Senator Blumenthal's Office: "Nothing soon from VA" to allow any C-123 Agent Orange exposure claims

VA C-123 Claims SITREP

Yesterday Senator Cory Gardner's (R-CO) staff informed us they'd just checked with Senator Richard Blumenthal's office and were told that no VA action is expected anytime soon. Blumenthal is Ranking Member on the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee, and was briefed last Friday by VA on their confidential deliberations.

News like this of continuing VA delays comports with statements by VA spokesperson Ms. Meagan Lutz who informed reporters that VA now has no set date for any C-123 Agent Orange announcement, in effect, an indefinite postponement of the announcement first promised for the first week in March.

Different VA sources have offered different reasons for the delays. After the Institute of Medicine published its January 9 2015 C-123 Agent Orange report which confirmed exposures, VA was supposed to formulate a response within 60 days. Whatever the reason(s) the effect is that VA's ban on medical benefits for these Agent Orange-exposed veterans will continue just as it has since 2011, with all claims denied per Compensation and Pension. Claim delays are money-savers for VA.

Compensation and Pension is the VA function which has ordered Agent Orange exposure claims denied on the basis that other federal agencies' confirmation of C-123 exposures are unacceptable to VA, and that dioxin (the toxin within Agent Orange) has somehow "not been shown to be harmful." Of course, dioxin is recognized elsewhere in VA and throughout science as the most toxic toxin made by humans and a known carcinogen. VA later wrote that it had used "an unfortunate choice of words" but the claims are allowed to remain denied as was the objective.

The inference was clear:  as has been the case from the first, all such claims were to be denied no matter what, citing anything as basis, whether accurate or not.

Perhaps voices within the Department preferring a pro-veteran program in compliance with the law are in conflict with other folks, mostly in Post Deployment Health and VA's Agent Orange desk and other leaders in VA's C-123 committee, who prefer to continue their own agenda of denying benefits to C-123 veterans regardless of merit.

There is concern among the veterans that VA still might create a response which excludes, rather than includes, exposed veterans. We are about each of our men and women, and their families.

My Most Recent Claim Denied – For Want of VA Records

Typical VA Claims Result

My latest claim for various VA disabilities (not the Agent Orange-related ones) was denied last week, mostly because the VA regional office in Denver maintained I had no new information to submit against earlier denials, thus the original denials were final.

VBA was especially clever in this response: the adjudicator avoided addressing several elements of the claim (different injuries,) knowing that once the claim reaches the Board of Veterans Appeals they don't have jurisdiction, and the claim will be remanded. That will mean more time at the regional office, and then back in line for more years of waiting for BVA to decide.

They don't do this stuff without strategy, you know! What looks like an oversight is meant to provide VA with several more years of stalling, waiting for the vet to lose interest, or die.

For some reason, eBenefits has been accepting electronic documents for several months, at least since the end of April, but not showing them in the list of either requested or unrequested materials. Things get posted on eBenefits only if mailed or if a vet calls IRIS. Thus all my responses to VA inquiries for the last ten weeks have disappeared, so VA denied my claim.

That's one problem. The other is that the FOIA I submitted in April, which was acknowledged, still hasn't been fulfilled. That was where I'd expected to find the Air Force line-of-duty determinations for the specific injuries in the claim. Originally VA had somehow failed to even note the LODs and denied the claim because the LOD-specified injuries "did not occur during service nor in one year after." Heck, I was even hospitalized in Bethesda Naval Hospital on AD and they missed that.

I should have asked the Denver FOIA office about this earlier, because from their response letter I had no idea their current backlog is actually between six to nine months for a "C" file FOIA response. I'd gone in to see my files but they could only let me see a few pages on their computer, so a trip to Denver was wasted.

Yesterday, Denver FOIA offered to move my request for a copy of my records up and get them here in about a week because I'm so sick. Great. Now I can face two to five years in an appeal but that's way, way past my life expectancy.

Nice folks. Lousy system. Everybody at VA solves claim problems with a vet by telling us to "just appeal."

That's like a kiss of death. They know it. Perhaps their greeting at the 800-number should be "sorry for your loss" instead of "thanks for your service."

Apple Publishes "C-123 Veterans: VA Illegally Denies Agent Orange Benefits," Verson 3.2 for iPad

Free book! Worth every penny!

Got an iPad? If not, start dropping Christmas gift suggestions, because the iPad version of our C-123 book has been published by Apple. This is the 3.1 edition of the book, which has been constantly updated with new materials such as VA regional office decisions, correspondence, and other helpful resources...over 350 pages of background on the C-123 Agent Orange saga.

A great feature of the iPad books is the ability of authors to insert photos, videos, recordings...things to make the book come alive with motion and content as it is read. We have inserted such great items, but at the cost of the book file being quite large...over 150 MB.

Please download this free iBook from Apples' iTunes site. 

Free. Read it NOW!

Dermal Route of Dioxin Exposure Confirmed

To better prevent qualified C-123 veterans' Agent Orange exposure claims, the VA's Public Health unit suggests that the skin of aviators is a near-perfect barrier to dioxin exposure. Thus, because the VA (but not science) suggests skin keeps dioxin from exposing us, we veterans were not exposed.

This is a concept new to science, and one valid only in the instance of the VA denying service our connection. Elsewhere in toxicology, dioxin exposure occurs via inhalation, ingestion...and dermal routes! Elsewhere in science, medicine, law and logic, and in the opinions of other federal agencies such as the NIH, CDC, EPA and DOD, C-123 veterans were exposed. But not according to the VA, because their mission is to prevent, not approve, Agent Orange exposure claims.

This article from the scientific publication "Organohalogen Compounds" was found in my own "C' file at the VA Regional Office, with a notation made "spraying in Vietnam resulted in absorbed TCDD on dust" which suggests somebody in the VA decided crews were exposed via inhalation, as well as dermal, routes.

The key part of the article is a simple sentence.."The available literature suggests that dermal uptake of dioxin in the workplace may be the primary source of occupational exposure."

The sentence directly refutes the VA's pretense that we were not exposed via skin contact with dioxin contaminated surfaces. But then, science is not a part of the VA's toolkit for preventing VA claims, is it?

DOD Document Supports C-123 Dioxin Dermal Exposure Claims

Yesterday a scientist with the US Army Public Health Command forwarded to me one of their important documents titled "Health Effects of Dioxin Exposure." I found these parts especially informative, when viewed in light of the VA's insistance that there is no possibility (only from the VA perspective, not from that of other federal agencies or the scientific community!) of our dermal exposure from service aboard the contaminated C-123 transports.

The VA says we could not have been exposed to dioxin on the airplanes via dermal exposure because the skin is a near-perfect barrier. How reassuring.

The Army, Navy and Air Force, in preparing "Health Effects of Dioxin Exposure," state "Dioxins can be absorbed through food, air (inhalation), or through the skin."

The VA says we couldn't be harmed by dioxin, which, according to Compensation and Pension (C&P), "In summary, there is no conclusive evidence that TCDD exposure causes any adverse health effects. How reassuring.

The Army, Navy and Air Force, in preparing "Health Effects of Dioxin Exposure," state "...dioxins are considered to be carcinogens by the US Environmental Protection Agency and the World Health Agency." Similarly, except in the case of C-123 veterans, the VA says dioxin is a carcinogen. 

Gosh, was there something special about those Nomex flight suits? Like Superman's cape and costume, were we magically protected? Is dioxin like kryptonite?  Or does the VA ignore science, medicine, law, logic and other federal agencies in their determination to prevent C-123 veterans' valid Agent Orange exposure claims?

Amazing...forty years of "those Agent Orange airplanes" except the minute the first veteran's exposure claim reached their desks, and suddenly, by magic and not by law, science, logic or medicine, the airplanes were perfectly safe, perfectly clean. According to the VA. And only the VA.

Health Effects of Dioxin Exposure 

For Service members 

Important Facts:

• Dioxins are chlorine-containing chemicals that are

considered environmental pollutants.  While often associated

with burning, dioxins are produced by a wide variety of  

industrial processes.  Dioxins can be found in the air, water,

soil, and foods throughout the world.  

• Incomplete combustion resulting from low burning

temperatures and reduced oxygen availability is a primary

source of dioxins.  Open-pit burning of trash, especially

plastics, can produce dioxins.  Dioxins are also found in

tobacco smoke and car exhaust.

• Foods we consume are the main source of our exposure to

dioxins.  Foods high in saturated fats tend to have higher  

levels of dioxins.  Dioxins can also enter the body through

the air we breathe (for example, in smoke).

• All people are exposed to small amounts of dioxins. The

health effects, if any, associated with these low levels of

exposure are not fully understood.

What are dioxins?

Dioxins are complex, toxic chemicals containing carbon,

hydrogen, oxygen, and chlorine.  They tend to stay in the

environment for long periods.  Although dioxins are released by

volcanic eruptions and forest fires, most dioxins are unwanted

by-products of human activity including industrial processes. 

These include smelting, bleaching of paper pulp, manufacturing

of herbicides/ pesticides, and exhaust from internal combustion

engines used in most vehicles.  Open burning of trash and other

materials is a primary source of dioxins throughout the world --

especially low temperature/low oxygen fires that burn materials 

(such as plastics) containing chlorine.  Incinerators usually are

better for burning waste, because they increase the temperature

and oxygen levels for more complete and efficient burning, 

 thus reducing the amount of dioxins produced.  Dioxins vary 

in their ability to cause harm to people.  While some dioxins 

are very potent, others are less so, or are not harmful at all.     

How can I be exposed to dioxins? 

Because dioxins are found widely throughout the 

environment in the air, water, and soil, nearly everyone is 

exposed to dioxins in small amounts.  People living near 

incinerators that are not operating correctly or who live or 

work close to hazardous waste sites that contain dioxins 

could have greater exposures.  Dioxins can be absorbed 

through food, air (inhalation), or through the skin.  

Most of the dioxins in our bodies come from our food.

   

Because dioxins easily dissolve in fat, foods high in fats tend 

to be higher in dioxins.  The saturated fats in dairy products, 

meat, and some fish and other seafoods are major sources 

of dioxins.   Dioxin levels in foods vary according to where 

the foods were grown or raised (more dioxins are in the 

foods where levels were higher in the environment).  

Although rumors have circulated that dioxins could migrate 

into foods from plastic containers used in microwave ovens, 

the FDA reports that this does not occur. 

(http://www.fda.gov/fdac/features/2002/602_plastic.html). 

What health effects can be associated with 

exposure to dioxins? 

The amount (or dose) of dioxins people are exposed to 

determines the amount in their bodies.  The amount of and 

 the specific types of dioxins present, determines the 

potential health effects.  As levels of dioxins in the body rise, 

the risk of health effects increases.  Because dioxins 

dissolve in fats, they are often deposited in fatty tissues in 

our bodies and stay in place for long periods.   Although 

rare, people who have been exposed to very high levels of 

dioxins may develop skin rashes or a severe acne-like 

condition called “chloracne,” which can be a serious 

disfiguring condition.  Chemical workers, who have had high 

exposures and therefore large amounts of dioxins stored in 

their bodies, appear to be at increased risk of developing 

cancer.  Many forms of dioxin are considered to be 

carcinogens by the US Environmental Protection Agency      

(EPA) and the World Health Organization (WHO).    

      

Page 2 

Laboratory animal studies involving both low and high dioxin

exposures have identified developmental and reproductive

problems. There are also indications of problems with the

immune and nervous systems, but human studies are not

conclusive.  More research in laboratory animals, including

studies involving long-term, low-level exposures to dioxins, is

needed in order to better understand the risks dioxin exposures

pose to people.  

Studies of military veterans who were exposed to herbicide

orange (also referred to as Agent Orange), which was

contaminated with dioxins, have reported a variety of health

problems, some of which have been attributed to exposure to

dioxins.  Herbicide orange was used during the Vietnam War to

kill foliage and make it harder for the enemy to wage war without

being seen. (For more information, see  

http://www.vba.va.gov/bln/21/benefits/herbicide/).  

How can exposure to dioxins be prevented?

Because dioxins can be released during low temperature

burning, open burning of trash should be avoided whenever 

possible.  Sometimes this is not possible during 

deployments.  When open burning is required, measures 

should be taken to reduce individuals’ exposures to smoke 

and potentially to dioxins.  These steps include eliminating 

certain types of  materials (like plastics) to be  burned; using 

properly operating incinerators; and locating burn operations 

downwind so the  smoke blows away from areas where 

people are located.  

 The amount of dioxins in one’s body can be gradually 

reduced by choosing to eat foods less likely to contain 

dioxins.  For example, one can limit consumption of high-fat 

foods and liver, since they tend to contain higher levels of 

dioxins, and also reduce the amount of foods that are eaten 

that come from locations known to contain higher levels of 

dioxins, such as seafood from certain bodies of water.  

There is also recent research that suggests that consuming 

some natural chemicals in vegetables might block the effects 

of dioxins.  In general, following Federal Dietary Guidelines 

may also reduce dioxin levels in your body.  People should 

also stop smoking, or never start, to ensure better overall 

health and to reduce dioxin exposure.

VA Selectively Choses Data (& ignores the rest) to Deny C-123 Vets' Expsure

Think about it. They were the Agent Orange spray airplanes during Vietnam. But not after?

After Vietnam, in our "age of innocence," they were the cargo C-123s.

Beginning in 1979 with the first comprehensive toxicological tests on Patches (Tail #362), the C-123 fleet began transitioning again to "the Agent Orange airplanes" but we were assured they were quite safe. Quite safe. Except for something called "military herbicides."

Retired in 1982, the toxin evidence became perfectly clear at the USAF Museum in 1994 when Patches was carefully examined by the USAF Armstrong Labs, whose toxicologists labeled her "heavily contaminated on all test surfaces" and "a danger to public health."  Because they love us and care, the USAF Office of Environmental Law felt it better to keep us from worrying about this Agent Orange exposure which we'd already underwent, so they ordered "This information should be kept in official channels only." There it quietly rested until Freedom of Information Act requests in 2011 began uncovering what shouldn't have been covered up at all...we veterans were already exposed to deadly dioxin for a full decade while flying the C-123 fleet.

Now that the word is out, the VA carefully selects which words they'll accept regarding the C-123 history, because their mission is to ignore proofs and deny benefits. Always. Whenever requested - deny. And they indeed denied. Denied - all expert opinions that we were exposed. Denied - all other federal government agencies' opinions that we were exposed. Denied - and the list of excuses goes on. In particular, the VA was very careful to ignore a legal case which grew out of the inadvertent sale of C-123s out of Davis-Monthan. The GSA sold two to Walt Disney Films, and then a GSA whistle-blower notified everyone she could mail that this shouldn't have happened, leading to a court case brought by a buyer who'd wanted five more C-123s for fire-fighting.

Sworn testimony from that court case (GSBCA14165) taken from Air Force toxicologist Dr. Ron Porter and senior leadership at Davis-Monthan, really illustrates the danger of the dioxin contamination. It really demonstrates the degree to which the VA forces blinders on itself and its rating officers to pretend that the C-123 veterans weren't exposed during the years 1972-1982.

The GSA and other reports are further confirmed by the Army's TG312, which analyzed toxins within closed spaces such as offices, and by which standards the C-123 veterans were exposed to 800-times the screening values!
---summation of exposure issues revealed in GSA GSBCA Appeal 14165----

GSA testimony re: Board of Contract Appeals, GSBCA14165, ruling issued 22 Sept 2000

01/24/00 (date of hearing)   

Following is the C-123 Veterans' Analysis of the Government's Testimony:

[The case involved an inadvertent sale by the government of five contaminated C-123 warplanes, an action canceled by the government but contested in court by the buyer. The Air Force and GSA together asserted the airplanes remained hazardous with Agent Orange contamination and the sale was negated by the GSA hearing judge, in agreement with the government’s position. Two contaminated aircraft had been inadvertently sold to Walt Disney Films which brought the issue to greater visibility to the Air Force and GSA (highly embarrassing!)]

The C-123 veterans point out that we flew these airplanes decades before these actions. Decades during which the dioxin described by expert witnesses as hazardous, was far fresher and dangerous in our service. It would require an unusual thought process to consider these warplanes hazardous and in but somehow not also dangerous in the years 1972-1982, given the general predictability of dioxin’s half life having reduced the toxicity in later years.

Of special note is the sworn testimony that the airplane’s dioxin did indeed represent both a dermal and inhalation exposure threat to unprotected personnel in 2000. We were unprotected between 1972-1982, wearing thin NOMEX flight suits and not wearing any respirators.

page 67 (18) the Air Force expert witness testifies under oath in federal court proceedings that the hazards of dioxin exposure existed for all personnel associated with the C-123, not just museum restoration workers or demilitarization workers as suggested by the VA’s interpretation of AF test results.

Page 83 (22) Dr. Ron Porter, AF toxicologist from USAF Armstrong Laboratory Brooks AFB, Texas, and one of the scientists who conducted the 1994 tests of C-123 aircraft at the USAF Museum, confirms under oath the major part of the hazard  “was physical contact with the contaminated (24) surface. He continued, “If there’s significant dioxin there, then dioxin can volatilize into (6) the air, so it could be a respirable hazard, a (7) respiration hazard.” The VA has improperly characterized the exposure hazard as non-existent, yet here the government testifies that it was significant in both dermal and inhalation routes of exposure. VA has characterized dermal exposure as “unlikely” and inhalation exposure as impossible. VA has done so only via literature review, not via hands-on investigation of the contaminated airplanes as has Dr. Porter.

Porter stated that he directed personnel at Wright-Patterson be kept out of the C-123 because of dioxin, once his report was completed in 1994. We were not kept out of the airplane but instead served aboard it for a decade. Porter (5, 107) reminds the judge that the interior of the C-123 is not only metal (upon which the VA asserts the dioxin had dried) but actually bare aircraft-grade aluminum, painted and unpainted metal surfaces of various types, wood, canvas, glass, plastic, fiberglass, paper, cardboard, rubber and a wide range of other materials, all presenting a variety of dermal dioxin transfer characteristics. Porter formed a firm conclusion, expressed under oath, (14) that “there was a potential risk of exposure to chemicals in those airplanes, specifically (17) Agent Orange and/or dioxin.

The C-123 veterans cannot accept any characterization which holds that the C-123 aircraft presented a potential risk of exposure to Agent Orange in January 2000 without that risk being considered also present during our decade of service between 1972 and 1982, when the dioxin was much less degraded, and fresher following the missions in Vietnam which ended only the year before.

VA Director Compensation & Pension Service Slams C-123 Vets

Tom Murphy, VA Director of Compensation Services

"Claim Denied!" "Veteran submitted a few documents." Thus did Mr. Thomas Murphy, Director of Compensation Service for the VA fulfill his organizational duty of automatically denying a C-123 veteran's claim, no mater how justified the clam actually is. Thank you for your service, indeed!

The particular claim in question, one of our first C-123 claims, had over 80 supporting documents. Articles from medical journals detailing identical situations. Letters from physicians and scientists offering expert independent opinions. Sworn testimony of other veterans, including unit commanders, field grade officers, flight examiners and instructors, senior NCOs, fellow veterans. Treatment records from VA, military and civilian hospitals. Lots of stuff. And all of it, no matter how much of it, no matter what the science, all of it not enough.

Never enough to overcome the VA's knee-jerk automatic rejection of any dioxin exposure claim by every veteran outside those with Boots on the Ground in Vietnam, and some minor and very specific Thailand and Korea situations. For C-123 veterans, the full weight and majesty of the VA swings into action to immediately construct barriers to justice and medical treatment. To explain, even in the face of proof, why there is no proof. To explain even, even with dozens of non-VA experts and other federal agencies claiming veterans were exposed, why there was no exposure.

Why? "Because we say so!"

Duty to Assist? Benefit of the doubt to rest with the veteran? Again, no. Never. The VA, in two years of working with us, has done absolutely nothing to seek confirming evidence or opinions as the question of  C-123 veterans' exposure came to light. Not once have they ever introduced or admitted to a single fact which could be interpreted as supportive of C-123 veterans' claims. Every citation they have offered in their "scientific" bulletins has been to deny exposure claims. Every single reference, expert, whatever that supports the veterans' claims has been ignored. They probably had a struggle admitting that there ever were C-123 airplanes and people who flew them! "What? C-123? Never heard of it? Thank you for your service.

There is not a single scientific or academic journal which would accept such shoddy work from authors seeking publication of an obviously slanted article! Any reputable journal would demand a juried review, and that panel of independent experts would condemn using their loudest megaphone the lack of even-handed, scholarly work in such materials. "Unscientific" was the description offered by independent scientists. "Not dioxin experts" was the description offered by another federal agency's head after careful investigation...and that person is a dioxin expert!

Any benefit of the doubt? Never, not when the VA's nuclear-powered mission focusses denying veterans' claims, even when such claims are within the scope of their judgement. The benefit of the doubt to the VA means that if there is any possible way to reject claims, that way must be seized upon. The benefit of the doubt to the VA means that unless compelled by law, ordered by Congress, only those veterans specifically named in the law are covered, not those whom the law may allow to be interpreted as covered - and so the VA exercises every possible twist and turn, obfuscation, delay, evidence misinterpretation, denial of truth handed them on a golden platter - all to prevent C-123 veterans from getting medical attention for our Agent Orange illnesses.


 Veterans Say:
-"It is my opinion that aircrews operating in this, and similar, environments were exposed to TCDD."
(Dr. Tom Sinks, Deputy Director, CDC/Agency for Toxic Substances & Disease Registry)
- "It is my professional opinion that (veteran name withheld) (and likely, other aircrew veterans who flew these aircraft in the same time period) was exposed to harmful levels of dioxin." 

(Dr. Fred Berman, Oregon Health Sciences University Toxicology Department) 
- "Heavily contaminated. A danger to public health."
(Dr. Ron Porter, toxicologist, USAF Armstrong Laboratories)
- "In my opinion, it is highly likely that you and other crew members were exposed to the herbicides and to their highly toxic contaminant, 2,3,7,8- tetrachlorodibenzodioxin (dioxin, for short)," 

(Dr. Jeanne Stellman, Professor Emerita, Columbia University School of Public Health)

But VA Says:

- "No conclusive evidence that TCDD exposure causes any adverse health effects."
VA Compensation Services in claim denial)
- "TCDD is the most toxic of the dioxins, and is classified as a human carcinogen by the Environmental Protection Agency."
(VA Public Health Bulletin )
- "Claims will be decided on an individual basis."
VA Public Health Bulletin (however: 100% of claims denied -  0% approved, but on an "individual" basis, of course!)
- C-123 vets are "Trash-haulers. Freeloaders looking for a tax-free dollar. I have no respect."
(VA & USAF consultant on Agent Orange, email re: C-123 veterans; also recommended destruction of C-123 fleet to prevent veterans learning of C-123 contamination & crew exposure)

Official: VA Begins Denying Veterans' C-123 Agent Orange Claims!

June 12 - A C-123K veteran just received the VA's denial of his Agent Orange disability claim! Every ailment specified was denied with the identical wording in lockstep with the VA's Public Health posting:

"--The evidence does not show an event, disease or injury in service
 --We did not find a link between your medical condition and military service
 --The evidence does not show the location(s) of your military service, or the events you experienced therein, qualify for the presumption of service connection for your disease"

The explanation in each ailment denial was also identical, and word-for-word in line with the VA's published C-123 Agent Orange exposure denial as penned by VHA for their SOT poster display:

"We are unable to verify or document that aircrew members were exposed to Agent Orange, resulting from Agent Orange residue or dioxin contaminated aircraft or aircraft parts. Although residual TCDD, the toxic substance in Agent Orange, may be detected in C-123 aircraft by sophisticated laboratory techniques many years after its use, the Office of Public Health concluded that the existing scientific studies and reports support a low probability that TCDD was biologically available in these aircraft. Therefore, the potential for exposure to TCDD from flying or working in contaminated C-123 aircraft years after the Vietnam War is unlikely to have occurred at levels that could affect health."

So much for the VA's promise that "every C-123 veteran's claim will be considered individually." Despite the opinion of the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry that exposure was likely, despite supporting opinions of four highly esteemed PhD's, despite support from the American Legion and Vietnam Veterans of America, despite their own common sense. The VA's the Portland Veterans Service Manager, timid K. Kalama, caved to political pressure and weird science to dash our hopes of justice.  The VA's "duty to assist" seems to have been restricted to providing me the address to send the claim to, and the mailing back of their denial after more than a year of "careful" consideration. 

Next step, an appeal and then the Board of Veterans Appeals, and finally federal courts. We will not let this rest!

--
    Wes Carter

Where is the Promised USAF C-123 Report?

The USAF School of Aerospace Medicine at Wright-Patterson AFB began their examination of the C-123 Agent Orange contamination and aircrew exposure in November. We were told of an expected release in April, yet here we are, nearly at the end of the month, with no report on the horizon.

What's happening? What role, if any, is the VA playing in the Air Force report? So far as I know, none of the aircrew, maintenance or aerial port personnel have been contacted about their expert input - why not?

In the October teleconference with VA officials, we were told that if the AF reported the C-123s to have exposed the aircrews to TCDD, the VA would accept that decision. Is the VA now working to make sure the AF releases an "approved" finding?

Our C-123 Effort an Embarrassment to the USAF? I hope NOT!

A esteemed gentleman scientist who has kindly guided some of our efforts to gain VA recognition for C-123 aircrews and maintenance troops mentioned that the uncovering of this dioxin problem might be an embarrassment to the USAF. I hope not. I believe not!

The mission is to fly and fight. The mission of the Air Force Medical Service is to maintain the fighting strength, and that is done with world-class health care and by protecting personnel from hazards. Not all hazards of military service can be avoided, but those which can be must be addressed if possible.

This protection should be in place before personnel are at risk. I have never met an airman, NCO or officer who would fail to take every action to protect both civilian and military personnel. I do not believe any Air Force leaders deliberately endangered aeromedical evacuation personnel, aircrews or maintenance personnel.

But, it happened. It happened years earlier than the first signs that our airplanes were toxic, and it was discovered only years after we'd retired the last of them to HAZMAT storage at Davis-Monthan. During the years 1972-1982 there simply wasn't much known about the hazards of TCDD and even less known about how the Provider fleet, once back in CONUS, remained heavily contaminated.

The problem, however, arose when somewhere, somehow...a decision was reached to "keep this information in official channels only" (to quote the AF Office of Environmental Law). Perhaps the need to avoid unnecessary public scrutiny was the reason. Perhaps there was sensitivity to the fact that Disney Films had been sold two toxic airplanes and the dread of a possible headline reading "USAF SELLS DISNEY AGENT ORANGE POISON AIRPLANES" was a concern. Maybe the USAF Security Assistance Center was concerned about visibility for selling toxic airplanes to South Korea and Thailand.

We do know, as the Senior Consultant to the Office of Secretary of Defense detailed in memos to officials at Hill AFB, there was a concern about preventing already-exposed aircrews from finding out and turning to the VA for medical care. This point was also mentioned by Hill officials, as part of the justification for smelting the airplanes and for minimizing the publicity of the final destruction. This last one is most offensive.

This last one really bothers me. Why the heck is the Air Force (with decisions endorsed at the Air Staff level) taking actions in 2010 to prevent veterans injured in 1972-1982, decades after the fact? Why the heck was a consultant who considered the exposed crews "trash-haulers and freeloaders" allowed to make recommendations with such a prejudice against the population involved? Would anyone accept care from a health professional who viewed his/her patients in that way?

So is this an embarrassment? No. There can be no embarrassment about eventually righting a wrong. That's why we wear wings showing unique qualification and acceptance of very important responsibility. Righting a wrong is what responsibility and leadership are all about. What honor is about. That's what the Air Force is supposed to be about! That's what accepting an officer's commission is about. So lets get the facts, understand them, and set things right at least. This can only be done with the Air Force Medical Service supporting the C-123K veterans in our Agent Orange claims before the Department of Veterans Affairs.

This can only be done by the USAF declaring that, even though it is something which is long past, the C-123K was unsafe for flight at the time we flew and subjected our aircrews to a then-unknown toxic hazard. 

The officers and NCOs (almost all now retired) who have taken on this mission have been trained by the best...we are retirees but a core element of the United States Air Force, and we are meeting our moral duty by pursuing this issue with all our strength. Eventually, the lesson will be that the USAF always does the right thing, if given a few chances to think about it :) As officers our commissions continue as do our responsibilities to the Nation and the men and women who serve it.

New Support from Columbia University! Agent Orange Exposure!

4th Issue - download now

 Note: 4th Issue of our C-123/Agent Orange newsletter, now available for download. 5 pages, 13 MB. Click here!

--------------Today's Exciting Developments------------

Just received from Columbia University's School of Public Health - their comprehensive analysis of the VA's voodoo science anti-veteran position regarding our Agent Orange exposure from the toxic C-123s we flew and maintained!

In it, the university destroys the VA's invention of "dry dioxin transfer", and also confirms the original toxicity reports described in the 1994 Air Force Museum study done on Patches (Tail #362). Columbia reports, stating that "there is every likelihood you have been exposed" and "the extent and manner is analogous to that experienced by many Vietnam veterans." Elsewhere the writer states "it is highly likely that you and other crew members were exposed to herbicides and their highly toxic contaminant dioxin.

And here is the clincher: "These statements (by the VA), to be blunt, are technically flawed and show insufficient understanding of surface contamination and its potential toxic effects, as well as the various routes of entry of toxic substances. The VA statements appear to have been made without any knowledge of standard practice for assessment of contaminated surfaces and uses terminology, like 'dried Agent Orange residue,' that does not reflect insight into the nature of surface contamination."

And finally, "The inconsistency in the VA's policy with respect to military herbicide exposures is not defensible. No minimal levels of exposure to herbicides have been set for veterans who served in-country... and exposures have NOT been limited to dioxin." Remember here that the VA in December said while we "may" have flown contaminated airplanes, there likely wasn't enough dioxin left on them after Vietnam to cause long-term health effects. It has always been the case (except for this new VA idea) that dioxin contamination equals dioxin exposure - and the VA is wildly off-base to invent anything otherwise.

This letter and the earlier ATSDR letter don't leave much doubt, do they? The VA position has been hammered by every knowledgeable professional who has taken the time to look into it, and their position against us simply falls apart. True, they have all the cards regarding making a decision to treat us or not, but it is totally clear that any decision to prevent our dioxin-injured crews and maintenance folks from getting care is a VA policy and budget decision, not a decision based on law, science or regulation!

Mr. Secretary, "Boots on the Airplane" for presumptive Agent Orange exposure - that's all we ask.

Retired Affairs Office - Bulletin Notes our C-123 Agent Orange Issues

Distributed in the 15 September 2011 Issue of RAO Bulletin, with over 85,000 readers!

Patches, at the Air Force Museum following $57,000 dioxin decontamination

0. Agent Orange Stateside Use Update 02: In recent complaints to the Air Force Inspector General, the chief of the Air Force Reserve, the Institute of Medicine and other officials, post- Vietnam War era, Wes Carter and Paul Bailey have cited documents showing that the Air Force knew, at least since 1994, of Agent Orange contamination aboard C-123 Provider aircraft flown at Westover and other bases — but failed to warn personnel of the health risks. Both men are diagnosed with prostate cancer along with many other in their Air Force Reserve former crewmates in the 74th Aeromedical Evacuation Squadron. Carter was stunned when he began checking and found that the first five crewmen he called had prostate cancer or heart disease. The sixth man he tried had died. 
   
   
   Since then, he and Bailey have found dozens more former Westover reservists who are sick – with prostate cancer, diabetes, heart disease, peripheral neuropathy and other illnesses connected to exposure to Agent Orange [AO]. In just a few months, they have compiled a list of close to 40 of their fellow pilots, medical technicians, maintenance workers and flight engineers who are sick or have died of such illnesses, many of them from Connecticut and Massachusetts.
   
   
   Among the documents the veterans cite is a 1994 Air Force report that found one of the airplanes, known as Patches, was ―heavily contaminated‖ with dioxins. Tests on other planes showed similar contamination, records show. In a 2000 legal brief, the General Services Administration argued that the proposed sale of C-123s to a private buyer should be canceled, dubbing the planes extremely hazardous and saying their release would carry the risk of dioxin contamination to the general public.
   
   
   In a 1996 internal memo, an official in the Air Force Office of the Staff Judge Advocate, Directorate of Environmental Law, had expressed similar concerns about the possibly contaminated aircraft being sold to third parties, but said: ―I do not believe we should alert anyone outside of official channels of this potential problem until we fully determine its extent. So far, attempts by Westover reservists to claim veterans‘ benefits linked to Agent Orange exposure on C-123s have been stymied.
   
   
   One of the veterans who tried was Aaron Olmsted of Ellington, CT, a retired Air Force Lieutenant Colonel who flew the C-123. Olmsted, 60, was killed in a plane crash in Pennsylvania in May, four years after he had lost a battle with the Board of Veterans Appeals to prove that he was sick from exposure to Agent Orange. While Olmsted had logged hundreds of hours piloting C-123s at Westover, the veterans‘ appeals board in 2007 rejected his claim that his diabetes mellitus was connected to Agent Orange exposure.
   

Overdue FOIA Responses

These agencies have each delayed over 45 days in responding to our FOIA requests for information about our Agent Orange exposure while serving on the C-123K/UC-123K Weapons System:


Department of Veterans Affairs, Office of the Secretary
Department of the Air Force, Office of the Secretary
Board of Veterans Appeals, Department of Veterans Affairs
Headquarters, Air Force Material Command
Air Force Security Assistance Center, Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio
Board of Correction of Air Force Records
Commander, USAF School of Aerospace Medicine
US Environmental Protection Agency


These individuals had presented to them proof their injustice (through bad act on part of AF regarding of withheld evidence) rendered LtCol Aaron Olmsted and have failed to involve themselves in assisting his survivors to correct his Board of Veterans Appeals ruling. That ruling was issued citing the absence of adequate proof of Aaron's Agent Orange exposure, but the proof had been withheld by the Air Force at the time of the BVA hearing:


Judge Stephen Cohn
BVA Attorney Stephen Reiss
Secretary of Veterans Affairs
Director, Hartford Regional Veterans Affairs
Veterans Law Review, Board of Veterans Affairs
Chief Judge, Board of Veterans Affairs

VA Denies C-123 Agent Orange Exposure Argument

letter rec'd 17 July 2011)
Mr. Carter: Senator's staff met with VA staff last week to gather information on the status of veterans who claim exposure from service in C-123s. VA acknowledged that C-123 crews flew missions in Vietnam where they sprayed Agent Orange. All crewmembers involved in what was termed “Operation Ranch Hand” have presumptive exposure to Agent Orange, not only because of their duties spraying Agent Orange, but rather, because they were all based out of Vietnam for spraying missions.  

As you may know, anyone who ever set foot in Vietnam during the conflict has presumptive exposure to Agent Orange and in the case of these crewmen, I would surmise that a former crewman’s claim would be viewed as stronger than that of someone with far less proximity to the chemical.  VA experts said they have received hundreds, if not thousands, of claims for “secondary” exposure over the years and that the available science does not support the link between health issues and flying on an aircraft which was previously exposed to Agent Orange.  

They stated that Agent Orange “sticks” to soil and organic material very well, but on metallic surfaces in an aircraft, the Dioxin (ingredient of primary concern) evaporates very quickly posing no discernible health risks to those who flew the aircraft later. The VA has issued “many training letters” to their field staff regarding this issue. VA experts said VA has awarded disability ratings to crewmen who flew the “Ranch Hand” missions over Vietnam during the conflict, but has no scientifically based criteria for “secondary” exposure. 

According to the VA, they will help any others who flew on wartime missions with their particular claims. I understand your concerns are specifically related to post-war exposure and the Air Force documents regarding an aircraft that was also used during the war, so please contact me so we can discuss this matter further.

------------------

TO MY AIR FORCE FRIENDS READING THIS: The VA wonks met with my Super Southern Senator's Senior Superb Staff which went to bat for us. VA took the position that none of the Air Force's tests, and none of the AF-contracted commercial testing labs' tests which the Air Force arranged, all scientifically proving the C-123K aircraft's toxicity, are acceptable to the VA. Let's pretend...Never happened.

 Instead, for reasons of budget and policy, the VA will pretend that the C-123K were not contaminated and the Air Force and all those testing labs and all those universities and all those generals and all those major commands and all those bioenvironmental engineers and all those medical experts simply must have been mistaken! As well as the infrequent decisions where they have awarded service connection to some of our personnel due to their C-123 dioxin exposure.


The AF must not have been in the last VA policy meeting where all the heads nodded in agreement..."yup, let's pretend all tests and evidence are inadequate and the AF was mistaken, or [apply preferred raison d'etre], and the AF had its head up its cargo bay. Those silly Air Force generals (two brigadier generals, one major general, one lieutenant general...seven stars right there, plus the AFMC/CC and the Air Force Surgeon General...maybe fourteen stars altogether)...what were they thinking to be writing foolish memos (AF Surgeon General, HQ AFMC, Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army, Secretary of Defense, AF Office of Environmental Law) about those contaminated Providers? Those generals must have missed the memo from the Air Force Office of Environmental Law, which told them to keep the dioxin information within 
"official channels only". Guys...I think we read the reports the same way...DIOXIN CONTAMINATION, despite what the VA says.

It seems the VA has taken a position somewhat outside their published rules and guidelines so that in our case, a new implied position applies, to wit: Even if the VA rules state a veteran outside Vietnam must prove and does prove actual physical exposure to Agent Orange to be considered for AO-presumptive illnesses, in the case of our C-123 crews, additional proof will be required (beyond proving our actual laboratory test results and beyond the recommendations of the National Institute on Medicine) that establishes links between dioxin in the Agent Orange residue of the "extremely hazardous, extremely dangerous" airplanes we flew, and the illnesses recognized by the VA as AO-presumptive. Although Air Force labs have proven for 30 years that dioxin has been present, there is no "VA" scientific proof (just stuff from AF scientists, state toxicology labs, state health departments and guys like that) that nice, tasty dioxin on airplanes impacts C-123 crew health. That's not why we're dying, perhaps? Musta been those lousy flight lunches from Patrick AFB!

Ever catch that weird movie "Snakes on an Airplane"? Neither did I. However the title sorta suggests snakes crawling around an airplane, right? Well, if the VA were to evaluate the rattlesnakes you found slithering your cockpit and you're holding up for them to see while snake fangs stick through your arm, the VA would tell you (1) that's not a snake and (2) even if it is, its still not a snake and it evaporated much earlier and (3) once again, that rattlesnake you just had examined by a university as well as a government lab all of which certified it as a snake, is not a snake (aren't you listening?? Get with the program), plus where's the proof that rattlesnake venom is bad for you and (4) we don't got no rattlesnake budget for guys in flight suits like you (5) please don't leave that damn poisonous 8-foot rattlesnake (which its not!) monster here! Thank  you for your service.

Smelting Dioxin-Contaminated C-123 Aircraft

So the conclusion to my disappointment and sarcasm is that the contaminated C-123K will not soon be recognized as contaminated with the Agent Orange with which the planes were contaminated. That's "VA-speak". That's VA policy, regardless of the well-proven fact of the contamination. For budget reasons, the VA has reached this conclusion in opposition to the Air Force's own view (and without bothering to examine the aircraft or even read the AF test results...but hey...our planes were already destroyed because of the dioxin contamination). All because the VA field training memos specifies Agent Orange claims are to be denied except for Vietnam "boots on the ground".

------------------------------------

My note to my patient Senator's patient and dedicated staff:

Sorry for the sarcasm...nothing personal and I imagine on some days of the year those VA wonks you met with are decent types, but only with great effort and while nobody from the VA itself is watching.


Swinging back in print is my only outlet as those VA wonks are too far away to shake some sense into. You tried and I know you'll keep trying. Thank you for your folks' meeting with the VA. As expected, regardless of toxicology reports from the Air Force and the toxicology analysis by Oregon Health Sciences University, the VA reps maintained, without reviewing the documents but required by VA pretend policy, there was no dioxin remaining on the C-123 fleet. Foolish of the Air Force to simply not correct their reports in the first place so that the VA and AF would agree. Somehow, beginning in 1994 but also in 1996, 1998, 2000 and 2008, as per the Air Force reports I sent you, the Air Force Material Command has tested the C-123s and found them "heavily contaminated, extremely contaminated, extremely dangerous" and "extremely hazardous." That's why the silly photos of the base employees in their cute hazmat suits (as required by base safety officials, due to the "extremely hazardous" toxicity) to keep them from being exposed in 2010, almost 30 years after our last missions.

Dioxin does not "evaporate"...the carrier such as diesel fuel will. In fact it does linger very long in moist soil, but its half-life on dry surfaces is significant and was still present when the Air Force smelted the last such aircraft in 2010 due specifically to the remaining dioxin. Dioxin failed to evaporate (which it doesn't do...wrong term) in "Patches" at the Air Force Museum, so $53,000 had to be spent to decontaminate it enough to allow at least very restricted, very brief entrances. The VA suggests that the aircraft were toxic enough to be shredded and smelted due to their dioxin contamination but we'll all pretend that the aircrews were isolated from such contamination.

I suggest a mind game, similar to Einstein's famous day-dreaming as he developed both the Special and the General Theories of Relativity: Imagine working in an airplane with all its vibrations and imagine the airplane flying flower cargos full of pollen. You fly the airplane for ten years. You sleep in it overnight. Eat your meals, work your sorry butt off for years. Do you think you'll have pollen on you? In your hair? In your lungs? In your body fat? The VA says "no." Not if it is dioxin pollen!

My points again:

-we flew Patches and numerous other C-123s identified by AF as Agent Orange spray aircraft

-Patches and other C-123s always tested positive for dioxin to the point of the labs calling the spray fleet "heavily contaminated". "Extremely dangerous, extremely hazardous" characterization of the dioxin contamination reports does not equate to questionable VA double-speak as "secondary exposure"!

- Oregon Health Sciences University's Toxicology Department director's analysis of the Air Force tests showed aircrews would have "most likely" been exposed, especially so recently after Vietnam and for such an intense period of aircrew duties (thousands of hours aloft and on the ground as well). State of Oregon Health Department concurs with results of OHSU's toxicology report

-tests even up to 2008 reported the fleet contaminated to the point of requiring hazmat protection for workers at Davis-Monthan

-Office of Secretary of Defense, reporting to HQ AFMC and other Air Force organizations and describing the aircraft as "Agent Orange" "Contaminated" and other phrases, directed decontamination by destruction, the only time such a thing has been done in the history of the Air Force. This is because the aircraft were contaminated with dioxin. Full DVDs of FOIA information released from Hill, Brooks, and other facilities detail the "dioxin C-123s".  Poor Charles Serafini of the 649AESS was tasked with coming up with the plan to address the decontamination of the remaining aircraft, with Major Carold McGrady, and their sole focus was the dioxin problem presented by the aircraft's contamination...and keeping visibility very, very low.

-numerous general officers, JAG officers, medical officers and representatives from the General Services Administration in their reports and memoranda agree that the C-123K/UC-123K fleet was contaminated with dioxin, and have insisted as to this contamination before federal judges to prevent sale of toxic airplanes

Obviously, thanks to President Rowan at the Vietnam Veterans of America and his Agent Chairman, Mr. Oates, the issue will continue to be addressed. Certainly, with their meeting with the VA Secretary during the meeting at the end of this month in Reno.

It would be sarcastic to suggest, but it actually seems the VA thought process, their people should contact the Air Force Surgeon and the Air Force Material Command, as well as Armstrong Labs at Brooks AFB as well as the various contracted certified commercial testing labs which also offered reports, to suggest that their twenty year collection of positive dioxin tests on the C-123K fleet be changed to properly reflect approved current VA policy and doctrine. Those military testing labs must have been wrong. The Toxicology Department of the Oregon Health Sciences University must have been wrong. State of Oregon Department of Health was wrong. The Air Force Health Institute Armstrong Labs was wrong. Even the Agent Orange Senior Consultant to the Office of Secretary of Defense must have been wrong in all his reports and memos discussing the need to destroy the "contaminated", "dioxin", "Agent Orange" aircraft that we flew for ten years. And yes, all those generals, too!

Dear VA: You're not our enemy...there is no conspiracy against us, just rules which are senseless and unjust. Our concerns are post-Vietnam. Ours were other wars, other times, but amazing how 50-year old problems linger. Our claim is not for secondary, but for primary exposure to dioxin residue proven to be throughout the C-123K/UC-123K fleet in such a high degree of contamination that the entire fleet was destroyed because it was too toxic even for a land fill. We had "boots on the airplane"...the airplane the Air Force Surgeon General directed workers at Davis-Monthan AFB's Boneyard to work in hazmat clothing with full face filter masks, followed by decontamination. That is because AFMC's tests were POSITIVE and deadly for dioxin, and still positive after decades of degrading in the desert.

Please tell the bigwigs at VA that our crews started flying this toxic airplane the year after its last spray mission. Don't measure us by the test results 30 to 40 years after...our exposure from 1972-1982 was far more intense as the dioxin hadn't "evaporated" (to use the wording of one VA staffer). And neither had its half-life had time to affect its deadliness.

VA folks mentioned "training letters" sent to the field to help guide rating officers in denying Agent Orange claims effectively. Those VA letters work. An appeal I was made aware of recently involved the late Lieutenant Colonel Aaron Olmsted of Hartford, Connecticut. Judge S. Cohn of the BVA denied Aaron's claim because Olmsted offered no proof that the C-123s he flew had been used for Operation Ranch Hand, and Olmsted offered no proof that the aircraft remained contaminated. That proof was kept from Olmsted, from Stephen Reiss who represented the BVA in opposing Olmsted's claim, and from Judge Cohn.

The missing proofs were the two reasons cited in Judge Cohn's denial yet these proofs were readily available from the Air Force. Multiple professional Air Force lab tests, conducted by commercial testing firms as well as the respected Armstrong Labs at Brooks, confirmed (not speculated, or other such vague term) the presence of dioxin in exactly the words any normal person would find convincing..."heavily contaminated" reads the test report signed by the Air Force's own bioenvironmental engineer endorsing the lab's results. But until recently, the Air Force Office of Environmental Law recommended these reports be kept "in official channels only", the better to aid the VA in denying veterans' claims.

I'm sure the VA doesn't expect us to be passive about this. Even old warriors are still warriors, and we persist, however we are kicking the bucket, one after the other. Eventually VA wins. Especially here when the opposing pretense of "no dioxin" is established for VA policy and not scientific reasons. Amazing how we have located volumes establishing the dioxin contamination of the entire fleet of aircraft, yet the VA says the airplanes have no dioxin...without even testing them or evaluating the military's own reports. Just relying on their field memos which offer effective excuses for rejecting veterans claims...even when we've had ten years exposure to the stuff.

Dear Senator...may I have the names of the representatives from the Department of Veterans Affairs with whom you met in order to provide my collection of materials for their consideration.? At least, they'll want to prepare reasons for each of these reports to be disqualified and termed inappropriate, and to arrange to have the conclusions changed to ones the VA will support. 

The VA reports to you that for reasons of policy, their field training memos trump the Air Force tests, the Air Force Surgeon General, the Air Force Material Command civil engineer, the Air Force Material Command Surgeon, the base safety office at Davis-Monthan AFB, the base biomedical engineer, Air Force maintenance officers expert on the C-123K and familiar with its use for Ranch Hand, general officer's memos, JAG officers memos, commercial testing labs and the Office of Secretary of Defense's expert on Agent Orange. What a powerful field training memo.

And my ranting aside, please know how completely I appreciate your assistance. Numerous written and telephone attempts to seek help from other members of the Senate and House simply went unanswered...totally ignored by every single official other than you. Your kindness is noted. How do we proceed to correct this situation?


Hang in there, please! 

Sincerely,

Wesley T. Carter, Major, USAF

Retired

Here is the three-page chronology of documentation dismissed by the VA without even considering it. Test results, reviews by universities, Air Force documents...all trumped by the handy field VA training memo showing how to ignore valid proofs.