IOM C-123 Report- Coming in October!!

It has been clarified...the C-123 report continues through the review process and will be posted separately from the basic project with which it was funded and orangized. All is well.

The IOM a couple weeks back posted the Agent Orange study described below, and noted that the ongoing C-123 report was to be included...with a report due in approximately two years. The confusing part was the earlier understanding that the report was due late September, delayed recently until late October. Now...no problem!

We also noted on the basic IOM C-123 report page it no longer mentions the October release date. The source code shows the promised date was removed a week or so ago with no date at all now.

Here's the basic project, with the C-123 to be spun out in its report this month!

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

Project Information 

Project Title: Review of the Health Effects in Vietnam Veterans of Exposure to Herbicides - Tenth Biennial Update PIN: IOM-BSP-13-02      
Major Unit: Institute of Medicine
Sub Unit: Board on the Health of Select Populations
RSO:  Paxton, Mary
Subject/Focus Area: Health and Medicine

Project Scope
An ad hoc committee will undertake an updated review and evaluation of the available scientific evidence regarding the statistical association between exposure to dioxin and other chemicals in the herbicides used in Vietnam and various adverse health outcomes.
This updated review would build upon the information developed in previous IOM studies and included in the following reports:  Veterans and Agent Orange (1994), Veterans and Agent Orange: Update 1996, Veterans and Agent Orange: Update 1998, Veterans and Agent Orange: Herbicide/Dioxin Exposure and Type 2 Diabetes, Veterans and Agent Orange: Update 2000, Veterans and Agent Orange: Herbicide/Dioxin Exposure and Acute Myelogenous Leukemia in the Children of Vietnam Veterans, Veterans and Agent Orange: Update 2002, Veterans and Agent Orange: Length of Presumptive Period for Association Between Exposure and Respiratory Cancer, Veterans and Agent Orange: Update 2004, Veterans and Agent Orange: Update 2006, Veterans and Agent Orange: Update 2008, Veterans and Agent Orange: Update 2010, and Veterans and Agent Orange: Update 2012, but would focus on scientific studies and other information developed since the release of these reports.
Additionally, the US Department of Veterans Affairs has also asked the Update 2014 committee to determine what the probability would be (low or high) for long-term adverse health effects from Agent Orange in C-123 post-Vietnam crewmembers.

The project is sponsored by the Department of Veterans Affairs
The approximate start date for the project is 8/01/2014
A report will be issued at the end of the project in approximately 24 months  (for the entire report...the C-123 part issues in Oct 2014)

Joint Services Records Research Center Confirms C-123 Veterans' Agent Orange Exposures

After years of effort, and countless documents submitted to both VA and the Joint Services Records Research Center from other government agencies, the USAF and civilian authorities, JSRRC has finally been permitted by VA to update C-123 veterans' exposure claims.

JSRRC will now reply to VA with the statement below, citing CDC/Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry reports which VA itself had since 2011...but chose to disregard until now. Even with this evidence to satisfy all requirements, VA has ordered its regional offices to delay or all deny C-123 claims until the current IOM C-123 committee report is released. Regional offices thus are to ignore the JSRRC report despite their own VA21-1MR which "has the force of law" according to the Federal Circuit Court. But...VA views laws as requirements upon veterans, not their Department.

VA's regulation VA21-1MR states that for non-Vietnam exposure claims VARO adjudicators should inquire at the US Army Joint Services Records Research Center for military documentation. Since 2011, VA has hindered JSRRC in what can be fed back to VA, with VA authorities insisting on only military source documents.

This was impossible, because the C-123s were not known to be contaminated with Agent Orange during the years we flew (1972-1982) so naturally there are no contemporary documents about ant contamination. This May, however, VA relented under Congressional pressure and permitted JSRRC to reveal its documents. The documents make the case rock-solid: C-123 vets were exposed!

It is unacceptable for VA to continue ordering is regional offices to dismiss all medical and scientific evidence C-123 veterans submit, because this action denies us due process. We can't expect adjudicators to be experts in Constitutional law, but Cushman is easily Googled and after reading that, every claims official should realize his/her individual duty to obey his/her oath of office..."to support and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Here is the current JSRRC response to VA inquiries regarding C-123 veterans' claims:

"In the course of our research, we located additional information that could be relevant to Mr. Carter's Agent Orange claim and appeal, and therefore, are forwarding this information to your office:

The Center for Disease Control (CDC) of the Department
of Health and Human Resources communicated its opinion
regarding the Agent Orange contamination and exposure
issue surrounding UC-123K planes utilized in the United
States, post-Vietnam, by Air Force Reserve units. The
opinion of the CDC regarding these aircraft and the
AF Reserve aircrew and maintenance personnel that served
on these aircraft includes the following findings:
a. Based on the information reported in a Department of
the Air Force Armstrong Laboratory consultative letter
dated December 19, 1994, (a review of dioxin sampling
results from a UC-123K aircraft) aircrew operating in
this environment were exposed to TCDD (dioxin).
b. Inhalation exposure to TCDD while working on contam-
inated aircraft could not be excluded.
c. TCDD levels on-board these aircraft were likely even higher
in 1972 through 1982 than in 1994 when the samples were
taken.

Also, the Air Force Armstrong Laboratory consultative
letter reported the following information regarding
the UC-123K aircraft sampled:
a. The interior of the aircraft was heavily contaminated
with PCDDs (dioxin).
b. All four samples tested positive for dioxin congeners.
The source was likely from Agent Orange.
c. Once the aircraft is restored, viewing should be
limited to the exterior of the aircraft only"

The JSRRC point of contact is Mr. Dominic Baldini, Chief Joint Services Records Research Center, Fort Belvoir, VA. The VBA liaison officer to JSRRC is Mr. James Sampsel, Compensation and Pension Service. We do not know the name of the VBA or VHA official who permitted C-123 veterans' to be denied Due Process in the adjudication of our claims.

A Vet's Daughter Writes The C-123 Veterans Association

"I guess God put you here, pouring your heart and soul into this for others in need. Thank you for all your hard work."

Her father had both Army and Air Force service. He was a combat veteran before he could vote, and flew hundreds of hours in "Patches."  He died in 2013, and was my best friend, Lieutenant Colonel Paul Bailey.

Aug 29: VBA's "Transformation Plan" by General Hickey

VBA's Transformation Plan

VBA is responding to the significant expansion in the scope and complexity of its mission. While VA completed a record-breaking 1 million claims per year over the past three years, the number of claims received continues to exceed the number processed and the backlog of claims has grown.

In response, VA is implementing a comprehensive Transformation plan—a series of people, process and technologyinitiatives—to increase productivity and accuracy of disability claims processing. Once the Transformation is fully implemented, VA expects to systematically reduce the backlog and reach its 2015 goal - to eliminate the claims backlog and process all claims within 125 days with 98 percent accuracy.

VBA Compensation Benefits
There are currently 3.9 million Veterans receiving disability benefits from VA. In the past four years, VA has added more than 940,000 Veterans to the VA compensation rolls, more than the active duty Army and Navy combined. In fiscal year 2012, VA delivered $54 billion in compensation and pension benefits.

Transformation Initiatives include: 
• Fully Developed Claims (FDC)
• Veterans Benefits Management System (VBMS)
• Acceptable Clinical Evidence (ACE)
• Segmented Lanes

Read Under Secretary Allison Hickey's March 2013 SVAC Testimony:A Review of VA's Transformation Efforts (PDF).

Read Under Secretary Allison Hickey's March 2013 HVAC Testimony:
Focusing on People, A Review of VA’s Plans for Employee Training, Accountability, and Workload Management to Improve Disability Claims Processing (PDF).

Office of Business Process Integration's September 2013 Event: Initial Development Industry Day (PDF).

• Strategic Plan (PDF)–Department of Veterans Affairs' plan to eliminate the Compensation claims backlog.

• Transformation roll-out–VBA’s roll-out is a sweeping, multi-faceted, major change in benefits delivery.

• End State–elimination of the backlog while raising quality standards.

President Announces Major Veterans Initiatives

The White House

On Saturday, August 10, President Obama addressed the Disabled American Veterans and discussed his Administration’s work to secure our nation, wind down the war in Afghanistan, better serve our troops and military families, and honor our veterans. 

In his remarks, President Obama outlined the five priorities his Administration is focused on to ensure we are fulfilling our promises to all those who have served – ensuring the resources our veterans deserve; delivering the health care veterans have been promised; ending the claims backlog; protecting the dignity and rights of wounded warriors; and making sure all veterans have every opportunity to pursue the American Dream.

The President announced a new national action plan to guide mental health research and commitments from 250 community colleges and universities to aid veterans in their efforts to complete their higher education so they can compete for the high-skilled jobs of the future.

Additionally the President noted that we are turning the tide on eliminating the Department of Veteran’s Affairs (VA) disability claims backlog, with a nearly 20% reduction over the last five months. The President also renewed his call on Congress to pass his Veterans Job Corps proposal to put our veterans to work protecting and rebuilding America, and to extend permanently the Returning Heroes and Wounded Warrior tax credits for businesses that hire veterans. On Friday, August 9, the President signed into law the Helping Heroes Fly Act, to ensure wounded warriors and disabled veterans can travel with dignity.

Linda Schwartz Goes to Washington: WATCH OUT NOW YOU BUREAUCRATS!

WASHINGTON, DC – Today, President Obama announced his intent to nominate the following individuals to key Administration posts:

Dr. Linda Spoonster Schwartz – Assistant Secretary of Veterans Affairs for Policy and Planning, Department of Veterans Affairs

President Obama said, “These dedicated individuals bring a wealth of experience and talent to their new roles and I am proud to have them serve in this Administration.  I look forward to working with them in the months and years to come.”

 Linda Spoonster Schwartz, Nominee for Assistant Secretary of Veterans Affairs for Policy and Planning, Department of Veterans Affairs

Linda Schwartz, a disabled veteran, is Commissioner of the Connecticut Department of Veterans Affairs, a position she has held since 2003.  She concurrently serves as an Associate Clinical Professor of Nursing at the Yale School of Nursing, where she has been on Faculty since 1999 and was appointed Associate Research Scientist and Scholar.  From 1980 to 1993, she taught at several University and College Schools of Nursing and held leadership roles in Nursing organizations in Connecticut. 

 From 1979 to 1980, she was a caseworker in the Office of the Field Director of the American Red Cross at Rhein-Main Air Base in Germany.  Dr. Schwartz served in the United States Air Force (USAF) Nurse Corps from 1968 to 1986, both on Active Duty and as a Reservist.  She retired as a Flight Nurse Instructor, with the rank of Major after sustaining injuries in a USAF Air Craft accident.  In 2001, she served on the Board of Directors of the American Nurses Association and was elected to the American Academy of Nursing.  From 1996 to 2000, she served as a Member and Chair of the VA Advisory Committee on Women Veterans.  She also previously served as President of the National Association of State Directors of Veterans Affairs.

She received a B.S. from the University of Maryland, an MSN from Yale University School of Nursing, and a Dr.P.H from the Yale University School of Medicine.

VA Perspective on C-123 Veterans' Exposure Claims

VA "CANNOT PERMIT" C-123 AGENT ORANGE EXPOSURE CLAIMS
         - Deputy Director, VA Post-Deployment Health, Veterans Health   Administration
No C-123 CLAIM WILL BE APPROVED REGARDLESS OF PROOF
         - Director, Compensation Services, Veterans Benefit Administration
VA REGULATIONS DON'T PERMIT C-123 VETERANS' EXPOSURE CLAIMS              - Manchester NH Veterans Regional Office
VA HAS NO BLANKET POLICY AGAINST C-123 VETERANS' CLAIMS
               - Secretary Eric Shinski
(it is just that VA doesn't approve them...any of them...ever.)

Coverup in the Desert - USAF destroyed evidence of veterans' Agent Orange exposure!

Subject: Destruction of Evidence?

The question has surfaced in Washington about the manner in which the Air Force came to decide to destroy the dioxin-contaminated C-123 aircraft, then in desert surplus storage in 2010. The C-123 veterans, exposed during our decade of flying the toxic C-123 fleet, need an opinion  as to what we should make of it, being from our impression a situation involving destruction of evidence? How can the AF misdeeds which affect our veterans’ exposure claims be categorized, because the airplanes were destroyed with the specific objective of preventing our claims?

We have located a set of AF papers via FOIA from Davis-Monthan AFB dealing with the toxic planes, which had been stored at Davis-Monthan AFB AZ since 1982 once we'd retired them to the desert.

One of the attention-grabbing points is the AF statement that their analysis of the EPA fines, which might be leveled for improper storage of hazardous/toxic materials, could reach $3.4 billion. There was also memo discussion of hosting Arizona EPA inspections but routing inspectors around the special fenced HAZMAT quarantine area into which the C-123s had been moved. The item that most offends veterans seems wrong to us but on what basis we can’t say.

Base officials had worried about these airplanes ever since 2000 when it became clear they could not be sold as surplus, not transferred to foreign governments, or even parted out for their very valuable engines.

Davis-Monthan solicited OSD’s suggestions about ridding themselves of the toxic C-123s. OSD concurred with AF understandings expressed in various memos that the airplanes could not be sold without enduring liability questions, even for parts such as avionics or engines, including on aircraft which had never been to Vietnam, and engines never unpacked from their storage wrappings.

OSD came to the conclusion that the aircraft needed to be destroyed to bring the issue to a conclusion. Base officials eventually found an EPA loophole which permitted toxic airplanes, which themselves should have been declared to the EPS, to be shredded into cell-phone sized scraps and then smelted, such waste being exempt from EPA hazardous labeling.

In a series of three memos to base officials, including the 505th Operations Officer, Major Carol McCrady, Dr. Al Young reviewed the situation, described an article about the stored airplanes which was published in Orion Magazine, and explained that visibility of the situation could lead to the already-exposed veterans turning to the VA for what he called “presumptive compensation.”

Mr. Buddy Boor then summarized in his position paper the Air Force options, and reiterated Young’s warning that the veterans might learn of the exposure and turn to the Department of Veterans Affairs for “presumptive compensation.” This recommendation traveled upstream to the Air Staff for its eventual approval.

OSD had stressed the need to minimize media attention. OSD recommended that base Public Affairs prepare a press release in case of media inquiry. OSD helped with

various editing cycles, eliminating words like “dioxin” and “Agent Orange’ and other attention-grabbing terms. 

Finally, OSD congratulated the Air Force on minimizing media attention – which was completely non-existent. C-123 veterans worry about the role of this OSD consultant, who describes us as "trash-haulers, freeloaders" for whom he has no respect but would have respect if we'd earned Purple Hearts. 

Well, our membership has plenty of Purple Heart Medals, POW Medals, Air Medals, Distinguished Flying Cross Medals, Bronze Star Medals, Aviator wings, parachute wings, Combat Infantry Badge and others - OSD should have checked before publicly disparaging us. He has his merits but we believe OSD's consultant isn't the right person to have a role in guiding the Air Force in preventing our access to VA medical care.

 What can be done to classify the wrong described here? To us it seems that this is destruction of evidence of our having been exposed. 

It is an inappropriate destruction of evidence by the AF to prevent our claims succeeding with the Department of Veterans Affairs. Obstruction of justice? Bad attitude? Nothing? Eliminating the airplanes has resulted in the Secretary of Veterans Affairs claiming that only two out of four airplanes tested positive for dioxin in 1996, when in fact 14 of 17 did. And it kept the AF from being able to more closely examine the toxic planes in subsequent studies, in particular the 2012 Consultative Report from the USAF School of Aerospace Medicine – the absence of test data led the AF to conclude they had no way to firmly conclude whether or not aircrews were exposed, and upon that indecision VA somehow based its interpretation of the AF report.

This hurt us. The Air Force has a legitimate interest in protecting present and future employees and military personnel, but it has no role in taking actions to prevent already-exposed veterans from turning to the VA for benefits. We feel the AF had a duty to inform us of the exposure, yet the question never arose until mentioned in the distribution memo from the Deputy Surgeon General of the Air Force when he mentioned there would be no notice so as to “prevent undue distress” to the veterans. 

We indeed have experienced distress.

 How can we describe these bad acts? What laws were violated? What OSHA regulations (if OSHA is applicable) were violated? Can we do anything about this?