"VA Math." Why 50% + 50% might be only 70%. Or 65%. Or it could be 100%. How's that possible?

How? The VA does not add disability percentages for each recognized service-connected disability when calculating a veteran's disability rating. Rather, each disability's rating, started with the largest (and presumably the most serious) is applied to the portion of "independent healthy working adult" that remains “healthy.”  So we can all agree that a 100% previously healthy veteran who experiences a 50% disability has a 50% total VA disability rating. 

So far, that's logical. No brain pain understanding that math.

Here's where logic is less logical but it kinda makes sense...if only from the VA's perspective: A 50% rating for one disability leaves a vet with a remaining 50% working efficiency, but another 30% added for a second disability consumes 30% of that remaining 50%, (that's .3 x .5) yielding 65% total, but that's rounded to 70% for disability compensation purposes. 

Thus, 50% plus 50% equals 70%. But only at 810 Vermont Street, Washington DC (VA HQ).

Don't keep scratching your head trying to understand. Its the VA – it just is.

And it gets worse.

If a vet has a 50% disability rating, the compensation is $1,102. If a vet has a 100% disability rating, the compensation is $3,831. Thus 50% disability equals not 50% of the 100% rate but only 29% of the 100% disability. More VA "logic" and mysterious math!

Newest Claims Project: Peripheral Neuropathy

 I've drafted a sample VA disability claim for peripheral neuropathy as SECONDARY to diabetes. Vietnam War and C-123 veterans are presumed exposed to Agent Orange and already get service connection for diabetes if diagnosed. The effort here will be to illustrate how a veteran can get service connection by using diabetes type 2 (and other causes) and then peripheral neuropathy as a secondary issue.

Many vets have complained that their peripheral neuropathy claims long after Vietnam are denied due to VA's one year for symptoms requirement – this effort is an alternate approach using peripheral neuropathy as secondary to another illness or injury already recognized by VA as service connected. It’s for anyone, not just Agent Orange folks. Many other ailments are associated with peripheral neuropathy and if you have PN, you'd be wise to investigate.

"Maude DeVictor, Continuing Her Crusade to Expose Agent Orange" - Washington Post, November 1986

Heros come in all shapes, all sizes, wherever they are needed. Vietnam Veterans needed Maude DeVictor
and she was there for us. Our hero, Navy veteran Ms. Maude DeVictor.

(First Published November 9, 1986)\

By Desson Howee

She welcomes you into her hotel room like a distracted hostess -- glad to see you but worried about the pot roast.

"I'm looking ragged and battered and pudgy," she says. She asks you to cool your heels a bit, while she adjusts. Her garment bag lies unopened on the bed. Mister Rogers is welcoming everyone to his neighborhood loudly on the unwatched television and the phone rings constantly with calls from the press.

This is an elated Maude DeVictor. The woman known for her advocacy for Vietnam veterans -- particularly over the issue of Agent Orange -- has just jetted in from Boston, where she was received by Mayor Raymond Flynn and Gov. Michael Dukakis (Flynn declared today Maude DeVictor Day). This past weekend in Washington she attended "In Service to America," a conference sponsored by the Vietnam Veterans of America.

DeVictor's frenetic activity is connected with tonight's "Unnatural Causes," a controversial NBC television drama based on her battle to establish a connection between the defoliant Agent Orange used in the war and a plethora of deaths, illnesses and physical ailments that many Vietnam veterans have suffered. A consultant on the film, she says the docudrama "accurately depicts" the circumstances of her career with the Veterans Administration's Chicago Regional Office.

"Just do the top," she says to a photographer. She points to her hips and laughs.

"Have you heard of Nam-myoho-renge-kyo?" she asks, referring to a Buddhist chant. She throws a visitor a leaflet on Nichiren Shoshu Buddhism before heading for the bathroom with a lipstick.

"This is like a victory for fat people," she says just before disappearing and lets out a cackle that threatens to vibrate the infrastructure.

When DeVictor, a benefits counselor at the VA office, filed a claim in 1977 on behalf of a Vietnam veteran who had terminal cancer, it was the beginning of what may be a lifelong mission. The veteran's widow claimed his death resulted from exposure to Agent Orange, and DeVictor -- a divorced mother raising a son -- began to discover other veterans who also believed their medical problems came from the toxin.

VA Disability Claim Form VA 526EZ now includes Agent Orange C-123 details

 Reference VA Form 526EZ disability claim form.

I hadn't noticed but Veterans Benefit Administration now includes C-123 veterans in their Agent Orange exposure section. BTW: if you haven't checked with VA for their full range of toxic exposure disabilities, do so NOW!

VA 526EZ, Section IV EXPOSURE INFORMAON

Our association's second response to proposed new VA regulation on veterans' hazardous exposure issues.

Our association has posted a second response to the proposed new VA regulation covering veterans' hazardous exposure issues. (First response here.)

The proposed regulation does much to address a wide range of exposure locations and does finally address members of the Reserve Components. It does not mention three earlier failed assurances by the Department of Veterans Affairs in the Federal Register that it would care for veterans who did not serve in the Republic of Vietnam, but were exposed to herbicide agents. Pages from the Federal Register are attached (Federal Register Vol. 66, No. 89, May 8, 2001 and Vol. 73, No. 74, April 16, 2008 and Vol. 75, No. 168, August 31, 2010.)

Instead, Veterans Benefits Administration took steps to insure veterans were refused all care and benefits they should have received for their exposures,  dishonoring VA responses published in the Federal Register.

Between 2001 and 2010, the Department of Veterans Affairs proposed important regulatory changes in the care offered veterans exposed to military herbicides. Responding to public concern for veterans exposed in situations outside the Republic of Vietnam, in three separate and deceptive answers, the VA specifically said no regulatory changes were needed or would be made because:

"If a veteran who did not serve in the Republic of Vietnam, but was
to an herbicide agent defined in 38 CFR 3.307(a)(6) during active military service, has a disease on the list of diseases subject to presumptive service connection, VA will presume that the disease is due to the exposure to herbicides. (See 38 CFR 3.309(e)). 

We therefore believe that there is no need to revise the regulation based on this comment."

By implication, these three deceptive VA responses it also assured Congress that no legislation would be necessary for protection of the affected veterans because the VA had already arranged to offer the same full range of exposure benefits provided Vietnam War veterans.

VA was deceptive between 2001 and 2015 in that, despite assuring the public and Congress that veterans exposed to military herbicides would receive benefits, it instead routinely refused to honor virtually all such claims. A VBA physician and Agent Orange subject matter expert with the "Agent Orange Desk" stated to the Associated Press, "We have to draw the line somewhere." 

The C-123 Veterans Association believes any such "line" may only be drawn in accord with law and regulation, not the preference of VBA staffers determined to block veterans' valid herbicide exposure claims.

VA Regulation M21-1 required it check with the Joint Services Records Research Agency for support of non-Vietnam exposures, but then refused confirmation when offered unless the Agent Orange Desk first requested such confirmation. In many instances, the Agent Orange Desk either refused to make such a request or wouldn't accept JSRRC confirmation even when offered.

This is not ancient history. Veterans and their families were assured of exposure benefits by theVA with empty, dishonored promises made in the Federal Register but were denied those benefits. Note must be made as VA seeks to publish this newest regulation to address earlier failures and deceptions on the same subject.

Respectfully submitted,

W. Carter, The C-123 Veterans Association

VA proposes vast new coverage for non-Vietnam Agent Orange exposures. We offered comment on the new regulation.

AR10-Proposed Rule-Adjudication Regulations for Disability or Death Benefit Claims Related to Exposure to Certain Herbicide Agents

COMMENT BY THE C-123 VETERANS ASSOCIATION:

We commend the Department of Veterans Affairs for advancing benefits to affected veterans in this manner and, on the whole, this change is comprehensive and in accord with current law and regulations. There are some flaws. This proposed regulation is not in accord with numerous earlier entries by VA regarding non-Vietnam Agent Orange exposures 

The proposal fails to reference prior commitments made in the Federal Register by VA on this issue. The Department repeatedly assured Congress over the decades that every veteran who did not serve in the Republic of Vietnam but was exposed to Agent Orange during active military service would, upon proof, be offered presumptive service connection for the list of diseases associated with that herbicide. (see Federal Register Vol. 66, No. 89, May 8, 2001 and Vol. 73, No. 74 April 16, 2008 and Vol. 75, No. 168, August 31, 2010). It never met this obligation and denied virtually all such claims.

When affected veterans sought presumptive service connection, even when citing VA promises in the Federal Register, the Department’s Veterans Health Administration Post-Deployment Public Health Section and its Agent Orange Veterans Benefit Administration Agent Orange Desk blocked claims specifically because exposed veterans lacked Vietnam service or, in some cases, because veterans failed to scientifically prove an exposure plus subsequent “bioavailability.” Per the Federal Register entries, proof of exposure alone was all that was required. Redefining the concept of exposure to require “bioavailability” was never in accord with any law or regulation dealing with veterans and Agent Orange. Rather, it was an unofficial office policy. It was also bad science. 

VA denying the fact of an exposure by also requiring proof of bioavailability was deceptive. Bioavailability is a related but separate concept in toxicology, as confirmed by the Director, National Institute for Environmental Health Sciences. Specifically addressing VA using the issue of bioavailability to deny Agent Orange exposure claims, she wrote, “In all my years as a toxicologist, I have never heard bioavailability as part of the exposure definition.” 

The Department’s failure with firm commitments first made in 2001 has been to the great disservice of affected veterans and their families. VA repeatedly assured Congress that it needed no new legislation or revision to regulations to meet its obligation. VA withstood Congressional concern with Agent Orange claims for veterans’ exposures outside the Republic of Vietnam using deceptive assurances while at the same time denying virtually all such claims. The Federal Register must account for earlier entries from the Department of Veterans Affairs in its submission of this newer regulation or else muddy the Register’s historical record. Clearly, “exposure” was the sole requirement for presumptive service connection, yet VA failed to honor the three assurances made to Congress. Cited below is the Federal Register Vol. 66, No. 89, May 8, 2001, the first of these failed assurances:

“…if a veteran who did not serve in the Republic of Vietnam, but was exposed to an herbicide agent defined in 38 CFR 3.307(a)(6) during active military service, has a disease on the list of diseases subject to presumptive service connection, VA will presume that the disease is due to the exposure to herbicides. (See 38 CFR 3.309(e).”

Respectfully submitted,

The C-123 Veterans Association

BULLETIN: VA to ease benefits rules for exposures to Agent Orange in the US

VA eases rules for exposures to Agent Orange in the US

Thousands of veterans exposed to Agent Orange while serving in the United States will for the first time be eligible for fast-track disability benefits under plans unveiled by the Department of Veterans Affairs on Friday. As readers of this blog are aware (and as the new rules reiterate,) C-123 veterans are already considered presumptively exposed to Agent Orange and eligible for full veterans' benefits thereby. This coverage dates from June 2015.

The move represents another major expansion of toxic exposure benefits for veterans, this time for individuals suffering from illnesses dating back to the Vietnam War era. The changes follow mandates included in the Promise to Address Comprehensive Toxics Act — better known as the PACT Act — passed by Congress in August 2022.

Over the last two years, a combination of administration moves and new legislation opened access to disability benefits for millions of veterans who incurred injuries from burn pit smoke, radiation contamination and other military toxic exposure events.

In a statement, VA Secretary Denis McDonough said the proposed moves “would make it easier for veterans exposed to herbicides who served outside Vietnam to access the benefits they so rightly deserve.

“Our goal is to provide every veteran of every era with the VA health care and benefits they deserve, and this is another step in the right direction,” McDonough said.

Rules outlining the change were filed in the Federal Register on Friday, and will still take several months before going into effect. The new proposal would give presumptive benefits status to veterans who served in “locations where herbicides were tested, used, or stored outside of Vietnam.”

That includes military locations in 12 states — Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Maryland, Mississippi, Montana, New York, Tennessee, Texas and Utah — where Agent Orange was present in the 1940s, 1950s, 1960s and 1970s. A full list of the specific states and times is available on the VA website.

The rule would also cover troops stationed at Canadian Forces Base Gagetown in New Brunswick, Canada, in June 1966 and June 1967; individuals stationed in Kumbla, India, in 1945 and 1946; and expanded timelines for troops who served in Cambodia, the Johnston Atoll, Guam, American Samoa, Korea, Laos, and Thailand during the 1960s and 1970s.

A full list of these foreign locations is also available on VA websites.

Troops who served in Vietnam between January 1962 and May 1975 — either on the ground or in waterways around the country — already qualify for presumptive benefits status by the department because of Agent Orange exposure.

The toxic defoliant has been linked to a host of cancers and heart illnesses. Presumptive status means that individuals who develop certain illnesses believed caused by the chemicals do not have to document specific instances where they were exposed, but instead only provide service records showing they were in the area (or the C-123 unit) to be presumed contaminated.

As a result, advocates have pushed for broader use of presumptive status for troops who served around toxic chemicals while in the military but may not have been able to document every instance of exposure because of records lost over the years.

More information on Agent Orange presumptive benefits is available on the VA website.

VA Ripped Off By Phony C-123 Agent Orange Claim!

Some con artists come from our own military ranks. Take this dishonorable clown for instance: A clinic lab tech at Hanscom AFB between 1972-1973 claimed Agent Orange exposure from doing his medical lab work. This was probably for aircrew annual physicals, and probably with gloves on. He even claimed he went to the flight line to "recover medical specimens" form the aircraft!
The VA granted his phony claim in 2022. The USA will waste hundred$ of thousand$ on the clown...tax dollars from his fellow citizens.  His claim (and the resultant money!) will be backdated seven years...he is raking in big bucks with the phony claim and his lies made under sworn testimony.

Citation Nr: 22065492
Decision Date: 11/22/22	Archive Date: 11/22/22
ORDER
Entitlement to service connection for prostate cancer, secondary to herbicide exposure, is granted.
FINDINGS OF FACT (???????)
1. The evidence is at least in approximate balance as to whether the Veteran was exposed to herbicides in service at Hanscom Air Force Base (AFB).
2. The Veteran's diagnosed prostate cancer is presumed to be related to exposure to herbicides during service at Hanscom AFB.
CONCLUSION OF LAW
Resolving reasonable doubt in the Veteran's favor, the criteria for entitlement to service connection for prostate cancer, secondary to herbicide exposure, have been met.  38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1116, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.307, 3.309.
REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION
The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Air Force from October 1970 to October 1974. Entitlement to service connection for prostate cancer, secondary to herbicide exposure, is granted.
Factual Background.??????
The Veteran's service records indicate that he was stationed at Hanscom Air Force Base (AFB) from April 1972 to October 1974 and that his principal duty was medical laboratory specialist, military occupational specialty (MOS) code 90450.  See Service Personnel Records.

In a November 2019 Congressional correspondence, the United States Air Force confirmed that three Ranch Hand C-123 spray aircrafts were utilized as cargo and passenger aircraft at Hanscom AFB between November 1972 and September 1973.  

The Veteran's VA treatment records indicate that he was diagnosed with prostate cancer in July 2015.  

In an October 2015 Notice of Disagreement (NOD), the Veteran asserted that, while stationed at Hanscom AFB, he was required to analyze bodily fluids and other material that had been transported by C-123 aircrafts.

In a November 2017 VA Form 9, the Veteran asserted that, while stationed at Hanscom AFB, he was directly involved with receiving medical specimens, equipment, and personnel that had been transported on C-123 aircraft.  The Veteran also stated that this was performed without protective gear.  

In an October 2018 correspondence, the Veteran stated that, while stationed at Hanscom AFB, he attended all patients requiring lab work, including C-123 crew members, and performed lab testing on medical specimens that were transported by C-123 aircraft.  See October 2018 Veteran Correspondence. 

In the October 2020 Board hearing, the Veteran TESTIFIED (to a VA administrative judge) that, while stationed at Hanscom AFB, he frequently went to the flight line to retrieve medical specimens that had been transported by C-123 aircraft.  The Veteran estimated that he came in contact with a C-123 aircraft approximately 30 times. 

VA makes all toxic-exposure conditions presumptive immediately following signing of PACT Act! Great News - no further waiting!

By 

SARA SAMORA

STARS AND STRIPES • August 31,

WASHINGTON — The Veterans Affairs Department has declared all 23 health conditions outlined in the recently enacted PACT Act “presumptive” from the date the bill was signed, reducing the burden on veterans or their survivors to prove that certain diseases were caused by service-related exposure to toxins and burn pits.

The VA had planned to phase in the system, under which specific health conditions likely resulting from exposure to toxins are recognized as service-related, over the next few years. Those conditions include brain cancer, gastrointestinal cancer, kidney cancer, lymphoma and melanoma, among others. President Joe Biden signed the legislation Aug. 10.

"Veterans have waited too long for this care and these benefits already and we're not going to make them wait any longer," VA Secretary Denis McDonough told the American Legion National Convention in Milwaukee on Wednesday. “So instead of phasing in the conditions over the coming years, we're making all conditions outlined in the PACT Act presumptive August 10."

The law will provide an easier path to health care and benefits for veterans who served near open-air burn pits, which were widely used by the military throughout the 1990s and the post-9/11 wars to dispose of garbage, jet fuel and other materials. Veterans diagnosed with cancer, respiratory issues and lung disease at early ages have blamed exposure on the toxic fumes from these pits, but the VA contended for years that there wasn't sufficient evidence to support their claims.

The new law will also expand the list of presumptive diseases related to Agent Orange to include exposure in Thailand, Cambodia, Laos, Guam, American Samoa and Johnston Atoll. It also strengthens federal research on toxic exposure, and boosts the VA's resources and training to help cope with new claims.

McDonough also said the VA will begin processing PACT Act claims on Jan. 1, describing it as the earliest possible date. He also said that implementing and executing "one of the biggest expansions of VA benefits in history" won't be easy.

"We will really need your help communicating because we want every veteran, every single veteran to get the care they need and the benefits they deserve, the benefits they have earned, and we will not rest until they do," McDonough said.

The bill was named after Sgt. 1st Class Heath Robinson, who was diagnosed with a rare autoimmune disorder and lung cancer after serving with the Army National Guard in Kosovo and Iraq, where he experienced prolonged exposure to burn pits. He died in 2020.

Most Ridiculous c-123 Agent Orange Exposure VA Disability Claims

OUTRAGEOUS! Where do they make these things up? Ever since June 2015 once VA acknowledged the C-123 Agent Orange contamination with their new regulation granting service connection, we've seen the most ridiculous statements from vets trying to climb onto the FREELOADER disability bandwagon.

Granted, their claimed ailments may be legitimate, but judge for yourself these phony claims of C-123 exposure. These are taken from VA Board of Veterans Appeals records.

1. C-123 aircraft flew from my aircraft carrier and exposed me to Agent Orange herbicide.

2. I was a Navy medic on many C-123 aeromedical evacuation missions in Guam (or from Guam to
Thailand, Japan, etc., pick one.)

3. I was a security policeman and flew armed escort on many C-123 missions in the USA.

4. I refueled C-123 aircraft in Alaska (or California, or Thailand, Guam, whatever) that had sprayed Agent Orange in Vietnam.

5. I often flew in a C-123 as a member of the Air Force band in Europe.

6. I was a passenger on a C-123 flight.

7. A C-123 was parked next to my aircraft AT (fill in whatever base name interests you.)

8. I cleaned Agent Orange spills from C-123 airplanes in the Philippines (or Guam, Thailand, Korea, etc.)

9. I built a C-123 Agent Orange storage shed in the Philippines.

10. I loaded drums of Agent Orange aboard C-123s in (pick any country, any state.)

11. I worked C-123 aircraft as an air traffic controller at Clark Air Base, Philippines.

12. I was exposed as a Navy stock clerk while stationed in Naha, Okinawa, Japan, from June 1969 to March 1971.

13. I was exposed to herbicides while serving at Howard Air Force Base in Panama as a security policeman and guarded the C-123 aircraft, which carried herbicides to the Republic of Vietnam, and guarded other areas where herbicide agents were regularly sprayed.

14. I was exposed to herbicides during Operation Ranch Hand while stationed at Dover Air Force Base. I worked on C-133 and C-141 aircraft on nightshifts and he moved barrels with unknown liquids from the aircraft.

15. I was exposed to C-123 at Gunter, Lackland, Maxwell without any foreign service.

16, As an inventory supply management specialist, my herbicide exposure was gained while moving herbicide-laden C-123 aircraft parts at Williams Air Force Base. The aircraft parts were from aircraft that were returning from Vietnam. My duties included tagging parts, putting them in a box and sending them to various places to be reused, fixed or for some other purpose.

17. I was a refueling specialist and serviced numerous airplanes returning from Vietnam, including C-123, C-124, and F-100 airplanes, from 1962 to 1966 while stationed at Biggs, Malmstrom, and Ramey Air Force Bases.

18. I refueled various aircraft, including C-123s, at Shemya Air force base in Alaska and at the Langley Air force base in Virginia.

19. While stationed at Davis-Monthan Air Force Base (DMAFB) in Tucson, Arizona, as a Law Enforcement Specialist (LES), I was exposed to both toxic substances and agent orange. C-123 aircraft stationed at DMAFB were contaminated with agent orange.

New Diagnosis - Parkinson's Disease

New Diagnosis - Parkinson's Disease

They might have figured out some of the problems I've been having...I got diagnosed with Parkinson's last week. The symptoms are there but don't seem to be advancing too fast, so at age 75 I can hope to "age out" of the worst of it.

Another blessing brought to us by Agent Orange! Parkinson's, Parkinsonism and Parkinsons-like symptoms are now considered Agent Orange presumptive illnesses, along with bladder cancer and all the old favorites!

College Roommate VA Disability Max'd Up to 100%!

Yesterday my college roommate Paul heard from VA that his supplemental claim for disability has been approved. He's now backdated 100% to December 2020! Great news, following the first claim being approved earlier for hearing loss at 40%. My strategy helping him was to tie certain current problems to his hearing loss as secondary issues. VA has agreed, following an appeal that reversed their initial denial.

Now, he will get a better disability compensation, medical care for himself and family, some state benefits and, if and hen needed, nursing home or other such advanced care.

These are earned entitlements which he has been denied for the past half-century. Denied VA medical care, GI home loan, every state benefit withheld. There's no catch-up for what he's been refused.

Remember: this is a good outcome but it really is an immense VA failure! Paul first applied for VA disability benefits when he was released from active duty in 1969. He lived with his disability and forgot all about the VA claim which, decades later, was finally found in his Army dental records. The VA never found this critical document: It took his attorney Katrina Eagle a couple hours. Perhaps...VA don't give a damn?

A veteran has a reasonable beef with the VA when they take half a century to resolve a claim, meanwhile denying all federal and state benefits. Paul has a beef, but right now he's simply glad things have gotten straightened out.

The VA tried. Dragged it out fifty years, and if only the process had taken a bit longer, until Paul had passed, VA could cancel his claim altogether because when the vet dies, so does the claim. Too bad, VA. At least you made it into your disgusting "Claim Ignored 50 Years Club."

Helped my college roommate win huge, 52-year old VA disability claim!

$155,000. It will be in his bank on Monday," said his attorney K. E, when she called to give me the great news. My old college roommate has won a 52-year old VA claim he'd long-forgotten having submitting in 1969 when he left active duty. 

I got his initial VA claim approved earlier this year at 40% disability with an initial check for $7,000, paying what was due from November 2020 when I mailed it. However, I knew he needed professional help trying to get other serious disabilities related to what the VA decided is already service-connected.

I recommended the attorney I knew best, who also has her solo veteran-focused practice near my friend. Her expertise uncovered the fact that his initial claim had been submitted back in 1969, filed and lost somehow into his VA dental records and never adjudicated. She slapped the paperwork into the mail to catch up with this VA error, and today's great news comes as a blessing for my old friend.

What a happy day!

VA includes C-123 veterans in Agent Orange publication

 They haven't forgotten about our little group of veterans! The VA included our agent orange exposure in this recent publication titled: 

Garrison exposures and health concerns

publicationhttps://www.publichealth.va.gov/exposures/publications/military-exposures/meyh-2/garrison.asp

Who says VA has no sense of humor? NOT ME!!

 I LEARNED TODAY FROM THE CHEYENNE VA CLAIMS OFFICE THAT I'D BEEN DECLARED  DEAD!

"Not so," I insisted and whipped out my ID cards. "Oh, bother," said the claims agent as she looked forward to an entire afternoon correcting VA's boo-boo. Here's how VA posted the changes: (Third line under "STATUS of Your Claim")

Property Tax Relief for Colorado Gold Star Widows!

 

Fourteen states have a total property tax exemption, and they are an outstanding example to the other 36! Property tax relief is a vital benefit, helping to keep families of America's fallen servicemembers in reasonable financial health, and it is a good deal for each state! Veterans and their survivors bring a tremendous economic boon to their communities. 

Here in Colorado, over 26,000 jobs are created by retired military, vets and survivors! Their pensions pay for health care, food, transportation, consumer items, housing – and their pensions come to Colorado to circulate throughout the economy and multiply about five times over. Citizens, good veterans' benefits are even better for the states offering them. I sure wish Colorado was one of the leaders, but instead, only about 25th among the states.

Follow at www.codisabledvet.blogspot.com

VETERANS BENEFITS FOR USAF RESERVISTS & ANG WITH TINNITUS AND HEARING LOSS

Are you ineligible for VA benefits because you're a "traditional reservist?"

If hearing injuries resulting from flight or aircraft maintenance duties might qualify you for VA compensation and other benefits. Here's how.

Traditional reservists aren't eligible for most VA benefits because our "active duty for training" doesn't count towards true veteran status. Regardless of how long one's initial active duty for basic and technical school might be, the law doesn't recognize that as "active service." VA recognizes completion of an active duty enlistment, or active duty during wartime to qualify a servicemember for benefits, but UTAs, annual tour, active duty for basic and other training are grouped into ineligible "active duty for training." No bennies.

BUT – there'a a big exception to that for any disabling injury or disease you might experience.

Tinnitus is just one such injury. That ringing in the ears, or wind noise or low hum is caused by loud noises. Noises like a C-123 or C-130 makes. Noises like an M-16 makes at 154dB.

Flyers, tank crews, infantry, artillery and others around loud noises in a military setting often suffer tinnitus, and VA recognizes that as a frequent disability - in fact, it is the most common disability veterans have.

And if you have tinnitus you might be entitled to VA care and compensation for that disability, and if you are, that makes you a veteran with all the benefits that wartime veterans receive.

I got into this recently to help an army reservist who had tinnitus from his time in basic training when he fired the M-14 rifle and did not have any ear protection. Noises of 85 dB and above can cause permanent hearing loss and tinnitus, and our aircraft are far noisier than that: The cockpit is steady at over 112 dB. The noise is worse in the rear!

After my altitude chamber ride at Edwards AFB I started flying in 1974. I recall that by 1975 or so we received the yellow foam earplugs and they provided some protection from noise hazards. But there was still significant noise reaching the inner ear to cause damage. This kind of damage is permanent and cumulative and can evidence itself in tinnitus and/or hearing loss even years later.

Here is my point in the VA's own words: “When a claim for service connection is based on a period of active duty for training, there must be evidence that the individual concerned became disabled as a result of a disease or injury incurred or aggravated in the line of duty during the period of active duty for training.“

That is per 38 U.S.C. § 1131 (see also 38 U.S.C. § 1110; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a). See CAVC Hensley v. Brown – “claimant may establish direct service connection for a hearing disability initially manifest several years after separation from service on the basis of evidence showing that the current hearing loss is causally related to injury or disease suffered in service.”( 5 Vet. App. 155, 164 (1993).” Also see VA Training Letter 10-02 at 15 (rescinded re: incorporation into VBA Adjudication Procedures Manual (M21-1), pt. III, subpt. iv, ch. 4, § D.1-3)

VA compensation for a tinnitus disability is a modest $144 per month, but the real importance here is that a hearing injury establishes legal veteran status with all the benefits that attach to being a wartime veteran (we've been in a period of war ever since Desert Storm.) Sometimes there are secondary issues to hearing loss like depression or hypertension. Rarely, there have been vets getting up to 50% disability ($995/month) based on hearing loss and complications.

You might not need them now, but benefits include pension rights, medical and pharmacy (perhaps with modest co-payments,) rehab, hearing aids, VA home loan, e

Many VA C-123 Publication and Web Page Errors Now Resolved (I hope)

Much still needs to be done, however we're grateful for all progress! Email from VA Post Deployment Public Health, received today:

Sir:

Post Deployment Health Services updated the webpage and also mentioned the C-123 group on a national call with the Environmental Health Coordinators and Clinicians this week.  We will send the link to the updated page to our VISN leads.  Thank you for your email and concern for the C-123 Veterans. 

 On web page:C-123 Airplanes and the Agent Orange RegistryVeterans (including some Reservists) who state that they flew on or worked on a C-123 aircraft between 1969 and 1986 are eligible for the Agent Orange Registry.https://www.publichealth.va.gov/exposures/agentorange/locations/residue-c123-aircraft/index.asp  Please note that VBA will have documentation requirements while for registry exams we only require a verbal declaration.

Another VA Publication Error: Wrong Dates on C-123 Eligibility

Will it ever stop? Another error has been spotted on VA web pages and publications that slams the hopes of C-123 veterans hoping to quality for Agent Orange exposure benefits.

This time the error is with dates: A VA web page titled "Agent Orange exposure" specifies the dates for C-123 exposure eligibility as "On C-123 airplanes: Between January 9, 1962, and May 7, 1975." Their error, of course, was using the dates for general Vietnam War eligibility and not our post-Vietnam C-123 service dates of 1972-1986.

The mistake has been pointed out to them but this morning I repeated myself by filing another VA Inspector General report...the fourth so far asking VA to clean up their publications.

Here's a clip of their error:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Rlco4Rptc-7SphAcQst8MB4Q1WMv54wG/view?usp=sharing

VA & DOD Release 2019 List of Agent Orange Sites (outside of Vietnam)

VA has released an updated Department of Defense list of locations outside of Vietnam where tactical herbicides were used, tested or stored by the United States military. The last list was released in 2006, and its flaws plagued vets these last fourteen year.

We tried to get DOD or VA to update their list, but both agencies said it wasn't theirs. I found the key USAF official in charge of installations, but LtGen Fedder declined to do anything to add C-123 aircraft to Dr. Alvin Young's 2006 waste of taxpayer dollars.

VA continued describing their new llst: “This update was necessary to improve accuracy and communication of information,” said VA Secretary Robert Wilkie. “VA depends on DOD to provide information regarding in-service environmental exposure for disability claims based on exposure to herbicides outside of Vietnam.”

Thorough review

DOD conducted a thorough review of research, reports and government publications in response to a November 2018 Government Accountability Office report.

“DOD will continue to be responsive to the needs of our interagency partners in all matters related to taking care of both current and former service members,” said Defense Secretary Mark T. Esper. “The updated list includes Agents Orange, Pink, Green, Purple, Blue and White, and other chemicals and will be updated as verifiable information becomes available.”

See the full list of locations at https://www.publichealth.va.gov/docs/agentorange/dod_herbicides_outside_vietnam.pdf.

Veterans who were exposed to Agent Orange or other herbicides during service may be eligible for a variety of VA benefits, including an Agent Orange Registry health exam, health care and disability compensation for diseases associated with exposure. Their dependents and survivors also may be eligible for benefits