BVA Gives VA C-123 Agent Orange Committee Example to Follow

VA's C-123 Committee should be guided in large part by Board of Veterans Appeals decisions over these last many years.

VA should realize that existing regulations, a decade of very specific Federal Register publications, well-established science even before the 9 January 2015 Institute of Medicine report, and the historical record all led Veterans Law Judges to their 100%* approval of C-123 appeals.

Every single one*. Even without the impact of the IOM report. Before the Joint Services Records Research Center began confirming C-123 aircraft exposures per VA M21-1MR (clearly detailed in Part IV Subpart ii Chapter C Section C.) With no new regulation, no new legislation, no need for additional Federal Register explanations. No need for any delay keeping our veterans from submitting claims for fair consideration, and on award finally allowed to enter VA hospitals.

No reason and certainly no excuse for VA to continue saving money by keeping our folks out of their hospital wards. A simple field training letter should do the trick.

Decisions by the Board of Veterans Appeals do not set precedent for other veterans' claims.

Everyone, including C-123 veterans, understands that quite well. What those decisions do, however, is offer an example of expert thought process by the Veterans Law Judges.

That example is an important one which the committee set up within Veterans Benefits Administration and Veterans Health Administration might consider carefully.

Because every BVA decision has been in favor of Reserve and Air Guard C-123 veterans.*

The point is that all claims which have been denied by BVA (and that is every single C-123 claim that ever was submitted*) have been reversed and awarded by the careful consideration at BVA.

BVA Veterans Law Judges had available to them in their decisions today's VA regulation VA M21-1MR, the veterans' medical information, and the historical and scientific information about these former Vietnam War Agent Orange spray warplanes.

BVA decisions are based on applicable law and the interpretation of the overall situation. Awards are made when the law's requirements are met. Any question, any interpretation, is made in a pro-veteran and non-adversarial manner. Issues in dispute are resolved in the veteran's favor if evidence reaches "as likely to as not" threshold.

BVA judges have shown for years that C-123 veterans' claims need nothing more in law or regulation to be awarded when appropriate. VA could do it today.

Friends of veterans, C-123 aircrews, maintainers and aerial port veterans have reached and far surpassed that threshold!

VA has benefited hugely by blocking C-123 claims for these years. Our vets have been denied VA medical care, pharmacy, rehab, counseling, independent living assistance, Chapter 20, children's educational benefits and allowances, burial, prosthetics, and compensation for their service-associated illnesses.

Any further delay, any further effort by VA to save more money by postponing the full inclusion of C-123 veterans into the Veterans Health Administration and Veterans Benefits Administration protections is unconscionable.

BVA already showed the VHA committee that nothing else is needed.

All VA has to do is open their doors and understand that C-123 veterans have established presumptive service connection for the recognized Agent Orange illnesses.

Just as we have done for many, many years, only to find our claims wrongly decided against us.

To us, there is no part of "clear" remaining. All is perfectly clear: JSRRC, USAFHRA, IOM, VA M21-1MR, 1991 Agent Orange Act. Clear as can be and not needing any new regulation nor Federal Register posting to make any clearer.

Keep that word in your mind, dear VA. Clear.

Clear on 31 August 2010 in the Federal Register Volume V, No. 168, page 53205. Clear? Any effort to make more clear only clouds the issue with attendant delay in providing the medical care we're all focused on, and that is unethical and contrary to VAM21-1MR itself.

A point where we take offense. The entire VA application process is build around the term "compensation." This is deceptive. Most non-veterans, and too many folks in the media, don't understand that vets are not permitted any care until their claims...in a process called compensation claims"...are decided.

At our ages, and our illnesses, we feel the process should be termed "medical care application" instead of compensation claim. Financial compensation may indeed follow if appropriate, but even a zero percent service connection permits the medical care to be provided a veteran.

Stop making us look like we're financially motivated We take offense.

We're looking hard for VA heros...volunteers welcome! Be one!
----------------

*All of them, other than LtCol Aaron (Tim) Olmsted's claim which was denied on appeal for the ridiculous reason given by the Board's opposing attorney that Tim hadn't shown his C-123s had ever been in Vietnam.

That was an obvious error by BVA and perhaps also an ethical question which should be raised in conversation with the attorney who skillfully blocked Olmsted's claim by such deception. VA has a duty to assist veterans in claims and the proof of Tim's airplane Agent Orange background took one email and a couple days to obtain when the veterans inquired. Why didn't the VA inquire?

Why the vicious motivation of the VA opposing attorney to win even in the face of VA's errors and the veteran's eligibility? We don't understand why the American Legion which represented Olmsted in his appeal failed to right this wrong, but it is still on the table in our conversations with VA officials.

Perceptions of C-123 Veterans Seeking Agent Orange Exposure Care From VA

There are different perceptions of our post-Vietnam C-123 veterans, formed in the minds of the public, our legislators, the Air Force, other veterans, ourselves and our families. (note: last photo is graphic and very disturbing.)

C-123 veterans as seen by families welcoming us back from the Gulf

C-123 veterans (med techs and flight nurses) as seen by their patients

C-123 veterans as seen by ourselves

C-123 veteran, the late LtCol Tim Olmsted, as seen by the ground crew

C-123 veterans, as seen by Hondurans

C-123 veterans, as seen by the flight surgeon

C-123 veteran, the late LtCol Paul Bailey, as seen by New Hampshire American Legion
(combat veteran of 101st Airborne before the Air Force, served 36 years)

C-123 veteran, as seen by surgeon and family. Soft tissue sarcoma.
 Photo provided by the late Master Sergeant George Gadbois. VA claim denied
(photo shown because George wanted it shown)

USAF Historical Research Agency to Examine C-123 Issues

Today, officials of the USAF Historical Research Agency offered to look more deeply into the operational history and Agent Orange concerns focused on our C-123 aircraft assigned to Air Force Reserve units in the years 1972-1982. AFRHA often responds to inquiries regarding veterans' claims and their researchers know exactly what is required.

The issues, and our questions:
- What depot-level maintenance was performed at Dothan, Alabama, which might describe lingering Agent Orange contamination on these airplanes after their service during the Vietnam War, in which they sprayed Agent Orange?
- What contamination evidence might exist, either in unit histories, test reports, other official documentation?
- What was the result of civilian IG complaints regarding contaminated C-123 aircraft at Davis-Monthan AFB's Boneyard?
- What are the details regarding the role of the DoD Agent Orange consultant in the decisions leading up to the destruction of all remaining Boneyard C-123 aircraft?
- What decisions, if any, were reached regarding C-123 aircrews' exposure to Agent Orange during the timeframe 1972-1982, once that toxin was identified in 1994 on the USAF Museum's C-123 "Patches"?
- What was the impact of the USAF Office of Environmental Law decision memo in 1996 which directed C-123 dioxin contamination information "be kept in official channels only" and how what that memo implemented

The role of AFRHA was unknown to us until AFRC recommended we turn there for assistance. Thanks for the advice! We are working on a parallel campaign with the Army's Joint Services Records Research Center, which plays a similar role in responding to requests about veterans' service posed by the Department of Veterans Affairs. Thus far, JSRRC has responded in the negative regarding C-123 Agent Orange contamination, and we have provided their director an extensive set of source materials we hope he'll find adequate to give the VA a more positive and more accurate answer about our veterans' exposure.

Agent Orange Exam IMPORTANT! //Jan 2015 CORRECTION: C-123 VETS NOW ELIGIBLE

9 Jan 2015 Update: VA now invites C-123 veterans to arrange an Agent Orange Registry exam.

(edited out Agent Orange Registry restriction, now removed)

If you feel that you qualify for Agent Orange exposure through service 

on the C-123(aircrew, aerial port, aeromedical evacuation maintenance),

and for benefits for diseases associated with herbicide exposure for 

the veteran must establish a Direct Service Connection Claim for 

herbicide exposure related diseases.

The Veteran must show on a factual basis that they were exposed to 

herbicides during their service by showing: 

1. Credible evidence proving work on the C-123K
2. Medical diagnosis for disease associated with herbicide exposure.
3. Medical nexus connecting 1 and 2

If you have met these criteria’s, then file a Direct Service Claim with 

your local Regional Office. We need to stress the "military herbicide" 

issue rather than the more specific Agent Orange issue. Turns out the

C-123 was contaminated with a variety of agents and the law more 

broadly specifies "herbicides" - a big "thank you" to Professor Jeanne 

Stellman of Columbia University who, using very small words and lots 

of patient repetition, explained the fine points to me.

Please note:

·       This is not a Direct Claim for Agent Orange, it is for Herbicide only.

   Additional information can be obtained at the following VA link: http://www.publichealth.va.gov/exposures/agentorange/thailand.asp

Below is a directory of VA Environmental Health Coordinators by state and U.S. territory. Veterans may contact their local VA Environmental Health Coordinator about registry evaluations or health concerns related to military exposures to herbicides such as Agent Orange - don't worry about the Thailand and Vietnam-era language as we are presenting our claims on the basis of exposure on the C-123K outside Vietnam...there is a category for us, even though the VA presently denies that we were exposed. Because your claim is based on the date of your filing for benefits, and because the Agent Orange Registry exam might uncover useful medical information, each of us needs to call and get a physical scheduled!

The directory below contains the latest information received from VA health care facilities and is updated as changes occur.

Note:  To send a secure e-mail, use VA's Ask a Question - IRIS"

Names and other info last updated: March 2012

Aircrew Chem Warfare Romance!

AL  |  AK  |  AZ  |  AR  |  CA  |  CO  |  CT  |  DE  |  DC  |  FL  |  GA  |  HI  |  ID
IL  |  IN  |  IA  |  KS  |  KY  |  LA  |  MA  |  ME  |  MD  |  MS  |  MI  |  MN  |  MO
MT  |  NE  |  NV  |  NH  |  NJ  |  NM  |  NY  |  NC  |  ND  |  OH  |  OK  |  OR
PA  |   RI  |  SC  |  SD  |  TN  |  TX  |  UT  |  VT  |  VA  |  WA  |  WV  |  WI  |  WY
Philippines | Puerto Rico

**Dr. Walters' change to the Agent Orange Registry Exam:
Mr. Carter

The information Mr. Legere received is correct. The registry exam is essentially a physical exam and is not part of the disability exam.  The Agent Orange registry is available for the following Veterans. 

Vietnam :
Veterans who served in Vietnam between 1962 and 1975, regardless of length of time.
Veterans who served aboard smaller river patrol and swift boats that operated on the inland waterways of Vietnam (also known as “Brown Water Veterans”)
Korea :
Veterans who served in a unit in or near the Korean Demilitarized Zone (DMZ) anytime between April 1, 1968 and August 31, 1971.
Thailand:
U.S. Air Force Veterans who served on Royal Thai Air Force (RTAF) bases near U-Tapao, Ubon, Nakhon Phanom, Udorn, Takhli, Korat, and Don Muang, near the air base perimeter anytime between February 28, 1961 and May 7, 1975.
U.S. Army Veterans who provided perimeter security on RTAF bases in Thailand anytime between February 28, 1961 and May 7, 1975.
U.S. Army Veterans who were stationed on some small Army installations in Thailand anytime between February 28, 1961 and May 7, 1975. However, the Amy Veteran must have been a member of a military police (MP) unit or was assigned a military occupational specialty whose duty placed him or her at or near the base perimeter.
Other potential Agent Orange exposures:
Veterans who may have been exposed to herbicides during a military operation or as a result of testing, transporting, or spraying herbicides for military purposes. Learn about herbicide tests and storage outside Vietnam. Agent Orange or Dioxin dried on surfaces does not present a significant threat to human health. Veterans are eligible if they were in the presence of liquid Agent Orange such as when Agent Orange was sprayed, tested or transported.

Terry Walters


Terry Walters MD MPH
Deputy Chief Consultant Post-Deployment Health
Office of Public Health
Veteran Health Administration

From: Wes Carter  
Sent: Monday, May 06, 2013 9:42 AM
To: Walters, Terry
Subject: Fwd: C-123 Veterans Challenge VA Publication "Scientific Review of Agent Orange in C-123 Aircraft"

Dear Dr. Walters,
May I ask your assistance? I understood that, regardless of any disagreement concerning our veterans' exposure claims, any veteran believing himself/herself to have been exposed to Agent Orange may request an AO physical if exposure is claimed to have occurred. This gentleman was refused...what is the situation?

Thank you,

   Wes Carter, C-123 Veterans Association

VA Retroactive AO Rules (per Nehmer decision)

VA Publishes Agent Orange Retroactivity Rules (Nehmer Decision) (this is of greater interest to our Vietnam veterans) Since 1991, the VA has been required to follow special retroactive benefit  rules whenever it grants a disability compensation claim or a claim for death  benefits under the VA’s Agent Orange rules. These rules are very favorable to  Vietnam veterans and survivors of Vietnam veterans and they are contained  in an Order issued by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California  in the Nehmer class action brought by lawyers from the National Veterans Legal  Services Program.                   The VA finally recognized that the retroactive benefit rules are complex and that  VA regional offices and the Board of Veterans’ Appeals need more guidance  on how to apply the rules. As a result, on August 25, 2003, the VA published  detailed regulations that VA regional offices and the BVA must follow in deciding  the effective date of benefits awarded under the VA’s Agent Orange rules. (The  effective date of an award controls the amount of retroactive benefits to which a  Vietnam veteran or a survivor of a Vietnam veteran is entitled when the VA grants  an Agent Orange claim).                                    The new regulations also explain that if the person to whom the retroactive  benefits is owed (that is, the Vietnam veteran or the survivor of a Vietnam veteran  who claimed death benefits) dies before the VA is ready to make the payment,  the VA does not get to keep the money; instead, the VA must make the payment  to the surviving spouse, surviving children, or surviving parent of the deceased  individual, or, if no such surviving family member exists, to the individual’s estate. What follows are:           The new regulation – which is 38 C.F.R. § 3.816; and The VA’s detailed explanation of the meaning of these rules, which the VA published on January 28, 2003, when it first proposed the new regulation.THE NEW VA REGULATION -- 38 C.F.R. § 3.816 § 3.816—Awards under the Nehmer Court Orders for disability or death caused  by a condition presumptively associated with herbicide exposure.               (a) Purpose. This section states effective-date rules required by orders of a United  States district court in the class-action case of Nehmer v. United States Department  of Veterans Affairs, No. CV-86-6160 TEH (N.D. Cal.).                    (b) Definitions. For purposes of this section-              (1) Nehmer class member means:            (i) A Vietnam veteran who has a covered herbicide disease; or              (ii) A surviving spouse, child, or parent of a deceased Vietnam veteran who died  from a covered herbicide disease.               (2) Covered herbicide disease means a disease for which the Secretary of Veterans  Affairs has established a presumption of service connection before October 1, 2002  pursuant to the Agent Orange Act of 1991, Public Law 102-4, other than chloracne.  Those diseases are:               (i) Type 2 Diabetes (Also known as type II diabetes mellitus or adult-onset diabetes).                 (ii) Hodgkin's disease.             (iii) Multiple myeloma.               (iv) Non-Hodgkin's lymphoma.             (v) Acute and Subacute peripheral neuropathy.           (vi) Porphyria cutanea tarda.  | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | Next>>

Walkin' the Halls in Washington DC

I spent three days in Washington DC in an effort to work with veterans' organizations as well as to locate the decision maker on the recent VA memo about the C-123 Agent Orange issue.

Success on the first part. I first visited headquarters for the Vietnam Veterans of America. I was fortunate to be routed to their two Board of Veterans Appeals experts who were bewildered...and fascinated...by the VA's memo about us! They point out this is the first instance in which the VA has said a low threshold of Agent Orange should be acceptable regarding veterans' health. This is implied in their paragraph where the VA states that even if we have been exposed via dry dioxin transfer it wouldn't have been "enough" to affect our long-term health! Question...just how much dioxin is "enough"?

Following the VA meeting I traveled to the Disabled Veterans of America. While not as expert about Agent Orange as the Vietnam Veterans of America, they have a much larger staff and their dedication is obvious. The manager I worked with spent an hour with me going over the possible actions we can take.  He encouraged working with our congressional representatives to get an amendment to a veterans or defense act to include our "boots on the airplane" position, and offered to bring the issue to his legal staff for further development.

My last stop was with the Veterans of Foreign Wars. I was extremely disappointed with their lack of concern. Meeting me in their lobby without even the courtesy of an office visit, their representative said he was confused about Agent Orange issues himself, and had little guidance about it. Their focus is more on current veterans' issues, which I respect, but I told him that our group of 1500 deserves attention from both the VA and the VFW!  The sum of their "help" was that we should file our applications for veterans' benefits with their regional offices.

My last day was spent in the archives of the National Air Space Museum where their curators had arranged a collection of literature for me. Unfortunately, all of the highly technical materials were stored elsewhere and in transit to another location, leaving only their collection of popular literature. There was in this the best article I've found summarizing the life and career of the C-123, and I've posted it to our blog to download (34MG). Note: they don't have a C-123 in their collection,  but try not to hold that against them..this is still a great place to visit!

The interest from the USAF School of Aerospace Medicine has been gratifying! Their interest in getting to the bottom of the C-123 dioxin contamination is amazing and appreciated. Currently, their request to us is to help identify areas of the aircraft where our maintenance folks found that black "goop" which led to the 1979 inspection team from Warner-Robbins. They also want to find any remaining aircraft, such as the one at the Warner-Robbins museum, to conduct very detailed and more modern scientific testing. Folks, the Surgeon General of the AF hasn't let us down!

VA Releases C-123K Dioxin Exposure Denial

On 17 November the VA released their determination that the C-123 aircrews had not been exposed to Agent Orange residue left on the aircraft following Vietnam.  This seems to be the first time the VA has launched a preemptive strike concerning veterans' Agent Orange claims, but it is understandable given their determination to prevent any further impact on an already-overtaxed budget. It is unfortunate that they have  claimed that a threshold now exists where even a small amount of dioxin exposure is to be held harmless by the VA. It is also unfortunate that this position flies in the face of current research, especially concerning long-term exposure to dioxin, even in low-dosage situations.

Our next steps will focus on challenging this newfound position, with assistance from the various universities and professional societies which have offered their assistance.

Fortunately, the Air Force has not dropped the case and continues their investigation into aircrew exposure,  led by experts at the USAF School of Aerospace Medicine.

Friends, we need help on this effort. Every one of us lives in a state with many medical schools...these schools are filled with experts we can invite to help us. The VA respects professional letters from chemists, physicians, toxicologists. A recent US Army benefits hearing had the officials constantly stressing to the veteran that they'd accept his doctor's statement that his Agent Orange-type illness was "most likely" due to his Agent Orange exposure while performing depot maintenance on Army helicopters in the states!

We don't have to (and shouldn't) ask our doctors to prepare a phony letter about us...but we have every right to ask that our physicians state that we have an Agent Orange-presumtpive illness, that your records indicate exposure to Agent Orange while serving as a crew member, and that the illness is at least "as likely as not" caused by your exposure.

Ideas welcome...let me know! Meanwhile, get into gear and contact your local universities' experts to ask their help in a letter campaign.

A Monumental Week! Good and Bad, But Justice Will Triumph!

Is VA Mickey Mouse or What?

We were hit with a board upside the head when the VA announced Thursday that they'd already decided our C-123 aircrews somehow, miraculously, haven't' been exposed to dioxin, despite our decade of flying the contaminated birds.

In their determination to prevent veterans'  Agent Orange exposure claims, the VA has invented a new thing called "dry dioxin transfer" to pevert science and logic to keep us from essential medical care. Yes, they say, the planes were certainly contaminated, but no, dry dioxin transfer by dermal contact was unlikely plus we couldn't have breathed any in via dust...somehow, the special kind of dioxin left in the C-123 didn't hurt us. I'll just bet the VA would be first to state that Agent Orange actually helped us! Made us the men and women we are today, thanks to Dow and Monsanto!

But here's your good news. By coincidence, I was traveling to the Air Force Museum Wednesday when my cell phone rang with a call from the Air Force School of Aerospace Medicine. Seems they've been tasked to look into the issue of C-123 aircrew exposure and they wanted to get our materials. "Surprise, Surprise Surprise" as Gomer Pyle used to say. I was going to be at Wright-Patterson AFB on Thursday anyway, so I suggested we meet. What perfect timing.

Our meeting with USAFSAM did indeed take place the next morning at 0900 at the new building for the 711th Human Performance Wing and included the project leader, his deputy, an AF physician and a bioenvironmental engineer. I provided the project's OIC our large binder with 320 pages of research, plus a DVD of the many source documents. That gentleman was ready with a DVD for us as well, materials he'd researched and some of which we've never seen before. GREAT!!! Unlike our October 27 teleconference with the VA, these guys asked questions instead of telling us where to get off. And even in the face of the VA's new stand against us, on Friday the Air Force has been told to proceed with their investigation. Thanks, Mr. Secretary!

I also was invited to put him him touch with Prof. Jeanne Stellman at Columbia University School of Medicine, researchers at Portland State University who contributed to the Blue Water Navy Institute of Medicine Study, and Dr. Fred Berman who heads the Toxicology Department at Oregon Health Sciences University. These prestigious scientists refute the VA stand! With other scientists and with us, they maintain that the C-123 aircrews have indeed been exposed.

So, fellow veterans, take heart. We've actually moved ahead a step or two because we always knew the VA would oppose any application from us, and now we have their position defined. In addition to the reasons BVA Judge Cohn invented back in 2007 to deny Tim Olmsted (731st TAS) his service connection (couldn't prove his C-123 was used for AO spray in Vietnam and couldn't prove it remained contaminated - both now answered with Air Force documents released under FOIA),  they new invent new objections which we can now begin to research and answer.

Hang in there. Support each other, keep pushing your state and national representatives to not let the VA get away with this injustice. I task each of you to personally walk the halls of your state university to present our cause to the department of medicine or the department of environmental studies to get them to support our position and challenge the stupidity of the VA invention of "dry dioxin transfer."

I love this fight! If it was easy, they'd get some other jerk to do it so why not me?


Get off your butts. You are warriors. You never give up. You never leave an airman behind. You cover your wingman.

Our cause is just and it is important to us and our comrades in arms.

You will prevail. God bless.

Tally Ho!

HQ USAF Denies Having Any C-123 Agent Orange Documentation!

In a response received last month regarding our earlier FOIA in which we sought any and all C-123/Agent Orange documents from Headquarters, USAF, we have been told that no such documents exist!


Please note that this is in conflict with other FOIA responses from 75ABW (Hill AFB) in which Air Staff approval was mentioned in several places regarding the final destruction of the remaining surplus C-123K/UC-123K stored at Davis-Monthan. Somebody is misleading us!


So what happened? Why does one Air Force organization mention Air Staff inquiries and approvals in various memos, some of which were prepared by or sent to general officers at Hill at AFMC, and yet no such records are available from HQ USAF? Apparently, the requested materials have either been destroyed or withheld from release. If the latter, this would be despite the requirements of the FOIA and in conflict with the letter from HQ USAF stating no such documentation exists.


Hard to believe, right? Hard to believe that 21 dioxin-contaminated aircraft...in storage and causing a threatened $3.4 billion fine, described in federal lawsuits, news articles, memos from Agent Orange consultants to the Secretary of Defense, beaucoup documents flowing between HQ AFMC, USAF/SG, GSA, etc...hard to believe they could be destroyed without HQ USAF documentation! Hard to believe that, earlier, over $120,000 was spent to "quarantine" these contaminated airplanes without HQ USAF approval, which surely must have been given! Indeed, hard to believe this entire mess!

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE

HEADQUARTERS, UNITED STATES AIR FORCE

WASHINGTON, DC

September 13, 2011 

HAF/IMIO (FOIA) 

1000 Air Force Pentagon 

Washington DC 20330-1000 

Mr. Wesley T. Carter 

(personal info deleted)

c123Kcancer@gmail.com 

Re: FOIA 2011-05821-F 

Dear Mr. Carter;

This is in reference to your July 22, 2011, Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for records from the Headquarters Air Force. 

We conducted a search of files within the Secretary of the Air Force Administrative Assistant (SAF/AA) and Secretary of the Air Force Surgeon General (SAF/SG), for records that would be responsive to your request. Unfortunately, we were unable to locate or identify any responsive records, therefore we have no records. 

If you interpret this “No Records” response as an adverse action, you may appeal our decision by writing to the Secretary of the Air Force Thru: HAF/IMIO (FOIA), 1000 Air Force Pentagon, Washington DC 20330-1000 within 60 days from the date of this letter. If no appeal is received, or if the appeal is postmarked after the conclusion of this 60-day period, the appeal may be considered closed. Include your reasons for reconsideration along with a copy of this letter. 

Department of Defense Regulation 5400.7/Air Force Manual 33-302 indicates fees be assessed for processing this request; however, there are no applicable fees in this instance. 

Please direct questions to the undersigned at 703-692-9981, reference FOIA 2011-05821-F. 

Sincerely 

THEODORE C. MARTIN 

Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) 

Disclosure Officer