American Legion Magazine Reports on C-123 Agent Orange Saga

The American Legion was the first service organization to stand with us in advocating Agent Orange benefits for our exposed C-123 veterans. Introduced to us by Columbia's Dr. Jeanne Stellman, Legion executives presented and the membership approved a resolution calling on the VA to recognize our toxin exposures.

Support from America's largest veterans organization is something that certainly got attention and respect from the Air Force and VA.

Continuing their focus on our C-123 issue, this month's Legion magazine carries an article by author Tom Philpott on page 19. Like the American Legion, Philpott is very familiar with C-123 issues, having begun his coverage of us in 2011 when we began our efforts. His coverage of the January 9 2015 report from the Institute of Medicine was very comprehensive, and carried through Gannett's chain.

Philpott has been covering military issues longer than most veterans served...over thirty years as a journalist, including his tour in the Coast Guard.

This month, he surprised us with his full page report in the Legion: we had no idea it was in the works. He certainly surprised me with his kind words, which are much appreciated as we anticipate wrapping up these four years of arduous work.

I believe the next report from Tom Philpott will announce (to use a naval metaphor) a terrific "sea change" in the way VA has evaluated our disability claims. That will be my favorite Philpott article ever! I can't wait!

Army Times: Full Page Reports – "C-123 Vets Exposed!"

Today's Army Times dedicated a full page to coverage of the C-123 Agent Orange exposure concern, plus an editorial which ran in all four services' Times.

C-123 veterans are grateful for this editorial support with which the media keeps close eye on the Department of Veterans Affairs as well as their legislative overlords! 

Thanks, Gannett and Patricia Kime!
Full-Page Articles:
http://armytimes.va.newsmemory.com/pda.php?date=20150126&eid=0&sid=0&vis=touch&aid=48&action=fullpage

Army Times Editorial:
http://armytimes.va.newsmemory.com/pda.php?date=20150126&eid=0&sid=0&vis=touch&aid=258&action=fullpage

Air Force Times Publishers Demand VA Recognize C-123 Exposures – "VA CALLOUS & TONE DEAF!"

The editorial staff at The Air Force Times took a principled stand stand last week.

The Times, published by Gannett, and in allied issues of the Navy Times, Coast Guard Times, Marine Corps Times and Military Times, published what is always recognized as an editorial statement when they used a full page for their overview of the C-123 and our exposures. This could have been a single column review of facts and a couple quotes...a few column inches, but instead the Times went deep into reporter Patricia Kime's investigation. That full page is a statement of the editor's appreciation of the problem.

Remarkably, that editorial emphasis continued to page 36. I missed this at first, but veteran Paul Bergeron is a more careful reader. Today on learning of Paul's retelling of the editorial, I got a copy and quickly came to appreciate what's been done for us: The Times took a stand, and that stand is in support of us, and proclaims the need for VA to do the right thing. No need for Congress to step in, however...the VA has enough evidence, and has enough interest in justice for its veterans, that it should come to the realization that presumptive service connection is precisely the correct choice to make. Folks at VA will realize that constructing time delays, such as the interesting but claims-irrelevant Institute of Medicine C-123 study, form both intrinsic and extrinsic ethical failures.

AF Times, 31 March

There is no legal or moral or scientific reason not to receive a complete C-123 veteran's FDC today and process without the C&P automatic orders for denial. 

There must be a moral condemnation of any VA employee who takes such an delaying action knowing it is only to prevent access to medical care by a fully eligible C-123 veteran. 

There should be, perhaps, an even stronger, more formal action taken by authorities – and not just authorities in the VA itself –  addressing the full range of actions by VA staffers who engineered these delays once the full price in C-123 deaths and suffering over the period 2012-2014 is known.

Air Force Times, 31 March 2014, page 36

VA Deceives C-123 Veterans in FOIA Response

Another interesting day. It began with receiving an FOIA response from the Department of Veterans Affairs. In May, I had requested all materials known to the Secretary's office regarding the Tom Philpott article about us...that reporter revealed the toxicity of the C-123K and the problems we've had bringing it to the attention of senior AF and VA officials.


Here's the principal issue: Tom was promised responses to inquiries he made to HQ USAF and the VA. In the case of the VA, he spoke with Mr. Josh Taylor's associate Mr. Steve Westerfield, who promised Philpott (as reported at the end of the article) that the VA would carefully look into the issue. We've never had a response from Taylor so I asked for their info via FOIA. Now, over five months having past, the VA's Ms. Gwendolyn Smith ("Alternate FOIA Officer" for the VA) tells us:

NO RECORDS FOUND

This office queried a number of business lines pertaining to your request. The records containing this information are not located in our office.

Here is the language of my May request:

2. Copies of emails, memos, marginal notations or documents and any other materials prepared or received by Mr. Josh Taylor concerning Agent Orange contamination of C-123K aircraft.

So how could this happen, especially after national publication of our story, after emails floating back and forth between us and the VA, GSA and DOD, after IG complaints and all the other turmoil? How could the VA response to my FOIA come back boldly stating "No Records Found"? 


Easy. Two possibilities. First, perhaps they lied and falsified their FOIA response. Or second (and more likely) perhaps they used carefully crafted and misleading language to avoid the request. Here's how: Since there is absolutely no way that Mr. Josh Taylor didn't have at least some of the materials requested in my FOIA, the only way to avoid releasing them is to factually state, as above, that the "records containing this information are not located in our office." They don't say the records don't exist...they simply say the records are not in their office...the FOIA office. They say nothing about Mr. Taylor's office, or any other place the materials might reside. This is an example of what Air Force Academy cadets, in their Honor Code Handbook, are taught amounts to PREVARICATION...QUIBBLING! Using half-truths to form a lie by sliding around the margins of truth!


The VA didn't even acknowledge the 320-page binder we sent the Secretary, containing the Air Force test results, consultant reports, emails within AFMC, etc. This also should have been part of their FOIA response. (Oct 26 note: the VA has released Mr. Philpott's email to the VA seeking comment - and for some reason, a press release about the Blue Water Navy.)


Taylor, whose representative personally spoke with Mr. Tom Philpott during the preparation of the Gannett newspaper chain article which appeared in dozens of newspapers nationwide, must have logged their conversation, perhaps made notes during the interview, perhaps reported to his supervisors, perhaps (dare we hope?) actually done what he promised and what he is paid to do..."to carefully look into the issue". 


I am amazed that the VA and all our fellow citizens expect military officers to be bound by our inflexible code of honor but don't seem have one themselves. Our military code which, if not already part of our personal character, is spelled out in detail in the UCMJ as well as in two centuries of military tradition. Look at Mr. Taylor's promise to look carefully into the issue, and his failure to do so...perhaps, his decision even as the words were spoken to AVOID doing so. Honorable? 


In the military, an officer stating in the national press that he would do something would result in that something getting done, or the officer is in grave trouble. We call it honor. Sadly, in the VA, no such standard of honor seems to exist which would interest Public Relations wonks to actually do what they promise. Even if they are government employees assigned to do so. Even if, as with Mr. Taylor and Mr. Westerfield, it is their job to provide the truth to the press so that the press can properly exercise its constitutional duties.