Agent Orange, the C-123, and VA: My summary of it all

(article I wrote for the VFW magazine)

For vets concerned with Agent Orange, and vets concerned with how VA will deal with similar hazards going forward.

Why care? Because we got our Westover, Pittsburgh and Rickenbaker veterans between $48M-$240 million in compensation. It is even possible the total may be over a QUARTER BILLION dollars, but even more important is the life-saving VA medical care now provided.

We accomplished something that will affect all veterans from now on, as regards line-of-duty chemical and biological hazards. I am Wes Carter, a third-generation life member of St Cloud MN VFW Post 428, and a St. Cloud native now retired to Fort Collins Colorado. Retirement has meant time with grandchildren, and also time for volunteer service with veterans, in keeping with VFW core values.

Veterans' advocacy projects are dear to me. The first turned out to be the hardest and longest. It was to seek disability benefits for members of the C-123 Veterans Association, an informal group I started that became recognized as the negotiating voice with the VA.

Our folks are mostly the men and women who flew or maintained these former Agent Orange spray aircraft in the years following Vietnam. The project was pure Westover, labor and money, only from the 74th, 905th and 731st. Vets from Westover, Pittsburgh, Rickenbacker, Elgin, Howard (Panama) and Clark (Philippines) Air Bases all benefited.

VA insisted, even though the aircraft repeatedly tested as heavily contaminated with Agent Orange, there was no way the contamination actually exposed us to the deadly toxin in the herbicide. I had to prove VA and its Agent Orange consultant wrong. This involved lots of travel to Washington DC between the years 2011-2015. Postage, websites, FOIA fees, printing and other huge expenses all added up.

It was (is) a good use of my own Air Force retirement and 100% percent VA disability. I was perceived as a more earnest advocate because there was nothing personally to gain since I was already VA disabled...the beneficiaries were my fellow crewmembers and our maintenance troops.

Challenging the VA involved contacting scientists in and out of government but particularly those in the CDC and the National Institutes of Health. Here I found great support from experts who disagreed with the VA and insisted our exposures were very harmful and, in fact, we should have been flying the toxic airplanes wearing full HAZMAT protection.

Dr. Jeannie Stillman of Columbia University acted as corresponding scientist for the Concerned Scientists and Physicians, a group of dozens of experts affirming our veterans exposures to deadly dioxin.

The VA responded by saying these experts’ opinions were unacceptable, and that VA had “an overwhelming preponderance of evidence” against our exposure injuries having been caused by Agent Orange on the aircraft.

Some of VA's so-called evidence was previously discredited information from Dow and Monsanto. Most of the VA position was only its policy against post-Vietnam Agent Orange exposure claims. Internal VA memos even insisted that the department "hold the line" against us. Eventually, it became clear that the VA "scientific studies" didn't exist and certainly weren't credible science.

We countered VA arguments with stacks of evidence and expert opinions from medical schools and other universities as well as independent scientists and several government agencies. Several scientists re-examined all C-123 toxicology tests, concluded that our veterans had been exposed via dermal, inhalation and ingestion routes of exposure. and published their peer-reviewed report in the journal Environmental Research. There was general agreement everywhere that we been exposed... everywhere EXCEPT the VA.

Enough controversy was created, with enough proof of our exposure gathered, that eventually VA submitted the issue to the Institute of Medicine of the National Academy of Science for its investigation and public hearings.

I testified at four of these hearings and offered input regarding aircraft and aircrew details, Agent Orange and dioxin toxicology, history of the aircraft, relevant United States code, VA's misinformation plus data on the post-Vietnam use of these former Agent Orange spray C-123s. I explained how VA and the Air Force considered the C-123s to be "Agent Orange spray aircraft" until the first veterans' claims surfaced. Our FOIA search uncovered many AF tests establishing severe contamination, disproving VA's insistence on only one test on one airplane. The VA consultant testified to IOM that the aircraft were not contaminated but we then showed that in 2009 he recommended Air Force destruction of all airplanes as toxic waste.

CDC testified our airplanes were so contaminated we should have been flying in full hazmat. CDC explained that our cancer risks are much, much higher.

The Institute of Medicine Committee of distinguished scientists and physicians considered the issue for nearly a year before publishing their conclusion: Yes, C-123 aircrews and maintenance staff were indeed exposed and harmed. Importantly, IOM reported that VA and the military routinely ignored or minimized evidence of Agent Orange illnesses. The VA consultant was found to have manipulated or misstated scientific and historical evidence affirming our exposures.

On January 18 2015 VA Secretary Bob McDonald finally authorized full VA benefits for our veterans if diagnosed with any of the recognized Agent Orange ailments.

This had never been done before by any veterans' organization. Along the way, I found powerful help from leadership in the American Legion, DAV, Jewish War Veterans, VFW, Vietnam Veterans, Air Force Association, Reserve Officers Association. Experts and leaders in NIH and CDC also leaned heavily on VA for us. Yale Law School published an outstanding legal brief, and major law firms provided over $120,000 of pro bono legal help as we fought the VA and USAF to get hidden documents released.

The Vietnam Veterans of America helped with a $3000 grant for travel expenses, and VFW leadership worked with other veterans organizations to press Congress and the VA for a resolution and full benefits for our 2100 men and women aircrew and maintenance veterans. I’m very grateful!

We found a sympathetic media from the very first. The Air Force Times, ProPublica, Virginian-Pilot, Boston Globe, Pittsburgh Gazette, Washington Post, veterans organizations magazines, the Springfield Republican, Gannett newspapers, Tom Philpot military.com, the Portland Oregon Oregonian, NPR, CBS and so many others spoke up for us.

Vietnam Veterans of America is active in presenting townhall meetings about Agent Orange and I've put on several of these. Somehow, there are always Vietnam veterans who don't know that their prostate cancer for diabetes or other ailments entitled them to VA benefits, so these are essential educational programs with great fellowship.

Other veterans’ issues are also a concern. In May the governor of Colorado signed legislation that I initiated to provide partial property tax relief to about 700 totally disabled military retirees. When we first moved to Colorado I read the state constitution which provided for property tax relief to 100% VA AND totally disabled military retirees, BUT noticed the enabling law only mentioned VA. Our law was thus in conflict with our constitution. It only took five months to fix that and it was hugely satisfying to get my free pen from the governor signing the new legislation.

While working on that issue I was shocked to learn that Colorado’s Gold Star Wives are not provided any property tax relief such as offered survivors of VA 100% disabled veterans. I’ve been appointed the Gold Star Wives official adviser, and helping these widows is my next project! They need help...VA provides only an inadequate $1252/month to these women who have sacrificed so much.

We are also still working to get retroactive benefits for our C-123 Agent Orange vets because VA back-dates awards only to June 2015. That is unfair because benefits are usually based on the date a claim is submitted. Some of our folks have claims as old as sixteen years.

We got one other change. VA's Veterans Health Administration has a section called Post-Deployment Public Health, led by retired Army physician Dr. Ralph Erickson. This unit will now be tracking all servicemembers' potential exposures to chemical and biological hazards throughout their careers. The NIH scientists who affirmed our exposures also explained to VA the hazards of multi-toxin experiences... the add-on of toxin upon toxin and biohazard upon biohazard...all brewing up over time into mysterious ailments.

In the spring of 2015, during our final rounds of negotiations with VHA, VA general counsel, veterans organizations and congressional staffers, I identified biohazards that Reserve Component servicemembers will face. Posing a hypothetical, I forced VA to acknowledge present rules might not meet both military readiness and VA's duty to care for exposed personnel. Solutions were found, some proposed by the surgeons general of the departments and others as potential legislative steps.

Summary: my health Is really messed up but this kind of work had the benefit of being immensely satisfying, especially when other vets tell me how much their approved claims have meant to them and their families. At our reunion last month one of the older vets from the 905th came out to the club with his wife, and called me outside to offer his thanks for helping get his claim approved.

Wow... that meant so much to me and my wife, Joan.

There's a great need for ALL of us to keep serving our fellow veterans and our nation. It doesn't take money (although that helps.) It takes imagination and dedication which, as veterans, we've all been demonstrating all our lives

Veterans' Rights Violated – VA Ignored Veterans Claims Assistance Act of 2000

VA stalled my claims for five years, then closed them all without explanation!

 Ultimately, “[t]he government’s interest in veterans cases is not that it shall win, but rather that justice shall be done, that all veterans so entitled receive the benefits due to them.” Barrett v. Nicholson, 466 F.3d 1038, 1044 (Fed.Cir.2006).

There's a law for that but too often VA ignores it, breaching the government's duty to claimants. For the veteran it can be a great loss, but for the VA, it is never a problem when that law is violated. Specifically, the law is the Veterans Claims Assistance Act of 2000 (VCAA.) It reinforced and detailed a range of pro-veteran steps the VA must take to assist a claimant or appellant for VA benefits.

Key is the law's requirement that VA disability claims system be non-adversarial and pro-veteran. Congress has imposed on VA a duty to assist claimants. VA is required to notify a claimant of what information is required to obtain an award of the benefits requested. One significant part of the law imposes on VA the duty to obtain a veteran’s service records, service medical records, VA treatment records, and any other government records (such as Social Security Administration records) that reasonably may contain information supporting the claim. These duties on VA are supposed to significantly ease the burden on veterans in assembling the evidence needed to support a claim.

At least, that's the law. In practice, it's a law the VA obeys or violates at its pleasure. Abusing a veteran's VCAA rights and prejudicial errors per 38 U.S.C. § 7261(b)(2) also directly abuses rights under the US Constitution's Fifth Amendment and the Due Process Clause. Veterans and other citizens must obey laws or endure consequences. Violate a law, and once faces civil penalties, fines, loss of property, loss of civil liberties, imprisonment.

For VA and its officials, however, violating the Veterans Claims Assistance Act of 2000 carried no such penalties. When VA, in wrongly opposing a veteran, is slapped down by a Board of Veterans Appeals ALJ or the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, all that happens is punishment of the veteran! The worst thing for VA is a nasty comment from BVA or a CAVC judge. This is because when VA violates a veteran's rights under VCAA, rather than the vet's claim being corrected for VA's errors the claim is "remanded," – simply left unresolved and sent back to the same VA staffers who committed the violation to start the claims process all over again with a three to five year wait wasted.

So the veteran ends up "punished" by the claim being delayed yet further when the VA abuses the VCAA. There are no penalties for VA or its folks who deliberately failed the veteran. In fact, the VA actually benefits by delaying any medical care or other benefits. It denies or at least postpones paying any disability compensation, and it keeps veterans out of VA hospitals which helps keep existing appointment lines shorter.

In the case of C-123 veterans, VA ignores the VCAA, creating an adversarial rather than the statutory non-adversarial process, following the requirements of the law when and if it wanted to. Generally, VA has helped locate Social Security records (although it twice lost mine.) It generally locates service medical records (although it ignores mine from Bethesda Naval Hospital.) VA generally locates and acts on military service records (although it ignored my line-of-duty determinations, ignored details on my separation physical, and ignored both medical and military details on my PEB hearing, and ignored details of my Air Force Board of Correction of Military Records.)

But that's just me. VA also abused the VCAA rights of every other C-123 veteran. Their abuse cost us four years delay in getting our veterans into VA hospitals and able to use other VA benefits, such as CHAMPVA family medical care, nursing home, primary care, pharmacy, dental, audiology, prosthetics, survivor benefits and other vital services. Veterans pay the price for VA's abuse of us, but VA and its staffers have absolutely no consequences at all.

And in the weirdest setback concluding the entire claim process for me, last week (June 2016) the VA denied my 2012 claim for Gulf War issues (all veterans claims for Gulf War issues are denied) and somehow closed every other claim. No denial, no remand, no action of any sort!

VA hasn't acted to honor its statutory duty to assist, and operate in a pro-veteran, non-adversarial manner with a low threshold for the burden of proof. Here's how VA ignores the VCAA.

How VA violated VCAA and trashed C-123 veterans' rights:

I. The worst violations were VA's determined avoidance of official input from the DOD Joint Services Records Research Center (JSRRC) and suppression of that input for two years for two years after receipt. JSRRC informed VA's JSRRC Coordinator (Mr. James Sampsel) in March 2013 that the government had official records confirming C-123 veterans' Agent Orange exposures. Among other records, JSRRC provided Air Force and Center for Disease Control/Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry reports identifying the C-123's as "heavily contaminated with dioxin on all test surfaces" and "a danger to public health." The ATSDR's director informed JSRRC that C-123 veterans experienced a 200-fold greater cancer risk...but VA's JSRRC coordinator sat on these official government records for two years.

For two years VA blithely ignored the VCAA and doomed claims at the regional VA offices as well as claims appealed to the Board of Veterans Appeals. Withholding official government records directly abused veterans' rights under VCAA. No problem at all for VA, however a big problem for veterans who were forbidden VA medical care merely because of the preferences of VA staffers. VA has a duty to adhere to VAM21-1MR or invite CUE  (evidentiary development procedures provided in the Adjudication Procedure Manual are binding.  See Patton v. West, 12 Vet. App. 272, 282  [1999].)

Below is VBA's Agent Orange Desk explaining to other VA staff why VA opted to ignore JSRRC proof of C-123 claims, although no mention is made of why VA kept the evidence from claimants and the BVA considering such issues. Apparently a point was made that VA would only accept JSRRC reports which referenced military documents. No mention was made of VA having rejected Rear Admiral R. Ikeda (MD USPHS) and Captain A. Miller (MD USPHS) input, which was military because USPHS commissioned officers are by statute military officers. Further, VA regulations describe JSRRC as inputting to VA relevant "primary" evidence, not just evidence selected by the Agent Orange desk.

In this case, it was not USPHS evidence, but appropriately USPHS expert analysis of contemporary (1979-2010) military toxicology reports. As Admiral Ikeda was then Acting Director CDC/Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, such input seems both accurate and relevant, as well as military in nature. The question screams out..."how much proof does the Agent Orange desk demand to permit 'benefit of the doubt? Why set uniquely high standards for C-123 claims, rejecting JSRRC, DOD, CDC, NIH, USPHS, dozens of physicians and scientists, university researchers and VA physicians?'

II. Rather than be non-adversarial and even-handed in evaluating exposure claims per the law, VBA issued a 2012-2014 $600,000 no-bid sole source contract for monographs supporting VHA and VBA current policies and perspectives on herbicide exposures. That consultant's largest single target was C-123 veterans' hopes with the Institute of Medicine C-123 committee. VA spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on its favored outside consultant specifically for his coaching against and targeting of C-123 veterans' exposure proofs.

There were no studies allowed to support C-123 veterans' scientific position (we asked VBA for funding to prepare a pro-C-123 study but they didn't respond.) Veterans never could have funded the research provided pro bono by Columbia University, Oregon Health Sciences University, University of Texas Medical School and the many federal agencies like CDC.

All expert input supporting the C-123 veterans' scientific argument was unpaid – besides, the veterans had no source of funding and didn't spend a penny to counter the government's hundreds of thousands of dollars. VA wouldn’t even make copies of documents the C-123 chairman was asked by IOM to provide the committee. On the other hand, all input used by VA to obstruct the C-123 veterans was paid either by VA, Dow or Monsanto. When peer-reviewed articles were published confirming the veterans' exposures, VA immediately opposed their findings.

The scientists and physicians in Veterans Health Administration represent a huge body of knowledge, skill and talent, none of which came to help us. They followed their company line, which was “No!” Agent Orange claims. All of those experts opposed C-123 veterans' service connection. They must have seen the totality of the evidence and realized there was no "overwhelming preponderance of evidence" against us, but more likely, for us. It is easy to look at the past four years and see that these professionals should have established service connection for C-123 veterans within existing law and science. The law sets a low threshold of proof for veterans, but no amount of proof would make VBA honor our claims (as Mr. Murphy confirmed at his office on 28 Feb 2013.)

• Some of the many adversarial studies funded by VBA to oppose veterans were titled:
A. "Discussion Points Supporting Compensation Services' UC-123K Claims"
B.  "Investigations into the Allegations Concerning 2-4-5-T Herbicide"
C. "Investigative Report: Assessment of New Information on the Former UC-123Ks Post-Vietnam Issue"
D.  "Investigations into the Allegations of Agent Orange/Dioxin Exposure from Former Ranch Hand Aircraft"
E. "Supplement to Investigative Report: New Information on Former UC-123K Post-Vietnam Issue"
F. "Al Young Letter to Acting Secretary Gibson requesting reversal of IOM report conclusions"
G. "Al Young Letter to Dr. Mary Paxton, Institute of Medicine C-123 Committee Staff Director arguing scientific failure of committee report"
H. "Al Young Letter to Dr. Terra Irons to answer questions put to VA by Institute of Medicine C-123 committee."
• Some of the studies or efforts by VA to consider possible merit to the veterans' claims:
Oh...there weren't any. VA permitted no such effort. Actually, there was one, the IOM C-123 report. Although VA argued hard and spent huge funds against the veterans through its proxy consultant, IOM, contracted with VA's hopes of finally blocking C-123 claims, instead independently concluded VA had been wrong all along and veterans had been correct all along. The real preponderance of evidence agreed with the C-123 veterans.

VA only sought material to oppose C-123 veterans. VA only recognized material if useful by VA against C-123 veterans. Nearly all material VA had was paid for by VA. Everything supporting C-123 veterans was from other federal and state agencies, and physicians and scientists without any compensation for their input. VA bought input tailored to oppose the veterans or otherwise accepted it from the chemical industry. Veterans didn't buy evidence tailored to their objectives and never had funds to do so anyway. While the VA's consultant frequently referred to his monographs as "peer reviewed" there were not, as it is not acceptable for a researcher or author to select the reviewers himself. Peer reviewers should be objective, independent and not laymen or experts pre-selected by the author.

VA deliberately avoided uncovering or acknowledging any evidence or support for C-123 veterans. Their web pages discussing the C-123 investigation fail to mention a single resource not pre-selected to meet VA's policy objective. VA characterized all pro-C-123 exposure evidence as unacceptable because it conflicted with VA's predetermined policy objectives. Nearly all outside input VA sought was from its Agent Orange consultant, who previously also consulted with Dow Chemical against Vietnam Veterans' exposure claims, and two other scientists paid by Dow and Monsanto specifically to opine against C-123 exposures.

VBA's consultant also appeared as VA's proxy at the June 16 2014 IOM C-123 committee hearing to oppose the veterans' position. Without mention of his VA contract, nor the coordination of his IOM presentation and materials with VA, nor his role in 2009 recommending destruction of the C-123 fleet as toxic waste, he was an extremely authoritative and long-term dedicated opponent of all Agent Orange claims.

III. Acting in bad faith and utilizing resources known to be flawed in order to oppose veterans' claims, VA used without updating and correction the 2006 DOD Agent Orange site report used by VA to verify veterans' claims for non-Vietnam exposures. When a servicemember claims to have been exposed outside Vietnam, VBA checks against the DOD list and approves or denies the application.

The problem is the DOD list is seven years old, yet VA cites it in VARO decisions, and BVA cites it in appeals. It is fundamentally wrong for a government agency to permit use of a reference they know to be inaccurate. VA and DOD have rejected numerous entreaties by the C-123 Veterans Association to update their lists.

How does VA know the DOD list is unreliable? Because the list author himself, Dr. Al Young, prepared it for DOD in 2006 and then in 2013 proposed a contract for correcting identified errors and general updating. Nonetheless, VA approves or denies disability claims based on this terribly flawed document. It is as unacceptable error on VA's part.

Thus, VA violates the VCAA by knowingly deciding claims on flawed evidence, a "clear and unmistakable error."

From the first page of the consultant's report, "Investigations into Sites Where Agent Orange Exposure to Vietnam-era Veterans Has Been Alleged."

IV. Violating its duty to assist as well as performing in an anti-veteran manner, VBA opposed C-123 claims citing potential difficulty verifying aircrew or maintenance veterans' duty aboard specific former Agent Orange spray aircraft. Actually, this information was provided VA in 2011 by Headquarters Air Force Reserve Command and also by the Air Force Historical Records Agency. In any case, VBA in the spring of 2015 was able to identify eligible veterans by cooperating with other agencies such as Social Security and the Air Force

V.VBA and VHA orders to regional claims offices to deny C-123 disability claims violated VCAA by inappropriate guidance to those offices, and failure thereby to notify veterans of evidence needed to establish a claim. Specifically, veterans were not informed of proofs needed to overcome VHA and VHA's order to deny C-123 claims.

Further, VHA and VBA were proven wrong in their science since C-123 claims were first denied in 2007. As the Institute of Medicine C-123 report concluded, the aircraft were contaminated and the veterans were exposed and harmed. There was no new science behind the IOM conclusion but rather the proper interpretation of existing material. VA was simply wrong in its leap to construct unscientific arguments to block C-123 claims and was obviously anti-veteran and adversarial. By October 2011 VA had in-hand virtually all materials eventually found to be so persuasive by IOM in 2015 – VA should have been processing claims on a fact-proven basis from October 2011 on.

The proper VCAA pro-veteran approach should have been, if serious question existed as to the scientific foundation of the veteran's claims, to approve all applications until the science made clear the issue one way or the other. This is especially true considering the affirmation provided by ATSDR, NIH, US Public Health Service and the DOD JSRRC report in March 2013. VA clung to every possible negative interpretation it could devise and refused to admit an overwhelming body of evidence proving VA wrong...at the very least all that evidence introduced the "benefit of the doubt" which VA violated, despite the VCAA.

VI. VA has never permitted consideration of the possibility C-123 veterans might have been exposed.; no VA document released under FOIA questioned VA's consistent opposition to veterans or questioned whether the veterans might be correct. VA's adversarial as well as anti-veteran approach is quite clear and violated VCAA. Beginning with opposition to C-123 veterans VA never wavered.

VII. VA has never admitted locating any evidence supporting C-123 claims was ever identified by VA. Rejecting everything it disagreed with, VA was unscientific, and prejudicial in the extreme with blinders on regarding any contrary input.

VA denigrated every scientific and medical expert opinion supporting C-123 veterans as unpersuasive, lacking authority. Every scientist's input, even that from CDC and the National Institutes of Health as well as subject matter experts VA and IOM had previously relied upon, was immediately dismissed by VBA. VBA insisted its scientists were far more credible than experts who might not agree with them. VA insisted that its experts concluded that all evidence and expert input supporting veterans' claims of having been exposed to Agent Orange failed to create an element of doubt in favor of the veterans' claims.

"Overwhelming preponderance of evidence" is how VBA quite inaccurately described the VA's position against veterans. Four years of VA opposing C-123 claims eventually made perfectly clear that no matter how substantial the veterans' evidence and how unsubstantial the VA's, VA's was automatically but falsely characterized as an overwhelming preponderance of evidence.

VIII. VA created an in-house, novel and unscientific (per NIEHS) redefinition of "exposure" attempting to disqualify veterans' exposure claims. VHA's Public Health/Post Deployment Section redefined exposure to be "exposure = contamination field + bioavailability." This was introduced as a line in VHA's 2012 Society of Toxicology poster displays.

The redefinition was in contrast to standard definitions used elsewhere in VA, by the CDC, NIH and other authorities. It was even in contrast with VA's standard reference for definitions, Dorlands Illustrated Medical Dictionary.

VHA overlooked the fact that unique, home-made scientific definitions aren't scientific, especially when other federal agencies with statutory authority in the field label VA's exposure definition unscientific. "Whoever invented that certainly is no toxicologist" reported the director of a major federal research program. Veterans were invited by the Society of Toxicology to present a response at its 2014 conference, under sponsorship of the NIEHS.

IX. In a manner similar to VA's rejection of the March 2013 JSRRC exposure confirmation, VA also elected to ignore the expert input of Rear Admiral R. Ikeda, MD US Public Health Service and Acting Director, CDC/ATSDR.  USPHS commissioned officers are military officers, and her concurrence with earlier ATSDR findings of C-123 veterans' Agent Orange exposure was suppressed after its receipt in June 2013. Captain A. Miller, MD US Public Health Service, also submitted an expert medical opinion in March 2013 confirming veterans' exposure but as with all other evidence behind C-123 claims, VA's Agent Orange desk disregarded it and withheld it from VAROs and the BVA. Disregard for and suppression of these two expert military medical opinions was in clear violation of the VCAA.

Conclusion:
Violations of the Veterans Claims Assistance Act of 2000 were numerous and unrelenting. It didn't matter how much evidence supported veterans' exposure claims because VA predetermined it had "an overwhelming preponderance of evidence" regardless of all reason and without any real basis in fact. VA's policy of preventing C-123 exposure claims led it to conceal pro-veteran evidence such as the March 2013 JSRRC confirmation. Suppression of any evidence within the government's possession violated VCAA, and the JSRRC email was critical evidence kept from veterans and the BVA.

VCAA was violated more generally with VA's stubborn resistance to any scientific or medical evidence supporting C-123 veterans' exposure claims. This was anti-veteran and adversarial. This deliberately avoided admitting any benefit of the doubt due veterans.

That VA was wrong in all this is clear from the Institute of Medicine C-123 report to Secretary McDonald. Despite all its money spent to oppose veterans, science spoke louder than specie. Everything C-123 veterans said in 2011, and substantiated with government proofs, was proved valid in the IOM report. The IOM report was based mostly on proofs available to VA since 2011…proofs which should have permitted fact-proven claims except VA had already predetermined all such claims to be denied.

The VCAA failed C-123 veterans. Nothing in it prevented violation of C-123 rights by the VHA Post Deployment Health Section and the VBA Agent Orange desk in the Department of Veterans Affairs. Nothing in the law prescribes a remedy for such abuse of office or prevents its abuse again. The same VA staffers perform the same duties, electing whether to obey or disobey the VCAA.

Only veterans were impacted and only veterans paid the price for VA's campaign against us. Many of us are still barred from VA hospital and refused VA benefits – we are still paying the price.

What materials in government possession have been provided me by VA in meeting its duty under VCAA? NOTHING.

Vietnam Vets of America demands Agent Orange benefits NOW for exposed C-123 Westover vets

AGENT ORANGE

• Vietnam Vets of America demands Westover vets exposed to Agent Orange be granted benefits now
• National Commander of VFW demands Westover veterans exposed to Agent Orange receive benefits
• Sen. Elizabeth Warren, others urge Westover Reservists exposed to Agent Orange receive benefits
• Westover Reservists win a battle that should not have been necessary: Editorial
• Westover Reservists exposed to Agent Orange, federal officials rule after 4-year battle

The national president of the Vietnam Veterans of America is calling for bureaucrats from the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs to be "relieved of their duties" for their continuing failure to grant benefits to veterans from Westover Air Reserve Base and three other military installations who were exposed to Agent Orange while flying planes previously used in the Vietnam War.

The Vietnam Veterans of America has been a strong supporter of the C-123 Veterans.

The two page letter expressed frustration over the fact that the veterans, who flew C-123 Provider planes after they had been used to spray Agent Orange to defoliate the Vietnamese countryside, have been fighting a four-year battle to receive medical benefits and disability payments for those who have fallen ill or become ill later.

"These VA bureaucrats attempting to delay justice ought to be relieved of their duties so they can no longer abuse veterans with their tactic of 'delay, deny until they die.' There is no excuse for why these worthy veterans are still not being treated with the appreciation and the respect their service warrants," John Warren, national president of the Vietnam Veterans of America, wrote.

He said the delay is especially vexing after an Institute of Medicine study commissioned by the Department of Veterans' Affairs determined that the about 2,100 military reservists who flew in or worked on the planes at Westover, Pittsburgh Air National Guard, Rickenbacker Air National Guard Base in Ohio and Hanscom Air Force Base in eastern Massachusetts, had been exposed to Agent Orange and are vulnerable to contracting the more than 20 diseases tied to the chemical.

The Department of Veterans Affairs is continuing to study the Institute of Medicine report, said Meagan Lutz, public affairs specialist for the Department of Veterans Affairs.
"In order to better inform and serve our veterans, the Department is examining policy and legislative issues in order to proceed with its final proposal," she said in an email. (note: different VA executives and public affairs spokespersons have offered a wide range of reasons for VA's delay; Ms. Lutz is the first to suggest the delay is to "better serve" veterans by continuing to refuse them medical care!)

Led by Retired Maj. Wesley T. Carter, now of Colorado, who served as an air medical technician and flight instructor and examiner with Westover's 74th Aeromedical Evacuation Squadron for 20 years, the C-123 group is made up mainly of Westover veterans and has been fighting for the same benefits as those who served in Vietnam. They only discovered four years ago.the planes, which they spent 10 years flying in and working on, had been contaminated with Agent Orange since Vietnam.

The federal government automatically grants anyone who served in Vietnam, even for an hour, health benefits which includes free medications, dental care and other services, and disability payments if they fall ill from any of the diseases known to be caused by Agent Orange.

Also included in the list of supporters is the National Veterans of Foreign Wars. In February six senators, Oregon Sen. Jeff Merkley and North Carolina Sen. Richard Burr, a Democrat and Republican respectively, who have been advocating for the veterans for several years, as well as Sens. Elizabeth Warren, D-Massachusetts; Ron Wyden, D-Oregon; Richard Blumenthal, D-Connecticut, and Michael Bennet, D-Colorado, also signed a strongly-worded to the Department of Veterans Affairs Secretary Robert McDonald to show their support.

"I think it is high time this battle, which has gone on for four years, is over," said Archer Battista, of Belchertown, who retired from Westover as a colonel in 2001 and is a semi-retired lawyer.

Battista, who flew planes at Westover starting in 1974, said he has been trying to help some veterans and their families who are completely overwhelmed by trying to fight the battle for medical care. As a Vietnam veteran, he is already eligible for the benefits.

"All this time the clock is ticking on some very sick people and their survivors," he said. "We know they have a decision and the decision is favorable so what is holding this up?"

It is even more frustrating since there is a second part to the battle. The C-123 Veterans are still trying to acquire squadron rosters with the names of veterans who flew on or worked on the planes at the four bases so they can contact as many veterans as possible to warn them they had been exposed to Agent Orange.

So far all requests to the Air Force have been denied.
reporter: Jeanette DeForge