UPDATE (now opened again) National Museum of the Air Force Closed Until Further Notice

According to a museum representative, water supply issues have prompted the closure of the museum.

New legislation eliminates SBP-DIC annuity offset for eligible surviving spouses

     Congress included a phased elimination of the SBP-DIC offset in the 2020 National Defense Authorization Act, titled "Phase-Out of Reduction of Survivor Benefit Plan Survivor Annuities by Amount of Dependency and Indemnity Compensation."
     Defense Finance and Accounting Service officials have a new webpage called “SBP-DIC News” where they will post information on the status of the implementation of this new law. Officials are working on analyzing the change and making plans for the implementation. They will not be able to answer questions about the full effect of this change in the law until they obtain legal interpretation of the changes and identify all of the impacts on policy and procedures.
     Based on the NDAA, spouse SBP annuitants will see the first change in the SBP annuity payment they receive Feb. 1, 2021. Spouses do not need to notify DFAS that their SBP payment is affected by this change in the law. DFAS officials advise that the most important action SBP annuitants can take at this time is to ensure their annuity account information is up-to-date and includes their correct mailing address so DFAS can contact them, if needed. Also, if annuitants are not using myPay online, they can set up a profile now and add their email address. To create an online myPay account, visit https://mypay.dfas.mil/ and click on “Start here” next to the Create your myPay Profile heading on the lower right-hand side of the page. DFAS officials are unable to provide individual estimates of the upcoming changes in spouse SBP annuity payments because of this change in the law.
     Officials ask SBP annuitants not to call the DFAS Customer Care Center to request an individual estimate. The webpage also states that spouse annuitants who previously received a refund of SBP premiums paid because of the SBP-DIC offset won’t need to pay back that refund because of this change in the law.
     The "Repeal of Authority for Optional Annuity for Dependent Children" and "Restoration of Eligibility for Previously Eligible Spouses" in the NDAA only affect those spouses and children of service members who died on active duty when the surviving spouse previously elected to transfer the SBP annuity to a child or children. It does not affect previous or future SBP elections by retirees or SBP annuities for a retiree's beneficiaries.
     SBP provides a monthly income to eligible survivors of Airmen upon their death while DIC is paid to survivors of Airmen who die from a service-related injury or illness.

Coast Guard Paychecks Stopped - I’m offering my savings

The Coast Guard has stopped paying their uniformed personal effective today, so I have offered all my savings to the Coast Guard foundation for helping Coasties in Colorado. Not as a gift, but rather direct $3,000 loans until personnel can repay once their paychecks start up again.

You can also help by contacting their organizers:
Rear Admiral Cari Thomas USCG Retired
https://m.facebook.com/CGMutualAssist/.     http://www.cgmahq.org/

o far as I've learned, various drives are underway, such as the $12 million from USAA, but only $1000 per servicemember with dependents, or $750 without. Folks, that's not enough to cover rent! Further, some efforts are focused on $20 gift cards...you can see the mess 40,000 Coasties are in due to the shutdown.

The good news is that the President signed legislation assuring them of their lost wages when the budget turmoil is over. Thus loans can be expected to be repaid promptly, and I'm willing to take any risk otherwise.

Find a way to help out. I don't see how we can sit on our butts (and on our savings accounts) when comrades in arms are on duty worldwide without pay for their families!

What are your thoughts and ideas?

       Wes Carter

VA MAKES THE RULES – FOR VETS, NOT VA. BUT THEIR "RULES" ARE IGNORED

Multiple Federal Register comments about our C-123 Agent Orange regulation referenced a March 2013 correspondence from the Joint Services Records Research Center (JSRRC) to VA. JSRRC had cited the findings of a study by the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) as relevant documentation establishing exposure to residual dioxin. The commenters requested that this memorandum be utilized as a basis for a retroactive effective date. Similarly, multiple comments referenced the 2015 findings of the Institute of Medicine (IOM) and requested that the date of these findings be utilized as a basis for the effective date of this regulation.

"VA finds no basis to utilize the JSRRC correspondence or the IOM findings to establish an earlier effective date for the regulation. For all regulations in which VA has established a presumption of exposure, there is a body of scientific evidence that must be considered and ultimately informs the decision to establish the presumption of exposure. This body of scientific evidence, by logical necessity, predates the effective date of the regulation. Exposure aboard contaminated C-123 aircraft is no different. As discussed above, to the extent VA has legal authority to establish a retroactive effective date, it is unquestionably the well-established practice of VA and Congress to establish liberalizing regulations and statutes benefitting other groups of veterans with prospective effective dates. Therefore, no change is warranted based on any of these multiple theories asserted in support of assigning a retroactive effective date for this regulation."

The ignored rules about the JSRRC VA's own regulation VA M21-1MR. VA's rule is tat claims adjudicators must inquire about non-presumptive disabilities and questionable presumptive claims. Yet in the paragraph above VA insists it was correct in ignoring the numerous JSRRC affirmations of C-123 post-Vietnam exposures.

Rules? For vets, not for VA!

NEW ACTING VA BENEFITS UNDERSECRETARY SAYS AGENT ORANGE IS HARMLESS!

T. Murphy, VA Acting Undersecretary for Benefits

Problems continue to unfold at the Department of Veterans Affairs. The VA has had a series of recent personnel changes, one of them the departure of the man filling the office of Undersecretary for Veterans Benefits.

So, as a problem topped with another problem, in comes Mr. Thomas Murphy (himself a veteran, moving up from his Director, Compensation and Pension in less than a year to become Acting Undersecretary for Veterans Benefits. 

Mr. Murphy is a hard worker, and came to his earlier position at Compensation and Pension in 2010 where he oversaw VA's entire program for reviewing veterans' disability claims for approval or disapproval. His business background was at Home Depot.

Why is Mr. Murphy a problem? Because his six years at Compensation and Pension are fairly judged to be a relative failure in serving America's veterans. We'll focus here on two of these failures.

First, his determination and success in "holding the line" against Agent Orange claims. The two most visible groups he's fought on this are the Blue Water Navy Veterans and the C-123 Veterans Association.

In 2012 Mr. Murphy wrote his denial of a C-123 veteran's Agent Orange exposure claims after the Portland VARO said they wanted to approve...Mr. Murphy put a stop to that! "In conclusion, there is no conclusive evidence that TCDD exposure causes any adverse health effects." He wrote that to dismiss expert input from the CDC  confirming the veteran's exposure.

TCDD, the toxin in Agent Orange, is recognized by science to be the most toxic of the toxins, and definitely causes "adverse health effects." VA itself (but not Mr. Murphy) understands that it is a highly toxic substance. Likewise, NIH, EPA, WHO, NIEHS, US PHS and other health authorities understand TCDD ain't good for you.

His was no mere typo. Mr. Murphy's three-page denial blocked compensation and medical benefits to a veteran C-123 aviator. Four years later, VA itself conceded that veteran and other C-123 vets actually had been exposed to Agent Orange and could receive benefits.

At least, those who survived that long despite Mr. Murphy's policy of blanket denial by VA all C-123 claims would receive benefits.

Of course, Mr. Murphy assured veterans and legislators that VA had no such policy of blanket denials and instead promised to review all C-123 claims on a "case-by-case basis" – he just never bothered mentioning his assurance actually meant VA's case-by-case denial of every single claim submitted by every single veteran who flew the C-123.

Mr. Murphy must have been determined to deny this C-123 vet's claim. He rejected input confirming the vet's exposure not only from the CDC, but also from the National Institute of Environmental Health Services, the NIH, and numerous university-based scientists and physicians all supporting the vet's claim.

His denial opinion was read back to him, and he merely said he couldn't be familiar with everything leaving 1800 G Street over his signature. He hasn't made any correction to his 2012 statement, even with the last four years of confirmation of C-123 exposures.

In conference with C-123 veterans and his own staff, Mr. Murphy firmly explained that Veterans Benefits Administration had already determined none of the C-123 veterans were ever exposed, and no amount of proof from scientists or government agencies would raise the claim to VA's "as likely as not" threshold. All claims would be denied, he said.

But, of course, only after his "case by case" evaluation and automatic denial! It took four years and the Institute of Medicine study to get VA to begin permitting benefits for surviving C-123 vets. While that may have been a disappointing shift from the blanket denial policy VA still pretended not to exist, at least the department drew satisfaction in the money saved by blocking medical care and benefits for so many years.

A note: if Mr. Murphy's 2012 claim denial letter was written by a staffer for his approval, the staffer was most likely Mr. James Sampsel, manager of VBA's Agent Orange desk and liaison to the Joint Services Records Research Center (JSRRC) in DOD. Mr. Sampsel was also the staffer who drafted Secretary Shinseki's error-laden letter and deceptive C-123 Fact Sheet.

Mr. Sampsel, a Vietnam veteran himself, made his own perspective quite clear in a related email to Mr. Murphy. Mr. Sampsel determined that "the real problem" in denying C-123 veterans' claims is the amount of evidence confirming those exposures.

Get it? VA's "real problem" is that the veterans' proofs must be ignored by VA so as to deny the C-123 exposure claims. Mr. Sampsel, labeling CDC, NIH, US Public Health Service as "the real problem" in his email to Mr. Murphy, insisted VA had "an overwhelming preponderance of evidence" against the vets. He cited input from the VA consultant and VA's own web site, pretending that VA putting their policy statement online was "overwhelming evidence" sufficient to ignore the other federal agencies and dozens of independent scientists and physicians establishing the veterans' exposure injuries.

No legally required "benefit of the doubt" was even to be permitted. No contrary evidence was acceptable to VBA, Mr. Murphy or Mr. Sampsel...their policy overrode every regulation, law, Federal Register statements and assurances to Congress. Their anti-veteran preference overrode everything.

Even the DoD had tried to tell Mr. Sampsel it had credible evidence from many sources supporting the veterans. Mr. Sampsel, in response to DoD, put blinders on and was improperly very highly selective about what evidence it would acknowledge – if evidence supported C-123 claims it was immediately ruled unacceptable. As for VA and its campaign against C-123 claims, Mr. Sampsel would not request a JSRRC finding or permit one to be issued on C-123 veterans (note: this violates procedures described in VA's own regulation VAM21-1MR, as well as the Veterans Claims Assistance Act.) He then refused to acknowledge any JSRRC input he had not first requested...thus, no requests = no JSRRC confirmation = denied claim.

Mr. Murphy thanked Mr. Sampsel for his input.

Mr. Murphy's thanks were for Mr. Sampsel's success in denying all such claims for another three years. It wasn't until the Institute of Medicine's C-123 report was published that VA finally acknowledged the aircraft contamination and the aircrew's exposure.

Just as the CDC had said back in 2012, when more of the vets were still alive.

VHA Duplicity: Environmental Hazards Training & Briefing Materials

In 2013 and 2014, Dr. Terry Walters, then Deputy Consultant Post Deployment Public Health (part of VA's Veterans Health Administration) conducted a series of training meetings to address contemporary environmental threats faced by veterans. For the most part, the training was informative and accurate.

But the part dealing with C-123 Agent Orange contamination fell far short of VA's standard for scientific accuracy...so far short it was more deception and policy statement than science. Although VA now provides C-123 veterans with presumptive service connection, this slideshow was VA's last word on the issue and still negatively impacts vets being examined and treated by VA physicians.

VA's policy: prevent C-123 veterans' disability claims. To do so, VHA used Dr. Terry Walters' PowerPoint presentation to train VA staffers and in 2014 modified it for presentation to the Institute of Medicine C-123 committee of the National Academy of Science.

Of the two slides dealing with C-123 issues, eleven specific points were offered.  All but two of these points were policy, not science and were wildly inaccurate –  the first point was somewhat accurate: the statement "a small number of these C-123s" did the spraying was actually 34 aircraft, about 10% of the entire fleet used in Vietnam. The second point was simple and accurate, as indeed the C-123 aircraft return to the US at the end of he Vietnam War.

From that point on, VA policy against C-123 claims overwhelmed any resemblance of fact. These are deceptions, and I use that because the staffers in Post Deployment Health were true experts in this field: these experts knew the facts involved but twisted them for policy fulfillment. As experts who were responsible for our care based on their assessment of the issue, their charts and opinions should have reflected only scientific accuracy. These can't be called simple mistakes – rather, these are twisted details perverted for VHA policy.

Remember that these folks in Post Deployment Health would never accept our flying them aboard a C-123 as poorly done as their science about the C-123! They'd rightfully demand the best the best from us because lives are at stake. Same with us and our C-123 Agent Orange exposure – our lives are at state, but we encounter a VHA that for years was determined to keep us from their hospitals! Also, their policy of preventing our valid claims can't compare to our dedication in getting our mission accomplished.

Let's look at the deceptions...or to be  less critical, misrepresentations. (for clarity I've added numbers as the slides had just bullet points.)

3. Wrong. Veterans cite test results on Patches completed by AF toxicologists in 1979 and 1994 which determined it was "heavily contaminated by dioxin on all test surfaces" and "a danger to public health." The slide mentions "a" wipe sample when, in fact, all wipe samples were positive for the toxin. Veterans also rely on tests completed at Davis-Monthan AFB on 16 of 17 surviving aircraft, all of which were positive for dioxin contamination.

4. Wrong. This is a bland prevarication. True, one test of only four aircraft showed these results, but the slide avoids mention of other numerous tests showing far wider scope of contamination. In fact, the Air Force eventually opted to destroy all remaining  C-123s as toxic waste.

5. Incomplete: Few tests involved air sampling. Those tests which were done were unreliable as the last Vietnam spray missions were done 37 years, but C-123 veterans began flying the planes one year after Vietnam when air samples would have been more accurately assessed the exposure. Further, the last air test were done after the planes had been parked for a quarter century.

6. Wrong: disproved by the 2015 Institute of Medicine C-123 Report

7. Irrelevant: the IOM recognized post-Vietnam veterans have a unique long-term low-dose exposure.

8. Irrelevant: misleading because it is irrelevant, and infers that post-Vietnam veterans were also unaffected; Wrong in that the Institute of Medicine does agree Ranch Hand vets do suffer a wide range of health issues, now recognized by VA as presumptive service issues.

9. Wrong. IOM data and data from the American Cancer Society show significant increases in health problems. In particular, the American Cancer Society and VA published research proving Agent Orange exposure results in twice the rate of highly aggressive prostate cancers.

10. Wrong. The populations cannot be compared, plus Ranch Hand veterans DO have increased health hazards recognized by VA itself. Wrong also in that post-Vietnam C-123 veterans had different exposures than Ranch Hand veterans...six to ten years aboard the toxic aircraft vs. a year or so in-country for Ranch Hand. Further, VA had been informed by the CDC two years before this graph was created that post-Vietnam C-123 veterans have a 200-time greater exposure to dioxin than military limits, and will experience a 182-times greater cancer risk as well. Other agencies confirming veterans' exposures include the National Institutes of Health and National Institute for Environmental Health Sciences, as well as the Concerned Scientists and Physicians.

11. Wrong: VA deceives the reader because it published prohibitions against C-123 grants, provided training like this arguing against exposures, refused to accept all other government and scientific input confirming exposures, and never permitted a single claim to be granted. Some very few (less than ten in the five decades involved) were approved in an appeals process.

VA Gives, Then DOD Takes Back

My recent VA awards of increased disability ratings now total 415% service-connected disabilities.

My VA compensation for this has jumped nearly $800 a month now that VA recognizes my cancers, heart disease, injuries and other problems that resulted from from long military service.

I also am a retired Air Force officer with 24 years enlisted and commissioned service in both the Army and Air Force, for which I've earned a modest monthly retirement check.

Every penny of that $800 VA increase...indeed, every penny of my entire VA disability compensation, is taken out of my Air Force retirement. I see none of it, due to laws in place since the Civil War which prohibit veterans receiving both military and VA compensation.

Because this prohibition bothered both Veterans and Congress, special legislation was passed to enable dual receipt in certain cases. Because most of my disabilities are combat-related, the military has a program called "Combat Related Special Compensation" which allows receipt of both earned VA and earned military retirements.

Except for Reservists, like me. Doesn't seem right to have earned two separate retirements but have one subtracted from another, leaving nothing. In my case, the VA retirement, being smaller than my military retirement, is taken from the military pension and leaves me with nothing. Not a penny do I receive for being totally disabled four times over (total 415% service connected) with VA disabilities and being classified "catastrophically disabled.".

Doesn't seem right. Nor for me, nor for the thousands of injured and wounded veterans like me whose service was both Active and Reserve.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Army Times: Full Page Reports – "C-123 Vets Exposed!"

Today's Army Times dedicated a full page to coverage of the C-123 Agent Orange exposure concern, plus an editorial which ran in all four services' Times.

C-123 veterans are grateful for this editorial support with which the media keeps close eye on the Department of Veterans Affairs as well as their legislative overlords! 

Thanks, Gannett and Patricia Kime!
Full-Page Articles:
http://armytimes.va.newsmemory.com/pda.php?date=20150126&eid=0&sid=0&vis=touch&aid=48&action=fullpage

Army Times Editorial:
http://armytimes.va.newsmemory.com/pda.php?date=20150126&eid=0&sid=0&vis=touch&aid=258&action=fullpage

President Promises "to move Heaven and Earth." VBA Ops Out.

The President's commitment on behalf of America to "move Heaven and Earth" should have been vetted first by Veterans Benefits Administration and Veterans Health Administration. His promise was made at the dedication of the monument to us.

With the greatest respect to the President, he should know that VBA and VHA both instead prefer tactics to hold claims decisions off, at least in the case of C-123 veterans' Agent Orange. With officials at all levels promising "case by case" evaluations while the Institute of Medicine study progresses, the fact remains that all claims are either denied, or postponed for decisions only after the IOM report is released. Someday.

"Heaven and Earth" apparently does not refer to our claims. Maybe our claims are VA anti-matter?

Apparently, the fewer C-123 veterans left alive once the dust settles, the less VA has to pay, the fewer for whom to provide medical care. And year by year, veteran by veteran, we're doing our bit to help out as fewer and fewer of us remain.

That IOM C-123 report was first officially promised by VA in 2012 by Dr. Wendi Dick of VHA's Post Deployment Health. The promise somehow disappeared without VA comment. It was renewed in 2014 only with legislative pressure and after peer-reviewed scientific articles appeared supporting C-123 veterans' arguments, as VA's stall to prevent any awards based on evolving scientific understanding.

Now, postponed another month, the IOM report is yet unpublished, and C-123 veterans are denied VA medical care for soft tissue sarcomas, ALS, prostate cancer, heart disease, lung cancer and other life-threatening illnesses.

Waiting for an Air Force to Die? What about moving Heaven and Earth?

Dr. Linda Schwartz, Former Flight Nurse, Confirmed as Assistant Secretary of Veterans Affairs!

From all who flew with her, our warmest congratulations!

 Veteran, Connecticut Veterans Commissioner, Nominated by President Obama in August 2013

Secretary of Veterans Affairs Robert A. McDonald today welcomed the confirmation of Connecticut Veterans Commissioner Linda S. Schwartz as Assistant Secretary of Veterans Affairs for Policy and Planning. 

In this post, Dr. Schwartz will help develop and review VA departmental policy, analyze Veteran trends and statistics, and evaluate VA transformation initiatives. She will play a critical role in guiding VA’s strategic planning and work to implement Secretary McDonald’s vision to transform VA into a nimble, high-performing and responsive organization.

“I welcome Dr. Schwartz to our leadership team,” said Secretary McDonald. “Based on her decades of devotion and hard work on behalf of Veterans and Veterans’ causes, I know she will have an immediate impact in the Agency’s continued mission of serving the great men and women who have proudly worn this Nation’s uniform.”

Dr. Schwartz, a disabled veteran, is currently the 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. Linda Schwartz

Dr. Schwartz also 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 aircraft accident.  

She received her Bachelors of Science degree in nursing from the University of Maryland School Of Nursing; a Master’s of Science degree from Yale University School of Nursing; and a Dr. PH from the Yale University School of Medicine.

AF May 2012 C-123 Exposures Report Differs from 1978 Draft of AFHS re: Aircrew Exposure: Command Interference?

Found in a 1982 report (covering Oct 78-Dec 82) of  USAF School of Aerospace Medicine report on Epidemiological Investigation of Health Effects in Air Force Personnel Following Exposure to Herbicides." The report is available in full at the USDA A.L. Young Collection, Item # 01570. Ranch Hand issues, to include comments on C-123 Ranch Hand veterans and non-Ranch Hand veterans, "

No. 01570, pages 21-22

The important observations to make are:

1. The C-123 non-Ranch Hand aircrews are acknowledged as "may have been exposed to significant Herbicide Orange residue in these aircraft. Therefore, this group may not have been truly unexposed to herbicides..."

2. No distinction is made as to routes of exposure

3. The May 2012 USAFSAM C-123 exposure report concluded the AF was unable to determine the amount of exposure post-Vietnam veterans had, and illogically then concluded there was too little exposure to consider them exposed. In VA-speak, this is equipoise, or "as likely to as not."

4. The Ranch Hand study addressed only Ranch Hand personnel. Only RH veterans had serum levels tested, at $1000 per test. As a small population, studies such as have but little epidemiological, especially for want of a proper control group.  The only real cohort to study is the larger body of Vietnam veterans of all services.

5. The Air Force Chief Medical Research Officer, Dr. Richard Albanese*, testified under oath that about 10% of his reports were modified by his supervisors and that about 10% of all reports he was aware of, such as the Ranch Hand Study of which he was principal investigator, also had command interference for policy objectives.

6. Ranch Hand and post-Vietnam C-123 crews are similar only in flying the same toxic airplanes and being exposed to the same military herbicide. They differ in amounts of exposure, duration of exposure, short vs. long term exposure, ages, years flying the toxic airplanes, gender (post-Vietnam crews began including many more female medical technicians and flight nurses, and some maintenance workers.) But again...both cohorts were exposed to the same military herbicide, Agent Orange, although VA policy prohibits testing the post-Vietnam veterans. 

Conclusion: USAFSAM is shown in their 1982 report to have opined that C-123 crews may have been exposed but changes it mind even in the face of additional exposure evidence in their 2012 report, and contradicts itself for reasons of command interference.
* Dr. Albanese later detailed the multitude of failures in the USAF Ranch Hand study.  He went into specifics regarding the interference by a  White House science committee (White House Working Group "WSWG") made up of military and VA representatives...and they don't seem to have changed anything in the last 22 years!
Additional Conclusion: USAFSAM again proved susceptible to command interference with their 2012 C-123 report. "Look

again" was the order from above when preliminary conclusions favored the possibility of aircrew exposures. "Drop it" was the order when one analysis supported the veterans' assertions. This called for an IG complaint to the 75th Air Wing Inspector General. I filed it in person in early 2013, but without any action or response...they dropped it.

No wonder the Air Force has refused to release the 2012 USAFSAM C-123 report materials, despite two years of FOIA requests and our suit in the US District Court of Washington. At least, AF has promised to allow "some" documents to flow by the end of September. 

Like VA, the AF is keeping source documents locked up until after the Institute of Medicine completes its study and report to the Secretary. Neither agency wants any materials likely to help support the veterans' claims to be made available.

Vietnam Veterans of America Annual Report Report for 2013

---

Committee Report

BY HERB WORTHINGTON, Vietnam Veterans of America Committee Chair

2013 was a record year for educating the public and veterans about Agent Orange, the other rainbow agents, burn pits, and depleted uranium use by the government both domestically and overseas.

More than twenty-one town hall meetings have been held, with attendance ranging from one hundred to almost five hundred people. At each meeting Agent Orange folders are distributed that contain information on how to run a town hall meeting, copies of individual stories (The Faces of Agent Orange), a copy of the Agent Orange Self-Help Guide, a report from our Communications Department, a report on the impact of Agent Orange on U.S. veterans after forty years, the Agent Orange/Dioxin Committee position paper on birth defects, a report on male mediated studies, a list of all ships recognized as exposed to Agent Orange, an information paper from the Department of Defense on herbicide tests and storage outside of Vietnam, and a report on proposed legislation for veterans' families for research and treatment.

The committee continues to work with the National Birth Defect Registry and has adopted two resolutions. The first deals with the C-123 Pilots and Aircrew Association and the second with the Blue Water Navy Association. We continue to advocate for Vietnam veterans who were exposed to Agent Orange in locations other than Vietnam—Thailand, Laos, Okinawa, the Philippines, Johnston Island, Korea, Cambodia, Guam, and many military installations within the United States. We have reached outside of the VVA and AVVA membership and have held town hall meetings in conjunction with other organizations. All have been very successful, and we have noticed an increase in local membership once a town hall meeting is completed.

Scheduling town hall meetings for 2014 has begun. May and much of June already are booked. States that have scheduled meetings so far this year: Florida, New Jersey, Oregon, Washington, Tennessee, North Carolina, Michigan, Nevada, Alabama, and Maine.

We are endorsing Sen. Richard Blumenthal's (D-Conn.) legislation, S.1602, which calls for all veterans exposed to toxic substances to be diagnosed and treated, along with their progeny. We will host a meeting on the Hill on April 10 with as many members of Congress as possible to introduce and urge passage of S.1602. Attending this briefing will be VVA Board members, state council presidents, AVVA members, and children of veterans who have been exposed to Agent Orange.

C-123 Veterans' Freedom of Information Act Requests Noted by The FOIA Project:

As reported in The FOIA Project:

1. THE C-123 VETERANS ASSOCIATION et al v. US DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS (filed Mar 27, 2014)
   C-123 Veterans Association submitted a FOIA request to the Department of Veterans Affairs concerning its policies on secondary exposure to Agent Orange. The agency acknowledged receipt of the request, but after hearing nothing, the Association submitted an administrative appeal. The agency indicated that it had searched its records but found nothing responsive to the request. Believing that VA had misinterpreted its request, the Association filed another appeal, but finally filed suit.
   Issues: expedited proceedings, improper withholding, adequacy of search, disclosure of non-exempt records, grant fee waiver, attorney’s fees

Docket   Complaint   Complaint attachment 1  Complaint attachment 2  Complaint attachment 3  Complaint attachment 4  Complaint attachment 5  Complaint attachment 6  Complaint attachment 7  Complaint attachment 8  Complaint attachment 9

1. THE C-123 VETERANS ASSOCIATION et al v. DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE (filed Mar 27, 2014)
   C-123 Veterans Association submitted a FOIA request to the Department of the Air Force for records concerning its decision on the Association’s members’ exposure to Agent Orange in a “Consultative Letter.” The Association also requested a fee waiver. The agency acknowledged receipt of the request and denied the Association’s request for a fee waiver. After hearing nothing further, the Association submitted an administrative appeal. The agency indicated it would take longer to respond to the request, but the Association finally filed suit.
   Issues: improper withholding, disclosure of all records, attorney’s fees

Docket   Complaint   Complaint attachment 1   Complaint attachment 2   Complaint attachment 3   Complaint attachment 4  Complaint attachment 5   Complaint attachment 6      Complaint attachment 7Complaint attachment 8   Complaint attachment 9  Complaint attachment 10   Complaint attachment 11   Complaint attachment 12

Dermal Exposure – Denied by VA But Confirmed by Science

VA rejects all C-123 clams based on their selective literature review which was designed to avoid reference to publications not fitting their predetermined objective of preventing any acknowledgement of exposure aboard the C-123s. It is not a "blanket policy" for denials, but instead a 100% rejection with what they call a "claim-by-claim" process. We fail to see the distinction...the fact of the matter is the same, total rejection of all C-123 exposure claims. The Senate was misled with Secretary Shinseki's letter.

The fact that the VA's position was formed against us is based on their obvious decision to ignore publications not fitting VA's objective of pretending no exposure occured. Publications such as Leung and Paustenbach and the many government publications addressing hazards of TCDD exposure were dismissed as through they didn't exist.

As mentioned before, exposure is the only qualification we must meet under the law, but VA overlooks that and denies claims not on exposure facts but their redefinition of exposure to include bioavailability. Not very nice of them, indeed, but VA's objective was met...a barrier was constructed to prevent C-123 exposure claims by redefining away our exposure facts.

No C-123 claims are permitted on their watch because they decided in 2011 to prevent claims. That was Job #1. Job #2 was automatic to these folks...just say "no." Then VA Compensation and Pension simply provided boilerplate denial language for the VAROs to use, and twisted VA21-1MR's requirement for the VAROs to consult C&P into similar orders from DC to deny. 

Deny, deny until they die. It doesn't take long to get that impression, true or not.

Further, VA uses their reinvented concept of exposure which requires proof of bioavailability, yet then forbids testing for TCDD bioavailability. Their experts know it is unlikely that any TCDD would be still found, as one study showed known intensive exposures to twelve people only had two showing TCDD still in the body two decades later.

Our exposures, between 1972-1982 were so far back, and TCDD has a half-life in body tissue of about seven years, so testing wouldn't be an effective way to make any conclusion about our own bioavailability.

But studies do support our having had TCDD enter our bodies via dermal contact and inhalation of TCDD-laden dust. 

Check it out. Go to the OSHA Technical Center at Salt Lake City website which states how OSHA wants a surface contamination exposure assessment done.  On pg 2 of the website, in the section titled: Exposure Evaluation:  The fourth reference by Leung and Paustenbach includes a bioavailability dermal factor specific to dioxin and they even included a surface wipe example of dioxin in the paper on pg 194 and use a 1 percent bioavailability factor for dioxin.  

https://www.osha.gov/SLTC/surfacecontamination/

Leung and Paustenbach (1994) Techniques for Estimating the Percutaneous Absoprtion of Chemicals Due to Occupational and Environmental Exposure, Appl. Occup. Environ. Hyg. 9(3) 187-19 cite Shu, et al (1988) Bioavailability of Soil Bound TCDD: Draml Bioavailability in the Rat.  Fund. Appl. Toxicol. 10:648-654 for this bioavailability factor.  In other papers, Paustenbach noted the bioavailability was as high as 1.75% for dioxin.  

So basically, we claim that there is bioavailability of TCDD or dioxin and it was established as early as 1988 and again cited in a peer-review article in 1994 and presented in the OSHA website for how to conduct an exposure assessment of surface contamination of chemical.

And always remember: the law requires only exposure, which we've proven. The VA

pretense that bioavailability is necessary is wrong, but literature supports our having had TCDD bioavailability as well. The most recent scientific article from Environmental Research was "Air Force Aircraft Returned from Vietnam Identified as Source of Post-War Agent Orange Contamination." (Stellman, Berman, Lurker, Clapp)

If you have exposure claims before the VA, consider submitting additional material to counter the VA stacking the deck against us with only half the science. 

Check over the hundred or more source documents on our blog. Submit the rest of the science by including copies of:

1.  Federal Register 31 August 2010, page 53205
2. Air Force Aircraft Returned from Vietnam Identified as Source of Post-War Agent Orange Contamination
3. CDC/ATSDR determination that C-123 crews were exposed and had greater risks of cancer
4. OSHA Chemical Sampling Card
5. NIH/National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences C-123 Finding
6. Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health C-123 Finding
7. Concerned Scientists and Physicians Letter to Secretary of Veterans Affairs re: C-123 Exposures
8. US Public Health Service C-123 Exposure Findings
9. University of Texas Medical School C-123 Exposure Finding
10. Oregon Health Sciences University Toxicology Department C-123 Exposure Finding
11. C-123 Aircrew VA Claim Approval (Paul Bailey)
12. C-123 Maintenance Personnel VA Claim Approval (Rickenbacker–Name Withheld for Privacy)
13. Washington Post Article, Agent Orange's Reach Beyond the Vietnam War
14. ATSDR Terminology, including official definition of EXPOSURE

Most likely, your claim will still be denied on order of Compensation and Pension, but you will have ample evidence to show the Board of Veterans Appeals clear error on the VA's part in denying exposure claims.  The BVA and other officials know that C-123 veterans are being required to submit more documents, reach a much higher threshold of "as likely to as not" proof, than any other veterans ever have been.

Further, as with Paul Bailey, your medical evidence and the documents listed above can motivate a claims official to actually do the right thing and concede service connection.

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

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

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

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

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

C-123 & Agent Orange: Stars & Stripes 15 Aug 201

UC-123K flyer wins Agent Orange claim
by Tom Philpott, 15 Aug 2013

After a two-year battle with the Air Force and Department of Veterans Affairs, a group of ailing Air Force Reserve aviators has won a bittersweet victory: VA acknowledgment that one of their own likely is gravely ill due to post-Vietnam War exposure to toxic residue on UC-123K Provider aircraft, which were used as herbicide “spray birds” during the war.

Lt. Col Paul Bailey of the White Mountains, N.H., a cancer patient in hospice care, received notice this month that the VA had approved his disability claim, citing a “preponderance of evidence” suggesting exposure to herbicides, including Agent Orange, on C-123s he flew on missions after the war.

The decision is important because, for the first time, a VA regional office is recognizing that a C-123 crewmember was exposed to herbicides and should be compensated for ailments the VA presumes are linked to Agent Orange. Former C-123 veterans who previously won VA compensation did so on appeal after the VA had denied their initial claims.  That meant payment delays in compensation and access to VA care for up to two years, said retired Maj. Wesley T. Carter, of McMinnville, Ore.

Carter, a retired reserve aviator and C-123 veteran himself, has led an intensive fight against bureaucratic resistance on behalf of his fellow crewmen since 2011.  That year, as we reported at the time, he filed a complaint to the Air Force inspector general that health officials knew since 1996 of contamination aboard aircraft flown by reserve squadrons until 1982, and failed to warn them of the health risks.

Carter learned the government had stopped a contract to sell C-123s because of dioxin contamination and that the Air Force struggled over how to dispose of the aircraft.  Even burying them could contaminate the ground.  In 2010, the last of the aircraft were quietly torn apart and melted down for disposal.

Reacting to Bailey’s award, Carter, who is rated 100-disabled from cancer and heart disease, said he felt “immense satisfaction and gratitude.  But I'm tired and ill.  Why did we have to work so hard to get our VA care?  As sick or injured veterans, our focus needed to be on our medical needs and our families, not on years of struggle with the VA.”

The Bailey claim decision, he said, “signals that regional offices can examine the full range of facts and reach a reasonable conclusion on other exposure cases as Manchester (N.H.) VA Regional Office did.”

To comment, write Military Update, P.O. Box 231111, Centreville, VA, or email milupdate@aol.com or twitter: Tom Philpott @Military_Update