VA Just Revised Publication "C-123 AIRCRAFT AGENT ORANGE EXPOSURE CLAIMS – AIR FORCE SPECIALITY CODES AND UNITS."

Reference:
 "C-123 AIRCRAFT AGENT ORANGE  EXPOSURE CLAIMS – AIR FORCE
SPECIALITY CODES AND UNITS."
VA corrected the dates for Westover's C-123 years, but more importantly 

has broadened the range of acceptable evidence they'll accept for all Reserve

C-123 units, and perhaps geographically separated units as well.

Our expectation, having pointed out the previous discrepancies to VA, is that our old

AFSCs will be acceptable rather than the contemporary ones VA mistakenly 

printed. Further, we identified several units not listed on their publication, and the

language on the fourth page of this publication has been very broadly expanded.

VA commits to accepting "any relevant evidence showing the required regular and

repeated contact." While not yet naming units that had C-123 duty, VA here agrees

that they'll accept most sources of official proof to support disability claims for AFSCs
and, hopefully units not yet specified.
=================================================================

US Air Force Specialty Codes (AFSCs) 1969-1986 

This is a listing of AFSCs that potentially identify former USAF Reservists and active duty personnel with regular and repeated contact as flight, medical, or ground maintenance personnel associated with post-Vietnam Operation Ranch Hand C-123 aircraft. Code numbers during the operational time frame generally consisted of four digits (with additional number/letter suffix) and many were officially changed during the time frame of operations. As a result, VA will accept any relevant evidence showing the required regular and repeated contact.

BVA Appeal Decisions Reference Wrong AFSC Codes for C-123 Agent Orange Eligibility

Here is one more example of how well-meaning VA folks have let benefits-related publications be used to deny veterans' perfectly valid C-123 Agent Orange exposure claims.

First: Kudos to the VA: I'm very happy that our effort to get exposure benefits for C-123 post-Vietnam veterans has led to seven active duty bases' personnel also considered for entitlement. But that doesn't make up for the harm done our Reserve veterans in the way VA spelled out eligibilities.

Look carefully at the second paragraph below. Notice the AFSC codes....do any of them look familiar to you? Probably not, because the Air Force "modernized" their codes a few years after most of us left service, and our old AFSC is nothing like the current one. Click here for the old Officer AFSC codes. Click here for the old Enlisted AFSC codes.

Example: the old AFSC for aircrew life support specialist was 92250, and the VA is set to deny anyone without the current AFSC they show below, 1220-1229. The example below is from an appeal denied by the Board of Veterans Appeals, meaning even if the veteran or his claims advisor spots the technical failing of AFSC codes, that poor vet is stuck with another years-long wait to appeal, this time to the US Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. Maybe he'll get lucky there. Disability awards shouldn't have to depend on luck!

So we're given a real disaster is when a regional office or the Board of Veterans Affairs denies one of our claims because we provided on our DD-214, AF Form 623 or other official document the old AFSC.  It conflicts with the VA's publication that honors only the new codes.

I've already written about VA's failure to include the 67th Aeromedical Evacuation Squadron, the 905th CAMS, and the VA not listing anything about enlisted aeromedical evacuation technicians and their 902XX AFSC.

I guess that means another VA IG complaint that they'll either ignore or, at best, pass along to the next unsuspecting associate to also ignore.

VA has published a list of military units who had regular and repeated exposure to contaminated C-123 aircraft.  The affected reserve units and dates of service for affected crew members are as follows: Pittsburgh International Airport, Pennsylvania (1972-1982), Westover Air Force Base and Hanscom Field Air Force Base, Massachusetts (1972-1982), and Lockbourne/Rickenbacker Air Force Base, Ohio (1969-1986). The affected active duty units and dates of service for affected crewmembers are Hurlburt Auxiliary Field, Eglin Air Force Base, Florida (1970-1973), Langley Air Force Base, Virginia (1962-1963, 1970-1973), Luke Air Force Base, Arizona (1970-1973), Tainan Air Field, Taiwan (1969-1970), Howard Air Force Base, Panama (1970-1973), Osan Air Base, South Korea (1970-1973), and Clark Air Force Base, Philippines (1969-1970).
VA has also published a list of specialty codes for military personnel who had regular and repeated exposure to contaminated Operation Ranch Hand (ORH) C-123s, used to spray Agent Orange in Vietnam, as flight, maintenance, or medical crew members. Those codes for enlisted personnel are flight engineer/aircraft loadmaster (1130-1149), aircrew life support specialist (1220-1229), and aircraft maintenance specialist/flight technicians (4314-4359). See https://www.benefits.va.gov/compensation/docs/AO_C123_AFSpecialityCodesUnits.pdf.
In order to warrant a presumption of exposure based on contact with a C-123, a veteran must have had duties at one of the above listed places during the time frame specified, and the veteran must also have had a duty which entailed that he or she regularly and repeatedly operated, maintained or served onboard C-123 aircraft.

C-123 Veterans Association Challenges VA to Correct Agent Orange Exposure Publications

Our C-123 Veterans Association has identified numerous errors by which VA denies our aircrews and maintenance veterans earned Agent Orange benefits.

So, we today submitted a 68-page detailed analysis of these errors to as many VA managers for whom we have email addresses.

Here's what we've addressed about VA's C-123 literature:

OUR REPORT

1. 905 CAMS maintainers cross-trained on the C-123 at Westover and should have their exposure claims honored.
2. Rickenbacker's 67th Aeromedical Evacuation squadron flew their base C-123s between 1972-1986 and their exposure claims should be honored.
3. VA has failed to specify enlisted medical crew AFSCs and has for five years simply denied most of their applications, even when submitted with ample evidence.
4. Certain aerial port units at the three C-123 bases should have claims honored, particularly for ramp and fleet service staff.
5. VA failed to see the 911th AES at Pittsburgh IAP was previously named the 33rd AES, and has let the confusion lead to denied veterans benefits.

VA has had most of this sent their way for two years and has failed to act. Perhaps there is hope this time. Worth the try!

VA Fails Another C-123 Veteran's Claim

Veteran's VA Experience

Not again!

But yes, VA has screwed yet another C-123 claim beyond all recognition. In this case, an aeromedical evacuation technician from Pittsburgh's 33rd AES died while his claim was in process, so his widow continued the application.

It took quite a bit of detective work, but enough documentation was uncovered to establish the veteran's AFSC, his unit, and flying status with the 33rd during the years the C-123 was in service at Pittsburgh. I had the opportunity to provide a supporting statement, the VA Form 41-2138 to explain enough of the facts that the claim should have succeeded.

But that was not to be. For some reason, the regional claims office disregarded all the veteran's supporting documentation and also disregarded my own input, calling it "unqualified lay input."

We were lucky in this case to get support from the National Veterans Legal Services Project, and they rebuilt the claim for submission to the Board of Veterans Appeals. Once again, VA pretended everything in the claim was inadequate to satisfy their critical eye. BVA denied the widow's claim on two reasons. The judge wrote that the veteran was assigned to the 33rd AES, but VA forms explaining the C-123 program only specified the 911th AES.

Somehow, it got past these "experts" that the 33rd is the same as the 911th! Some years after the C-123 era, the squadron's name was updated to the 911th.

The other thing that got past the "experts" was the veteran's AFSC of 90210 and 90250. VA's various C-123 publications failed to list enlisted aeromedical evacuation technicians' AFSCs, and had only flight nurses listed. Ordinarily this isn't a problem because all C-123 claims are supposed to be processed by the VA St. Paul office where experts can drill down to the real facts.

Unfortunately, this claim drifted to some other regional office and there, was denied, and then prepared for resubmission the the Board of Veterans Appeals. The BVA also denied, and we found about it by reading the monthly BVA decision summaries.

The BVA errors were obvious and fatal to the claim. It was wrongly denied, for the two reasons named above. The last few days we've tried to alert every contact we know at VA to see if reason can prevail, to get the claim reconsidered without having to await the next higher level of appeal, the US Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims.

Will it work? There's a chance, and we've succeeded before when VA's mistakes were so glaring. NVLSP has continued their involvement and won't let this go unchallenged. We sure could use help from Pennsylvania's legislators to pressure VA to reconsider the denied claim and to update the publications that caused these problems.

Stay tuned!