Showing posts with label c123k. Show all posts
Showing posts with label c123k. Show all posts

08 November 2011

Veterans Day 2011

God Bless our Band of Brothers and Sisters





















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

06 November 2011

Open Letter to US Senate re: MSgt George Gadbois, USAF Ret.

Today, I wrote George's two senators from Georgia. They will have an interest in aiding him, plus the CDC and ATSDR are located in Atlanta.

Honorable Saxby Chambliss
United States Senate
131 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510

Dear Senator Chambliss,

I am writing on behalf of your constituent, Master Sergeant George Gadbois of Warner-Robins Georgia, who is unable himself to ask your help. Sergeant Gadbois has no family and is gravely ill with cancer throughout his body which is why I am representing him to you and to the Veterans Administration. We seek your immediate assistance regarding his Agent Orange veteran’s benefits which have been denied him by the VA.

Sergeant Gadbois recently retired from the Air Force after a long, distinguished career, and I know him from the days he served as First Sergeant of the 74th Aeromedical Evacuation Squadron, Westover AFB, MA. He was also an Aeromedical Evacuation Technician, flying the C-130 and C-123 aircraft for many years.

He sought disability benefits from the VA due to his Agent Orange exposure while flying the C-123, an aircraft previously used for spraying Agent Orange in Vietnam. Air Force studies (many of them) show his aircraft remained “heavily contaminated”, “extremely hazardous, extremely dangerous, extremely contaminated” and “a threat to public health.” All words from Air Force studies and reports.

Unfortunately, although the Air Force and the VA acknowledge he flew a contaminated aircraft for years, those agencies content that the aircrews were somehow not exposed therein. I have written both agencies and both say to contact the other. Thus, a perfect Joseph Hiller “Catch 22” leaving Sergeant Gadbois abandoned.

Other agencies such as EPA, CDC, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Protection, have all deferred to the Veterans Administration when approached for help. For whatever reason, none have taken a stand on whether aircrews that flew these airplanes for a decade would have been exposed to the dioxin on them, and thus meet the VA’s requirement for medical care.

Although the government agencies are timid, universities have not been afraid. In particular, the head of the Toxicology Department of Oregon Health Sciences University and also scientists from Columbia University’s School of Public Health have both weighed in, stating that the aircrew’s exposure was “most likely.”

On behalf of Sergeant Gadbois, I ask that you request a more definitive response from the CDC or the Agency for Toxic Substance and Disease Registry regarding whether aircrews serving aboard heavily contaminated airplanes for many, many years have or have not likely been exposed to the dioxin on them. A simple request, and one seeking a conclusion they’d have no hesitation making regarding a comparable civilian setting.

I cannot imagine CDC, EPA or ATSDR passively allowing a civilian airplane already tested “heavily contaminated” for dioxin to remain in service were it to be still flying today. The Air Force tests are adequate to make such a determination about our C-123. All we ask that the same logic be applied to the determination of whether or not our crews, in the VA’s words, “were as likely to as not” have been exposed.

The VA leadership, in a teleconference with me on 27 October (arranged by Brooks Tucker of Senator Burr’s office) requires proof of the contamination source. The VA does not dispute the C-123’s contamination in the face of the AF tests. VA also requires proof of exposure, but has already determined that no exposure could take place by dermal contact or inhalation. Along with scientists from the Oregon Health Sciences University and Columbia University, we say otherwise. We also insist that in a parallel civilian setting, the government would be far more forceful in protecting the public.

Can your office help? Sergeant Gadbois last week learned that his soft tissue sarcoma (an Agent Orange illness) has spread to his lungs and his brain. At best, he was told on Friday, he has a year of rapidly declining health.

George is a brave man. I have personally seen his bravery when, in response to a civilian chlorine explosion, he rushed in to aid others without regard for his own safety. There wasn’t time to get personal protective equipment yet he went to the civilian’s aid, faced with a lethal chlorine cloud. He was decorated for this heroism.

His whole military service has been to care for others, as a medic aboard aeromedical evacuation airplanes and as our beloved First Sergeant. He deserves your forceful advocacy and needs it now.

Thank you for supporting the Military Family Month…George has no family other than the men and women he served with, so as his “family,” a family which loves him very much, we ask your immediate help.

Respectfully
The Military Family of Master Sergeant George Gadbois

Wesley T. Carter, Major, USAF Retired
Chair, C-123 Aircrew Association
http://www.c123kcancer.blogspot.com       

17 July 2011

Letter to BVA Attorney Who Opposed Aaron Olmsted's VA Claims

Submitted today to Mr. Stephen Reiss, attorney with the Board of Veterans Appeals through the Veterans Law Review, the only email address I could find for him:

Mr. Stephen D. Reiss, Esq.
Executive Editor, Veterans Law Review
Room 841 (mail code 01A), Lafayette Bldg.
810 Vermont Ave., N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20420
Reference: Docket 06-42 315, C28 107-548

Dear Mister Reiss,

On 23 August 2007 you successfully represented the Board of Veterans’ Appeals in this case, with Judge Cohn denying the veteran’s appeal. Olmstead had claimed Agent Orange exposure while flying Air Force Reserve C-123K aircraft post-Vietnam, aircraft commonly used during that war for spraying Agent Orange.

In particular, Judge Cohn cited:
“While these planes may be of the type that were used in Vietnam to dispense Agent Orange from 1962 to 1971, there is no evidence that any of the planes on which the veteran flew dispensed Agent Orange in Vietnam or that there was any residual Agent Orange on the aircraft the veteran served on. Further, the veteran has not submitted any evidence that any of the planes on which the veteran served on. Further, the veteran has not submitted any evidence substantiating his contention that there was any residual Agent Orange material on the aircraft he served on. His assertion, standing alone, is not sufficient to show he had actual exposure to Agent Orange, years after it was used in Vietnam.”

I had a heart attack, cancer and heart surgery in April and thus had the time to look into these illnesses and what may have led them to my doorstep. I wondered about the planes which, like Olmsted (whom I don’t believe I ever met), I flew between 1972-1982. It took all of five minutes or so with Google to learn that most of these planes were indeed used for spraying Agent Orange, that in particular, Tail Number 362 (Patches) was used for Agent Orange and was tested repeatedly beginning in 1997 with positive results for presence of dioxin. Just ten minutes with Google provided everything I was concerned with, and FOIAs offered yet more interesting materials.

I learned that the Air Force (in the person first of Major Urlula Moul of the Air Force Office of Environmental Law) recommended keeping this type information “within official channels only.” Further, reports and correspondence regarding these tests and others were surfaced at the Office of the Air Force Surgeon, at Headquarters Air Force Material Command and at the Office of Secretary of Defense.

Mine is the profession of arms, not of law…your rules are confusing and perhaps meant to be so. However, I’m sure I may assume that had you known of the attached documents, you would not have presented to Judge Cohn that Olmsted wasn’t eligible for to service connection because the very documents he needed to have justice before the BVA were being withheld from him by the government.

Judge Cohn’s reasons cited for denial were easily able to be answered with documents withheld by the government, whatever may be the reasons individuals in those government offices had for their actions. No national security was involved at that or any other time regarding this issue. 

Bad acts and hiding evidence of harmful toxin exposure “within official channels” is certainly an effective way to prevent veteran’s Agent Orange claims, but cannot be an ethical, moral or legal justification for denying veteran Olmsted a just hearing from Judge Cohn and an effective and honorable presentation by you yourself. The Judge may have found against Olmsted but it certainly wouldn’t have been for the reasons cited.

(personal portion removed)

May I trust that it continues to be of interest to you, and to the Board of Veterans Appeals, that veterans such as Aaron Olmsted benefit from your commitment to accuracy and truth in all presentations before the BVA, and that if facts such as these are withheld from you by other government agencies, you will make right those wrongs dealt him, Olmsted’s survivors and C-123K/UC-123K veterans who find themselves similarly situated before the BVA?

Sir, help make this wrong right.

Respectfully,
Wesley T. Carter, Major, USAF Retired
Medical Service Corps

12 July 2011

Office of Secretary of Defense Consultant Comments on Air Force Reservists' Heart Disease and Cancer

In an email exchanged with one of his correspondants today, Dr. Alvin Young, Agent Orange Consultant to the Office of Secretary of Defense and retired AF colonel, offered his views about Air Force Reservists who flew dioxin-contaminated C-123K/UC-123K Providers between 1972-1982. His words:
"A sad commentary for blaming me. The Air Force did the right thing for the right reason in destroying those aircraft. It would have been a benefit to the tax payer to have sold those aircraft, but we all knew in time that the Air Reservists would seek presumptive compensation, and those aircraft would become the center of a social (not scientific) controversy, and never be used.  The link just about says it all. The only reason these men prepared such a story is that they are hoping they can cash in on " tax free money" for health issues that originate from life styles and aging. There was no exposure to Agent Orange or the dioxin, but that does not stop them from concocting exposure stories about Agent Orange hoping that some Congressional member will feel sorry for them and encourage DVA to pay them off. I can respect the men who flew those aircraft in combat and who made the sacrifices, many losing their lives, and almost all of them receiving Purple Hearts, but these men who subsequently flew them as "trash haulers", I have no respect for such free loaders. If not freeloading, what is their motive?"
I'm not sure this sounds like the gentleman we want advising senior Cabinet officials regarding Agent Orange exposure experienced by Air Force Reservists (the "trash haulers" and "free loaders" he refers to). No wonder he's alarmed that after being exposed to a decade of Agent Orange-contaminated aircraft which Air Force tests proved to be "heavily contaminated, extremely dangerous, extremely hazardous, extremely contaminated" and a danger to the public, the unworthy men mentioned above "will cash in on tax free money." Does it sound like a Reservist would get a fair shake here?


Not in a million years.
US