Official Records: USAF Misled Senate & The Press. C-123s Destroyed as TOXIC WASTE!

Released today by the Davis-Monthan AFB Freedom of Information Act Manager, after four years of denials, Air Force documents now show clearly that the former Agent Orange spray C-123s, in desert storage for decades, were destroyed specifically as toxic waste.

This is a big deal in the impact it had on blocking veterans benefits. We try to explain it here. The Air Force, up through the Surgeon General's Office, has long-denied that the Vietnam-era transports were contaminated in any way, denied that aircrews and maintenance personnel were ever exposed in any way, and that the aircraft were not destroyed as toxic waste. In October 2012 the Air Force Congressional Liaison Director, Major General Tod Wolters Deputy assured Senator Richard Burr that the Air Force had not destroyed the airplanes to keep the veterans from learning of their exposures by destruction of all the evidence. But the memos, FOIA results and the IOM conclusions now tell a different story looking back from today's perspective: A more complete revelation of the mischaracterization of huge toxic disposal process, mischaracterized to prevent exposed veterans from seeking VA medical care.

Destruction to block veterans' exposure claims was first suggested, not by the veterans, but by the Air Force Agent Orange consultant. In his decision memoranda to Air Force officials, he counseled immediate destruction due to concerns exposed veterans would turn to the VA for help. His warnings were repeated by Air Force officials up the chain of command, and he was credited as being "the foremost proponent all along." (the same man was to insist at the IOM June 16 2024 committee meeting that the C-123s somehow weren't contaminated after all.)

But toxic waste those C-123s most certainly were. That's why Air Force JAG attorneys warned of the threatened EPA fine reaching $3.4 billion, at $30,000 a day. That's why the Air Force Office of Environmental Law directed information about the C-123s "be kept in official channels only." The planes had to go, and couldn't be sold because the Air Force toxicologists who examined the aircraft testified in September 2000 during federal court proceedings that the C-123s couldn't be surplused because the "posed a threat to public safety."

The Air Force had canceled profitable surplus sales and refused further offers from eager buyers, but those transports couldn't sit in the Tucson desert much longer with an EPA threat of $30,000 per day adding up, and veterans starting to ask questions about evolving Agent Orange illnesses.

First, a couple loopholes were identified deep in EPA regulations, dealing with whether the lingering contamination incident was deliberate or accidental, and if the scrap from the destruction could be reduced to cell phone size.

IOM C-123 Report

Solution: If Air Force officials simply changed the way they thought, the way the C-123s' contamination was described, then, thanks to EPA loopholes, the Air Force could skate on the politically sensitive "toxic" label and the role that fact might play in veterans' claims.

Thus began these last five years of the Air Force refusing to admit the C-123s were destroyed as toxic, and the logic trail letting the AF insist none of the veterans were exposed. But the planes were indeed toxic, and January 2015 Institute of Medicine has determined veterans were exposed,  proved that the Air Force Surgeon was mistaken, and the IOM's careful recalculation of formulas the military used in measuring the contamination pointed out the Air Force's scientific errors.

From USAF Position Paper on Immediate Disposal/Recycle of 18 UC-123K/C-123K 'Agent Orange' Aircraf

Today's released FOIA documents tell a far, far more complete story. Air Force officials were presented with only three possible steps forward in dealing with the spray planes. The picked option C ("Dispose of as HAZWASTE") although a Navy contract was found costing Uncle Sam only $1,000 per airplane to shred and smelt the waste.

From USAF Memorandum, "Dioxin Contaminated C-123s" Look – the AF cannot spell "minimum" correctly!

This latest FOIA release again points out the USAF professional failures surrounding the press release prepared by Hill Air Force Base. It actually never was released but held in the event of any inquiries if anybody noticed eighteen transports had disappeared from the Boneyard. Recent HQ USAF PA memos have insisted Public Affairs did everything properly, and that press releases are never released. The Air Force insists it met its professional public affairs responsibilities even though words like Agent Orange, dioxin, and other attention-grabbing words were edited out and the process ended up described as "an environmentally responsible recycling of aged Vietnam-era airplanes." 

Somehow, telling the truth, meeting its regulatory standards, serving the needs of the public to be informed about its armed forces, and raising the journalism standards it sets for itself all fell away in this C-123 Agent Orange story, as Air Force Public Affairs slipped down to the level of "marketing communications"
–selling the product, maintaining the brand name, waiving off accusations of misbehavior. Deceptions falling short of their mission statement, "Provide Airmen with unique Public Affairs resources to document and convey the Air Force mission and legacy."

USAF PA somehow still feels it best served the Air Force by not telling the public of destroyed toxic warplanes, and by not telling the exposed veterans (through the media) of the event. Tell us now, PA...how'd that deception work out?

From the aircrew's perspective, it didn't work out too well, because four years went by without PA alerting us our that our toxic C-123 exposures caused what the CDC calculated to be our 200-fold greater cancer risk. Four years when we could have been watching our health more closely, had we known what Air Force Public Affairs felt it best not to tell us.

Publicity below the radar was what the Air Force wanted, what the press release was intended to minimize, and it all worked. Real world conclusion: that overworked nasty phrase, "cover up." The Washington Post's August 3 and August 8 2013 articles told the story quite well and managed to avoid use of the phrase.

Until C-123 veterans began associating their years flying these former Agent Orange spray airplanes with their Agent Orange-related illnesses. Veterans had been told since 1979 that the spray planes were safe, and told to clean out remaining dioxin residue by scrubbing with Dawn detergent, and finally were never told of the 1994 tests on "Patches" showing it "heavily contaminated on all test surfaces."

So the April 2010 Air Force press release...their press release so carefully prepared but never released, was deceitful, leaving out the true information about the airplanes' Agent Role. The Air Force Surgeon General was wrong in May 2012 not to notify exposed veterans out of a phony concern to "cause undue distress." – any health warning might have helped veterans take precautions, such as PSA tests. 

There is even a third recent FOIA document set revealing how suddenly what had been for decades "the dioxin contaminated C-123 aircraft" instantly became merely innocent, "aged Vietnam-era transports." Concerns with the toxins which required the USAF Surgeon General to direct civilian employees around the stored airplanes to wear full HAZMAT were dismissed as soon as exposed veterans learned the source of their illnesses, and both AF and VA sought to block further notoriety.

Finally, the Air Force was terribly deceitful to have cooperated

with the VA in efforts to prevent veterans' exposure claims. A final deception to share: Major General Tod Wolters, Air Force Congressional Liaison Director, whose October 2012 letter to Senator Burr flatly dismissed all health concerns veterans had raised, and assured the Senator and his Veterans Affairs Committee that the "The Air Force has not deemed these aircraft as 'heavily contaminated' or 'a danger to public health' in their present configuration."

General Tod Wolters, who signed the report to Senator Burr, insisted the aircraft were safe "in their present configuration" – true, but only because their "present configuration" was as smelted aluminum ingots: all C-123s been shredded and smelted as toxic waste two years earlier!

Questions from USAF PA About C-123 Veterans' Complaints (see last two blog entries)

In response to my inquiries over the last week or so, Air Force public affairs would like some clarification. I have placed their questions immediately below, and the larger type below them is my response.

 A. Questions to C-123 Veterans:

The emails appear to show that Terry Pittman, of Aerospace Maintenance and Regeneration Group Business Affairs, and the Senior Consultant on Agent Orange for the office of the Secretary of Defense, were opposed  to publicizing the planes’ destruction, so why a complaint with Air Force Materiel Command and the Defense Department.

From the documentation you provided, it looks as though the 75^th Air Base Wing spokeswoman Barbara Fisher said the public affairs shop recommended making public that the planes had been destroyed (page 32).

B. My response to USAF PA sent 2/9---------------------------

Gentlemen,

I've added page numbers for clarity as to my references. 

In 2011 I submitted complaints to AF IG. In July 2011 I submitted the attached USAF PA to PA in the Pentagon, not knowing any other address. In 2013 I visited and filed an IG with AFMC at Wright-Patterson (Mr. Dennis Lange dennis.lange.1@us.af.mil,) without any response, but that complaint focused in failure to abide by FOIA requirements. (note 2/10/15: I have retracted this 2013 complaint to AFMC as they have no record and I did not keep a copy) 

USAF PA may have misunderstood that the 309th AMARG (Terry Pittman's memo) is actually a military organization under AFMC--is that perhaps why USAF PA asked why the complaint went to them?  Answer is...because it is an AF unit and an AF press release never released.

When the 2011 USAF IG was denied, I filed a DOD IG complaint...is that what USAF PA is referring to? It, too, was years ago.

Hill PA may have suggested somewhere, somehow outside the FOIA results released to C-123 veterans, a public release but obviously yielded to the improper editing of it and withholding to await inquires which never came...this disserved the commander, the mission and the media, and certainly the veterans. 

The only recommendation for a release I find by 75th ABW PA is on page 32. This is Ms. Fisher's recommendation to Terry Pittman at AMARG for release of the edited press release to Mr Martin Swann. She recommends providing the press release if Mr. Swann inquires again. As one can see, this is a press release about an event about which the media had to already be aware. 

I offer the example: if reporters don't see columns of smoke rising from the base runway, is PA spared the necessity of a press release about an aircraft downed on takeoff? One they've typed and held ready in the event that plume of smoke is noticed and inquires result? Otherwise, no media inquires = a non-event.

A closer parallel to our C-123 toxic airplanes. If there is a toxic spill in the Childcare Center, is PA spared the uncomfortable necessity of insuring the information is provided those exposed children, parents and staff? Never to be informed, just as our C-123 veterans have never heard from the Air Force. Does PA believe they'd type a press release about a Childcare Center spill and hold it unless parents notice their children sickening and bring their inquiries to PA?

Newsworthy? Here, PA obviously understood a press release was important because one was carefully crafted. Federal lawsuits had happened over these airplanes. Base employees had filed IG complaints reaching the USAF Surgeon General. The Air Staff was involved as well as AFMC leadership. Hundreds of thousands had been spent cocooning and moving the fleet into special HAZMAT storage. The EPA threatened a $3.4 billion fine. The airplanes and their background was historic. AFMC officials traveled to Wisconsin to personally witness and certify the smelting. Individuals kept propellor hubs as souvenirs. The issue of Agent Orange and its toxicity was important to veterans and the public. They felt the importance of the C-123 issue, however, best addressed by keeping it quiet.

The final press release described the destruction as "normal," which it most certainly was not (p.9-10, 20-21)  This was the first and last time such a procedure was used on USAF aircraft at Davis-Monthan. The initial press release (p.11,) more honest and revealing, shows the extent of editing out too much of who/what/when/why/where/how details of concern to the public.

As he is entitled to do, Dr. Young specifically recommended no publicity for the unacceptable reasons he offered. None of the three officials (Major McCrady, Mr. Malmgren, Mr. Boor) to whom his memos were directed took exception and opted to do handle correctly. Indeed, these officials and their organizations cited his memos as their authority for the actions. On page 24, Dr. Downs also agrees with Dr. Young's recommendations. 

Dr. Young, as a contractor, is not at issue here, but actions by Air Force civilian

and military personnel acting on his "decision memos" are. He later told the Washington Post he was acting in an unofficial capacity, yet his recommendations were accepted as instructions and authority for the final shredding and smelting as well as media cover-up.

While these folks were not base or MAJCOM PA officials, my 2011 complaint brought to USAF PA's attention serious concerns about violations of Air Force standards and regulations, requiring response just as to any complaint from any citizen about the Air Force presented to PA. It happens, of course, that PA issues are also in question. 

AFMC decisions are also questioned in my inquiries. The involvement of a large number of others is shown in the distribution of the memo on page 22. The Air Staff and Pentagon are referenced on page 23 and by Mr. Michael Crane's email, as he is on the Air Staff. No action is known to have been taken by any of them regarding the recommended goal "of preventing future liability to the US Air Force and the US Department of Defense." 

Question here, please: what about already exposed veterans...the ones mentioned by Dr. Young? It is clear the intent of this process was to avoid liability to them as well.

As Dr. Young, "Senior Consultant on Agent Orange to the Office of Secretary of Defense" congratulated officials on page 35, this was all done with "minimal publicity". Indeed, there was none at all until exposed C-123 veterans sought care from the Department of Veterans Affairs.

As a former Stan/Eval flight examiner for my crew position, I am not unfamiliar

with the C-123K but rather an expert on it. I believe this, along with an Air Force enlisted and commissioned career, gives me reasonable insight to the issues I've raised and ability to read and understand applicable guidance in the form of operating instructions and regulations. 

I've tried to express myself accurately but suggestions from AF Public Affairs back in 2011 would have been quite helpful to correct any misunderstanding on my part. I welcome it today as well.

Remember: this is not some commercial firm's marketing communications department where press release activity is a sales tool. This is the United States Air Force, informing the public about how the nation's treasure in gold and in the lives our servicemembers is spent. This treasure must be carefully accounted for, which is the only way we insure civilian control over the military through an informed public and their legislature.

Hill AFB PA was not what the nation needed relative to this event, with consequent harm to our health.

   WTC

Press Deception at Hill – and it WORKED – Public Was Completely Deceived!

Air Force Press Deception. Deliberate deception of the public to prevent veterans' disability claims.

In June 2010, eighteen multi-engine Air Force transports were shredded, and then smelted, ridding the military of one of its last legacies of the Vietnam War use of Agent Orange.

Years of plans for this destruction of eighteen Fairchild UC-123K cargo planes were firmed up in 2009. Included in those plans were suggestions from the Office of Secretary of Defense Senior Consultant emphasizing the need for minimal public attention. Agent Orange, dioxin, TCDD, Operation Ranch Hand are still attention-grabbing words of great concern to the public, and especially, veterans.

Hill AFB Public Affairs cooperated with leaders at Davis-Monthan AFB in creating the overall plan, which included a unique example of dishonest, unethical public deception. Focused on minimizing public awareness of the destruction process but aware absence of the aircraft might be noticed, the Air Force crafted a press release. As the consultant recommended, the press release was to be readied in the event of inquiries.


But it was to be a press release not released. And in its creative, but misleading wordsmithing, it remains as much a deception of the press and the public as was failure to distribute the document a deception. In two areas, therefore, it not only violated Air Force regulations governing public affairs, but violated the public trust.

Were there laws broken? Probably not, although EPA should look into some actions. It turns out that the Executive Branch, even the president, has no constitutional obligation to speak the truth. However, most of us consider that part of his/her job description. And we certainly expect truthfulness from military leaders, whose only excuse for deception would be for reasons of security. Not embarrassment.

This entry will take a bit of patience for our readers...there is a great deal of background, all of it relevant. And like colors of painter's palette, the facts come together to form the complete picture. Please give it your patience as the full story comes into view.

The "colors' we'll use for form our picture of Air Force press deception, and Air Force violation of its own strict rules about honesty and openness. Upon those rules rest the public's trust and the trust of our press, and the trust of those wearing the uniform.

The issue begins with the C-123s stored at Davis-Monthan and growing awareness that decades were passing without resolution of the political and environmental problems associated with the warplanes everyone (generals, scientists, attorneys, political leaders) called "the Agent Orange airplanes."

In 2000, base employees filed a complaint with their union, worried about exposure to dioxin on the airplanes which had been moved into HAZMAT quarantine.

Before discussion of the particulars of the C-123 destruction deception, let’s look at what obligations the Air Force sets forth in its public affairs program. While the Executive Branch may not be constitutionally required to be truthful, the military accepts that responsibility...with reservations.

The Air Force regulation governing Public Affairs is AFI 35-101, “Public Affairs Responsibilities and Management.” There we see very interesting statements, including:

a. "The purpose of Air Force PA operations is to communicate timely, accurate, and
useful information.” "The Air Force’s credibility depends on two factors: maintaining professional integrity and communicating timely and truthful information to the public.”
b: "Achieve informed public support for the Air Force and joint operations.”
c. "Information is not withheld merely because it casts criticism on or causes embarrassment to the Air Force."
d. Department of Defense Principles of Information. DOD makes available timely and accurate information so that the public, Congress, and the media may assess and understand the
facts about national security and defense strategy.”
e. "A free flow of general and military information will be made available without
censorship or propaganda to the American public.” “Information is not classified or otherwise withheld from disclosure only to protect the government from criticism or embarrassment.”
f: The Air Force should provide the public with information on its major programs; they may require detailed PA planning and coordination within DOD and with other  government agencies. The sole purpose of such an activity is to expedite the flow of information to the public. Propaganda has no place in DOD PA programs.”
g. Air Force Commanders: Ensure legally required community involvement in environmental issues is conducted in a thorough and timely manner.”
h: All Air Force Personnel:  each person must strive to make sure public
contacts show the highest standards of conduct and reflect the Air Force’s core values of integrity first, service before self, and excellence.

In April 2010 the 75^th ABW, Hill AFB, Utah prepared in advance a press release describing the destruction of the remaining C-123K/UC-123K aircraft at the Davis-Monthan AFB. Management of the information about this process was faulty and greatly harmed Air Force interests.

Throughout the period 2000-2010, intense concern was raised at different agencies, including the Office of Secretary of Defense, the Air Staff, the Air Force Surgeon General, the Air Force Office of Environmental Law, the Deputy Undersecretary of the Army, HQ Air Force Material Command and more. 

The concern: dioxin contamination left on the aircraft from their Vietnam War service as Agent Orange spray aircraft in Operation Ranch Hand.

1993 seems to be the first time when tests were ordered on Patches, the Air Force Museum’s famous C-123, was tested before positioning inside the museum. It tested positive for dioxin…in the words of the Air Force toxicologists it was “heavily

C-123K "Patches" at USAF Museum

contaminated”.

More tests and correspondence accumulate during the period 1994-2000 with the only concerns expressed being the disposal of the aircraft, safety of personnel at the Boneyard, whether Walt Disney films should be told that two of the C-123s they purchased for movie production were possibly contaminated, whether foreign governments should be informed that the aircraft transferred to them were contaminated, and similar correspondence. 

No mention has ever been found of concern for the aircrews who flew these airplanes and had already been exposed, until 2013 when Air Force leaders reported the information had been withheld from the veterans "to prevent undue distress."

In 1996 AFMC’s Office of Environmental Law recommended the contamination be “kept within official channels”, a recommendation endorsed by the writer’s commander, the Director of the Office of Environmental Law.

In 2000 the Air Force joined with the General Services Administration in a court action to stop the contracted sale of some contaminated C123s. The federal judge took their sworn testimony of the aircraft being “heavily contaminated, extremely dangerous, extremely hazardous, extremely contaminated, danger to the public” and other descriptions, and ordered the sale terminated. (note: In 2012, faced with veterans' claims for exposure, the USAF reversed its opinion, saying the planes were actually no danger to the veterans.)

In 2009 the AMARG/AFMC moved towards disposal of the remaining 21 aircraft, but officials knew the planes couldn’t be buried as they were too toxic for a landfill. The recommendation of the Office of Secretary of Defense (OSD) Senior Consultant was to stop testing the aircraft immediately for toxicity…all four had tested positive (two significant and two trace, but any trace is unsafe) and his suggestion was that that result could be taken two ways:

First, because the first four tested had two that were contaminated, it could be inferred that “only two of the 21 aircraft were toxic."

Or worse, that “50% or more of the remaining aircraft were toxic.” As the testing was costly, base officials, acting on the OSD consultant's authority, opted to shred the entire fleet of C-123s, having discovered a loophole in EPA regulations that shredded metal could avoid being classified as toxic waste. EPA regulations were looked at carefully, due to a threatened $3,400,000,000 fine.

The OSD consultant also recommended that the public affairs at Hill and Davis-Monthan prepare for possible media inquiries. He mentioned an article from Orion Magazine, and discussed the worry that a media “storm” that might develop could inform Air Force Reservists who flew the airplanes between 1972-1982 that their dioxin-related illnesses might be brought to the VA for treatment. 

Various drafts of a press release were offered, and the OSD consultant along with other officials “corrected” the drafts by eliminating words such as “Agent Orange”, “dioxin”,  “contamination” and replacing them with words less likely to alarm the public. Agent Orange and dioxin and contamination were replaced with “herbicide” and “aged Vietnam-era airplanes no longer flown.” 

The consultant's words...his agenda formed the Air Force press release:

The question of adverse publicity related to additional sampling or the immediate destruction of the aircraft is important to address. Clearly the Public Affairs Office needs to be involved in either course of action. The longer this issue remains unresolved, the greater the likelihood of outside press reporting on yet another “Agent Orange Controversy”. I recommend the IMMEDIATE DESTRUCTION OF ALL THE UC-123K AIRCRAFT. Public Affairs should prepare a news release in the event that there is a press inquiry. The key issues to emphasize in a press release are “that these old and obsolete aircraft sprayed defoliants in Vietnam 40 years ago”, “they were retired to Davis-Monthan AFB many years ago”, and “that recent analytical data from sampling a representative number of the aircraft indicated that only negligible levels of contamination could be detected.” Thus, “they were destroyed in an approved method used for the destruction of all obsolete aircraft at Davis-Monthan AFB.”

The last part of the statements was clearly deceptive, given the volumes of Air Force memos about companies desperate to purchase the valuable engines and propellers, and museums which wanted them, and private buyers who wanted them so desperately they unsuccessfully sued in federal court to try to force a sale. And lost, because the planes were shown to be dangerously toxic.

The final version of the UC-123’s story was approved by the necessary authorities at the 75^th Air Base Wing. It was not distributed, but held in case of media inquiry. This was a further element of the effort to minimize public awareness of the true story of the event.

Perhaps no lies were told. But there were, indeed, pages of prevarication. Mistruths were constructed to build a story which really had nothing to do with the real news of the event…dioxin contaminated aircraft. Nobody at the 75th ABW PA shop inquired of the managers of the event about the Air Force Reserve aircrews which had been exposed to dioxin on their airplanes for a full decade. Instead, the public affairs officers bent without objection, indeed, apparently with eager willingness, and in complete disregard for Air Force Instruction 35-101, to construct a press release to deceive the media and the public, as well as the Air Force Reservists beginning to wonder why they have cancer, heart disease, acute peripheral neuropathy, ALS, and other dioxin-related illnesses.

A careful reader will note a possibly inappropriate use of a business title implying official actions within and by the Office of Secretary of Defense. That particular consultant was described in several documents from HQ AFMC and the 75^th Air Base Wing as Agent Orange “Senior Consultant to the Office of Secretary of Defense.” 

Later, in an interview with Steve Vogel of the Washington Post, the consultant, Dr. Al Young, said he was acting privately in his work overseeing the C-123 destruction.

This person's attitudes and reactions to Reserve Component aircrews are a specific concern. In his 26 June 2009 position paper regarding the need for speedy destruction of the dioxin-contaminated aircraft, the OSD consultant mentions the media “storm” which might attend the operation and cause aircrews and maintenance workers with dioxin-related illnesses to seek care at the Department of Veterans Affairs. Concerned with the visibility of this event, which he frequently wrote must be low key (and even congratulates base officials on concluding the operation with minimal public attention). 

There has been an obvious careful selection of words to hide the actual event – a prevarication - destruction of dioxin-contaminated aircraft with a potential $3.4 billion dollar EPA or State of Arizona fine. This by presenting a completely misleading press release. There is an ethical standard in preparation of press releases, but it seems to have been ignored here in disregard for AFI 35-101.

The OSD consultant, a retired Air Force officer, in a 10 July 2011 message described the dioxin-exposed Air Force Reserve combat veteran aircrews as “trash haulers, freeloaders looking for a sympathetic Congressman for tax-free dollars.”  This is an inappropriate perspective from a person editing Air Force press releases especially when he helps direct the misinformation concerning events vital to the C-123 veterans' health.

His perspective was certainly consistent. He was hired by the VA to report on the C-123 veterans' exposure concerns and in his November 2012 report he recommended against any recognition of their exposure or disability claims. His involvement is also unique: He helped develop Agent Orange as a tactical weapon while in the Air Force. He advised the AF on disposing the airplanes because of their toxicity, he expressed distain for the veterans who flew the warplanes, and then he recommended that, regardless of other scientific proofs (which he opted not to reference in his report) that the VA block the veterans' disability claims. Thus, he had a significant role in each key part of the C-123 contamination story.

Particular concern has been raised with the 12 February 2010 Staff Summary prepared by Mr. Dwight Eagle of the 505^th. He noted the OSD consultant’s suggestion that although the UC-123K was principally used to spray Agent Orange, because some of them sometimes sprayed other liquids or conducted other missions, it could thus be described in terms of those missions, rather than the Agent Orange-Ranch Hand missions which were the principal employment for the airplane. Cleverly, the consultant had “clarified that the low levels of contamination are not necessarily attributed to Agent Orange, since not all aircraft were used in defoliant operations. Therefore, according to Dr. Young, the aircraft disposal does not have to be publicly announced as portraying or relating to Agent Orange.”

The Air Force Academy Cadet Honor Code Handbook, and other military volumes dealing with honor, considers this press release word-twisting to be quibbling, evasive, and incomplete…a lie constructed from half-truths, and dishonorable. It is perhaps not in keeping with the requirements of the State of Arizona or the Environmental Protection Agency’s rules and regulations regarding hazardous waste storage and their threatened $3.4 billion fine. The work product of the 75th ABW was not public affairs. It was an exercise in prevarication and public deception.

What was the news? The destruction of Agent Orange spray airplanes. And that was precisely the news to be obscured, twisted, avoided.

Today, thanks to many media reports, this story has changed quite a bit from what it could have been, and should have been – the simple “destruction of Agent Orange contaminated aircraft in an environmentally responsible way” to one where the news value is in the early attempts to keep the information in official channels, to one where Air Force public affairs abused the trust of the public and media by misleading them through a poorly-crafted and deceptive press release. 

It morphed, and grew into a situation where public affairs at both Hill AFB and Davis-Monthan AFB failed to bring to the attention of leadership their military and civil service ethical responsibilities. And, although public affairs professionals with clear guidance provided by AFI 35-101, they failed to alert their leaders as to the negative impact of failing to notify aircrews who’d been exposed to the toxins and the health dangers this press release was designed to conceal from us, our families, the media and the public.

Mission...failed.

New C-123 YouTube Video - "Death of the Provider" Spring 2013

Just uploaded today and ready for viewing, "Death of the Provider" addresses the dioxin contamination of the post-Vietnam War C-123 fleet. These aircraft were flown between 1972 and 1982, then retired to the Air Force desert boneyard at Davis-Monthan AFB and mass-destroyed in 2010.

Initially, there were no worries about Agent Orange contamination. That changed when tests were completed in 1994 at the Air Force Museum and later, in 1997 on the boneyard's C-123s, and toxicologists deemed them "heavily contaminated" and "a danger to pubic health."

Eventually there was nothing to do but destroy them, as decontamination was impracticable, if it would work at all. EPA rules permitted the shredding of the airplanes into scraps the size of a cell phone, and the mess was all then smelted into aluminum ingots.

The newest video deals with the destruction of these airplanes and calls for action with Congress and the Department of Veterans Affairs. The VA, illogically, pretends that service aboard the dioxin-contaminated C-123 somehow did not expose the veterans. Science says otherwise, and our struggle for service connection continues!

note: see our earlier YouTube video of an overall survey of the C-123 Agent Orange contamination issue. More videos follow, dealing with the Air Force Consultative Letter of 2011 and the VA's position denying service connection for Agent Orange exposure. An amazing saga of aviation history.

Blue Water Navy & C-123 Veterans - what are the differences?

I have been asked to explain, as best I can, some differences between our effort to have the VA recognize Agent Orange exposure by C-123 veterans, and similar claims by veterans who served aboard ships during the Vietnam War - well-known as the "Blue Water Navy". Another group are the children of Vietnam veterans with birth defects, and I do not know how to address their claims - my heart is torn apart when considering their suffering. Men like Ben Quick are the best voice for justice for these folks.

First, in no way do I argue with or disparage claims made by Blue Water Veterans, nor seek to make our claim more or less legitimate than theirs. We should all expect that justice and science treat both groups equally.

The fundamental differences in our situations are:
1. The Blue Water Navy group is huge...over 200,000 veterans, compared to C-123 post-Vietnam flyers, AME and maintenance folks totaling only about 1,500; Blue Water Navy has tremendous political support, membership support, and media visibility. Large size means huge financial impact on the VA if benefits are approved. C-123 veterans have had their requests to Congress and the Senate answered by exactly one staffer...Mr. Brooks Tucker of Senator Burr's staff, who has carried the burden for us in Washington for nearly a year now! Other politicians have simply ignored us
2. The C-123 has detailed, scientific USAF testing establishing the contamination by TCDD (dioxin) on many aircraft, with exact tail numbers identified in many instances. There are also AF tests done before and after decontamination of Tail #362. There have been no similar scientific tests on Blue Water Navy vessels although a convincing report was just released about decontamination of carriers!
3. There is a huge paper trail of official documents within Air Force Material Command and the Air Staff concerning the "Agent Orange" airplanes, from 1994 through final destruction of the remaining aircraft in 2010. AF Office of Environmental Science recommended test information "be kept in official channels only," prompting questions about a possible cover-up
4. The recent Institute of Medicine report about Blue Water Navy concerns said the possibility of dioxin contamination via desalination procedures out at sea "could not be disproved." This gives some low degree of probability to the argument, rather than the VA's requisite "as likely to as not" level of proof. In the case of C-123s, the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (part of the CDC with responsibility for this issue) has determined C-123 aircrews likely were exposed and stated our exposure was at a high level of cancer threat. This language is far above the VA's threshold requiring the benefit of the doubt resting in favor of a veteran's claim for disability
5. TCDD contamination of the C-123 was established by AF testing, and the testing procedures and results challenged by the VA in November 2011. However, the AF testing was specifically cited as proper procedure with valid results by the ATSDR, as well as by the Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health in their Independent Scientific Opinion. Columbia labeled the VA review of C-123 Agent Orange issues as "unscientific"
6. Columbia further classified C-123 veterans' exposure as on a par with or greater than ground personnel serving in-country during the Vietnam War
7. C-123 veterans, in some cases, served a full decade aboard the contaminated aircraft. Service was in direct contact with contaminated surfaces, providing inhalation, ingestion and dermal contact routes of contamination
8. Blue Water Navy has successfully had many ships identified by hull number for presumptive connection for veterans who served aboard. No C-123 veteran (other than those who previously served in Vietnam during the war) has had a claim approved by the VA or by the BVA upon appeal

I feel that both groups have valid claims deserving of scientific and legislative evaluation and, if well-founded, recognition by the Department of Veterans Affairs for treatment of our veterans' Agent Orange-presumptive illnesses. That's all we ask...if TCDD contamination and exposure can be established and a veteran suffers from an AO-related disease, the veteran should be given treatment for that disease. 

Our claim  - "Boots on the Airplane" = Recognition for Agent Orange Illnesses

Proper Interpretation of C-123K Dioxin Testing Results

ALL of the multiple Air Force tests agree that the C-123 fleet was in some degree contaminated with dioxin remaining from the Vietnam War Agent Orange spray operations. We agree with that as well. In 1996 AMARC had the stored fleet tested for dioxin...all aircraft were reported contaminated! The Air Force's official conclusion is that most of the fleet was contaminated, and the service also concludes officially that confusion about the C-123s which apparently were not spray aircraft but which might have been forced the final conclusion that the entire fleet must be viewed as dioxin contaminated. It doesn't matter which tail numbers we flew...the Air Force in 2010 decided they all have to be considered dioxin contaminated!

What we need to bring to everyone's attention is the natural degrading over time of dioxin...its half-life. In the human body dioxin tends to accumulate in body fat and doesn't want to leave...half-life in humans is 6.7 to 132 years. That means testing for our own body fat accumulation of dioxin, to which we were exposed between 1972-1982, must take that degrading into consideration. A modest indication of dioxin contamination in a test today is a fraction of what that test would have revealed decades ago!


Another perspective: the half-life of dioxin in the environment on surfaces can be nine to fifteen years. All the Air Force tests reflect contemporary levels of toxicity in their lab reports of swipe tests done on the stored C-123K/UC-123K airplanes. Some reports cite the "very low" to "sub-detectable" results. But the first of these tests (that we've found) dates from 1993, 21 years after the last spray missions and twelve years after we last flew the aircraft before the fleet was retired to the Boneyard. Tests done by AFMC of the 18 remaining aircraft in some cases indicate presence of dioxin but note that the levels were low enough to allow limited worker exposure during the final shredding and smelting process...but we aircrews were exposed to at least double and perhaps triple the toxicity during our years on the Provider! 


This means we cannot accept as-is the testing results from 1993 or any other year as indicative of sub-hazardous levels of dioxin contamination because, first, any level of dioxin contamination is unsafe and second, the levels would have been between 200% and 300% higher if done during the years of our flying. For those tests to be relative to us, they must include adjustment for the half-life of dioxin plus the atmospheric exposure aircrews underwent. While dioxin is not an aerosol, it can be inhaled when carried on dust-born particles. And do you remember how dirty our planes got, especially during deployments??