requests at issue in today’s lawsuit date back to May and September 2015.

As the news organizations have reported, the VA faces a number of imminent decisions about whether to cover certain groups of veterans who claim they were exposed to Agent Orange, as well as certain diseases that research has shown to be linked to the chemical mixture.

Exhibits attached to the lawsuits show how the FOIA requests submitted by the news organizations were subjected to one delay after another. ProPublica and the Pilot sought help from the VA’s Office of General Counsel, the agency’s chief information officer, as well as the Office of Government Information Services, also known as the FOIA ombudsman. Those efforts were not met with success.

“Repeated pleas to the VA to process two FOIA requests, which now have been pending for 618 days and 506 days, respectively, have been utterly disregarded. Indeed, ProPublica and The Virginian-Pilot have done everything short of turning cartwheels in front of VA’s headquarters to draw attention to these requests,” the legal memorandum in support of a preliminary injunction said.

Agent Orange – Its Legacy Endures

Posted: December 9, 2016
Norman Stockwell



Forty years ago, on December 10, 1976, the United Nations General Assembly passed the “Convention on the Prohibition of Military or Any Other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques” by a vote of 96 to 8. It was the first time the international body had addressed the issue of the use of defoliants in military conflicts. Article One of the document broadly states: “Each State Party to this Convention undertakes not to engage in military or any other hostile use of environmental modification techniques having widespread, long-lasting or severe effects as the means of destruction, damage or injury to any other State Party.”

Agent Orange was one of a series of chemical defoliants used by the U.S. military in the war in Vietnam. From 1962 to 1971, over 20 million gallons of herbicides were sprayed on jungle and agricultural land in Vietnam and the surrounding countries of Laos and Cambodia. The spraying was ostensibly to eliminate foliage providing cover for enemy troops. It was called Operation Ranch Hand. Reaching its peak between 1967-69, Operation Ranch Hand sprayed toxic chemicals over more than one fifth of all the forests in what was then South Vietnam.

Of the 2.7 million U.S. troops who served in Vietnam, more than 39,000 have filed claims with the Veteran’s Administration (VA) for Agent Orange related health issues and, according to the Vietnamese government, more than 4 million of its citizens were victims of the spraying. The VA acknowledges more than 14 forms of cancer and other nerve and heart diseases to be directly associated with Agent Orange exposure. Birth defects in children of those exposed carry the toxic legacy forward into the next generation on both sides.

The Progressive first covered concerns over the toxic effects of Agent Orange in a May 1973 column noting: “…two Harvard scientists reported that a chemical defoliant widely used by the United States in South Vietnam during the recent unpleasantness has contaminated that nation's food chain. The scientists—chemist Robert Baugham and geneticist Matthew Meselson, who have made previous ecological surveys of Indochina—found the chemical, dioxin, in shrimp and five species of fish taken from various waters in South Vietnam. Dioxin, an ingredient of the defoliant known as Agent Orange, was present in amounts known to cause disease, genetic damage, and death in animals. The effect on humans has not yet been determined, but we are likely to find out before too long.”

It was exactly four years later in June 1977, that Maude DeVictor, an employee at the VA in Chicago first began to document the cases of cancer clustered in veterans who had been exposed to Agent Orange. A June 1978 article in The Progressive by Michael Uhl and Tod Ensign told her story: “Maude DeVictor works behind a cold, steel gray desk in the Benefits Section of the Veterans Administration regional office in Chicago. She is not your average paper shuffler. In recent months, Maude DeVictor has joined the select ranks of whistle blowers — those heroic individuals who discover an outrage and, in defiance of bureaucracy or suppression, bring it to public notice. The outrage Maude DeVictor discovered was the shocking effect of dioxin poisoning on American veterans who came into contact with the herbicides that were used to defoliate more than five million acres of the Vietnamese countryside between 1962 and 1970. Her efforts have not only focused attention on the plight of these latest victims of the Vietnam war, but have also raised new warnings against the domestic hazards posed by the herbicides.”

VA Study Links Hypertension to Agent Orange Exposure

Today, ProPublica published another in their outstanding series on Agent Orange, this one reporting the link found by VA researchers between Agent Orange and hypertension. VA itself presently doesn't recognize hypertension among the fourteen ailments for which it provides care and compensation, but the decision to change that now rests with the incoming Trump administration.

And it will cost! Billions upon billions, because so many citizens develop hypertension even without toxic exposures, and hypertension is one of the most cared-for illnesses among today's veterans. If anyone has an accurate estimate about the cost, they're not saying it out loud!

An abstract of the hypertension study can be found here from the Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine.

ProPublica's last major article about Agent Orange addressed the C-123 veterans and our five-year struggle to successfully get our members medical care and disability compensation,

Short Video by ProPublica: C-123 Agent Orange Veterans' Quest For VA Benefits vs. Dr. Al Young

 

ProPublica and The Virginia Pilot produced a short video on YouTube covering Dr. Al Young and the C-123 veterans' problems with him, the VA and Agent Orange. A follow-on to their excellent in-depth report on the same subject.

• note: related 2014 Vietnam Veterans of America radio interview
• here is a shorter recording, just the IOM opening statements by Maj. Wes Carter and Dr. Al Young
• note: Full recording of Dr. Al Young and others, June 2014 public hearing held by the Institute of Medicine C-123 Agent Orange committee, Washington DC
• statement by Professor Philip Kahn (Rutgers University) objecting at IOM hearing to VA foot-dragging
• note: brief summary of some of disappointments veterans had over the decades with Dr. Young
• note: C-123 Veterans Association concerns re: Dr. Al Young & VA, submitted to VA 2014