The question has surfaced in Washington about the manner in which
the Air Force came to decide to destroy the dioxin-contaminated C-123 aircraft,
then in desert surplus storage in 2010. The C-123 veterans, exposed during our
decade of flying the toxic C-123 fleet, need an opinion as to what we
should make of it, being from our impression a situation involving destruction
of evidence? How can the AF misdeeds which affect our veterans’ exposure claims
be categorized, because the airplanes were destroyed with the specific
objective of preventing our claims?
One of the attention-grabbing points is the AF statement that
their analysis of the EPA fines, which might be leveled for improper storage of
hazardous/toxic materials, could reach $3.4 billion. There was also memo
discussion of hosting Arizona EPA inspections but routing inspectors around the
special fenced HAZMAT quarantine area into which the C-123s had been
moved. The item that most offends veterans seems wrong to us but on what
basis we can’t say.
Base officials had worried about these airplanes ever since 2000
when it became clear they could not be sold as surplus, not transferred to
foreign governments, or even parted out for their very valuable engines.
Davis-Monthan solicited OSD’s suggestions about ridding themselves
of the toxic C-123s. OSD concurred with AF understandings expressed in various memos that the airplanes could not be sold
without enduring liability questions, even for parts such as avionics or
engines, including on aircraft which had never been to Vietnam, and engines
never unpacked from their storage wrappings.
OSD came to the conclusion that the aircraft needed to be
destroyed to bring the issue to a conclusion. Base officials eventually found
an EPA loophole which permitted toxic airplanes, which themselves should have
been declared to the EPS, to be shredded into cell-phone sized scraps and then
smelted, such waste being exempt from EPA hazardous labeling.
Mr. Buddy
Boor then summarized in his position paper the Air Force options, and
reiterated Young’s warning that the veterans might learn of the exposure and
turn to the Department of Veterans Affairs for “presumptive compensation.” This
recommendation traveled upstream to the Air Staff for its eventual approval.
Finally, OSD congratulated the Air
Force on minimizing media attention – which was completely non-existent. C-123
veterans worry about the role of this OSD consultant, who describes us as
"trash-haulers, freeloaders" for whom he has no respect but would
have respect if we'd earned Purple Hearts.
Well, our membership has plenty of
Purple Heart Medals, POW Medals, Air Medals, Distinguished Flying Cross Medals,
Bronze Star Medals, Aviator wings, parachute wings, Combat Infantry Badge and
others - OSD should have checked before publicly disparaging us. He has his
merits but we believe OSD's consultant isn't the right person to have a role in
guiding the Air Force in preventing our access to VA medical care.
What can be done to classify the wrong described here? To us it
seems that this is destruction of evidence of our having been exposed.
This hurt us. The Air Force has a legitimate interest in
protecting present and future employees and military personnel, but it has no role in taking actions to prevent
already-exposed veterans from turning to the VA for benefits. We feel the AF
had a duty to inform us of the exposure, yet the question never arose until
mentioned in the distribution memo from the Deputy Surgeon General of the Air
Force when he mentioned there would be no notice so as to “prevent undue
distress” to the veterans.
We indeed have experienced distress.
The Department of
Veterans Affairs must run efficiently and according to law, but in this case,
it emerged as the adversary of the veterans, not their representatives. This,
too, cannot be. 
