VA Ripped Off By Phony C-123 Agent Orange Claim!

Some con artists come from our own military ranks. Take this dishonorable clown for instance: A clinic lab tech at Hanscom AFB between 1972-1973 claimed Agent Orange exposure from doing his medical lab work. This was probably for aircrew annual physicals, and probably with gloves on. He even claimed he went to the flight line to "recover medical specimens" form the aircraft!
The VA granted his phony claim in 2022. The USA will waste hundred$ of thousand$ on the clown...tax dollars from his fellow citizens.  His claim (and the resultant money!) will be backdated seven years...he is raking in big bucks with the phony claim and his lies made under sworn testimony.

Citation Nr: 22065492
Decision Date: 11/22/22	Archive Date: 11/22/22
ORDER
Entitlement to service connection for prostate cancer, secondary to herbicide exposure, is granted.
FINDINGS OF FACT (???????)
1. The evidence is at least in approximate balance as to whether the Veteran was exposed to herbicides in service at Hanscom Air Force Base (AFB).
2. The Veteran's diagnosed prostate cancer is presumed to be related to exposure to herbicides during service at Hanscom AFB.
CONCLUSION OF LAW
Resolving reasonable doubt in the Veteran's favor, the criteria for entitlement to service connection for prostate cancer, secondary to herbicide exposure, have been met.  38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1116, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.307, 3.309.
REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION
The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Air Force from October 1970 to October 1974. Entitlement to service connection for prostate cancer, secondary to herbicide exposure, is granted.
Factual Background.??????
The Veteran's service records indicate that he was stationed at Hanscom Air Force Base (AFB) from April 1972 to October 1974 and that his principal duty was medical laboratory specialist, military occupational specialty (MOS) code 90450.  See Service Personnel Records.

In a November 2019 Congressional correspondence, the United States Air Force confirmed that three Ranch Hand C-123 spray aircrafts were utilized as cargo and passenger aircraft at Hanscom AFB between November 1972 and September 1973.  

The Veteran's VA treatment records indicate that he was diagnosed with prostate cancer in July 2015.  

In an October 2015 Notice of Disagreement (NOD), the Veteran asserted that, while stationed at Hanscom AFB, he was required to analyze bodily fluids and other material that had been transported by C-123 aircrafts.

In a November 2017 VA Form 9, the Veteran asserted that, while stationed at Hanscom AFB, he was directly involved with receiving medical specimens, equipment, and personnel that had been transported on C-123 aircraft.  The Veteran also stated that this was performed without protective gear.  

In an October 2018 correspondence, the Veteran stated that, while stationed at Hanscom AFB, he attended all patients requiring lab work, including C-123 crew members, and performed lab testing on medical specimens that were transported by C-123 aircraft.  See October 2018 Veteran Correspondence. 

In the October 2020 Board hearing, the Veteran TESTIFIED (to a VA administrative judge) that, while stationed at Hanscom AFB, he frequently went to the flight line to retrieve medical specimens that had been transported by C-123 aircraft.  The Veteran estimated that he came in contact with a C-123 aircraft approximately 30 times. 

VA Reverses Joe Collins' C-123 Agent Orange Claim Denial – grants full benefits at last

I wrote earlier (4 Oct 2016) about reading a June 2016 Board of Veterans Appeals denial of a vet's appeal that had a lot of C-123 info in it, including the years the unnamed vet served at Hanscom AFB and that he'd worked on the C-123s there. With the help of the Westover "old geezers' network we were able to identify the vet as Joe Collins.

The facts were clear...there was no way the denial would hold up, yet there it was, denied and any correction likely to take years. But the vet, according to the denial, had advancing cancer. It couldn't and shouldn't wait.

It only took a couple of phone calls to VA HQ as well as their St Paul C-123 claims center to start correcting this injustice. Three months passed. Yesterday VA posted the "new and improved" BVA decision about Joe Collins' claim, awarding him full disability and calling its error, "a denial of due process of law."

Whatever. What matters is that Joe and his wife are now protected with the benefits due his Agent Orange illnesses, and the event proves we have to keep looking out for each other, especially our elder brothers and sisters who too often get ignored or mistreated by VA.

Here's the text of the BVA re-decision. It states that new evidence was submitted after Joe's June denial, but that's incorrect. All I did was point out the VA's own magnificent error.

Citation Nr: 1637572

Decision Date: 09/23/16   Archive Date: 09/30/16

DOCKET NO. 15-34 922   )       DATE

On appeal from the

Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Boston, Massachusetts

THE ISSUES

1.  Whether new and material evidence has been submitted to reopen a claim of entitlement to service connection for chronic lymphocytic leukemia.

2.  Entitlement to service connection for chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL).

REPRESENTATION

Veteran represented by: Massachusetts Department of Veterans Services

WITNESS AT HEARING ON APPEAL
The Veteran

ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD

J. J. Tang, Associate Counsel
INTRODUCTION

The Veteran served on active duty with the United States Navy from April 1946 to April 1948, and on active duty as a member of the United States Navy Reserves from October 1950 to August 1952. It appears that he had an additional period of active duty from August 1959 to August 1962, verified periods of active duty for training from October 28, 1962, to November 28, 1962, and additional active duty for training in 1972 and 1973, with the United States Air Force Reserves.

This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a June 2015 rating decision by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Boston, Massachusetts, which declined to reopen the Veteran's claim of entitlement to service connection for CLL.

The Veteran testified before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge (VLJ) by videoconference in April 2016. A transcript of his hearing has been associated with the record.

This appeal has been advanced on the Board's docket pursuant to 38 C.F.R. § 20.900(c) (2015). 38 U.S.C.A. § 7107(a)(2) (West 2015).

FINDINGS OF FACT

1.     On June 2, 2016, the Board issued a decision that declined to reopen the previously denied claim for service connection for CLL, and in this decision, the Veteran was denied due process of law.

2.     In a November 2012 Board decision, the Board denied a claim for service connection for CLL, based on the determination that such disability was not incurred in or aggravated by active service.

3.    The Veteran did not appeal the November 2012 Board decision to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court) and did not file a request for reconsideration of the November 2012 Board decision.

4.    The additional evidence received since the November 2012 Board decision is new and raises a reasonable possibility of substantiating the claim for service connection for CLL.

5.    The Veteran has CLL, the Veteran was exposed to an herbicide agent from C-123 aircraft in the line of duty during a period of active duty for training in the Air Force Reserves during the Vietnam era in 1972 and 1973.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1.   The June 2, 2016 decision of the Board is vacated. 38 U.S.C.A. § 7104(a) (West 2014); 38 C.F.R. § 20.904 (2015).

2.   The November 2012 Board decision, which denied entitlement to service connection for CLL, is final. 38 U.S.C.A. § 7104(b) (West 2010); 38 C.F.R. § 20.1100 (2012).

3.   The additional evidence received since the November 2012 rating decision is new and material to the claim for service connection for CLL, and the claim is reopened. 38 U.S.C.A. § 5108 (West 2014); 38 C.F.R. § 3.156(a) (2015).

4.   The criteria for service connection for CLL are met. 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 101, 1110, 5107 (West 2014); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.6, 3.102, 3.303, 3.307, 3.309 (2015).

REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
Vacatur of Board Decision

The Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) may vacate an appellate decision at any time upon request of the appellant or his or her representative, or on the Board's own motion, when an appellant has been denied due process of law or when benefits were allowed based on false or fraudulent evidence. 38 U.S.C.A. § 7104(a) (West 2014); 38 C.F.R. § 20.904 (2015). On June 2, 2016, the Board issued a decision that declined to reopen the previously denied claim for service connection for CLL, and in this decision, the Veteran was denied due process of law. Accordingly, the June 2, 2016 Board decision addressing the issue of whether new and material evidence has been submitted to reopen a claim of entitlement to service connection for CLL, is vacated.

Duties to Notify and Assist

Because the Board is reopening the previously denied claim for service connection for CLL and granting the claim on the merits, discussion concerning compliance with the duties to notify and assist is not necessary.

Application to Reopen the Claim for Service Connection

Even if a prior decision becomes final, a claim may be reopened if new and material evidence is presented. 38 U.S.C.A. § 5108. New evidence means existing evidence not previously submitted to agency decision makers. Material evidence means existing evidence that, by itself or when considered with previous evidence of record, relates to an unestablished fact necessary to substantiate the claim. New and material evidence can be neither cumulative nor redundant of the evidence of record at the time of the last prior final denial of the claim sought to be reopened, and it must raise a reasonable possibility of substantiating the claim. 38 C.F.R. § 3.156(a) (applying to claims to reopen that are filed after August 29, 2001). Evidence "raises a reasonable possibility of substantiating the claim," if it would trigger VA's duty to provide a medical examination in adjudicating a non-final claim. Shade v. Shinseki, 24 Vet. App. 110 (2010); see McLendon v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 79 (2006).

In a November 2012 Board decision, the Board denied a claim for service connection for CLL, based on the determination that such disability was not incurred in or aggravated by active service. After the Veteran was notified of the adverse decision, the Veteran did not appeal the November 2012 Board decision to the Court, nor did he file a request for reconsideration of the November 2012 Board decision. Therefore, the Board decision became final based on the evidence of record at the time. 38 U.S.C.A. § 7104(b) (West 2010); 38 C.F.R. § 20.1100 (2012).

At the time of the November 2012 Board decision, the evidence of record included the Veteran's service records, post-service treatment records, and the Veteran's statements. Such evidence showed a diagnosis of CLL, that the Veteran served as an Air Reserve Technician (ART) from 1970 to 1973, and that the Veteran's service as an ART was during a period of active duty for training in the Air Force Reserves at Hanscom Air Force Base.

The additional evidence presented since the November 2012 rating decision includes the Veteran's written statements describing his work as an ART during active duty for training in the Air Force Reserves at Hanscom Air Force Base. The Veteran also submitted annual statements of Reserves credits for 1972 and 1973, in which the Veteran is shown to have had credits for days of active duty for training service during these years. The credibility of the Veteran's statements is presumed for the purposes of reopening the claim. Justus v. Principi, 3 Vet. App. 510, 513 (1992). Evidence that tends to indicate that the Veteran may have been exposed to an herbicide agent regularly and repeatedly in the line of duty during a period of active duty for training during the requisite time period in the Vietnam era was absent at the time of the November 2012 rating decision, and this evidence, in conjunction with the newly revised regulation pertaining to herbicide exposure for Air Force Reserves crewmen, raises a reasonable possibility of substantiating the claim. Thus, the Board finds that new and material evidence has been submitted. The claim for service connection for CLL is reopened. The merits of the claim for service connection are discussed below.

Service Connection

A Veteran is entitled to VA disability compensation for service connection if the facts establish that a disability resulted from disease or personal injury incurred in the line of duty or for aggravation of a preexisting injury in the active military, naval or air service. 38 U.S.C.A. § 1110 (West 2014); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a) (2015).

"Active military, naval or air service" includes periods of active duty for training (ACDUTRA) during which a disease or injury was incurred or aggravated in the line of duty. See 38 U.S.C.A. § 101(24); 38 C.F.R. § 3.6; see also Biggins v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 474 (1991).

Generally, to establish entitlement to service connection, the claimant must show: (1) a present disability; (2) an in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) a causal relationship between the present disability and the disease or injury incurred or aggravated during service. Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2004).

The Veteran has been diagnosed with CLL, per the medical evidence of record. Thus, the present disability is shown.

The Veteran contends that his CLL is the result of exposure to an herbicide agent during active service. The Veteran contends that he was working as an ART at Hanscom Air Force Base from 1970 to 1973, and as discussed above, his Reserves credits records confirm periods of ACDUTRA in 1972 and 1973. The Veteran reports that he worked on C-123 aircraft that had been used to spray an herbicide agent in Vietnam. In a January 2009 statement, the Veteran reported that though he was not actually removing tanks and equipment from the aircraft, he was around the aircraft on a daily basis. In September 2009, the Veteran submitted a statement from a fellow ART that reported that over a period of several weeks, he and the Veteran physically checked on the status and decontamination of a C-123 aircraft that had arrived at the base for decontamination. The Veteran also testified at the April 2016 Board hearing regarding his specific duties as an ART on the C-123's, including taking floor boards out of the airplanes and doing maintenance inside and outside the airplanes. The Board finds that the Veteran's statements describing his duties as an ART during ACDUTRA and the Veteran's fellow ART's statements regarding their duties as ARTs are credible.

Newly revised 38 C.F.R. § 3.307(a)(6)(v) states, "An individual who performed service in the Air Force or Air Force Reserve under circumstances in which the individual concerned regularly and repeatedly operated, maintained, or served onboard C-123 aircraft known to have been used to spray an herbicide agent during the Vietnam era shall be presumed to have been exposed during such service to an herbicide agent. For purposes of this paragraph,'regularly and repeatedly operated, maintained, or served onboard C-123 aircraft' means that the individual was assigned to an Air Force or Air Force Reserve squadron when the squadron was permanently assigned one of the affected aircraft and the individual had an Air Force Specialty Code indicating duties as a flight, ground maintenance, or medical crew member on such aircraft. Such exposure constitutes an injury under 38 U.S.C. 101(24)(B) and (C). If an individual described in this paragraph develops a disease listed in 38 CFR 3.309(e) as specified in paragraph (a)(6)(ii) of this section, it will be presumed that the individual concerned became disabled during that service for purposes of establishing that the individual served in the active military, naval, or air service."

In light of the recent revised regulation, and given the credible statements as to the nature and duration of the Veteran's duties as an ART working with C-123 aircraft during these aforementioned periods of ACDUTRA, the Board finds that the Veteran regularly and repeatedly maintained C-123 aircraft during the Vietnam Era as a crewmember of an Air Force Reserve Squadron. Thus, under 38 C.F.R. § 3.307(a)(6)(v), exposure to an herbicide agent in the line of duty during ACDUTRA is shown.

CLL is included in the list under 38 C.F.R. § 3.309(e). There is a presumption of service connection for a Veteran who was exposed to an herbicide agent during active service and is diagnosed with CLL that manifested to a compensable degree at any time after service, unless there is affirmative evidence to show that the disease is not related to exposure to an herbicide agent. 38 C.F.R.

§ 3.307(a); see 38 C.F.R. § 3.307(d).

Here, the Board has found that exposure to an herbicide agent is shown, and such exposure constitutes an injury for purposes of determining whether the Veteran's CLL was incurred in active air service. Further, the Veteran's CLL is presumed to be service-connected on the basis of his exposure to an herbicide agent during his ACDUTRA service in the Vietnam era. For these reasons, the Board concludes that the Veteran's CLL was presumptively incurred in active air service, and service connection for CLL is granted.

ORDER

The June 2, 2016 decision of the Board is vacated.

Because new and material evidence has been received, the claim for service connection for CLL is reopened.

Entitlement to service connection for CLL is granted

C-123 Vet Joe Collins Wins VA Agent Orange Claim First Submitted in 2007

Joe Collins, one of the C-123 maintainers from the Hanscom AFB days ('71-'73) whose denied Agent Orange exposure claim and denied appeal I wrote about last month, phoned this morning to say that VA had approved his disability claim! What great news. Joe's exposure claim had been wrongly denied in June by the Boston BVA which cited his service at Hanscom as an air reserve technician as somehow disqualifying him from legal veteran status and thus all Agent Orange benefits.Please...read it yourself at http://www.va.gov/vetapp16/Files3/1622153.txt This was a monster screw up because the denial also discussed his duty as a reservist aircrew member on the C-123. The VA regulations specify that all C-123 veterans claims must be handled only by St. Paul VA regional office which has exclusive jurisdiction. Still, the Boston BVA somehow overlooked that and many other important points, wrongly denying Joe's exposure claim which he first submitted way back in 2007. Joe got great help from the Agawam Town veterans service officer. However, he was poorly served by the Massachusetts Division of Veteran Services which handled his appeal before the BVA on behalf of the American Legion which Joe selected to represent him. VA will award retroactive compensation to Joe but only back to June 2015. Still, it is a worthwhile victory for us, and satisfactory to Joe. In mid-September I happened to spot his denial online in the BVA listing of that month's decisions, without any identification as to who it was about because veterans names are removed for privacy reasons before posting on the Internet. I could see the problem and believed I had a solution but didn't know who try try to help! Our geezers network was able to put different facts together from the claim and appeal, and realized it was about Joe. I tracked him down and with his permission got VA leadership involved – at that point it only took a couple weeks to set the record straight. Joe says this means a lot to him because it will help his wife now and in the future. Other families from the Wing and from the 74th have also benefited, including Paul Bailey, Dick Matte, Bob Ranck, Cliff Turcotte and others from our C-123 days between 1972-1984. The largest retroactive compensation payments have been over $130,000, although most with a total disability rating and claims on or before June 2015 have received around $30,000. Of course, monthly payments from VA continue once the veteran has received "service connection' for whatever Agent Orange ailments exist. Our work to get VA to recognize our Agent Orange exposures began in 2011 and also resulted in these benefits to Pittsburgh Air Force Reserve Station and Rickenbacker Air Force Base C-123 veterans and many active duty troops from Howard Air Base and Clark Air Base. In all, approximately 2100 veterans and our families benefit. Joe's next step? He should apply for Combat Related Special Compensation, disabled veteran property tax exemption, disabled veteran automobile benefits, free VA insurance, and medical care for every medical issue on top of his Agent Orange illnesses. He can get care such as audiology, dental service, optometry and pharmacy. Many vets have full VA coverage for medical issues and yet select there care elsewhere but returned to the VA for these unique benefits.

Hanscom AFB C-123 Maintenance Vet Gets Agent Orange Claim Corrected

Problem Solved. I received a message a few minutes ago that Joe Collins' cancer claim, at first denied, was corrected by senior VA leadership.

A few days ago I noticed a decision by the BVA about a veteran claiming C-123 Agent Orange exposure while a mechanic at Hanscom AFB back in the early '1970's – but his claim was denied and his appeal also denied! The vet's name was withheld but we tracked him down though Andy's Old Guys Network...Joe Collins.

VA had lots of text detailing Joe's service as an ART, and explained that such duty didn't convey veteran status for the period of his exposure. The denial also noted his Reserve duty, but still nothing triggered recognition of his benefits per the VA C-123 Interim Final Rule of June 2015. That made all post-Vietnam C-123 aircrews and maintenance folks veterans per the statute if claiming any recognized Agent Orange illnesses.

(Note 23 Sept 2016: VA leadership resolved this thru BVA, and Joe's claim is being expedited! Problem solved, but still a question left unanswered – how could the Boston regional claims office and the Boston BVA have screwed this up so completely?)

Thanks to our community of C-123 veterans, we were able to identify the C-123 vet whose claim was so terribly screwed up. Joe Collins is our guy, and today I had the pleasure of speaking with Joe and his wife.

We got his name and SSAN to authorities in VA to reconsider his claim and June 2016 denial.

Let's hope VA moves on this one: Joe's claim dates from 2007!

C-123 Vet with Defective BVA Decision: Joe Collins

(Note 23 Sept 2016: VA leadership resolved this thru BVA, and Joe's claim is being expedited! Problem solved, but still a question left unanswered – how could the Boston regional claims office and the Boston BVA have screwed this up so completely?)

Thanks to our community of C-123 veterans, we were able to identify the C-123 vet whose claim was so terribly screwed up. Joe Collins is our guy, and today I had the pleasure of speaking with Joe and jhis wife.

We got his name and SSAN to authorities in VA to reconsider his claim and June 2016 denial.

Let's hope VA moves on this one: Joe's claim dates from 2007!

April begins, and still no action by VA on C-123 Agent Orange Exposures

Don't they know what's happening? Don't they know our men and women are refused proper care and benefits for want of reasonable, proper, lawful, necessary decisions?

Don't they care, or know there is a price paid by us for their inaction and attitudes? That price is in denied medical care somehow sought elsewhere, in denied state benefits for us and our families, and in denied financial compensation for our line-of-duty illnesses.

Reasons? Maybe they don't care. Maybe they're too busy. Maybe hardliners in Post Deployment Health and in the Compensation and Pension Agent Orange Dsek are pushing back, still determined to deny 100% of all claims "on a case by case basis." Maybe because every month, every day VA postpones action on these claims is money saved, appointment lists kept shorter, and claims denied and off the backlog lists.

Seems like the VA decision is already in place.

Of course, some do, but the powers that be...just don't!

Timeline Added to C-123 Veterans' Document Resources

We have added a very detailed timeline, using Dipity. The scale must be set to 50 years or so to get an overall idea of the timespan, but set to months to get details in busier years so all the date entries can be seen individually

(Our veterans' C-123 Agent Orange Timeline on dipity.com)

VA Issues Internal Regulation to Change Agent Orange Act?

Mon Dieu!  Screwed Again!

VA must have changed the law and not let Congress, the public, the National Archives, the Library of Congress, VSOs, or Paul Bailey know about it! We know this, because Lt Col Paul Bailey's two-year old claim for Agent Orange benefits was denied effective 28 February 2013 by the Manchester NH Regional Office,  in which the statement was made:

"Although you submitted numerous amounts of evidence to support your claim, VA regulations do not allow us to concede exposure to herbicides for Veterans who claim they were exposed to herbicides after the Vietnam war while flying in aircraft used to spray these chemicals."

Now, Paul wasn't asking the VA to "concede" anything, but was hoping that the Manchester VA would lean toward obeying the law (1991 Agent Orange Act as well as Title 38) and the 2001 promulgation of various issues narrated in the Federal Register in which the VA detailed that veterans exposed outside Vietnam, with Agent Orange illnesses, would be treated the same as veterans exposed with "boots on the ground."

It is clear from the denial of his claim and the statement above that the VA now employs some regulation which prohibits this adherence to the law, a VA "private" regulation employed to trump everything else otherwise protective of veterans' rights.

I spent half a day in the Library of Congress with a dedicated researcher, and all we could find applicable is Title 38 itself and the May 2001 Federal Register (Volume 66, Number 89, Tuesday May 8, 2001, page 23166). This is the material cited by judges making various BVA decisions awarding other C-123 veterans from Paul's own unit, with the same airplanes, in the same time frame, their Agent Orange claims. The skilled researcher assured me nothing publicly available is known to supersede these references, so I take it that the VA's regulation cited in Paul's claim denial is somehow classified or otherwise unavailable outside the VA, and used as their special trump card to insure claims are refused regardless of all legal, scientific, medical, or moral merit. 

Understand, Paul's claim was justified on each of those merits - but not to the satisfaction of the Manchester Veterans Affairs Regional Office which follows special VA procedures about which the rest of us are kept unaware.

The VA regulation (or whatever it is) being unavailable, it makes things kinda hard for C-123 veterans to present our claims, given that the VBA isn't even permitted to approve them. Other veterans need merely reach the famously reasonable threshold of "as likely to as not", but in the case of C-123 veterans, with Compensation Services already explaining that VA Veterans Health Administration findings prohibit evaluation of evidence supporting our exposure claims, we veterans have hit a mile-high VA brick wall.

Paul, and others of us similarly situated, have made clear our less-than-happy medical picture to the VA. Knowing this, they smile back and assure us that after our two-year wait for these claims to be denied by the VA it is only a five year wait to be heard at the Board of Veterans Appeals. 

A nice, big smile. Not their problem. They've got their secret regulation to back them up. But this kind of secrecy, of uneven treatment, of extra-legal denial of American veterans' rights, invites public attention. Lots of it. In black ink and other media.

And here's one interesting part. Veterans are invited...virtually required...to submit evidence of their claim. Paul submitted official findings that he'd been exposed to Agent Orange while a crewmember aboard the C-123. Included in his package were findings about him from:

1. National Institutes of Health, Dr. L. Birnbaum

2. Center for Disease Control, Agency for Toxic Substances, Dr T. Sinks

3. US Public Health Service/NIH Senior Medical Advisor, CAPT A. Miller MD

4. Columbia University School of Public Health, Dr. J. Stellman

5. University of Texas Medical School, Dr. Arnold Schecter

6. Oregon Health Sciences University Toxicology Department, Dr. Fred Berman

7. Paul's doctors, Dartmouth University Medical Center

8. Peer-reviewed scientific articles re: dioxin and exposure

9. USAF C-123 test reports confirming contamination

10. TG 312, the military "gold standard" for entrepting test results, and which the CDC used to confirm Paul's exposure aboard the C-123

11. Environmental Protection Agency, Dr. Allison Toppler

12. Hatfield Environmental Consultants,  Dr. Wayne Dwernychuk

The Manchester VA dismissed all of these, including input from a member of the National Academy of Sciences and director of the NIH/NEIHS (Dr. Linda Birnbaum) without comment other than to group everything as "lay evidence", to wit:

"The lay evidence was found not to be competent and sufficient in this case to establish a link or nexus between your medical condition and military service or to establish that such a link has been found by a medical professional."

Actually, all was predicable, because on the same day LtCol Bailey's claim was denied, we were hosted to a conference at the VA Compensation and Pensions Division offices, 1800 G Street, Washington, where we were assured that no amount of proofs, from whatever source, from whatever physician or federal agency or university or whatever...would be permitted to apply in proof of a C-123 veteran's Agent Orange exposure claim. This was because Veterans Health Administration had already formed an official opinion against such exposure and VBA is compelled to adhere to VHA input and not consider anything else. 

Judging from Paul's claim denial, and my own claim which was denied in Portland, Oregon on 14 March, I guess they meant it!

Air Force Reserve Command Confirms C-123 Agent Orange History

I should have read more carefully the letter from the AFRC historian, Ms. Betty Kennedy, in which she states that the C-123s assigned to the 731st Tactical Airlift Squadron of the 439th Tactical Airlift Wing (later, 439th Airlift Wing) were indeed military herbicide spray airplanes and used as such in Vietnam! (4 Feb note - FOIAs submitted this date for Rickenbacker and Pittsburgh C-123 information).

The end of her first paragraph proves the point for every wing veteran assigned to aircrew, AME, aerial port or maintenance duties on the C-123, saying "The C-123 aircraft in the 731 TAS fleet had been used to disperse chemical defoliants over Southeast Asia during the Vietnam War.

If the Joint Services Records Research Center requires proof to tell the VA we flew contaminated aircraft, here it is! If VA opposes our claim that these were Agent Orange airplanes, they are doing so only because of policies against us, and certainly not for truth, justice...and the American way! Golly, this gets to be fun sometimes, finding out the various proofs only so that the VA can pretend with some Beltway twist of the facts that we weren't exposed. I have to give them their due: they are persistent, bold and creative.

They have to be, in order to twist history, science, law, justice and common sense as they keep insisting we were not exposed to military herbicides aboard a contaminated airplane!

Air Force Reserve Command Identifies C-123 Assignments

In 2011 the Director Historical Services HQ Air Force Reserve Command was asked to document the assignment of C-123 aircraft to various squadrons during the 1972-1982 timeframe, following their use in Vietnam. These experts worked hard digging up 30 year-old data and admit it might be incomplete, but for what it is worth...and that's a lot!...here is their report. Just click HERE to download.

The document's importance lies in the comparison of aircraft named here and in the various Form 5s, flight orders and other sources with the lists of known spray aircraft. That lets us prove that each unit, Rickenbacker, Westover and Pittsburgh, flew contaminated airplanes, and not just Patches. We then can turn to the Army's Joint Services Records Research Center and update their files so as to then flow proper supporting information back to the Veterans Affairs!

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B1uIYOBKcN_6V25zWExFVU01MWM/edit

And THANKS to the guys who sent in flight documents today...especially those from Rickenbacker. Keep them coming as we need to document every single AFRES and ANG C-123.

VA to C-123 Vets: We're Denying Benefits Because (fill in the blank)

Form Letter - VA to C-123 Veterans:

Dear Veteran: Thank you for your service.

We are (once again, oh, the joy!) denying Agent Orange exposure benefits for your time aboard the C-123 because (see checked item[s]):

1. The government destroyed your airplanes in 2010 as toxic waste, after being tested as contaminated with dioxin for over 40 years, but aren't available for further testing, so no benefits___
2. You weren't exposed to ENOUGH dioxin (we have redefined toxicology [and defy IOM reports] to require C-123 vets to be exposed to ENOUGH) so no benefits____
3. There aren't enough C-123 veterans to do an epidemiological study, so no benefits____
4. C-123 veterans lack support of an IOM report (we have canceled our promise to order such a report but that doesn't matter) so no benefits____
5. Ranch Hand vets were exposed to more dioxin, and ground troops in Vietnam to less, but you fall in the middle so no benefits____
6. VA already properly approved C-123 vets from Rickenbacker and Hanscom for AO exposure before the issue became more public, so no benefits____
7. Patches was reported contaminated for restoration workers grinding, painting, scraping and repairing, and we're pretending it was not contaminated for military personnel grinding, painting, scraping and repairing, so no benefits____
8. The Joint Services Records Research Center (JSRRC) having been provided official USAF documents regarding C-123 contamination, ignores those documents, so no benefits____
9. The Senior Consultant on Agent Orange to the Office of Secretary of Defense, wrote that you guys are "trash haulers, freeloaders, looking for a tax free dollar," so no benefits____
10. The Senior Consultant on Agent Orange to the Office of Secretary of Defense, wrote that the contaminated C-123s at Davis-Monthan AFB be destroyed before veterans learned of the contamination and sought benefits, so no benefits____
11. Davis-Monthan AFB civilian employees filed an IG complaint about the contaminated C-123s we'd flown decades earlier still being contaminated and were ordered to wear HAZMAT protection thereafter, so no benefits____
12. After a careful review of old and irrelevant literature, and after carefully ignoring current literature, we have decided dioxin cannot harm veterans if it is a special, unique, really unusual kind of dry dioxin not otherwise found in science, so no benefits____
13. The CDC/Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, the federal agency responsible for identifying toxic substances like dioxin on the C-123, says you were exposed, so no benefits____
14. The numerous scientists and physicians are too expert and too well-known to science and medicine internationally, and there are just too many of them and they are too expert in saying C-123 veterans were exposed, so no benefits____
15. It will cost money to provide the care C-123 veterans have earned, so no benefits____
16. Our regional offices, which have the final authority, have recommended approval of C-123 veterans' claims and we have overturned them, so no benefits____
17. We are the VA...it is our football, and if we say you're not exposed, you can just go pound sand, so no benefits____
18. We are the VA, you can apply and nothing says we have to do anything for years as we "consider" your claim for over five years in some regions) so no benefits____
19. Hell, it don't matter. No benefits because we damn say so____
20. The proper toxicological tests performed to confirm C-123 dioxin contamination were used, so no benefits____
21. Skilled PdDs, government employees, qualified toxicologists performed the tests which confirmed C-123 contamination, so no benefits____
22. Skilled PhDs, government employees, provided sworn federal testimony that the C-123s were "a danger to public health," so no benefits____
23. In 1994 the Air Force Judge Advocate General directed "all information be kept in official channels only, so no benefits____
24. We can't say how much you were exposed, only that was not enough because you're still alive, so no benefits____
25. You failed to wear the HAZMAT protection (which we told you wasn't necessary anyway) in 1972-1982 that we required DAF civilians to wear in 2001, and you failed to predict in 1979 that the airplanes would be labeled "contaminated" in 1994 after we told you they weren't contaminated in 1972, so it is all your fault, and they weren't contaminated anyway, so no benefits____
26. You volunteered, stupid, so no benefits____

C-123 Veterans

(enough...this could go on all day...)

Patches - Not as Contaminated as Our Other C-123s?

Nope! At least, not according to an experienced Ranch Hand pilot. He informs us that Patches flew only malathion missions after 1965. The other Ranch Hand C-123s flew AO missions up to '71, so Patches, which still tested "heavily contaminated" in 1994 at the USAF Museum (29 years after its last spray missions!),  must represent "the lower end of contamination for the UC-123 fleet."Patches...was LESS contaminated! The others, untested, were MORE contaminated!
Dioxin, which Patches sprayed before 1965, has an uncertain half-life on different surfaces and in animals...such as us. It has, for instance, a half-life of about seven years in human females, and some studies maintain that should be 15 years! This means the other former spray planes we flew were more contaminated with dioxin than Tail #362, and had they been properly tested, would have shown their even-higher dangerous dioxin levels. But we only have Patches to go by, because the other airplanes weren't tested for many more years and after decades spent in desert storage at Davis-Monthan. By then, the dioxin had degraded.

In case you diid't note it earlier, we've located a Board of Veterans Appeals decision awarding service connection to a 731st TAS member who worked on Patches at Hanscom in the 72-73 timeframe. This won't help us get our own claims through as the VA seems to deliberately avoid noting virtually parallel decisions, and anyway, VA Compensation Services has directed in more recent years that no C-123 Agent Orange exposure claims be approved, regardless of evidence. The struggle continues!

Three C-123 Agent Orange Claims Approved!

A careful search for Board of Veterans Appeals decisions has revealed two C-123 veterans who succeeded in appealing their denied claims for Agent Orange exposure! (click for a copy)

One of these veterans was at Rickenbacker (with, somehow, two BVA decisions about his claim) and one at Hanscom with the 731st TAS. The Hanscom vet worked on our C-123s between 1972-1973, before the squadron moved to Westover.

So we have two exactly parallel situations where veterans just like us succeeded in their claims. Initially denied at their local VA offices, the men appealed and were successful at the Board of Veterans Appeals. And actually, we now have much more evidence to support our claims than was available back when these cases were decided.

While this brings some logic to other VA rating officers (ROs), BVA decisions are not precedent-setting. Some veterans experts even suggest not bothering submitting such similar cases, but here I think we have such identical situations as these winning cases, we should copy them to our local offices. If you are working through a veterans service officer such as the VFW or DAV, provide to them.

We must question why LtCol Aaron (Tim) Olmsted of the 731st didn't have this same documentation when his case was denied. At Tim's BVA hearing, his claim was denied solely because "the veteran failed to prove the airplanes he flew were the same airplanes used in Vietnam for spraying Agent Orange, or that the planes he flew were  flown in Vietnam." As the American Legion represented both him and the Hanscom veteran, that also leaves me wondering why that huge organization failed to submit the necessary proofs for Tim...everything was readily available on the Internet!

Pima Air Museum C-123K Confirmed as Spray Bird

Tail 54-0580, Pima Air Museum

Visiting Tucson's famous Pima Air Museum yesterday, I checked out their C-123K. Turns out it is Tail #54-0580, a former Hanscom and Westover bird. After retirement to the Boneyard it ended up with the Forest Service which has loaned it to Pima. The Agent Orange spray pipes are obvious between the engines and the fuselage...it is a spray bird after all!

Leaving the museum I was surprised to see a C-123 tail sticking up among a forest of Navy S-2s in a commercial aviation junk yard. The guys there drove me out to discover that it was another Westover bird, confirmed not by the ID plate (missing) but by the radio card (click for photo) which had its tail number #54-0706 penciled in, which we recovered from the cockpit. No wings, no wheels, and a tired old bird not likely to ever fly again! The owner sells parts off, such as the yoke and foot pedals, to collectors.

BTW, last week's visit to Warner-Robins' Museum of Aviation to see their spray C-123K brought no new information. I was told that the base Bioenvironmental Engineers controlled access to the aircraft but those folks said they knew nothing about it. A museum staffer was very knowledgeable about the provenience of this plane, detailing to me its various assignments and depot maintenance in nearby Dotham, Alabama by a contractor. One new point...the bench for weary travelers to rest upon is no longer directly below the spray pipes...it has been moved beneath another aircraft!

Newsletter Prepared for C-123 Veterans - good handout also

Yesterday we whipped up a one-page handout as our first sort of newsletter...but more of a one page handout for John Harris, Arch Battista, Joe Curley and Al Harrington to use as handouts when they meet with groups of maintainers and others.

EXTRA! Toxic C-123s Sold by AF!

We have a tremendous obligation to reach out to veterans who don't know about the Agent Orange contamination of the C-123 we flew between 1972-1982. Hopefully, meeting with other veterans' groups, networking with old hands, newspaper stories and such efforts will get the word out.


Let me know of topics for another newsletter, won't you?