Showing posts with label congressional liaison office. Show all posts
Showing posts with label congressional liaison office. Show all posts

09 July 2014

VA Fails C-123 Veterans: Evades "Duty to Assist" Agent Orange Claims

"Duty to assist." It is the law. Not the discretion of VA Veterans Benefits Administration, but the
compulsion of the law and VA's duty to obey.

But this is the VA, and their mission is to care for veterans but also to proven veterans from seeking that care. By denying disability claims and, as we've learned from the media, by postponing access to VA clinics and providers.

VA is required by law to provide veterans "reasonable assistance" in claims and appeals. Generally, this is straight-forward: VA gets the service records, tells the vet what is needed for proof, and sometimes inquires of the Joint Services Records Research Center (JSRRC.) The JSRRC is an Army function supporting all services, and their archivists provide special research into veterans' claims for PTSD and Agent Orange exposures.

So here's what VA regional office or Board of Veterans Appeals is supposed to do if relevant records might be available from other federal agencies:

Get the stuff. If the records are reasonably available and apply to the veteran's claim...get the records. Be veteran-friendly, because that's the law. But remember: veterans must obey the law but the VA is exempt from trifling issues like privacy or FOIA ("a fundamental right in our democracy" per President Obama.)

But what does VA do? They'll order the service records and other VA records. Then VA drops the ball. Heck, they toss the ball out of the court, deliberately.

For years with veterans dying while claims piled up, VA tightly restricted any such helpful information forwarded to them by JSRRC.
For years the VA liaison with JSRRC insisted that only military information was acceptable to the Veterans Administration. That way, VA could hide behind a JSRRC response devoid of input from agencies such as CDC, National Institutes of Health, EPA and other outfits who might have examined the veteran's PTSD or exposure situation and offered official opinions. "Don't tell us about it" ordered the liaison officer putting the earplugs in.
This is the same gentleman who in October 2011 personally informed C-123 veterans they'd "probably never" get an exposure claim approved.

No wonder, with this man telling JSRRC not to permit reams of relevant documentation to cloud the issue. When C-123 veterans asked him directly to request that JSRRC submit evidence from other federal agencies, he was evasive in his answer, saying:
We appreciate your interest in issues related to post-Vietnam C-123 aircraft. However, please understand that JSRRC functions to provide VA with information found in Department of Defense documents to assist with resolution of disability claims. JSRRC does not function to distribute information from other sources to VA." He continues, "Until such time as the IOM review is completed, VA will continue to evaluated post-Vietnam C-123 claims on a case-by-case basis."
This gate keeper, the VA liaison to JSRRC, set up a barrier to relevant claims information, clearly contrary to the requirements of the law and VA's own procedures. For him, Mission Accomplished by helping insure claims would be denied for want of readily available JSRRC input.

And he made things even worse for Agent Orange-exposed C-123 veterans. The law requiring VA to seek out and accept input from other federal agencies continues in its next paragraph:
(1) Obtaining records not in the custody of a Federal department or agency.VA will make reasonable efforts to obtain relevant records not in the custody of a Federal department or agency, to include records from State or local governments, private medical care providers, current or former employers, and other non-Federal governmental sources. Such reasonable efforts will generally consist of an initial request for the records and, if the records are not received, at least one follow-up request. A follow-up request is not required if a response to the initial request indicates that the records sought do not exist or that a follow-up request for the records would be futile.
Ignoring this requirement of them, VA refused university reports, independent scientists and other expert input, even if that input was an analysis of military archival documents. For instance, Dr. Jeanne Stellman (Columbia University) and Dr. Fred Berman (Oregon Health Sciences University) together analyzed test data of decades of Air Force C-123 toxicology surveys. They provided expert input to the veterans for supporting exposure claims and also participated in the October 2011 teleconference with VA officials (including the VA JSRRC liaison). Useless, said VA, and refused to permit JSRRC to integrate such expert interpretation of military tests. "Useless," it was claimed by the liaison officer, to better obstruct exposure claims.

What's the result? VA stacked the deck and then still looked at our cards, and also decided which cards would be in the dec but up their sleeves instead. So much for being pro-veterans, non-adversarial and veteran-friendly.

It took years to get VA to budge. Only in June 2014 did VA's Congressional Liaison Office inform legislators that VA would permit JSRRC to include a more broadly-interpreted list of acceptable source documents. "Compensation Service has been notified that JSRRC has been notified that JSRRC has begun providing these letters, or summaries of their content, to VBA regional offices for consideration in claims based on association with post-Vietnam C-123 aircraft." Well, that only took two of the last few years of my life.

And the telling point: It was VA, not JSRRC, that was the gate keeper. JSRRC had the information from Wes Carter personally delivering it to Fort Belvoir in February 2013, but was not permitted to use it. Finally, on June 6 2014, the VA Congressional Liaison Office informed our legislators that the rules changed...evidence would be permitted to be considered.

The funny thing is that it was VA insisting that JSRRC rules prohibited non-military input, and JSRRC insisting that it was the VA forming the barrier. Looks like VA was just a little deceptive, right?

19 October 2011

VA Responds to Concerns re: C-123 & Congressional Briefing

Yesterday, in a highly unusual response to our concerns being voiced to the VA's Congressional Liaison Office, we were invited to have a teleconference with Senator Burr's staff, the VA Agent Orange experts, and the CLO. We've accepted the invitation and await the details. Maybe something can get moving!!!

their email follows:

Mr. Carter:

Thank you again for bringing your concerns to me, and allowing the VA the opportunity to assist.

After speaking with Mr. Carter Moore, our subject-matter expert on environmental hazards, and Mr. Brooks Tucker, Sr. Policy Advisor for National Security and Veterans Affairs to Senator Burr, I believe we are better positioned to assist with your concerns.

The Veterans Health Administration’s (VHA) Office of Public Health was the organizational unit that provided the briefing with Congressional Staff on the subject of environmental hazards. It was not the Office of Congressional and Legislative Affairs.

Pending your agreement, we would like to set-up a time for a phone conversation between you, Mr. Tucker, and Mr. Moore to further discuss the details of your concern. Mr. Moore is very 
knowledgeable on the issue, so I think it would be appropriate to hold the discussion. We are also able to include folks from VHA’s Office of Public Health to ensure that you and your Veteran colleagues receive comprehensive and complete answers to your concerns.

Would this be something you are interested in?

If so, the point-of-contact would be Mr. Carter Moore at (202) 461-xxxx. Please let me know and we will be happy to assist and facilitate this meeting.

Thanks.

V/R,

Adam Anicich
Assistant Director
Congressional Liaison Service
United States Department of Veterans Affairs


From: Wes Carter [mailto:rustysilverwings@gmail.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2011 12:56 PM
To: Anicich, Adam (CLS-Senate); Brooks_Tucker@burr.senate.govCc: f; Arch Battista; Andrew B Lown; a208773; jrowan; 
Subject: Liaison Office Inaccurate Statements to Sen Burr Staff

Dear Mr. Anicich,

Thanks for your return call this morning and the agreement to look into my issue. I maintain that the VA responded to Sen. Burr's staff with inaccurate and misleading information. The "Letter of Congressional Liaison" is the summary of the issue from my perspective. As chair of our C-123K aircrew veterans, I have posted every document we've uncovered concerning the dioxin contamination of our aircraft at http://www.c123kcancer.blogspot.com

I have found no materials concerning our airplanes which fail to show them as contaminated with dioxin remaining from their spray missions in Vietnam.

Best regards (and thank you for your service!)

    Wes Carter, Major, USAF Retired
    Medical Service Corps
    VA 100% Service Connected

12 October 2011

Our complaint to VA Congressional Liaison Office re: Misleading Senator Burr

The VA's Congressional Liaison Office is the interface between that Department and both Houses of Congress. They recently sent representatives to meet with the staff of North Carolina's Senator Burr, ranking member of the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee. Unfortunately, these folks totally twisted facts and figures in their effort to insure veterans who flew and maintain the C-123K are kept from receiving Agent Orange exposure benefits. C-123 veterans' position is that there is a preponderance of evidence confirming our dioxin exposure, certainly well past any threshold the VA might have in affording us the benefit of the doubt. Thus this letter to the CLO Assistant Director: (Oct 26 note--we've been corrected in that it was NOT the CLO meeting with Sen. Burr's staff but rather other VA officials. The CLO has, however, very kindly arranged a teleconference with their experts so we may learn more. Thanks, Carter and Adam!)
-------

12 October 2011
Mr. Adam Anicich
Assistant Director
Congressional Liaison Service
United States Department of Veterans Affairs
189 Russell – Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510

Dear Mr. Anicich,

Members of your staff recently discussed with Senator Burr’s staff the Agent Orange contamination of airplanes my Air Force squadron flew between 1972-1982. This plane was the C-123K, used for spraying Agent Orange in Vietnam until 1971. Our crewmembers’ concern is that the aircraft remained contaminated with dioxin after the war and exposed us to the typical Agent Orange presumptive illnesses.

The VA having denied all claims from our veterans on this issue, I asked my Senator and his staff to evaluate the materials explaining our position and to bring them to the VA’s attention. Your staff responded, in a meeting with Mr. Brooks Tucker, with information I believe was misleading and structured not to be truthful but rather to deny any Agent Orange contamination, constructing whatever argument that might be necessary, however inaccurate. I acknowledge that the details provided Senator Burr by your staff may have originated from the Air Force but the VA has adequate expertise in this subject to have more correctly informed the Senator.

In particular, I object to your representatives characterizing the Agent Orange contamination of the C-123K, saying:
“The scientific analyses of the dioxin TCDD in Agent Orange indicates that it has a very short lifespan once it dries or binds on a surface like metal. In VA’s opinion, it is highly unlikely that TCDD would remain present in a harmful form for a duration of time that would allow it to be persistently present on metal surfaces for years after it dried on that surface. 
Given the lack of testing done on the C-123s in the years following the Vietnam War, it is impossible to determine if TCDD was present in a harmful state during the years you and others were flying and maintaining those aircraft. VA views the Air Force actions relative to the clean-up of Patches and the decision to not sell mothballed C-123s as indicators of an overly cautious mindset within Air Force legal circles that desired to avoid any potential for liability if the aircraft were placed in a museum or sold to a private entity.”

What the heck does a 2000 decision not to sell contaminated C-123 airplanes, already tested as positive for dioxin and labeled by the experts as “heavily contaminated, extremely dangerous, extremely hazardous, extremely contaminated” have to do with our exposure back in 1972-1982 when we flew them? It would have aided us to know of the contamination back during our duty days, but times were more innocent then regarding dioxin. But not now…the airplanes have been repeatedly and expertly tested past any court’s requirement of proof of having been contaminated with dioxin. Multiple expert sources have established that the aircrews aboard them for hundreds and thousands of hours were exposed. 

The suggestion that bare steel does not retain dioxin contamination over the years does not trump the fact that there were very few bare steel surfaces inside or outside the C-123. Instead, nearly every surface was painted and paint absorbs Agent Orange readily. Although the distillates would evaporate over the years, not the dioxin. And we began service on those airplanes the very year after their last spray missions, and without any decontamination, just broom swept and hosed out. The various fabrics and insulation, tons of it, absorbed Agent Orange. Agent Orange built up in residue in nooks and crannies everywhere, to the point that the depot maintenance experts said the floors and wings would have to be removed to get it all out.

How many tests does it take (and the Air Force did so many of them) to convince the VA that the airplane was contaminated? How many words do I have to type to make the argument perfectly clear? Are the Air Force’s own test results not adequate to move you?

How could the public servants in the Congressional Liaison Office mislead public officials with such intensity and firm dedication in trying to prevent veterans from receiving earned benefits and protections? Can you locate the many toxicologists who tested these airplanes and labeled them “extremely contaminated” so they can help you understand the obvious conflict with the VA’s characterization of the Air Force as having “an overly cautious mindset”? Does anyone, anywhere, use “extremely dangerous”(Air Force words) to mean “overly cautious” (VA characterization of Air Force position)?

Can you locate an ethical person in the VA to explain the Department’s position to me and to the veterans I flew with? We are not presenting a hypothetical situation of water containing dioxin somehow reaching our ship out at sea, but instead the PROVEN contamination of an airplane we were ordered to fly for a decade. And made sick thereby.

Respectfully,
 /signed/
Wesley T. Carter, Major, USAF, Retired
Medical Service Corps   http://www.c123kcancer.blogspot.com