USAF C-123 Report: We're going to set the record straight in 2018

Nearly five years ago the US Air Force School of Aerospace Medicine (USAFSAM) at Wright-Patterson AFB released their study of the post-Vietnam C-123 transports previously used for spraying Agent Orange. The planes were used for a decade after the

Vietnam War and had never been decontaminated of the military herbicides they dispersed. The study was ordered by the Air Force when C-123 veterans complained of likely Agent Orange exposure.

The study was flawed, and tainted with command interference obvious when compared to the 38-page draft report the scientists themselves submitted. The study seemed torn between political and scientific goals, rather than science alone as would be proper. Veterans were concerned about their health but the report assured them the planes were unlikely to have been contaminated enough to cause medical issues typically associated with Agent Orange exposure.

The Air Force declined to inform aircrews of the twice-proven C-123 contamination, insisting it "would only cause undue distress and provide limited benefit." Message: we'd already been poisoned, and knowing about the poison wouldn't help us very much.

This blog began on March 14, 2011, a year before the USAFSAM report was released, and we've earned a seven-year track record of honesty and accurate interpretations of USAF and VA source data. Seven years ago, we said the Air Force and the VA were both wrong about our exposures.

By January 2015, we were proven right and they were proven wrong when the definitive Institute of Medicine report "Post-Vietnam Dioxin Exposure in Agent Orange-Contam-inated C-123 Aircraft" was submitted to the Secretary of Veterans Affairs. They were wrong, but only the veterans involved paid any penalty for errors because for six years, VA refused these vets all medical care and other benefits.

Two of those six years, 2012 to 2014, are tied to the tainted USAFSAM report and how the VA misused it. For these years VA refused all medical care, compensation, family assistance...everything needed by disabled veterans, citing the USAFSAM report as justification for VA locking its hospital doors to C-123 veterans.

Today, we begin our challenge of the USAFSAM report, together with an exposure of the damage done when VA relied on the report to cancel their own 2012 promise for referral of the C-123 question to the Institute of Medicine.

The goal now is to have the Air Force either withdraw their C-123 report ("UC-123 Agent Orange Exposure Assessment, Post-Vietnam [972-1982]) or, more probable, annotate it in some way to describe its errors and shortfalls. It should not be allowed to stand, as it has for five years, as the official Air Force conclusion about C-123 veterans and our exposures. It fouls the scientific record and offends the veterans it mistreated.

Now a clarification as we move forward. We will deal with three reports:
1. The 2012 USAFSAM C-123 Report (done)
2. The 2012 VA-promised referral to the Institute of Medicine (promised, cancelled)
3. The 2015 Institute of Medicine report, ordered by the VA (done)

Dayton Agent Orange Town Hall Meeting - November 14, 2015. Special C-123 Info Provided

VA worked & spent $$$ to oppose Institute of Medicine C-123 result

Documents released today under supervision of the US District Court Washington DC provide all the details: VA submitted the C-123 exposure question to the Institute of Medicine for evaluation, but then worked behind the scenes to insure the IOM gave only the desired conclusion...the conclusion VA staffers felt best met their own policies. Thank God (and IOM staffers,) IOM didn't fall for VA's tricks.

This week, after years of delays and obstruction by VA, hundreds of pages of internal correspondence and emails were released dealing with the C-123 Agent Orange exposure concerns of over 2100 veterans who flew these transports following Vietnam. The aircraft were contaminated, but VA from the beginning took extraordinary steps to prevent exposed veterans from receiving vital medical care and disability compensation.

The efforts seem to date back to 2007, when LtCol Aaron Olmsted's Agent Orange exposure claim was denied by VA on the basis he had no proof his C-123s were the ones actually used in Vietnam for spraying Agent Orange. Records show Olmsted flew hundreds of hours in these aircraft, but VA's legal "duty to assist" was viewed by the Department with disdain.

No effort was made by VA to locate readily available records to confirm Olmsted's assertions, something veterans themselves did with a simple phone call and two days' waiting for results from the Air Force Historical Records Agency. VA could and should have done this in meeting its duty to help the veteran locate records, but their victory over his claim was more important. Even when proof of Olmsted's claims was finally offered the VA, it was ignored by the BVA, by the regional administrator, and by the attorney who opposed Olmsted at the BVA hearing.

In more recent years, VA's tricks included paying its principal consultant while he appeared before the IOM to "defend the VA's science" and most certainly, to oppose the great volumes of science supporting the C-123 veterans. The consultant had been awarded his VA no-bid sole source $600,000 contract, the work product of which focused on obstructing C-123 exposure claims. The contract, and its obvious conflict of interest (or certainly the suggestion of that possibility) was not revealed to the committee by VA or the consultant.

Note also that in 2011 the consultant labeled C-123 veterans with disdain as "trash-haulers, freeloaders looking for a tax free dollar...I have no respect." One senses this profoundly negative attitude even better endeared him to the VA, rather than disqualifying him as it should have from any effect on the health care of these 2100 exposed veterans he dislikes so much.

His 2009 role in having recommended destruction of the stored surplus C-123s as toxic waste and to prevent veterans from learning of the contamination was not discussed with the IOM. It should have been...so many things should have been revealed, both to the veterans and the IOM.

Previously a paid consultant to both Dow and Monsanto in their efforts to fight veterans' claims, and with years as an Air Force officer manning VA's own Agent Orange desk helping prevent such claims, the consultant was the perfect go-to guy for VA's Veterans Benefits Administration and Veterans Health Administration, whose senior staffers personally opposed expanding Agent Orange coverages to anyone.

Records now show that VA coordinated closely with their consultant, who nonetheless insisted he wasn't before the IOM to represent the VA. Not only did VA pay him $600,000 for work including monographs attacking the veterans' claims, but he was under that lucrative VA contract even at the time. IOM's questions to the consultant were answered only after first being passed by the VA to insure they met the Department's policy objectives, before being released to the IOM:

In the following email, the consultant writes the US Air Force and clearly states he is presenting to the IOM C-123 committee "on behalf of Compensation Service and the (VA) Office of Public Health." No, not independent at all, but he was presenting to the IOM as VA's voice:

The VA consultant referred frequently to his many monographs being "peer reviewed." This is highly questionable, as no researcher is permitted to select the reviewers as was done here. Peer review is meant to be a critical challenge to protect the scientific record, not this buddy-stamp from close associates holding identical views. Despite VA's own high standards for scientific research, this was allowed to pass without challenge to its many violations of VA Directive 0005 (Scientific Integrity.)

This attitude persisted into more recent years, as detailed in this week's FOIA results. VA expressly sought to "counter" scientific materials with paid-for input from selected sources, rather than letting science and the IOM proceed independently:

Besides contracting with its preferred "go-to" Agent Orange consultant, Veterans Health Administration also paid Sandia Labs to construct arguments against the many scientific experts whose professional opinions were universally in support of C-123 veterans' exposures;

Veterans have tried to stress the fact that of the dozens of independent scientists and physicians who concluded the veterans were exposed and harmed, none were paid.

VA didn't waste a penny seeking any independent views or opinions which might agree with the veterans' claims, but spent hundreds upon hundreds of thousands of dollars to insure the defeat of those veterans' hope for VA recognition of Agent Orange exposures. Hardly "pro-veteran, non-adversarial, every benefit of the doubt rests with the veterans." 

Rather, we see the firm, steady determination to prevent C-123 veterans' access to medical care by spending VA dollars, bending rules and procedures, creating obstructions, implementing personal policies, and the deception of senior VA executives by staffers by feeding them error-laden memoranda to sign.

VA staff and contractors even tried to deceive IOM and senior VA leadership with data from tests performed on "Patches," the USAF Museum's former Operation Ranch Hand C-123. The contractor stressed a point about "only two areas" being TCDD contaminated. In fact, the testing officials determined that there were two "hot" spots but the majority of the C-123 interior was not contaminated, or was an area not tested for lack of accessibility. Big difference.

C-123 Veterans' FOIA Ignored For A YEAR

Washington is one amazing place. Often they get things done, and yet more often than that, somehow things get marvelously fouled up.

Here's a perfect example. One year ago we submitted a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to the VA for information about our C-123 issues. VA let out a $600,000 no-bid sole-source consulting contract in 2012 and the information about it was (and still is) important to us.

So the VA, for some reason, forwarded the FOIA to Headquarters US Air Force. Which sent it to Wright-Patterson AFB. Which, almost exactly one year after our inquiry, finally acknowledged us.

Amazing. Can you imagine what would happen if we ran aeromedical evacuation missions with this degree of excellence? At least, we can certainly trust that they're not trying to keep important health-related information from us. Right???

Note the date of the letter on the left, and the date of the request in the first sentence.

My Agent Orange Claim: Four Years Old This Month

VA Claim still denied after four years waiting!

2011 just wasn't a super year for me, health-wise.

2011 also proved to be a terrible year to submit an Agent Orange claim. But as it worked out, that frustrated claim afforded me a tremendous sense of purpose in helping the men and women I served with between 1974-1980. I guess it was one path to acceptance of what was happening to me.

2011 is when I learned I had cancer and heart disease, and had heart surgery in Portland Oregon. As I learned more about my illnesses, I realized that other folks from our squadron were in the same predicament: I had the thought that information uncovered by preparing my claim would help the men and women I flew with who'd also been exposed.

2011 is thus when I began more active interaction with the Department of Veterans Affairs. In addition to being asked why I was submitting a disability claim when I was already rated 100% disabled, it also earned me the wrath of VA staff, which labeled me "persistent" and "adept at gathering legislative influence." Perhaps.

My wife and I talked it over and agreed it was a worthwhile family commitment for our time and money. I'd been a Medical Service Corps officer in the Air Force for years and a medic before that, a little background which might help. Back then, I didn't expect this project to take four years, but neither did I expect to be around this long.

Soon after I was diagnosed, I submitted a disability claim to the Portland VA for these recognized Agent Orange illnesses.

Four years on, even with each requirement in VA's regulation VAM21-1MR satisfied, even with JSRRC and IOM confirmation, it remains denied by the VA. It moves along, if indeed it moves at all, with the same glacial pace as with all other veterans' claims. It is in line for eventual consideration by the Board of Veterans Appeals, although it hasn't even been forwarded to the BVA but instead has sat for two years at the Portland VARO: BVA appeals can take three to five years, longer than the remaining lifespan of many veterans awaiting decisions.

Adjudication by the BVA takes only a few months once it has the claim. The longest part of the appeals delay is simply the years each regional office takes to putting a disputed claim in the mail for that hearing.

Claims sit in stacks, either physical or digital, for years. VA rules prohibit treating veterans' ailments, regardless of how life-threatening, during those years until the claim is decided. There is such a backlog of BVA appeals that the local office can't offer a guess as to when the claim might be heard.

Despite the unresolved claim for my Agent Orange-related illness, other injuries happen to provide my eligibility for VA care.  I am something of an exception among Reservists from this era. Like other veterans of the Gulf War or other conflicts, my own medical needs are already met by VA, TriCare and MediCare. After my injury, I was 100% medically retired from the Air Force as well.

Because I'm already 100% VA service-connected, rated "catastrophically disabled" by VA and eligible for all VA care, outstanding treatment is provided for my Agent Orange-related illnesses as well as all other ailments. However, most of my crewmates aren't able to turn to the VA for anything, and even their Agent Orange claims are refused...every single one of them. Working my claim, and discovering everything necessary to win VA's approval for our Agent Orange-related claims, would help our other C-123 veterans experiencing illnesses recognized as associated with toxin exposures.

I substantiated my own VA claim not only with the required medical evidence, but also proof of the exposure event because it was unusual:  Many of my squadron's C-123 transports were used for spraying Agent Orange in Vietnam. My claim was that, although I didn't serve in Vietnam, I was exposed via inhalation, dermal contact and ingestion routes of exposure to herbicide residue in the airplane.

Also submitted was USAF proof that planes from our squadron was tested "heavily contaminated with dioxin (the toxin in Agent Orange, also referred to as TCDD) on all test surfaces." That proof wasn't easily gathered from the Air Force...requests for it were denied for years until partially released under the Freedom of Information Act. But only partially. It has taken a suit in federal court to get even a fraction of the information about our exposures released. For some reason, these USAF documents often have hundreds of pages completely redacted...information about our health kept from us.

VA was prepared for claims from veterans with non-Vietnam exposure events – that is, prepared to deny. However, VA also took pains three different times to clearly ("clearly" was the word VA used) spell out to Congress and the public through the Federal Register the department's commitment to care for those exposed outside Vietnam with the same presumptive service connection as Vietnam's "boots on the ground" vets. VA subsequent actions in denying all such claims was in conflict with law, VA regulations, ethical standards it set for itself, and commitments made to veterans and Congress.

Expecting that I'd have a difficult time submitting the claim and persuading the VA, I sought confirmation of both the contamination of the airplanes and the harm that exposure caused, these being VA's requirements in VAM21-1MR. The Center for Disease Control evaluated Air Force source documents and then provided expert input from its Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.

The CDC reported that our airplanes were contaminated and our exposures well beyond safety standards. The extra information that cancer risks were increased by 186-fold was what I found staggering. CDC said our C-123s were so contaminated we should have been flying and maintaining them in full HAZMAT.

All these proofs...nearly one hundred, didn't help the claim one bit. The claim was denied in 2012. VA disputed or ignored all the medical and scientific support. VA's Compensation and Pension service even took pains to somehow falsely summarize the CDC confirmation of my exposure with their sentence, "In summary, there is no conclusive evidence of TCDD exposure causing any adverse health effects."  

Clear? CDC said I was exposed with a 200-fold increased cancer risk, but VA denied the claim because TCDD is harmless. TCDD? That's the most toxic of toxins, and universally recognized, even by VA, as a human carcinogen. TCDD is the contaminant that made much of the Agent Orange used in Vietnam into a poison.

VA dismissed all the scientific evidence, stating VA had an "overwhelming preponderance of evidence" against my claim. And also, dismissed every C-123 veteran's claim. VA raters also denied C-123 veterans' claims by using the phrase, "regulations forbid recognizing non-Vietnam herbicide exposures." There are no such regulations, of course as VA later agreed when challenged.

In response, VA simply told raters to deny claims but using other phrases, directing all C-123 claims denied regardless of any evidence. This is according to the director of Compensation and Pension in Veterans Benefits Administration. Meeting with him in 2012, we were told no amount of proof from whatever source would permit a claim to be approved.

Denying a claim by pretending TCDD was somehow harmless meant VA denied an Agent Orange claim under the 1991 Agent Orange Act, because Agent Orange was harmless. VA's position was the toxin in Agent Orange causes no adverse health effects, so my claim for illnesses recognized by VA as Agent Orange-presumptive illnesses was denied because toxins in Agent Orange are harmless.

VA's twisting logic and proof makes my head spin. Even VA executives later reported the language denying my claim was "an unfortunate choice of words." What they meant was that the claim had to be denied whatever the reason VA could create, but some other reason should have been found...anything, just get the claim denied regardless of supporting evidence. Type anything, be creative, but deny the claim.

VA's "overwhelming preponderance of evidence" against my claim actually turned out to be a staffers' phrase describing two letters (one from a Dow-sponsored scientist and one from a Monsanto-sponsored scientist, neither of whom ever reviewed my claim,) plus a VA contractor who explains that Agent Orange is harmless. Frequently in VA's internal communications, that phrase was tossed out so routinely everyone in the department came to accept it as a settled fact. The characterization of VA's meager amount of contrary materials as an "overwhelming preponderance of evidence" doomed C-123 claims for years.

But there was no such preponderance: What little VA had paled in comparison to the veterans' evidence. VA even cited its own web pages as scientific evidence to belittle veterans' claims – part of that non-existent overwhelming preponderance.

VA staffers at the "Agent Orange desk" in Compensation and Pension were personally determined to prevent any non-Vietnam exposure claims such as ours. "We have to draw the line somewhere," VA leaders informed the Associated Press. No mention was made of the law, or VA's own regulations which should have insured approval of claims from C-123 veterans.

When other agencies such as DOD's Joint Services Records Research Center tried to provide VA persuasive source documents about C-123 exposures, VA refused to accept them, blocking JSRRC support of the veterans' claims. VA even refused to accept findings from the CDC/Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry confirmed by Rear Admiral R. Ikeda, MD US Public Health Service, calling such evidence from other federal agencies the real problem and "unfortunate."

So, four years ago VA's imaginary "preponderance of evidence" was used to deny evidence from dozens of scientists and physicians, as well as confirming opinions about my exposure from CDC, US Public Health Service and the National Institutes of Health.

All of it from unpaid experts, stacks of it, but useless against VA's two letters, its Agent Orange consultant, and staff preferences.

It was this unofficial policy of some staffers in VA's benefits organization, not law nor science, which condemned every C-123 claim and denied benefits due these veterans. But the arguments from veterans continued, amplified by media, scientific evidence, peer-reviewed research and legislative attention.

Finally in 2014 the National Institutes of Health gave an in-depth evaluation of all the science and evidence regarding the C-123 airplanes' contamination and exposure of the veterans who flew and maintained them. The final report: C-123 veterans were exposed. VA was wrong all along.

In the near future VA will announce changes in how it handles C-123 veterans' claims. Probably, VA will more properly follow its own rules and regulations which should have protected these veterans all along. But between 2011 and March of 2015, VA staffers insured a 100% denial rate of claims which should have been approved. The veterans have paid for these failures at the VA, not the staffers who did this to us.

I've been privileged, and grateful, to be a VA patient since 1991 after I was injured in the line of duty. But had I not been eligible for VA care, as with C-123 veterans' whose claims for Agent Orange benefits are still denied here's just some of the care I received but would have been denied between 2011 and 2015:

Heart surgery, cataract surgery, two shoulder surgeries, two hip surgeries, infection control, wound clinic, colonoscopy, pharmacy, cancer care, specialty clinics, rehabilitation, prosthetics, counseling, nose surgery, throat surgery, wheelchairs, allowances to replace clothing damaged by my wheelchair, inhalation therapy/sleep studies and CPAP machine,  immunizations, dental surgery, independent living assistance, imaging, corrective footwear, glasses, hearing aids, VA home loan, monthly compensation, state tax benefits, automobile registration fee waiver, home health care, travel allowances, primary medical care, biopsies and other pathology/laboratory care, and more.

Without my other military injuries to qualify me for all this care, I'd be outside the VA hospital with my finger stuck to their door bell, trying to get in but their door still locked. I might have found vital care elsewhere, but at my own expense.

That's the situation still faced by my fellow C-123 veterans. Unlike me, blessed as I am by all the medical care I've had between 2011 and 2015, my friends are still denied all VA medical care because VA has that non-existent  "overwhelming preponderance of evidence," Fortunately it has been dismissed by the National Academy of Sciences, CDC, NIH, VA physicians, US Public Health Service and dozens of physicians and scientists, plus peer-reviewed scientific articles.

Legal scholars in Yales' Veterans Law Clinic examined the legal situation and affirmed the C-123 veterans' eligibility for presumptive service connection per VA rules and the 1991 Agent Orange Law.

Still, four years after submitting my own Agent Orange claim, it remains, like every other C-123 claim, ordered denied by VA's Compensation and Pension Service. Although the VA promises a "case by case evaluation," the fact is that promise only means a case by case denial of all such claims. So much for Due Process guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment.

These next few weeks seem likely to bring at least some changes to VA's treatment of C-123 veterans' claims, blessings long overdue. VA provides compensation for service-related injuries and illnesses, and claims denied can be back-dated and often lost compensation eventually recovered.

What cannot be recovered, however, are the costs associated with medical care denied by VA and obtained by C-123 veterans during these four years. Worse, there can be no recovery of the medical care refused, care never received even outside the VA system, for want of coverage. I know I wouldn't be alive today without the care I've received for my Agent Orange-related illnesses from the VA, care provided not because I am an Agent Orange veteran but because I'm a Gulf War veteran.

That's fine for me even with my Agent Orange claim denied these last four years, but a disaster for my C-123 crewmates left untreated by the VA.

We're counting on VA making this mess right, thanks to senior leadership, the National Academy of Sciences, our legislators and dozens of scientists and physicians who so generously offered their expertise.

NPR Seeks Ohio C-123 Veterans

A reporter has contacted our Association to discuss possible coverage of the C-123 Agent Orange issue, but needs some Rickenbacker/Wright-Patterson C-123 veterans with whom to speak.

Contact: lwallace@wyso.org or call 937-769-1380

A current Ohio-area resident is ideal but they'd also like input from others previously stationed there with the spray outfit, or who flew with Westover or Pittsburgh and moved to Ohio later.

C-123 Post-Vietnam Aircrew and Maintainers: Agent Orange Exposure CONFIRMED by IOM!

Exposure CONFIRMED! Last hurdle overcome!

In a clear message to the VA and USAF, yesterday the Institute of Medicine dismissed any questions of C-123 post-Vietnam Agent Orange exposure with their press release announcing conclusion of a year-long investigation. IOM confirmed the post-Vietnam exposures of C-123 aircrews and maintenance personnel in their VA-sponsored research.

This is a game-changer as VA has stated, through Under Secretary Allison Hickey, that whichever way the IOM report recommended the VA would likely follow. VA executives were briefed on Thursday and the IOM released their C-123 investigation to the public, legislators and the press on Friday. Following the report's presentation, VA leaders said staff was already working on the implications of the IOM's finding and details were being resolved.

The VA has been hit hard this last year, which with justification will be remembered as the year of the scandals. This is a scandal resolved, through the efforts of the scientific community )to include IOM as well as the independent scientists and physicians who continued to reveal the basis for C-123 veterans' exposure claims,) and VA staff which opened the door and their hearts with determination to resolve this mess.

So the resolution is on its way. We should see changes in VA web pages, communication from VA to their staff, press releases from VA on its views regarding the IOM report, and we hope...claims being released from the current suspended status ordered for all such claims.

Let's hope this is as much as win-win as it seems. In my mind, it leaves all involved a solid justification for feeling their duty to America's veterans has been satisfied. Congratulations!

C-123 Exposure & Health Studies Withheld by USAF in Defiance of Freedom of Information Act

Subject: August Release of Freedom of Information Act materials by the USAF Surgeon General's Office – USAF Defied the Law But Accidentally Let Vital Information Leak*

The C-123 Veterans Association had requested information about the May 2012 USAF C-123 Consultative Letter and how its conclusions were reached, and details about the scientific studies performed. Nothing secret, nothing personal. Stuff we're entitled to!

Instead, the USAF released two sets (Release One and Release Two) of documents last Friday, each a duplicate of the other, and each redacted past the point of honesty and respect for the law. The only information not redacted was an irrelevant EPA document on radiation assessment....nothing was revealed about the C-123 study of post-Vietnam exposures.

What the heck? President Obama assured the American people on his first public act that a citizen's right to access to information is "a fundamental element of American democracy." The Air Force, perhaps, missed that press release, and also the one where the President ordered Federal agencies to be as open as possible.

Here, in their response to my 2012 FOIA request, and to my October lawsuit filed in the US District Court of Washington DC, the Air Force sent me blank pages, devoid of meaning. Remember – these are publicly-funded studies by the USAF Surgeon General's Office and the USAF School of Aerospace Medicine, about whether or not 2100 veterans were exposed to Agent Orange. Further, the Air Force study is the foundation of the VA refusal to permit a single C-123 veteran's Agent Orange claim to be considered. So...VA refused to permit us to have our cancers treated because of a secret Air Force study...not classified in any way, but still hidden from public view, and denied us as we seek VA benefits, by the USAF Surgeon General.


What arrogance and abuse of discretion. This "Freedom" of Information Act response was anything but freedom! Virtually every line of every page released was redacted, denying C-123 veterans access to USAF School of Aerospace Medicine in May 2012.
the studies completed about our Agent Orange exposure by the Air Force after they agreed to look into our concerns with scientific integrity. That study, however, failed to meet the true definition of scientific integrity, with command interference, unnecessary JAG interventions, and close cooperation with the VA but not with CDC/ATSDR nor NIH.

The AF C-123 study meekly concluded that individual exposure assessments were impossible, but then illogically also concluded that because of that impossibility, the C-123 veterans were probably not exposed to harmful amounts of Agent Orange. What an amazing twist of logic!

* But there was a single paragraph, truly golden hidden among the pages of white, a paragraph that they missed redacting and which perfectly explains our eligibility for Agent Orange exposure care:

"USAFSAM concludes that there is not enough data to evaluate or model individual exposures and performing an epidemiological investigation would not be possible.   They then looked at the results that were available from a general population and occupational perspective and conclude that although dried residuals of dioxins were present, the exposures to anyone encountering the Aircraft either occupationally or from the general public should be within the exposures experienced by the Ranch Hand personnel that were exposed in Vietnam.   The Air Force conducted an extensive epidemiological study of the Ranch Hand personnel (referred to as the Air Force Health Study) and to date the results do not provide evidence of disease in the Ranch Hand veterans caused by elevated levels of exposure to Herbicide Orange."

Read the paragraph's middle carefully, especially the fact that USAFSAM considered post-Vietnam C-123 exposures

"within the exposures experienced by the Ranch Hand personnel that were exposed in Vietnam." That confirms our exposure which is the only issue under the law to be eligible for Agent Orange illness care and benefits. The exposures were not hypothetical, not imaginary, not remotely possible...but "within the exposures experienced by Ranch Hand." There was no conclusion that we were not exposed, only that harm had yet to be proven by the exposures.

The USAFSAM study illogically concluded that because the Ranch Hand spray veterans have not evidence elevated illnesses, then the C-123 veterans must not be harmed either.

The logic failure is in failing to note that post-Vietnam C-123 vets were never tested, as was the Ranch Hand population. Further, our exposures were long term/low dose exposures, and over a ten year period versus a Ranch Hand eleven month tour in Vietnam. We were older, with more women, and during the decade we flew our sick crew members were removed from service when they presented developing Agent Orange illnesses, such as cancers, diabetes, and IHD.

Both groups of aircrews remain distinct from the "general population" in that we had flight physicals, everyone was a high school graduate (or more) if enlisted and a college graduate if commissioned. We had enlistment or commissioning physicals, which separated many who were already ill, used illicit drugs, had significant arrest records, or who did not meet education, physical or mental requirements. We had excellent medical and dental care, constant drug testing, weight control, excellent prospects of post-military graduate education and employment, and in so many ways were healthier and fortunately likely to stay healthier than the general population, Agent Orange issues not withstanding.

Conclusion: both Ranch Hand and post-Vietnam aircrews should be in better health than their contemporaries, and it seems they are. But, the overall group of Vietnam veterans, a large enough population for meaningful epidemiological studies, continues to show the ravages of Agent Orange-releated diseases.

VA even prohibits the kind of testing on us for the presence of dioxin which the Ranch Hand vets have had for decades. Ranch Hand remains the only studied population, one made up of under 2,000 veterans, similar in size to the post-Vietnam C-123 group of about 2,100. Both, too small for meaningful examination. Which is why Congress, in frustration with VA foot-dragging, simply directed with the 1991 Agent Orange Act that all Vietnam veterans, and those veterans able to prove their exposure to Agent Orange, will be treated for recognized illnesses.

Three times the VA "more clearly" explained the agency's policy toward non-Vietnam Agent Orange exposures in the Federal Register. VA stated that exposed veterans would receive the same presumptive service connection for recognized Agent Orange illnesses, providing exposure itself was established. We've done that.

As can be read above, the Air Force established our exposure. ATSDR confirmed the exposure, as did the NIH/National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences and the US Public Health Service. There is a pro-veteran requirement in the VA claims process....we'd like to see some!

USAF and VA: A great partnership in denying responsibility along with denying medical care for the harm done.

By the way, below is an example of the Air Force perspective on what they feel veterans are permitted to see in military studies about us, paid for by the public, requested by the veterans. It is the first page of what AF sent out last week following two years of our actions to compel release of material which should be in the public domain:

Bait & Switch – VA Teaser on C-123 Agent Orange Claims?

Maybe VA leaders believe they've found a way to help us by the IOM referral. No! Many thanks, but this works against us!
As we've detailed for years, the C-123 veterans are legally qualified for Agent Orange benefits upon proof of their exposure, but VA has created barriers to that proof...most notably, by redefining the very word "exposure." Also, by refusing all evidence supporting the veterans' exposure claims from other federal agencies, universities, physicians, etc.

Here is what feels like a bait and switch part of what VA does to look veteran-friendly. Right on their web pages VA describes categories of veterans and includes C-123 vets, yet regional offices deny claims stating "regulations do not permit recognizing C-123 exposure claims" and "a thorough search of available records fails to substantiate your claims of exposure" and also in what passes for VA humor, the famous "TCDD is harmless" from Compensation and Pension Service 

Below is a screenshot from their web page, listing C-123 vets as eligible with proof of exposure, yet VA insists no exposure was possible. Science disagrees with VA. It is an interesting teaser, but outrageous to list C-123 vets as eligible but provide links to VA pages denying that eligibility. 

Actually, this part of the VA page is correct, but the pages which deny C-123 veterans' exposure claims are in error.

Hill AFB and Davis-Monthan Officials Deceived Public & Media

In June 2010 the Air Force managed quite well a non-event. Press releases were prepared to not be released.

That's right...press releases were wordsmithed and approved, just in case the media made inquiries. But nobody did. It was a total non-event, just as planed.

The non-event was the destruction as toxic waste of the surplus fleet of obsolete former Agent Orange spray airplanes, the C-123. Davis-Monthan AFB's famous Boneyard had stored them for decades. Something had to be done with what the AF leaders, medical folks and scientists all called "the Agent Orange airplanes."

Why destroy them? Because the EPA was a constant threat...if EPA found out about the earlier base civilian employee complaints, or if the inspectors were able to locate the special HAZMAT quarantine storage area the planes had been moved to, a potential $3.4 billion fine could be levied against the USAF.

$30,000 a day, warned Air Force officials to each other!

So destruction of the C-123 fleet was approved, and accomplished by shredding and smelting the scraps in April-June 2010. All very hush-hush.

The idea was spelled out in base memos...keep everything below the radar. Of particular concern to the Office of Secretary of Defense Consultant was his worry that veterans who'd flown the C-123s after Vietnam, and who were already exposed to Agent Orange residue, would turn to the VA for treatment of their Agent Orange-associated illnesses.

Logical enough from the veterans' perspective. Must be prevented, from base officials' perspective.

The consultant guided base public affairs in eliminating those attention-grabbing words like "Agent Orange." "dioxin," "toxin," and instead created a masterpiece of PA manipulation and press deception..."the airplanes were recycled in an environmentally safe manner to free up desert storage space."

The news was that Agent Orange airplanes were being destroyed by special process because they were too toxic for landfill and too poisonous to be sold. The news was that veterans...already exposed....were to be kept from news that they'd been exposed to the Agent Orange residue left in the warplanes after Vietnam.

At first this was all innocent...nobody seemed to know the planes had remained contaminated. But that fact became known in 1994 when USAF toxicologists learned the planes were heavily contaminated and a danger to public health...their words in sworn federal court testimony.

The AF decided not to tell the veterans. According to senior Air Force leaders, the decision to keep mum was "to prevent undue distress."

Now, the VA and AF both deny the possibility of the veterans having become exposed. VA did this by redefining the word "exposure" in 2012 to require veterans to prove that Agent Orange had affected them..decades after the fact that's an impossibility. The AF opted to simply say it couldn't decide one way or the other, but probably no exposure occurred.

Anything to prevent another 2000 or so veterans burdening the overtaxed VA medical facilities!

Fortunately for the veterans, researchers Drs Jeanne Stellman, Peter Lurker, Fred Berman and Richard Clapp published their article, "Post-Vietnam Military Herbicide Exposures in UC-123 Agent Orange Spray Aircraft." This appeared in the Journal of Environmental Research, and establishes the fact of the veterans' exposures. Not only did the authors contradict the AF and VA positions, they also sharply criticized both agencies' lack of scientific basis for obstructing veterans' claims.

Sometimes, scientists deserve a salute, too!

Air Force 2012 C-123 Agent Orange Report Revisited –policy driven deceptions!

The Air Force botched it! In May 2012 the USAF School of Aerospace Medicine released its year-long study of C-123 contamination and potential aircrew exposure...and they blew it! Deliberately, it now seems. Because the report was not written to be science, but to be dismissive of decades of USAF tests which proved the contamination of our warplanes.

While supposedly prepared in response to inquires from The C-123 Veterans Association, which in 2011 was invited to Wright-Patterson AFB and the 711th Human Performance Wing review its extensive document collection at the beginning of the USAFSAM study, the only folks included in the distribution were Veterans Affairs staffers.

Conclusion: the report was written, not for the veterans, but for two anti-veteran purposes:
1. For VA disproving veterans' Agent Orange exposure claims
2. To explain why the AF failed to notify dioxin-exposed aircrews of the risks to their health
3. UPDATE: Much of the AF report challenged by the Environmental Research article, "Post-Vietnam Military Herbicide Exposures in UC-123 Agent Orange Spray Aircraft."

We note first the striking absence of the report's investigator's signatures. Typically in such military and government research, the scientists and physicians doing the grunt work are noted and their signatures attached. Not here.

Instead, perhaps because none of them would sully their reputations or honor with their signatures, only the name and signature of the USAFSAM commander, Colonel Christian Benjamin was on the report...and he was not a participant in the research, only an administrator

Oh, and by the way, the report was not "juried"...it was not submitted to outside professional or scientific societies for critical review. There, errors in science and twisted, policy-driven conclusions would have been immediately challenged. In fact, this report still cries out for a critical review, sure to shame the otherwise outstanding reputation of Air Force science.

C-123 Veterans Retain Law Firm of Davis Wright Tremaine in Freedom of Information Struggle

The C-123 Veterans Association has retained the law firm of Davis Wright Tremaine LLP to help us obtain documents denied by the Department of Veterans Affairs and by the US Air Force. Both agencies ignored our Freedom of Information Act Requests, or tried to assert that no such documents exist!

We've been stonewalled for years by both the VA and the AF in our search for C-123 information. Especially withheld from us have been correspondence and studies referred to in the VA's pages where VA denies any connection between our contaminated C-123K aircraft and Agent Orange illnesses.

The Freedom of Information Act requests are meant to gain access to the government's information. Actually...it is OUR information and it is our RIGHT to get it. That RIGHT has been abused by both VA and the USAF, but the team at DWT is challenging the authorities on our behalf. Can you believe it? The VA actually says on their FOIA web page "It is VA's policy to release information to the fullest extent under the law." Actually, the President encourages agencies to freely release materials without forcing citizens to resort to the FOIA requests, but both VA and USAF ignore the President's wishes as requests and abuse us on our FOIA requests.

Stay tuned for news on what we've asked, what's been released, how DWT has helped us, and the impact such official documentation has on our struggle for Agent Orange service connection from the Department of Veterans Affairs!

Agent Orange & C-123: The VA Ignores its Own Documentary Evidence

"JOB ONE: Prevent Claims" should read the bronze plaque at 810 Vermont, the VA's headquarters, rather than Lincoln's famous, more compassionate words from his poetic Second Inaugural.

Chart VHA used to sneak in redefinition of "exposure"

VA's dedication to preventing C-123 Agent Orange claims is one of their particular objectives. Actually, as veterans know too well, the VA its its own worst speed bump in the road to service connection! To better insure denial of these dioxin-exposed veterans who are clearly entitled to care, personnel from VA's Veterans Health Administration's Post-Deployment Health section delivered a poster display at t
he San Francisco gathering of the Society of Toxicology (SOT). Entitled "Agent Orange: The 50 Year History & The Newest Chapter of Concerns," the poster was not subjected to the usual scientific scrutany expected of professional articles. VA simply had their poster designed and put it on a stand.

And then they used it to make sure C-123 veterans are denied Agent Orange exposure claims! 

Our two most recent posts addressed the VA's creation of a special, in-house definition of the scientific concept of "exposure," one created by VA to skirt the law's requirements. VA simply added qualifiers to that word to prevent C-123 veterans from being considered as exposed, even though other federal agencies such as the CDC and NIH have argued otherwise...C-123 veterans were indeed exposed...except in the VA's definition.

But there's more. VA realized that the C-123s were used for spraying Agent Orange during the Vietnam War between 1961-1971 and began service with stateside Air Force units in 1972. The aircraft returned to the US and most had the spray tanks and pipes removed by a contractor at Dothan, Alabama to return to their original C-123K configuration. Many, however, remained in their UC-123K configuration and were assigned to insect control operations at Rickenbacker Field.

VA also realized that dioxin remains toxic and biologically available for quite some time once sprayed in the military herbicide, and VA knew the liquid settled throughout the fuselage and especially, below the cargo deck. Air Force tests even decades later confirmed the toxicity and in 2010 the AF took an extraordinary step of shredding and smelting all remaining C-123 warplanes as toxic waste.

VA acknowledged this lingering contamination, at least recognizing a year's worth of it, in their SOT poster. The fourth paragraph clearly states"

"Inhalation – the least likely contributing route one year after spraying missions due to rapid drying of Agent Orange droplets, movement via wind, and removal of contaminated dust via decontamination efforts after returning from Vietnam."

Spray operations stopped in 1971. Stateside, C-123 veterans began flying the airplanes in 1972. Seems within that "one year after spraying missions" and includes our service, doesn't it?

Toxicology experts familiar with the Air Force research on C-123 operations have examined the issue of C-123 dioxin contamination and exposure via the inhalation route, and argue that it was absolutely a significant risk for aircrews! Vibration and the dirt and dust characteristic of cargo flight operations resulted in crew exposure because dioxin readily binds to dust. 

Flight after flight, breath after breath, aircrews continued to be exposed. Not just the year even VA recognizes, but over the full decade of operations until the C-123 fleet was finally all retired in 1982. IT only remained for the crews to grow ill, and for the VA to formulate policy-driven excuses to deny them care for the full range of Agent Orange-presumptive illnesses.

And that's why a new plaque should be ordered for 810 Vermont Street NW, Washington, D.C.

Petition to US Senate: VA Must Care for C-123 Veterans

Click to Sign C-123 Petition to Senate

Please CLICK TO READ OUR PETITION - Sign if you wish.

Taking advantage of wonderful social media such as Google's Blogger and YouTube has helped get our message out to over 80,000 visitors. Today we add another useful tool, the petition services of CHANGE.ORG. We created a brief petition to the Senate Veterans Affairs committee, asking that they direct VA to treat C-123 veterans in accordance with the benefits we have earned under the law.

Please consider signing it, and please consider forwarding it to others for their support as well.

USAF CHEATS on C-123 Freedom of Information Act Request

Today a CD with about 500 mg of test reports and other materials was received in response

to our 1 August 2012 FOIA submitted to the USAF Surgeon General and the USAF School of Aerospace Medicine, part of the Air Force Material Command, Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio. The basic subject was the 2012 USAF Consultatative Letter dealing with post-Vietnam C-123 contamination and veteran exposure.

Requested those ten and a half months ago were public documents, already gathered in one place as per the orders given the AFMC earlier, so finding everything shouldn't have proved difficult.

(Click for Video on this Subject) What does seem to be difficult was letting go of the information, despite the force of law in the FOIA. Over six weeks were required for the AFMC Judge Advocate General attorneys to select what few items they'd approve for release. A single sheet of paper was all that C-123 veterans were permitted to get, and that was simply a note from one office at Wright-Pat to a JAG at Davis-Monthan asking for some copies of old records.

What did the AF keep from the public? They failed to release the following items listed in the FOIA, which itself was earlier approved without exception, other than for irrelevant personal information such as telephone numbers and names of junior personnel:

-marginal notations ==kept secret

-interim and final reports==kept secret

-emails===kept secret

-tapes or other recordings===kept secret

-correspondence==kept secret except for a single page letter===kept secret

-other official documents, many of which we first provided USAFSAM===kept secret

The FOIA response didn't even include the report itself, nor the instructions to the team, nor their work product...nothing at all. The materials were vital to help us challenge the various mistakes the AF made in concluding that our decade flying the toxic, Agent Orange-contaminated C-123 left us somehow unexposed. We veterans believe, especially considering the expert input we've received from other federal agencies confirming our dioxin exposure, that USAFSAM must have had command interference to reach any alternate position.The AF Consultative Letter is cited by the VA in their over-eager rejection of all C-123 veterans claims, and we needed this to better challenge the mistakes in it. But... KEPT SECRET for reasons that must be VERY important at WPAFB and the USAF Surgeon General!

This reeks! What in the heck is going on, with the VA responding in a similar manner stating that, although the VA had conducted a "thorough scientific review" no materials existed within VA regarding that thorough scientific review of the C-123 -- yet the VA has enough materials somewhere to permit them to deny veterans benefits! And now the AF doing much the same, releasing only older papers which generally address Agent Orange issues from the beginning of the Vietnam War until around the late 1990's. Absolutely nothing except a single page addressing the Consultative Letter and how it came to be so anti-veteran! 

Truly, this reeks! Something very unusual is going on to force otherwise responsible Air Force civilians and military personnel to disregard laws like the FOIA! 

HEY, VA and USAF: We veterans have a RIGHT, claimed here under the FOIA regardless of your preference to such hide such things (FOIA be damned, right?? Ain't no stinkin' law gonna bother you, right??) and thus to know the foundation of your schemes to turn us away from the doors of our VA hospitals as we seek Agent Orange medical care!

Anybody remember in some high school civics class long, long ago when we were fed the line about the people being sovereign, not the government? Anybody remember "support and defend the Constitution" in our oaths?

USAF General Deceives US Senate & AF Veterans about Agent Orange Exposure!

In August 2012 the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee sought information from the Secretary of the Air Force about C-123 transport Agent Orange contamination and how the AF had responded to challenges about important details of an official, formal investigation of the issue which resulted in the May 2012 C-123 Post Vietnam Consultative Letter. The USAF responded to the Senate (Senator Burr, Ranking Member) in November 2012 with misleading and deceptive answers in their defense of the Consultative Letter. They implied aircraft were safe in "their present configuration" while in fact, the airplanes were safe only because they'd already been destroyed as toxic waste in 2010 by the AF and their "present configuration" was as aluminum ingots!

USAF was also asked about how its conclusion about C-123 veterans being unexposed differed from other federal agencies which concluded the opposite...that the veterans had been heavily exposed. In their response to Burr, the USAF called the AF views 'consistent" with CDC, an obvious falsehood. "Were exposed" (ATSDR) is not consistent with "exposure unlikely" (USAF). It doesn't take an English major to see the differences!

Finally, AF tests in 1994 labeled the C-123 fleet "heavily contaminated" and "a danger to public health" but the AF C-123 Consultative Letter, released in May 2012, erroneously dismissed that toxic description and in response to the Senate's inquiry, the AF wrote that the cautions and the requirement for HAZMAT protection was meant only for USAF Museum restoration workers - in fact, the toxicologist who completed the C-123 survey in 1994 himself confirmed in 2011 that the HAZMAT protection was for everyone as the interior of the C-123 was, as he first wrote, heavily contaminated. The veterans' point - they flew for a decade without HAZMAT protection and became exposed! If HAZMAT protection was essential for personnel inside them for brief periods in 1994 it was even more essential for crews flying these airplanes for a full decade!

For the third major issue raised by the Committee, the USAF again mislead the Senate with false or misleading answers. Clever wordsmithing is no substitute for honest, clear correspondence between general officers acting on behalf of the Secretary of the Air Force and legislative authorities. 

Other misleading answers to the United States Senate from the Air Force were equally obvious, and unworthy of the two-star officer who signed this report on behalf of the Secretary of the Air Force.

Also harmful was the fact that Veterans Affairs now cites the Air Force Consultative Letter, which the USAF response to Senator Burr defended, in denying veterans benefits for Agent Orange exposure.

An update on our Freedom of Information Act Requests: our FOIA to the VA for information on their position against C-123 veterans' exposure has

been denied effective 11 March 2013. After two years, VA now pretends no information exists in their files regarding C-123 Agent Orange exposure issues. 

Our request to the Air Force School of Aerospace Medicine for information on the 2012 C-123 Agent Orange Consultative Letter hasn't done any better. While approved, and approved without fees, the Air Force has sat on this request at Wright-Patterson AFB for over eight months. Last word was the response was routed to their JAG officers to see how much the AF could keep secret.

The public sends its treasure and its children to the Armed Forces in defense of the Nation. The public demands honest accounting for how that treasure is spent, and how the blood of their children is shed - and cannot abide the military deception in these areas.