Army Vet Wins VA Agent Orange Claim, Cites 10 Days At a Post Where AO Was Once Used

This Army vet's claim was denied at first, so he appealed and the Board of Veterans Appeals soon granted his service connection. Read...he said he was TDY to Fort Gordon where Agent Orange was once used to control undergrowth. Ten days. Without any IOM study, or CDC/ATSDR finding...just his own recollection of duty 41 years earlier!

But VA said our ten years aboard C-123s confirmed by the AF and IOM to be contaminated is insufficient evidence to award our claims. Further, the Army vet was a Reservist and BVA found no problem at all providing him statutory veteran status because his ten day of alleged exposure constituted an injury by being on post at Fort Gordon.

This is so much different from how C-123 veterans were treated. VA Office of General Counsel raised the formal veteran status challenge at the last minute and ignored their own precedential opinions as well as a firm list of similar BVA and CAVC decisions.

(http://www.va.gov/vetapp12/Files5/1235937.txt)

Based on the evidence from DoD and the VHA medical
expert's opinion, the Board finds that the
preponderance of the evidence is in favor of finding
that the Veteran was exposed to herbicides (including
Agent Orange and Agent Blue) while serving on ADT at
Fort Gordon, Georgia, from July 24, 1967 to August 4,
1967, which constitutes an injury (see e.g.,
VAOPGCPREC 08-2001).  The Board further finds that,
based on the VHA medical expert's opinion, the
preponderance of the evidence is in favor of finding
that the Veteran's type II diabetes mellitus diagnosed in February 2008 is related to his exposure to herbicides in 1967. Consequently, the Board finds hat the evidence establishes that the Veteran incurred bodily injury due to his exposure to herbicides while on ADT in 1967 and that such bodily injury is the etiology of his current type II diabetes mellitus.  Accordingly, for the purposes of granting service connection for type II diabetes mellitus,the Board finds that veteran status is established for the period of ADT from July 24, 1967 to August 4, 1967, and that the Veteran has type II diabetes mellitus as a result of injury incurred during such service.Forthese reasons, the Board finds that service connection for type II diabetes mellitus is warranted, and theVeteran's appeal is granted. 

The big difference between the lucky Army guy and us? He didn't have VBA Office of Public Health against him like we did.

He didn't have OPH redefining the word "exposure" to prevent exposure claims. He didn't have JSRRC input ignored in violation of VAM21-1MR and VCAA. He didn't have false promises of "case-by-case" claim consideration that only resulted in 100% denial of every single veteran's claim.
He didn't have the VA OGC determined to keep Air Force Reservists from the same protections awarded this Army Reservist.

VA Nails the Lid on Our Coffin! Denies Agent Orange Exposure

What a surprise to learn that the VA, flying in the face of scientific tests to the contrary, has decided that C-123 aircrews HAVEN'T been exposed to Agent Orange after all. And if we were, we were not exposed to enough to harm us. Great news for all of us who are dying as we can now look for another cause and not cast blame onto the VA.

I guess our 27 October teleconference was, after all, simply a check-off activity from the VA's perspective. It was conducted so they could say they'd opened it up to public and veteran discussion and, carefully weighing the evidence (all of which points in our favor!) they've determined they'll deny us veterans' benefits for AO exposure.

This is a screw job, "plane" and simple. It really hurt to have authors of earlier testing programs drop us from their concern...so much for No Airman Left Behind. Courage must be a quality expected of those of us in flight suits, not other professionals.

Veterans Health Administration Update Agent Orange

Having trouble viewing this email? View it as a Web page.

Veterans on C-123 planes post-Vietnam
Some Veterans who were crew members on C-123 aircraft, formerly used to spray herbicides in Vietnam, have expressed health concerns about possible exposure toAgent Orange residue on plane surfaces. After reviewing available scientific reports, VA has concluded the potential for long-term adverse health effects from Agent Orange residue in these planes was minimal. Even if crew exposure did occur, it is unlikely that sufficient amounts of dried Agent Orange residue could have entered the body to have caused harm.

Visit the Agent Orange homepage to learn more about Agent Orange:www.publichealth.va.gov/exposures/agentorange.   

Connect With Us

You have received this message because you are subscribed to Veterans Health.  Access your Subscriber Preferences to make changes to your 

Veterans Day 2011

God Bless our Band of Brothers and Sisters

I remember: 
Chief Warrant Officer 4 Henry Carter
Brigadier General John W. Carter, Sr.
Captain John Carter, Jr.
LtCol Jessie W. Britt
Major Jack Carne
Private (Acting Sergeant) John Carne
Major Audie Murphy
Master Sergeant Bob Boyd
Staff Sergeant Jimmie Ballinger
Master Sergeant Bill Schindler

We're Going to aToxicology Conference!

We're taking our case to the experts! The Society of Toxicology meets in 2012 and we'll be there, or at another professional gathering if better suited to our needs. This week arrangements were investigated for a tabletop display of our C-123 Agent Orange contamination, focusing on the VA explanation that aircrews serving aboard the Provider weren't exposed to dioxin. Basic "flavor" is how could the VA twist contamination studies to conclude against the interest of its veterans and the ethical implications. That last part is under discussion as it might not be territory which the Society wants to address...their call, not ours.

The Society also publishes a journal and we're waiting to see if our one page add will be accepted...it has to meet their editorial approval. As for a professional juried article...that's in the works also with interest expressed by different researchers and their institutions.

Wow...a terrific storm of support for the FACT that C-123 aircrews were MOST LIKELY (we don't say absolutely but use the VA phrase "more likely to than not") exposed to Agent Orange. The planning on the article outline is underway, and we also hope to have a ethical, not just technical perspective.

Ideas, all you budding toxicologists and bioenvironmental scientists?

Agent Orange & the C-123 - A Toxicology Review for Aircrews

The VA has explained, during our October 27 teleconference, that aircrews weren't exposed to dioxin even though the Air Force determined our airplanes to be "heavily contaminated, extremely dangerous, extremely hazardous, and a danger to public health." Their mission, pursued with great dedication, is prevention of our claims for Agent Orange exposure...we advance our claims because we've been exposed and must seek medical care! 


Consider...the VA did not challenge the Air Force studies which established the dioxin contamination...instead, they claimed that we could not have been exposed to the contamination. A fine point, emphasized with the VA key word of PROBABILITY.

So let's sit back and review toxicology, contamination and dioxin and how all this mess affects us and our VA claims.


I believe we can make clear the PROBABILITY of our Agent Orange exposure. Dr. Fred Berman, Director of the Toxicology Department of Oregon Health Sciences University agrees that we have been exposed. Somehow, we need to challenge the DOD and VA positions with a convincing argument.

A while back, I wrote the US Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry for help answering the VA's objections. The Director of the ATSDR responded, complimented our research, and recommended that DOD carefully investigate the situation. Today I started reading documents in the ATSDR collection, and this posting is to cover a few of the basics, as best I can understand them, of Agent Orange contamination and exposure.


This is from the ATSDR's documents explaining how dioxin contaminants can cause exposure.


Human Exposure Pathways 
To determine whether people are or could be exposed to contaminants associated with a property, ATSDR evaluates the environmental and human components that lead to human exposure. An exposure pathway contains five major elements: 
1) a source of contamination, 
2) contaminant transport through an environmental medium, 
3) a point of exposure, 
4) a route of human exposure, and 
5) a receptor population. 

An exposure pathway is considered a complete pathway if there is evidence that all five of these elements are, have been, or will be present at the property.

But dioxin can be found everywhere and while it is dangerous, there must be a point below which no action need be taken, and a contamination point above where action should be taken. 


We all have some amount of dioxin in our bodies. Eating animal fat is the major route of exposure for most people...which is why the AF should have alerted crews of our Agent Orange exposure back in '94...we'd have known to take precautions! For most people, eating a varied, balanced, low-fat diet results in reduced dioxin exposure via ingestion...it will also help your blood pressure, diabetes risks and certain cancers. 


Here is the decision chart upon which the ATSDR bases its approach on how much dioxin is too much dioxin:



ATSDR's Decision Framework for Sites Contaminated with Dioxin and Dioxin-Like Compounds.

Screening Level £ 50 ppt TEQs	Evaluation Level >50 ppt but < 1,000 ppt TEQs	Action Level ³ 1,000 ppt TEQs
Health effects are unlikely and further evaluation is not necessary, unless there are community health concerns.	Evaluation of site-specific factors, such as Bioavailability Ingestion rates Pathway analysis Soil cover Climate Other contaminants Community concerns Demographics Background exposure	Potential public health actions considered, such as Surveillance Research Health studies Community education Exposure investigations

(De Rosa et al. 1997a)

When contamation is considered, one must also consider the amount of time spent subjected to that contamination at that helps determine exposure. The ATSDR states: 

There are three exposure periods - 

• acute (less than 15 days) 
• intermediate (15–364 days)
• chronic (365 days or more)

In the case of our aircrews, we fall into the "chronic" period regarding contamination exposure because of the full decade we flew the contaminated C-123s.


The VA position is that our crews couldn't have been exposed by contact with the airplane's dioxin-contaminated surfaces...Post Deployment Health stated that the skin is an effective barrier to dioxin. So, if the VA eliminates our dermal exposure, that means they are saying the Vietnam vets were exposed solely via inhalation and ingestion. Sorry, VA...there way too many government studies showing that the principal method of suspected exposure in Vietnam was physical contact with dioxin-contaminated surfaces.


The ATSDR defines exposure pathway:


The route a substances takes from its source (where it began) to its end point (where it ends), and how people can come into contact with (or get exposed to) it. An exposure pathway has four parts:

•  a point of exposure, such as surface, water well, structure
•  an environmental media an transport mechanism, such as movement through air or water
•  a point of exposure, such as eating, drinking, breathing or touching
•  a receptor population (people potentially or actually exposed)

When all four parts are present, the exposure pathway is termed a completed exposure pathway.


So it seems to me, we have met all four parts of the requirements for a completed exposure pathway. Therefore, we have been exposed. And our exposure was chronic!


Now let's look at the ways we were exposed. First, by physical contact of our skin to dioxin-contaminated surfaces. The 1994 study of Patches made clear its contamination, with dioxin 800% greater than standards for reentering buildings after fires. The EPA reports the absorption of dioxin through the skin has been estimated to range from 0.5 to 3.0% (EPA, 1992a), with assessments typically (conservatively) assuming 3.0%. The 1994 Patches report identified  an average of 617 nanograms per square meter...the "safe" average should be about 85 nanograms per square meter!


Another method of exposure is via inhalation. Dioxin deadly attaches to dust, which then gets kicked up and breathed in.


The final method of exposure likely to happen to aircrews is ingestion...eating the stuff. This would come from eating food which had been in contact with a dioxin-contaminated surface, or drinking water into which dioxin-contaminated dust may have settled. Or one of those great Monsanto Agent Orange Candy Bars!


Of these three methods of exposure, the most likely and the most intense route for aircrews is probably dermal...skin contact. The oils naturally present on our skin readily permit contamination, even though the skin is normally a good protective barrier.


Note that exposure is cumulative. Exposure via the three pathways, exposure for ten years...it all adds up. And there is nothing in the literature from EPA, CDC, ATSDR or any other alphabet department which considers dioxin- contaminated surfaces (such as we had in the C-123) safe...to the contrary, they are identified as unsafe.


For the VA to describe dioxin-contaminated C-123s as aircraft which did not EXPOSE crews to dioxin is stretching science all out of shape. We were exposed. We were exposed. We were exposed!

What We Need for VA Agent Orange Service Connection

VA leadership, in particular Dr. Michael Peterson, shot at nearly every claim we advanced during last Friday's teleconference. The VA experts have in addition actually suggested three ways they'd consider our C-123 Agent Orange claims:

 1. if the Air Force scientists who conducted the tests in 1994, 1996, 1997, 1998, 2000 or 2009 would step forward and state it is likely that aircrews were exposed to dioxin during our 1972-1982 duties aboard the aircraft or 

2.if scientific interpretation could be offered explaining the exposure to the aircrews from the dioxin on surfaces in the aircraft, or from the dust therein, or 

3.the Air Force should inform the VA that it is "more likely than not" that aircrews were exposed to dioxin during the timeframe of our service aboard specifically-identified Agent Orange spray aircraft

 Dr. Fred Berman, head of the Toxicology Department at Oregon Health Sciences University (and a pilot!) has already made that conclusion. So has Dr. Jeannie Stellman of Columbia University's School of Public Health. Thank goodness for these "wingmen" in this effort, and God Bless them!


Our group of C-123 flyers has scattered to nearly every state in the country. Your state has a state university and nearly every one of those universities has an associated medical and/or veterinary medicine school...with experts who can interpret the test data we've gathered from the Air Force, and help advance reasonable justification for our having been exposed.


Our country is rich with private universities such as Harvard, Dartmouth, Yale, Tufts, Princeton, Rutgers, Emory, Vanderbilt, Stanford, Carnegie-Mellon, MIT, Boston University, Northeastern, Northwestern, and so many others. Universities full of experts able to analyze the Air Force C-123 test results and explain with the prestige of their institutions behind them, in writing addressed to the Secretary of the Air Force and the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, that the dioxin which contaminated our C-123s "more likely than not" exposed the aircrews.


So you need to get involved! You need to gather our set of Agent Orange documents, and start walking the halls of your local university to find these experts. There will be a wonderful Dr. Berman or Dr. Stellman-type person you can find who will help. From what I've seen since April, so many academicians are willing to help...we just have to find them.


From the Air Force, we need organizations like NCOA, AFA, MOAA, ROA and the Association of Military Surgeons of the United States to contact the Chief of Staff of the Air Force to advance our cause. We need the Air Force to task the School of Aerospace Medicine to look over the data and report whether there is a reasonable interpretation of it to allow our VA claims to go forward. 


I feel the military and the General Services Administration already stated the C-123s were the source of our dioxin exposure. Report after report, from 1994 on, details the testing and label the aircraft "heavily contaminated," "extremely dangerous, extremely hazardous, extremely contaminated" and "a risk to public health." The problem is these reports didn't detail that our physical contact with the contaminated surfaces in the C-123 should be considered "exposure" for the VA's purposes.