VA's C-123 Benefits for Reservists Helped Active Duty Veterans Also

I reviewed the March Board of Veterans Appeals decisions and was glad to see five Active Duty airmen win their appeals based on VA's C-123 rules. None of these vets would have succeeded without their claims reliance on our having convinced VA that C-123 duties, Reserve or Active Duty, between 1972-1986 provide for a presumption of exposure to Agent Orange. The benefits to them are tens of thousands of dollars each – congratulations!
In addition, there was one claim approved that I disagree with: a paratrooper claimed Agent Orange exposure merely by having jumped from a C-123 during his active duty years. This kind of infrequent, non-professional is not what VA had in mind when the C-123 eligibility rules were published. Lucky guy, but not from any merit on his part.

VA Secretary Proposes Overhaul of Claims Appeals Process for Senate Consideration. "Fails Veterans," He Insists.

(note: my own claim submitted in 2011, denied in 2012, appealed immediately, is coming up on its third year waiting for the VA regional office to forward it for appeals, after which the Board of Veterans Appeals takes about another six months to process. If successful(?) in my appeal, the claim is returned to the regional office to begin the process all over again in hopes for a more positive outcome. The process described by Secretary McDonald is truly designed to wait out veterans remaining days..."delay, deny until they die" is how the Vietnam Veterans of America describe it.

It might not be clear to non-veterans that all the while a claim sits awaiting an initial decision and then the appeal, VA refuses all medical care and other benefits. In my case, these last five years with cancer, heart disease and other problems would have had me dead and off the VA's queue by now if I'd not had other medical care available. The longer VA delays a decision, the more money it saves.)

“Decades worth of law and policy layered upon each other have become cumbersome and clunky,” McDonald said in a statement to House lawmakers and the press. “Most importantly, it is now so antiquated that it no longer serves veterans well as many find it confusing and are frustrated by the endless process and the associated length of time it can take to get an answer.”

The Cabinet secretary he needs both legislation and resourcing to “put in place a simplified appeals process” to handle the cases in a matter of months, instead of years.

McDonald’s call echoed comments he made to the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee on Jan. 21 during a hearing on department reforms. He said that with lawmakers’ help, officials could reduce the processing time for appeals cases to less than a year by 2020, much quicker than the current three-year average wait for decisions.

VA officials have worked in recent years to clear the backlog of first-time benefits applications after intense public criticism about the waits facing veterans seeking disability payouts.IOver the last three years, the number of cases pending for four months or more has dropped from more than 612,000 to fewer than 80,000 this week. But officials missed their publicly stated goal of reaching zero by the end of 2015.

At the same time, the number of appeals — cases where veterans believe claims processors have misunderstood the severity of their injuries and shortchanged their benefits payouts — has risen by more than one-third, to 440,000 cases.

VA officials have blamed the rise on the growing number of veterans filing benefits claims, noting the percent of cases heading to appeals has held steady at around 12 percent in recent years.

They also note that administrative moves alone to certify and transfer appeals usually take more than two years.

Veterans also have the option of adding new illnesses and disabilities as the appeals process drags on, giving them the opportunity to receive larger payouts but also lengthening the wait on decisions.

McDonald called the current wait times for veterans in the process “unacceptable.”

The VA secretary says he wants a new appeals process “with the timely and fair appeals decisions veterans deserve, and adequate resourcing.”

House lawmakers have begun work on legislation to reform the appeals process. A bill sponsored by Rep. Beto O’Rourke, D-Texas, would create a “fully developed appeals” process, limiting introduction of new evidence and arguments but guaranteeing quicker processing time and decisions.

Mirror legislation is expected to be introduced in the Senate in coming days. The proposal could become the basis of the type of reform McDonald wants, and has support from key lawmakers from both political parties.

But Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee Chairman Johnny Isakson, R-Ga., last week warned that getting an overhaul plan through Congress in an election year  “will take significant legislative willpower, but it's not impossible.”

McDonald said plans are underway to move on upgraded mail systems and digitized records that will speed the process some. Staff is undergoing retraining to better handle those cases.

“But (those steps) will not be enough,” he said. “We must also look critically at the many steps in the current complex appeals process used by VA and by veterans and their advocates to design a process that better serves veterans.”

Hello, VA. What's Happening?

Five Months Since IOM - Five Months Denied Care!

Not that we're impatient. It's just that we're sick, some are dying, and we think it might be better if VA unlocked its hospital doors and permitted our veterans access to the medical care Secretary McDonald wrote about in March. It would be great if VA permitted access to medical benefits so we can have our cancers, heart disease, diabetes, ALS and other ailments cared for.

Delayed medical care for deathly ill and elderly veterans is medical care refused!

Still no word. VA hospital doors still locked!

When VA medical care is denied eligible veterans, the effect is no different than VA administrators yelling at us to go away while locking their hospital doors to prevent our entry.

Six months ago today, the Institute of Medicine confirmed our toxic exposures and ailments. The first Gulf War was over in less time, including both Desert Shield and Desert Storm. It shouldn't take six months to resolve administrative barrier to our care.

VA was shown to be wrong on the science and the law from the very beginning, wasting years before turning to the IOM.. VA set up its contract with the Institute of Medicine in early 2013, detailing the questions needing answers. VA had a year and a half to get around to meeting its statutory duties towards us. With only two possible outcomes, "yes" vets were exposed or "no" vets weren't exposed, VA should have been ready with a "yes" solution in place not later than March 2015. VA's "no" was already in place, so all their leaders had to do was complete planning for a possible "yes" answer from IOM. It's not like this is some big surprise to the over 300,000 folks at VA.

There's no excuse for scratching their heads for the last six months in what seems total confusion. There's no excuse for keeping their hospital doors locked because they haven't spared the time to do their duty, and locked despite the Secretary's April email directing medical care be permitted.

VA's long refusal to permit our care. Wwe veterans continue to pay the price for that as we wait through VA's inaction, confusion, and disinterest. VA's stall only further tarnishes the reputation of the nation's largest health care system.

Years of VA Refusing Medical Care to C-123 Veterans...plus half of 2015!

Board of Veterans Appeals Calls Reserve & Guard "Weekend Warriors" in Disability Appeals

Unacceptable prejudice!

In today's All Volunteer military I find it highly offensive that an official agency of the Department of Veterans Affairs refers to Reserve and Guard warriors as "weekend warriors," slurs used even in official citations, summaries of their appeals for service-connected illnesses and injuries.

(from a Reservist's BVA appeal, Citation Nr: 1243683, remanded for VARO errors)

The BVA web site's decisions go back to the early '90s. Below is just the first page of dozens, each showing that an administrative law judge (ALJ) considered the veteran appealing a claim to be worthy only of a "weekend" label, somehow less than an American warrior, and that had to affect the claim's outcome. Clearly an ALJ using this language needs to be challenged.

The law, VA rules and regulations should govern the outcome of a veteran's claim, not the ALJ's attitudes.

Every Reserve and Guardsman having a BVA appeal and receiving this disgusting treatment should appeal to the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. They've received an injustice from the Department of Veterans Affairs and it shouldn't be tolerated.

I trust that NGAUS, ROA and all other military associations will challenge VA on this slur.

 ("weekend warrior")

Citation Nr: 1503497 Decision Date: 01/26/15 Archive Date: 02/09/15 DOCKET NO. 09-18 264

www.va.gov/vetapp15/files1/1503497.txt [view]

hour weekend drills that each Reservist or National Guardsman must perform each year and is often referred to as "weekend warrior" training. These drills are deemed to be part-time training. 

How VBA & VHA control "independent and objective" Board of Veterans Appeals

It's so easy for the VA! They make the rules, interpret the rules, but seem free to ignore the rules as it suits them. (click for file of this report)

Rules oblige cooperation from veterans, but the VA freely twists, reinvents, ignores and bludgeons veterans with their rules. And when ignoring their own rules isn't enough to block claims, VA staff can simply hide vital evidence necessary to establish disability claims from the veterans. And, VBA is quite comfortable and accomplished at hiding the same vital pro-veteran evidence from the Board of Veterans Appeals (BVA.)

Does the Tenth Floor know about this??

Above, I wrote "attacks" because any process whereby a government employee pursues a personal vendetta of preventing medical care and other earned benefits from aiding qualified veterans is clearly an attack upon the veterans and their families. It forces upon them financial hardship, suffering and in some cases, death.

The law obliges VA to a "duty to assist." What we have seen, however, is four years of revisionist policy web pages described as science, a policy against veterans' claims which VA describes as "case-by-case" consideration, and even Agent Orange exposure claims denied by VA insisting Agent Orange (specifically, the toxin dioxin in it) hasn't been shown to be harmful. VA still stands behind that – his Compensation and Pension opinion was reviewed with the C&P director and he has allowed his opinion to stand for three years without correction. VA's Dr. Terry Walters did describe it as "an unfortunate choice of words" but apparently, not unfortunate enough to correct.

While the VA Manual VAM21-1MR has "the force of law" according to federal courts, the only force is applied against veterans' claims. Rarely has the VA had its hand spanked for disregarding VAM21-MR, and then, only in court criticism of the event as in the Fort Ord decision. Worse, never is even the mildest punishment given VA personnel who twist the rules to fulfill their personal extra-legal whims or prejudices against categories of servicemembers.

"Personal whims" are the proper words to use, because when VA denies Agent Orange claims on the basis that the toxin (dioxin) inside the herbicide isn't harmful, that's contrary to science, medicine, the Veterans Claims Assistance Act of 2000, and VA rules. But that 2012 VBA Compensation Service advisory opinion still stands as the kiss of death for the veteran's claim it was used against.

Sure, the claim can be appealed. And in this case, probably to be resolved after the C-123 veteran's death. Even though it is a "clear and unmistakable error" it still stands to empower VA to refuse all care and benefits for not only the year processing the claim but an additional three to five years to process the appeal at the Board of Veterans Appeals.

But even there VA brings its own deck of cards, seal broken and already stacked against veterans, despite the department's mission statement of being the principal advocate for America's warriors.

The BVA judges simply repeat wrong-headed VBA or VHA websites or memoranda to turn the facts and the law against claimants. Nowhere is this clearer than in VA's tortured C-123 claims and appeals process (AKA "automatic denial process.") First example: In 2011 VHA developed its web pages to obstruct C-123 veterans Agent Orange exposure claims. (Note: Most pages were updated by March 2015 from their 2011-2015 incorrect and very negative perspectives.)

Although claiming to have "reviewed all scientific evidence" (no, they didn't) VA has not been able to provide a list of what evidence was reviewed, despite US District Court supervision of our FOIA. No notes, no references, no emails, no anything. except the web page. We saw that VA's pages avoided all references and citations proving exposure, and cherry-picked and cited only references to use against the claims. No mention is even made of input from CDC/ATSDR, NIH, public universities or the Department of Defense Joint Services Records Research Center – all of whom actually confirmed the veterans' exposure. BVA then cited the VBA web pages for years to deny claims.

BVA also repeated a spectacular invention from VBA's Agent Orange desk, its "overwhelming preponderance of proof" against C-123 claims. A clever but deceptive description for VA's dismissal of the same evidence which convinced the Institute of Medicine that the veterans were indeed exposed. The statement implies a scientific weighing of pros and cons to the issue and the undoubted certainty that no truth existed at all to challenge VA's "overwhelming preponderance of proof."

In fact, there being no preponderance at all, there was certainly no overwhelming amount of it. Havin,g decided to block all C-123 veterans claims,VA staffers imply coined the phrase as they dismissed every piece of evidence not in accord with the Agent Orange desk policy.

Those denied claims ended up years later at BVA. But here, too, VA controlled everything. VBA judges simply cited the imperfect VA web pages as perfect authority against veterans. Even though the VA web pages were unscientific and not peer-reviewed, and even though other federal agencies challenged them as error-laden, BVA rubber-stamped the same DENIED result the veteran began with.

Here's a BVA example from late 2013:

Of note, the Department of Veterans Affairs did addressee residual Agent Orange exposure concerns by post-Vietnam crews that later flew C-123 aircraft that had previously sprayed Agent Orange.  VA's Office of Public Health is noted to have thoroughly reviewed all available scientific information regarding the exposure potential to residual amounts of herbicides on the C-123 aircraft surfaces.  It was concluded that the potential exposure for the post-Vietnam crews that flew or maintained the aircraft was extremely low and therefore it was concluded that the risk of long-term health effects was minimal.  (See www.publichealth.va.gov/exposures/agentorange.)  Otherwise, other than his unsubstantiated allegations, there simply is no evidence that the Veteran was exposed to Agent Orange or other herbicides. 

The paragraph above, taken from a BVA denial of a veteran's claim, has two fatal flaws:

1. The original Office of Public Health web page BVA cites is now proven to be faulty, given the January 9 2015 Institute of Medicine report which confirmed C-123 veterans' exposures. The web pages were typed up by VHA Public Health Post Deployment Health to fulfill their policy of obstructing C-123 claims, and are not any kind of "scientific review. Challenged, VA has not been able to produce any evidence that such a review even took place.
2. Worse, because when this paragraph doomed the veteran's claim, March 2013 VBA had in its possession confirmation of C-123 veterans' exposures sent by the Department of Defense Joint Services Records Research Center (JSRRC.) But this evidence lay hidden from the veteran and his attorney's in submitting the claim, and hidden from the BVA when the appeal was denied. It is hard to imagine a more offensive violation of the government's failure to reveal evidence in its possession (Bell v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 611, 613 (1992). JSRRC began providing an even firmer confirmation of exposures in early 2014.

This was quite wrong but quite standard...VA did it all the time. Here's a parallel claim in which VA obstructed veteran justice. This is a 2014 claim, a year after VBA began hiding the JSRRC information:

Furthermore, the Department of Veterans Affairs did address residual Agent Orange exposure concerns by post-Vietnam crews that later flew C-123 aircraft that had previously sprayed Agent Orange. VA's Office of Public Health is noted to have reviewed all available scientific information regarding the exposure potential to residual amounts of herbicides on the C-123 aircraft surfaces. It was concluded that the potential exposure for the post-Vietnam crews that flew or maintained the aircraft was extremely low and therefore it was concluded that the risk of long-term health effects was minimal. See http://www.publichealth.va.gov/exposures/agentorange.

Hiding evidence is improper in most criminal and civil procedures, and probably frowned on even at VA, given the possibility of getting caught. It is hard to see anything in their published core values (below) suggesting or permitting evidence favorable to a veteran's claim being hidden, but perhaps "Integrity, Commitment, Advocacy, Respect and Excellence" are given different definitions at Compensation and Pension Service. I can testify that I have not been accorded "advocacy" by VBA in dealing with my claim, other than the gracious communications with the Under Secretary.

§ 0.601 Core Values.VA's Core Values define VA employees. They describe the organization's culture and character, and serve as the foundation for the way VA employees should interact with each other, as well as with people outside the organization. They also serve as a common bond between all employees regardless of their grade, specialty area, or location. These Core Values are Integrity, Commitment, Advocacy, Respect, and Excellence. Together, the first letters of the Core Values spell “I CARE,” and VA employees should adopt this motto and these Core Values in their day-to-day operations.
(a) Integrity. VA employees will act with high moral principle, adhere to the highest professional standards, and maintain the trust and confidence of all with whom they engage.(b) Commitment. VA employees will work diligently to serve veterans and other beneficiaries, be driven by an earnest belief in VA's mission, and fulfill their individual responsibilities and organizational responsibilities.(c) Advocacy. VA employees will be truly veteran-centric by identifying, fully considering, and appropriately advancing the interests of veterans and other beneficiaries.(d) Respect. VA employees will treat all those they serve and with whom they work with dignity and respect, and they will show respect to earn it.(e) Excellence. VA employees will strive for the highest quality and continuous improvement, and be thoughtful and decisive in leadership, accountable for their actions, willing to admit mistakes, and rigorous in correcting them.

Let's look at the other principal means by which VHA and VBA prevent Agent Orange exposure claims from justice at the Board of Veterans Appeals. As mentioned above, VA is guided by its regulation VAM21-1MR. The regulation provides that non-Vietnam exposure claims are checked against the Department of Defense Tactical Herbicide Sites list published in 2006 and written by Dr. Al Young on a DOD contract.

However accurate DOD's report might have been nine years ago, its hopelessly outdated in 2015 as even its author concedes. Out efforts to get it updated were stalled for a year merely trying to find out who had responsibility for it. Initially, we were told by the Senate to approach Lieutenant General J. Fedder in the Pentagon, but she declined several requests, referring us back to VA, which was one of the agencies telling us to deal with DOD. Eventually, we discovered the Armed Forces Pest Management Board which is now "owner' of the DOD list. They, too, declined to get involved updating anything in the report, once again referring us back to VHA.

The cycle is hopeless. Neither DOD nor VA has any interest in updating their 2006 report, knowing they're certain to be faced with unintended consequences of all sorts. In any case, the list is not accurate, and still BVA routinely dooms veterans' claims by citing the fact that the exposure situation claimed by the veteran is not included in the 2006 list. Despite the fact that an absence of a proof (here, a site missing from the list) does not make a statement false, VBA denies claims citing the 2006 list even though they prevent making it accurate with proper updating, yet both VA and the 2006 list's author agree it is obsolete, error-ridden and requires updating to be reliable.

A DOD Inspector General complaint was filed, however the IG declined to investigate...too touchy a problem? A principal component of the complaint was VA's disregard for the interpretation of absent evidence. According to the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims and summarized by the Congressional Research Service, VA must  consider “the absence of actual evidence is not substantive negative evidence” against a veteran's assertions. Thus VA uses a report it knows to be inaccurate to deny exposure claims insisting that because the site claimed by the veteran isn't in the flawed DOD list, the veteran is in error. Wrong, according to the federal court!

Here are examples of BVA use of the flawed DOD 2006 Agent Orange list denied the claimant justice. In each, and in others not shown here, VBA turned down appeals by citing the incomplete DOD list, knowing that neither DOD nor VA considers thelist accurate. Quotes are from actual BVA claims citations:

1. Consistent with M21-1MR procedures, in October 2007, the RO furnished the Veteran's detailed description of exposure to C&P Service via e-mail and requested a review of the DoD's inventory of herbicide operations to determine whether herbicides were used, as alleged. In a November 2007 response, the C&P Service indicated that a list of herbicide use and test sites outside of the Republic of Vietnam from the Department of Defense (DOD), "does not show any use, testing, or storage of herbicides  

2. In an April 2013 Memorandum, the Armed Forces Pest Management Board (U.S. Army Garrison Forest Glen) responded that a recently published report by Dr. Alvin Young titled "Investigations into Allegations of Herbicide Orange on Okinawa, Japan" provides the most complete data available on this subject. Dr. Young's findings were that there were no documents or records to validate that Herbicide Orange was shipped to or through, unloaded, used or buried on Okinawa. The internet link to the full report was provided

 3. VA has developed specific procedures to determine whether a Veteran was exposed to herbicides other than in the Republic of Vietnam or along the demilitarized zone (DMZ) in Korea. VA's Adjudication Procedure Manual, M21-1MR, Part IV, Subpart ii, Chapter 2, Section C, para. 10(o), directs that a detailed statement of the Veteran's claimed herbicide exposure be sent to the Compensation and Pension (C&P) Service via e-mail and a review be requested of the inventory of herbicide operations maintained by the Department of Defense (DoD) to determine whether herbicides were used or tested as alleged.

 As claimed in the beginning of this article, VBA and VHA tightly control decisions at their Board of Veterans Appeals. This is done by withholding evidence, by creating artificial policy-driven "evidence" like their VHA web pages, by preventing any update to the nine-year-old DOD list of sites, and by permitting an absence of proof to support veterans' exposure assertions to be evidence against the assertion, which is contrary to law (McLendon, 20 Vet. App. at 85.)  These failings have been pointed out to the VA, along with complaints about VA ignoring the requirement for a "low threshold of proof" and "benefit of the doubt" requirements with disdain and silence VA's only response.

Veterans insist that three things must happen:
1. VA must hold its staff accountable for action (or inaction) on evidence having potential effect on veterans' claims and appeals, and must drop the unofficial blanket policy of C-123 denials.
2. Either the DOD 2006 list must be updated, or at a minimum, VBA must never cite this or any other incomplete document once its errors are evident.
3. VA must be held to the statutory responsibility of being pro-veteran, non-adversarial, imposing a low threshold of proof for claims, and must conclude BVA appeals within a year or award the claim.

Another day waiting for VA to process my claim – Another day wasted.

VA has a neat website called eBenefits. You can find a lot of info there about their various programs, and also learn that any application for them takes months, usually years. Most usually, years.

Widely derided by veterans for its sluggish response to changes even when they do happen, the general advice by claims experts is and always has been, don't bother monitoring your claim process on eBenefits. Or by calling VA's 800-number, either. In fact, there is nothing any more effective than simply watching the postman to see if you get "the big brown envelope" some day years after applying.

Of course, VA's backlog of older claims has been cut and congratulations to Veterans Benefits Administration for that. A combination of forced overtime, retraining, online applications, computer-based awards calculations, "fully developed claims," and increased staff have brought deserved praise for the improvement.

But buried in the applause for VBA's success is the dirty secret: the claims numbers are manipulated by a variety of tricks. The biggest one is denied claims. A denied claim is then either dropped by the veteran or passed along for decision three to five years later by the Board of Veterans Appeals.

BVA then usually "remands" most claims back to the regional offices for whatever VA shortcomings they identify...wrong forms, forgotten physicals, ignored rules or procedures – a whole raft of VA errors and a list of them so long they can't all be mistakes by the original claims adjudicators. About 70% of these denied claims reaching the BVA are remanded...which is no solution as the regional office then takes months or a year to return the claim to BVA where, still, a huge percentage are simply remanded back again. More mistakes, or original mistakes not even attended to.

It can't all be by accident. And it is a terrible cycle, with claims often decided well past the veteran's death.  Another VBA "secret" is stacking difficult or complex claims for future (if ever) consideration while turning to more straightforward claims which are easier to pump out, thus allowing adjudicators to meet production goals. VA even warns veterans that their complex claims or applications with several issues at hand will take longer. Actually...we should print "PROMISES" veterans such a delay.

BVA is famous among veterans principally for the delay involved in getting one's claim before their judges. Regardless of the particulars, claims can take three to five or even more years to cycle from the local claims office through the Board of Veterans Appeals. My 2011 claim, below, has been awaiting appeal for over two years and hasn't been forwarded yet from the regional office to BVA. I can expect two or more years ahead and then odds are against any resolution, but instead, only a remand.

A frequent error committed by VA in processing claims is to deny them without even having ordered a Compensation and Pension exam, or by ordering one for some irrelevant issue not even claimed by the veteran. In either case, the denied claim forces the veteran to appeal, then has the BVA simply remand back to the regional office for the proper exam. Net loss to the veteran: perhaps one year in the basic claim and three more waiting for BVA and then another year at the local office to either award or, more likely deny again.

Fellow citizens, the months and years that VA refuses care to disabled veterans until claims are approved are terribly long periods to do without medical care, hoping to survive. Despite the wonderful people...and there are many...in BVA, too many veterans are faced with what even VA's own inspectors termed a "high risk" medical system. However, the inspectors didn't add the impact of veterans having care denied to the quality of care itself...that would have earned something even worse than "high risk."

Perhaps non-existent would be a good description for care in such a situation.

How Board of Veterans Appeals Sinks C-123 Exposure Claims

The impact of VHA's Post-Deployment Health Section is felt throughout VA and the veterans' community. Especially, it is felt by veterans whose appeals to the Board of Veterans Appeals are torpedoed by the unscientific policy statements fielded by Post-Deployment Health.

Below is a BVA finding which touched on a veteran's exposure claim. Look at the wording used by the BVA judges, especially "reviewed all available scientific information..."

But Post-Deployment Health didn't review all available information. Instead, they were charged with creating policy statements to block C-123 veterans' exposure claims. That meant they selected materials which opposed the basis for C-123 claims, and ignored materials which supported the claims.

If a scientific reference doesn't support the policy of preventing C-123 claims, VA doesn't mention it. Anything supporting a veteran's claim is disregarded in favor of materials selected by VA to deny claims.

So "all available scientific information" is VA-speak for carefully selected materials to prevent claims, not actually all available information. If VA had opted to provide a more scientific basis for considering C-123 claims, they wouldn't have ignored input from the CDC/Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, the US Public Health Service, the National Institutes of Health, Oregon Health Sciences University, Columbia University and others. VA wouldn't have ignored VA researchers and physicians who affirmed C-123 exposures, or ignored juried publications including the February 2014 Environmental Research article.

The paragraph below is from a recent veteran's claim denied by the Board of Veterans Appeals, citing boilerplate language about how Public Health reviewed "all scientific information" when, in fact, Public Health disregarding all information supporting C-123 veterans' claims and cited only those materials agreeing with VA policy. Further, the quote proves the BVA itself disregards any evidence favorable to C-123 veterans.

Furthermore, the Department of Veterans Affairs did address residual Agent Orange exposure concerns by post-Vietnam crews that later flew C-123 aircraft that had previously sprayed Agent Orange.  VA's Office of Public Health is noted to have reviewed all available scientific information regarding the exposure potential to residual amounts of herbicides on the C-123 aircraft surfaces.  It was concluded that the potential exposure for the post-Vietnam crews that flew or maintained the aircraft was extremely low and therefore it was concluded that the risk of long-term health effects was minimal.  See http://www.publichealth.va.gov/exposures/agentorange.

Board of Veteran Appeals Uses Boilerplate Denial Language for C-123 Claims, IGNORING VA's own Institute of Medicine Report

The Board of Veterans Appeals regularly posts its most recent decisions on claims veterans appealed to that body. We note that as in months and years past, BVA continues to use its error-laden boilerplate language to deny veterans' claims. Cited below is a paragraph from an unfortunate veteran's decision.

Furthermore, the Department of Veterans Affairs did address residual Agent Orange exposure concerns by post-Vietnam crews that later flew C-123 aircraft that had previously sprayed Agent Orange. VA's Office of Public Health is noted to have reviewed all available scientific information regarding the exposure potential to residual amounts of herbicides on the C-123 aircraft surfaces. It was concluded that the potential exposure for the post-Vietnam crews that flew or maintained the aircraft was extremely low and therefore it was concluded that the risk of long-term health effects was minimal. See: http://www.publichealth.va.gov/exposures/agentorange

This citation references the Office of Public Health having "reviewed all available scientific information regarding the exposure potential to residual amounts of herbicides on the C-123 aircraft surfaces." What the citation avoids mentioning is the highly selective approach used by Public Health when they first listed their carefully selected references in 2011. Only references arguing against veterans' claims were permitted, and all references supporting C-123 exposures were ignored.

The March JSRRC report and the January 2015 Institute of Medicine report completely put to rest the above error-laden assertions...C-123 aircraft were indeed contaminated and the veterans were indeed exposed. Although VA has yet to react to this report done at their own expense, BVA and other VA bodies continue denying C-123 veterans' claims by repeating the same paragraph.

What was ignored by VA in its review of "all available scientific information?"
• CDC/Agency for Toxic Substances & Disease Registry report to VA
• Concerned Scientists & Physicians Group Report to VA
• Oregon Health Sciences Perspective on C-123 Aircraft Exposures
• NIH/National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences report to VA "concluding exposures were plausible"
• All works of Dr. Jeanne Stellman

VA Web Sites Reference C-123 Vets, But Still ORDERS ALL Our Claims Denied

VA has over the years begun mentioning C-123 veterans on their web pages. Initially, the single page with C-123 information was a solitary note dedicated to explaining VA's opposition, As time passed VA then added information from the flawed USAF 2012 C-123 Consultative Letter.

Although the authoritative Institute of Medicine C-123 report on 9 January 2015 identified fatal scientific flaws and erroneous conclusions in the USAF C-123 Consultative Letter, it remains on-line, unamended, without note as to any corrections, and cited by VA in its "Scientific Review of Agent Orange in C-123 Aircraft."

That was the sole Internet VA document for quite some time, but as more and more proofs of C-123 veterans' Agent Orange exposure evolved, VA used more Internet pages to dismiss the proofs

Today, VBA Compensation and Pension Agent Orange Desk continues to order claims denied, although the current VBA approach is often to order claims "postponed" indefinitely without decision. That step even blocks the veteran's appeal of a denied claim because the Board of Veterans Appeals only accepts denials: preventing denials by stamping "postponed" on them sends claims into a wilderness of wasted years.

• Scientific Review of Agent Orange in C-123 Aircraft 

• Agent Orange Residue on Post-Vietnam War Airplanes

• Institute of Medicine Reports on Agent Orange (VA summation page)

• Exposure to Agent Orange by Location  – Public Health

The other official document addressing C-123 exposures is Fact Sheet for the Honorable Richard M. Burr Regarding Processing of Disability Claims Based on Agent Orange (AO) Exposure Aboard C-123 Aircraft Outside the Republic of Vietnam, authored by the VBA Compensation and Pension Agent Orange Desk for Secretary Shinseki's signature. The Fact Sheet is now two years old with more current VA and IOM investigations clarifying its numerous fatal flaws, but has not been updated.

While error-laden and carefully deceptive of the senators to whom it was addressed, it remains VA's position and vehicle by which all claims continue to be denied...or "postponed." The C-123 veterans authored a response to the Fact Sheet which was submitted, with source documents but without VA response, to the Secretary of Veterans Affairs.

While cited in its own VAM21-1M1 manual for claims adjudication, the March 2014 Joint Services Records Research Center affirmation of C-123 veterans' Agent Orange exposure and harm has been ignored by VA. In the manual, and in previous denials of C-123 claims, a negative JSRRC response to a VA inquiry is cited as authority to deny a claim. Currently, all positive JSRRC responses are ignored by VA to avoid any impact on these claims and to better reflect the preferences of Compensation and Pension Service that the claims be obstructed.

Veterans Appeals Delayed Years – Whistleblower Suggests Leadership Issues

News | October 2014

By Sandra Basu, US Medicine, The Voice of Federal Medicine

WASHINGTON — A VA whistleblower told lawmakers last month that veterans’ cases waited hundreds of days for a final decision at the Board of Veterans’ Appeals, even though some of them required nothing but a signature to be completed.

“Most of the cases involved decisions on appeals of waiting veterans that already had been prepared by board attorneys,” VA Board of Veterans’ Appeals (VBA) Senior Counsel Kelli Kordich told lawmakers in written testimony last month.

Lawmakers were flabbergasted by the delays, with Rep. Phil Roe (R-TN) incredulous that someone might be waiting more than 600 days for his or her disability claims case to be resolved in the appeals process.

“I have to go home and look at one my colleagues who served in Vietnam … did that for our country and they are waiting for somebody to take … their pen and sign a chart?” Roe asked.

Kordich agreed that cases shouldn’t take “200 days or 606 days,” to complete, suggesting there was a leadership problem at the BVA.

Kordich made her accusations at a hearing held last month by the House Veterans’ Affairs subcommittee, where Laura Eskenazi, VBA Executive in Charge/Vice Chairman of the Board of Veterans’ Appeals, also testified.

Army Times: VA Attorney Testifies on Board of Veterans Appeals Corruption

Army Times: September 10  By Leo Shane III 
Staff writer

A senior attorney at the Board of Veterans Appeals told lawmakers Wednesday that managers at the agency covered up delays in appeals processing and doctored records to protect their performance bonuses.

Lawmakers said they were dismayed not just at the allegations but how closely they echo earlier VA scandals of case manipulation and whistleblower retaliation that have been the source of months of oversight and criticism.

In testimony before the House Veterans’ Affairs Committee, Kelli Kordich, an Army veteran and 15-year employee at the board, described “corruption and blatant disregard for our nation’s veterans” and “a toxic management system that uses a culture of fear and intimidation to attain its goals.”

Leaders at the board denied the charges, saying lengthy delays in processing appeals — an average three year wait — are a result of the complexity of the issues involved and the increasing workload of the board.

But the allegations cast doubt on reports from the board that it’s processing cases at record rates, and represent more headaches for VA officials who are trying to restore public confidence in their work and data.

Kordich detailed problems with cases that sat on senior leaders’ desks awaiting final signatures for hundreds of days. When VA leadership was alerted to the problem, Kordich said, board officials changed records to cover up the wait times.

She also said lawyers were forced to rush through other appeals to help meet annual workload goals, possibly compromising veterans’ cases. And she claimed that when she brought the problems forward, she received retaliation in the form of reassignment to a windowless office with limited responsibilities.

Board of Appeals Executive in Charge Laura Eskenazi denied those charges, saying the problems stem from an increase in appeals and not mismanagement by senior officials. The board has processed more than 50,000 appeals so far this fiscal year, but Eskenazi said another 60,000 are still in the pipeline.

Rep. Mike Coffman, R-Colo., called the delays and allegations “alarming” and said he now questions if any data coming from the board can be trusted.

In recent months, VA employees have come before the committee to testify about manipulation of patient wait time data, claims backlog figures and performance bonus metrics.

New VA Secretary Bob McDonald has promised to have outside auditors review department record keeping practices and instill a veterans-centered culture at the department

VA "Cherry Picks" Scientific Definitions Against Veterans' Claims, Invents Others

It is right there for all to read, in three separate statements in the Federal Register, including rule making. VA assures Congress, the public and all veterans it will consider all non-Vietnam exposures to Agent Orange with the same presumptive service connection as it does with "boots on the ground" veterans. "No new legislation needed," says VA.

After all, the Federal Register is an agency's implementation of its own rules and procedures.

But faced with C-123 veterans' claims which VBA insists be denied, the VA Office of General Counsel threw an end run to nullify the Federal Register. VA OGC expects to redefine exposure to prevent exposure claims! VA will develop a unique redefinition of exposure, different than the one used by all other federal agencies such as ATSDR.

In concert with the Veterans Health Administration's Post Deployment Health Section, OGC has opted to challenge VA's own Federal Register postings...not by modification, but by redefinition of the word "exposure."

Presently, Post Deployment Health has invented its special redefinition to block C-123 veterans' Agent Orange exposure claims, stating: "Exposure = contamination field + bioavailability." No other definition of exposure used in science or medicine includes bioavailability as a component. Actually, these are separate toxicological terms.

Here is where creative and anti-veteran "cherry picking" takes place. Throughout its administrative documents, in the Federal Register, the Board of Veterans Appeals and even the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, VA cites Dorland's Medical Illustrated Dictionary (32nd Edition) in the Federal Register as well as in many other administrative documents. And Dorland's defines exposure as:                                                                        Nowhere is bioavailability mentioned or implied.

Get it? VA uses Dorland as the authority – but VA is just as happy to invent other creative, unscientific definitions as the need arises to better block veterans' claims. VBA even cites Dorland definitions against veterans in appeals, yet drops Dorland when Dorland's definitions enforce the veteran's claim.

Who is the client of VA's Office of General Counsel? Not the veterans!

Congress to Grill VA on Disability Claims Appeal Process

Sep 05, 2014 | by Bryant Jordan to military.com

Congress will meet with Veterans Affairs Department officials next week to demand answers on how the agency is handling appeals filed by veterans whose compensation claims were denied. The focus on the Board of Veterans Appeals comes as the VA works at restoring trust to a department seriously shaken by confirmed reports of secret wait lists, systemic manipulation of patient data and instances of veterans dying before getting to see a doctor.

Rep. Mike Coffman, R-Colorado, told Military.com on Friday that the VA's problems go beyond the Veterans Health Administration.

"It is imperative that Americans understand that the culture of corruption within the VA expands far beyond patient wait times and I have serious concerns about the mismanagement in the Board of Veterans Appeals process," he said.

Coffman said the VA needs to "ensure a veteran's appeal claim is processed expeditiously and accurately so they receive the care they need and deserve."

Much of the attention on a disability claims backlog over the past four years has been on first-time applications, which exploded in part because hundreds of thousands of Vietnam veterans who were able to file for a number of illnesses finally recognized as linked to their service. Additionally, veterans of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, when they did file a claim, generally filed for multiple conditions, VA officials have said.

Former VA Secretary Eric Shinseki determined early on in his tenure that a claim not acted on within 125 days of being submitted was part of a backlog. As recently as a year ago, the backlog was more than 600,000 claims. The backlog has since dropped to below 300,000 and is on schedule to be eliminated next year.

But appealed claims – those submitted if the initial one was denied or if the veteran sought an increased rating or additional benefit – also grew.

There are now more than 250,000 of those claims before the Board of Appeals. These may take an average of four years to decide, said Glenn Bergmann, a former VA lawyer who now represents veterans seeking compensation from the department.

Some veterans as well as lawmakers have accused the VA of reducing its backlog of initial claims by denying them, getting them off the backlog but forcing the veteran to file an appeal. Some veterans have also slammed the VA's slow processing of and denial of claims as intended to wait for the veteran to die.

Coffman said the Sept. 10 hearing will address those wait time concerns for veterans with a claims appeal.

"The purpose of this hearing is to address problems occurring at VA's Board of Veterans' Appeals ... related to various forms of data manipulation," he said. "It will address the excessive delays in processing claims and the various methods used to shift cases around in order to hide the amount of time cases are sitting without being processed or [adjudicated]."

VA Attorneys Create Misleading C-123 Claims Barrier

(note: we asked VA's Mr. Ridgeway for corrections on the content but there has been no response)
Under the leadership of James Ridgeway, Chief Counsel for Policy and Procedure with the VA Board of Veterans Appeals, new and creative anti-veteran strategies have been introduced by his attorneys specifically to prevent C-123 exposure claims.

BVA attorneys are responsible for prevention of appealed claims, and represent their client, the VA Veterans Benefits Administration, in front of the BVA administrative law judges with gusto, creativity and zeal.

But not with complete honesty or accuracy.  In 2007 LtCol Aaron Olmsted's exposure claim was denied when VA's ignored, withheld, or pointedly did not seek or provide to Olmsted's representative) proof that the C-123s he piloted for thousands of hours had sprayed Agent Orange in Vietnam. Even when that Air Force evidence (it took three minutes on the Internet) was provided after the fact, BVA attorneys  and the ALJ and the VA regional administrator and the Secretary (even the BVA attorneys' association's ethics chairman) insured his widow Diane's claim remained denied. After all, to BVA counsel, success is found only in a denied claim, or at least one delayed past the veteran's death.

More recently, to prevent C-123 veterans' claims from approval, BVA attorneys have begun citing completely non-existent "scientific studies" by Veterans Health Administration. Please note: these proofs don't exist – VA made them up! 

The only scientific studies ever done concluded the opposite – that C-123 veterans were exposed and have a greatly increased cancer risk (CDC/ATSDR.) The only peer reviewed study reached the same conclusion...veterans were exposed.

In fact, VA's references to "scientific studies" amount to nothing more than several web pages which mention carefully selected (and most pointedly, carefully avoided everything pro-claimant) references, and a one-page policy statement VA Issue paper in 2011.  There have been no scientific studies completed which found the veterans were not exposed – even the 2012 USAF C-123 Consultative Letter and follow-on explanations to the Senate said VA should not use for rejecting C-123 veterans' claims and that individual exposures could not be calculated. This report has since been repudiated by some of its contributors.

Clearly, it is important, indeed Job One, for BVA attorneys opposing veterans to appease VBA. This seems to mean preventing helpful documentation falling into the hands of opposing representatives. So much for the legal requirement, but phony pro-veteran, non-adversarial and veteran-friendly VA treatment of veterans' claims. Faced with the possibility of a defeat by veterans having the full facts and by reference to actual scientific studies, VBA's victories against the veteran trumps the profession's expectations of this staff.

The Deputy Chief Consultant at VHA's Post Deployment Health Public Health section published a single page in preparation to oppose veterans' concerns in an upcoming teleconference with non-VA scientists and C-123 veterans. Together with her colleagues they explained in the October 2011 teleconference that most likely none of the C-123 veterans' claims would ever be approved.

Then on February 28, 2013, VBA Compensation & Pension, which denies claims on the basis that "TCDD hasn't been shown to be harmful") explained to me and Major Marlene Wilson USAF NC that none of the C-123 claims would ever be approved because VHA had already determined that none of the veterans were ever exposed. Thus VHA Post-Deployment Health overruled the Secretary's and General Hickey's assurances to veterans that all C-123 claims would be handled on a "case-by-case" basis.

This opposition to C-123 veterans claims was based on a theory VHA and VBA accepted in 2011 and formed upon the writings of its Agent Orange consultant. Apparently, he was the scientist who apparently first insisted that none of the Vietnam ground troops were exposed to Agent Orange in his 2004 article sponsored by Dow and Monsanto  (manufacturers of Agent Orange,) and in his July 2011 article in Military Medicine. He expounded on his theories which were music to the ears of VBA and VHA executives who, as reported in the Associated Press, were determined "to draw the line somewhere" regarding claims of exposed veterans. The consultant did so by disputing decades of more current research presented to the IOM and instead citing work decades old. The consultant argues that the 1991 Agent Orange Act was an inappropriate response to veterans' needs, even dismissing statistical evidence of Vietnam veterans' illnesses.

Perhaps BVA isn't aware of the fact that VA's entire foundation for opposing C-123 veterans relies on its Agent Orange consultant who, in 2011 described us, the veterans Ridgeway seeks to keep out of VA hospitals, as "trash-haulers, freeloaders looking for a tax-free dollar. I have no respect." Apparently BVA is okay with such distain from its experts but not with experts whose opinions are respectful and in favor of our exposure claims.  The current $300,000/year no-bid, sole-source Agent Orange consulting contract has created such useful ammo for Ridgeway's case work.

BVA's team seems to have begun misleading judges at the Board of Veterans Appeals with citations of VHA's non-existent "scientific studies" approach in 2013. A search of BVA decisions shows the frequent reference, and reliance by BVA judges upon these non-existent references. This is despite truly scientific studies which conclude the C-123 veterans were indeed exposed. Those are never mentioned by VA.

Ridgeway's staff clearly ignores, and of course avoids informing the veterans' representatives, about similar findings by other federal agencies which have reached the same conclusion that C-123 vets were exposed...National Institutes of Health, the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, and the US Public Health Service. Proofs of veterans' exposure claims are ignored or dismissed by Ridgeway's skilled attorneys.

BVA also ignores the Yale Law C-123 conclusion that the veterans are presumptively service connected for recognized Agent Orange illnesses. BVA's motivated staff of attorneys finds it best to dismiss any such legal or scientific proofs arguing for the veteran.

The first BVA citation below is for a Navy, not C-123 veteran, but the inclusion of such language is terrifically wrong! VBA did not "review all available scientific evidence" but instead VHA Post Deployment Health selected references it felt best blocked exposure claims to fulfil VHA policy. This can be seen from their cited references, paid-for opinions, Dow/Monsanto opinions but avoidance of unpaid and independent expert input from ATSDR, NIH, USPHS, Columbia, OHSU, etc., all of which argue in the C-123 veterans' favor.

Further, this policy by BVA defies statements from VA leaders, including Secretary Shinseki and Under Secretary Hickey, that each claim will be considered on a case-by-case basis, as instead VA automates the denials not only at BVA but directs RO denials as well. We see some BVA decisions against veterans with this language about non-existent "guidance:"

"The VA and DOD have specifically provided guidance that such secondary exposure cannot be granted service connection, to include working on planes that carried or sprayed, or being stationed on vessels which transported the herbicide."

More troubling examples:

"Citation Nr: 1426689: the Department of Veterans Affairs did address residual Agent Orange exposure concerns by post-Vietnam crews that later flew C-123 aircraft that had previously sprayed Agent Orange. VA's Office of Public Health is noted to have reviewed all available scientific information (?) regarding the exposure potential to residual amounts of herbicides on the C-123 aircraft surfaces. It was concluded that the potential exposure for the post-Vietnam crews that flew or maintained the aircraft was extremely low and therefore it was concluded that the risk of long-term health effects was minimal. See http://www.publichealth.va.gov/exposures/agentorange."

And from an April 2014 BVA decision, also reflecting VBA's damage. (Actually, these studies and findings have repeatedly been brought to VA's attention.)

"Citation Nr: 1413377: there are no studies that VA is aware of showing harmful health effects for any such secondary or remote herbicide contact that may have occurred."

From others:

 "An undated Compensation Service Memorandum indicates  that there was no presumption of secondary exposure based upon being near or working on aircraft that had flown over Vietnam or handling equipment once used in Vietnam, noting that the aerial spraying of tactical herbicides in Vietnam did not occur everywhere and that it was inaccurate to think that herbicides covered every aircraft and piece of equipment with Vietnam.  Additionally, the undated Memorandum notes that the high altitude jet aircraft stationed in Thailand generally flew far above the low and slow flying UC-123 aircraft that sprayed tactical herbicides over Vietnam during Operation Ranch Hand.  The Memorandum also reflects a comment that there were no studies showing harmful health effects for any such secondary or remote herbicide contact that may have occurred. "

"Citation Nr: 1337387: note, the Department of Veterans Affairs did address residual Agent Orange exposure concerns by post-Vietnam crews that later flew C-123 aircraft that had previously sprayed Agent Orange.  VA's Office of Public Health is noted to have thoroughly reviewed all available scientific information regarding the exposure potential to residual amounts of herbicides on the C-123 aircraft surfaces.  It was concluded that the potential exposure for the post-Vietnam crews that flew or maintained the aircraft was extremely low and therefore it was concluded that the risk of long-term health effects was minimal.  (See www.publichealth.va.gov/exposures/agentorange.)  Otherwise, other than his unsubstantiated allegations, there simply is no evidence that the Veteran was exposed to Agent Orange or other herbicides based on his contact with any military vehicle that may have once been used in Vietnam."

Mr. Ridgeway, together with VBA/VHA, has institutionalized the C-123 non-exposure position, citing totally  non-existent "scientific" studies on VBA web pages which were policy statements and not scientific studies, and which are contradicted by VA's Federal Register publications and statements by VA leadership. These unscientific positions then become cited by BVA in refusing care to exposed veterans.

Nothing supporting the veterans' claims, although proofs are present in the files of VA's Office of General Counsel, VBA Under Secretary Allison Hickey, and VHA's Dr. Victoria Daveys, is made available to veterans by the VA during claims, appeals or cases before the US Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. According to FOIA responses from VA, nothing about C-123s even exists, other than its web pages.

It seems to BVA and Mr. Ridgeway's staff that VHA web pages citing non-existent "scientific studies" by Post Deployment Health trump repeated VA Federal Register publications addressing non-Vietnam herbicide exposures.

As the President told the American Legion On August 26, " That's how we will uphold the sacred trust with all who've served in our name." 

BVA sees upholding the "sacred trust" much differently than do the veterans before the board.

Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims Sees Trouble Ahead With Caseload

In its current condition, the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims can handle its caseload. But a judge on that court with close ties to The American Legion told Legionnaires at the 96th Annual National Convention in Charlotte, N.C., that things are changing.
Past National Commander Alan Lance, Sr., a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, told the Legion’s Veterans Affairs & Rehabilitation Commission on Aug. 24 that staffing issues facing the court – along with an increase in appeals coming before it – could put the court in a precarious spot.
“Right now, we have nine judges, and we’re adequately staffed and prepared to deal (with the current caseload),” said Lance, the Legion’s national commander from 1999-2000 and a former Idaho attorney general. “Very soon, we’re going to start losing judges. Unless Congress reauthorizes the maximum strength of nine judges, that strength will be reduced to seven judges at about the time (the court’s caseload will increase).
“In addition to that, we have judges whose terms of service will expire, and it takes a while to get a judge nominated, confirmed and through the process. So … we’re going to be pretty busy, we think. I’m sure we’ll have some suggestions at the appropriate time, but right now we’re just watching it come down the mountain, trying to figure out when it’s going to hit and how much it’s going to be.”
In 2002, the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims handled more than 17,000 cases. That caseload could approach more than 50,000 this year. “We’re prepared to deal with it right now, but as circumstances change, we may be coming back and explaining our problems to you,” Lance said.
An understaffed Department of Veterans Affairs’ Group 7 – attorneys tasked with more or less prepping cases to go before the Court of Veterans Appeals and then argue cases on behalf of VA – will impact the court, Lance explained. “They’re going to be requesting more time … and they’re going to slow up the appellate process if they’re not properly staffed,” Lance said. “Our court has no control over this. It’s the (VA) secretary’s bailiwick. But if (Group 7’s) processes slow down, then our processes will slow down. That’s my concern.”

C-123 Exposure Claims - The Effort Makes No Sense Any Longer

One thousand three hundred days.

That's the VA's wait between their blanket policy-driven illegal and automatic denial of every C-123 Agent Orange exposure claim and the hoped-for resolution finally offered by the Board of Veterans Appeals.

That means we're looking at over two years (720 days) for our claims' automatic denial, just for the privilege of then waiting nearly three years for a BVA to set things right at last...over five years wasted (2,080 days, or more.) After seven or so years there'll be a catch-up check, but that doesn't make up for seven years of denied VA medical care, no pharmacy, no rehab, no prosthetics, no dental or eye, nothing. Nothing. A catch-up check won't make up for seven years of denied life-saving medical care for a veteran, or for the financial ruin brought on a family waiting so long. So terribly long.

I don't know about the rest of you but this is crushing...so profoundly depressing I would need to look for the right, dark, hopeless words but they don't exist anyway.

We're in our mid-to-late '60s, so submitting an Agent Orange exposure claim now means in five to six years, thus we're past the average man's life expectancy, and perhaps eventually there may be a big brown envelope announcing a VA disability decision for the widow to open.

Six years is an impossibly long time for a sick vet to wait to get in front of a VA doctor. Thats a long time to wait for help with prescription expenses. That's terribly long time to suffer the financial impact of severe illness, denied all state and federal benefits due disabled veterans. Frankly, those years are years better spent focused on health and family issues. It is a very long time, and that's a skillfully managed part of the VA claims process. The Vietnam War vets call it "waiting for an army to die." Good point. Right on.

Should we give it up? I wish I had, two years ago. I had other stuff to do with my family.

Let's face it. The USAFSAM and HQ/AFMC people at Wright-Pat knew what they were doing in restricting all C-123K herbicide contamination information in their "official use only"(per the USAF Office of Environmental Law) secret file cabinet back in 1996. We never knew what we'd gone through flying the C-123Ks for a decade.

Then, in 2011, the VA beat us to the punch with their staff in VBA and VHA sneaking in that Society of Toxicology poster on "exposure," showing them ready to redefine law, medicine, science and ethics in their determination, ready to get rid of us.

As VBA Compensation and Pension Service told us, "Go somewhere else." As VHA (Dr Michael Peterson, Chief Consultant, Post-Deployment Health) told us, "We all die." VBA even ordered claims denied writing "TCDD has not been shown to cause harm." Amazing...Agent Orange is "harmless", so claims are denied. And besides, claims denied "because (non-existent) VA regulations do not permit" C-123 claims, so VA's Deputy Director Post Deployment Health orders C-123 vets barred even from Agent Orange Registry exams! (telecon w/Major W. Carter)

We innocently thought we'd show them truth in facts and figures, offer scientific and medical support from other federal agencies and our physicians, fill out their forms and sit back for good VA government staffers to do the right thing. Wrong.

We didn't understand the wall of prejudice we were to face...of VA executives willing to write deceptive answers to congressional leaders, of Air Force executives willing to deceive senators asking about aircraft contamination by answering that the aircraft were "safe in their present configuration," – which was smelted aluminum ingots, the fleet of C-123Ks having been destroyed as toxic waste two years earlier.

Little did we know the automatic reaction at 810 Vermont was not only "NO" but "HELL NO. No Way. Never. Not on my watch! Go elsewhere. Cannot permit!" Whatever their motivation is with denying Freedom of Information of requests and otherwise  obstructing our rights under the law isn't an issue.

The issue is that their instructions to the regional offices to deny all claims dooms us just as completely as if we'd never applied in the first place. Believe me, they wish we'd gone away years ago - their C-123 "final solution." Through our United States Senators, Secretary Shinseki promises us careful, individual evaluations, but then VA provides their rating officials boilerplate language to deny each and every claim, stating "Regulations do not permit us to concede exposure." And there are no such regulations, of course...just words VA enjoys typing to deny claims.

Deny, deny until they die. And die we do. Paul, Bob, General Mike, Doc Warner, Gabby, Jim, Mayleen, Lou, and all the others.

A veteran couldn't meet a better nurse or doctor than at the VA medical center. Praise God for each and every one of them, and tell the President the nation should be proud of these dedicated health professionals.

The rest of the VA bunch, those whose job it is to prevent veterans' claims, are not worth writing about. The hell with it. Let's just drop the misery of it.

Preventing claims is VBA's profession, Job One! They do it so very, very expertly, for all but the claims forced on them by law. Any wiggle room, any judgement call, any interpretation required means a denied claim and another VA victory. If laws and Title 38 can be ignored to deny claims...victory. If requirements spelled out in the Federal Register can be ignored to deny claims...victory, sweet victory for VA. And even worse for veterans, VA will ignore their own staff physicians, even if internationally recognized as Agent Orange researchers and professors of medicine as well as VA senior staff.

"Mission accomplished" to VBA means claim denied or a vet passing on while waiting for word. We can't win...they'll just keep obstructing and delaying until the last of us is dead. This is why VA employees draw their paychecks, and how their accomplishments are measured for performance bonuses.

VBA knows the longer they keep us from medical care the faster our demise due to lack of medical care. From their perspective, the sooner the better.

To VBA, a live veteran is a waste of space.

I'll say it again. The 1991 Agent Orange Act and Title 38 spell out that military herbicide exposed veterans will be granted service connection for Agent Orange-presumptive illnesses. The Federal Register of 8 May 2001 page 23166 details it further...exposed veterans will be treated the same as Vietnam War veterans. Exposure to military herbicides...the only proof a veteran need provide besides his medical diagnosis.

That's why VA pretends there is no exposure, and in doing so defies official conclusions that C-123 veterans have indeed been exposed...proofs from the NIH, CDC, EPA, US Public Health Service, USAF and others. VA does this by their own, in-house redefinition of "exposure," a definition adding the word "bioavailability" and an act challenged by the National Institutes of Health/National Toxicology Program's Dr. Linda Birnbaum and also by the CDC/Agency For Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.

These proofs from other agencies will spell success for C-123 claims once at the Board of Veterans Appeals...for the veterans who survive their cancers and heart conditions those extra three to five years!