Why Were The C-123s Destroyed by USAF in 2010?

C-123 HAZMAT Quarantine Area

Because they were toxic. Because veterans might learn of the toxic exposures and turn to VA for
medical care (AF agreed this was to be prevented.) Because USAF sworn testimony in federal court was that the airplanes were "a danger to public health" and could never be sold or parted out.

Apparently, being a threat to public health had no bearing on whether the crews who flew them years earlier might need to be alerted to toxins and their health concerns.

And the planes also had to be destroyed...quickly and quietly...because of a threatened $3.4 billion EPA fine. $32,000 per day, per airplane. Good thing the EPA had never been fully informed of the Bone Yard's special C-123 HAZMAT quarantine area, but the toxic airplanes couldn't sit behind that "restricted access" fence forever. There were even concerns that rainwater off the airplanes might contaminate the soil beneath them.

But $3.4 billion was a stand-alone major focus, and compelled action. Unless they could continue the cover up, a $3,400,000,000 for an EPA fine is not a mistake Hill or Davis-Monthan AFB officials wanted to have on their annual efficiency reports – not much efficiency in such a monumental fine. So the planes had to be destroyed, and it had better be done very, very quietly.

And it was. Nobody noticed. Ever. And the exposed veterans didn't notice, either, and didn't know we'd been exposed to harmful levels of dioxin until years later. A great success for Hill AFB Public Affairs.

In 2014, a VA consultant told the Institute of Medicine the C-123s were destroyed "because they were obsolete." He did not mention the fact that in 2009 he'd personally recommended destruction of the airplanes due to their toxicity and to prevent veterans' claims.

Here's the AF memo detailing concerns about the EPA fine:

Questions from USAF PA About C-123 Veterans' Complaints (see last two blog entries)

In response to my inquiries over the last week or so, Air Force public affairs would like some clarification. I have placed their questions immediately below, and the larger type below them is my response.

 A. Questions to C-123 Veterans:

The emails appear to show that Terry Pittman, of Aerospace Maintenance and Regeneration Group Business Affairs, and the Senior Consultant on Agent Orange for the office of the Secretary of Defense, were opposed  to publicizing the planes’ destruction, so why a complaint with Air Force Materiel Command and the Defense Department.

From the documentation you provided, it looks as though the 75^th Air Base Wing spokeswoman Barbara Fisher said the public affairs shop recommended making public that the planes had been destroyed (page 32).

B. My response to USAF PA sent 2/9---------------------------

Gentlemen,

I've added page numbers for clarity as to my references. 

In 2011 I submitted complaints to AF IG. In July 2011 I submitted the attached USAF PA to PA in the Pentagon, not knowing any other address. In 2013 I visited and filed an IG with AFMC at Wright-Patterson (Mr. Dennis Lange dennis.lange.1@us.af.mil,) without any response, but that complaint focused in failure to abide by FOIA requirements. (note 2/10/15: I have retracted this 2013 complaint to AFMC as they have no record and I did not keep a copy) 

USAF PA may have misunderstood that the 309th AMARG (Terry Pittman's memo) is actually a military organization under AFMC--is that perhaps why USAF PA asked why the complaint went to them?  Answer is...because it is an AF unit and an AF press release never released.

When the 2011 USAF IG was denied, I filed a DOD IG complaint...is that what USAF PA is referring to? It, too, was years ago.

Hill PA may have suggested somewhere, somehow outside the FOIA results released to C-123 veterans, a public release but obviously yielded to the improper editing of it and withholding to await inquires which never came...this disserved the commander, the mission and the media, and certainly the veterans. 

The only recommendation for a release I find by 75th ABW PA is on page 32. This is Ms. Fisher's recommendation to Terry Pittman at AMARG for release of the edited press release to Mr Martin Swann. She recommends providing the press release if Mr. Swann inquires again. As one can see, this is a press release about an event about which the media had to already be aware. 

I offer the example: if reporters don't see columns of smoke rising from the base runway, is PA spared the necessity of a press release about an aircraft downed on takeoff? One they've typed and held ready in the event that plume of smoke is noticed and inquires result? Otherwise, no media inquires = a non-event.

A closer parallel to our C-123 toxic airplanes. If there is a toxic spill in the Childcare Center, is PA spared the uncomfortable necessity of insuring the information is provided those exposed children, parents and staff? Never to be informed, just as our C-123 veterans have never heard from the Air Force. Does PA believe they'd type a press release about a Childcare Center spill and hold it unless parents notice their children sickening and bring their inquiries to PA?

Newsworthy? Here, PA obviously understood a press release was important because one was carefully crafted. Federal lawsuits had happened over these airplanes. Base employees had filed IG complaints reaching the USAF Surgeon General. The Air Staff was involved as well as AFMC leadership. Hundreds of thousands had been spent cocooning and moving the fleet into special HAZMAT storage. The EPA threatened a $3.4 billion fine. The airplanes and their background was historic. AFMC officials traveled to Wisconsin to personally witness and certify the smelting. Individuals kept propellor hubs as souvenirs. The issue of Agent Orange and its toxicity was important to veterans and the public. They felt the importance of the C-123 issue, however, best addressed by keeping it quiet.

The final press release described the destruction as "normal," which it most certainly was not (p.9-10, 20-21)  This was the first and last time such a procedure was used on USAF aircraft at Davis-Monthan. The initial press release (p.11,) more honest and revealing, shows the extent of editing out too much of who/what/when/why/where/how details of concern to the public.

As he is entitled to do, Dr. Young specifically recommended no publicity for the unacceptable reasons he offered. None of the three officials (Major McCrady, Mr. Malmgren, Mr. Boor) to whom his memos were directed took exception and opted to do handle correctly. Indeed, these officials and their organizations cited his memos as their authority for the actions. On page 24, Dr. Downs also agrees with Dr. Young's recommendations. 

Dr. Young, as a contractor, is not at issue here, but actions by Air Force civilian

and military personnel acting on his "decision memos" are. He later told the Washington Post he was acting in an unofficial capacity, yet his recommendations were accepted as instructions and authority for the final shredding and smelting as well as media cover-up.

While these folks were not base or MAJCOM PA officials, my 2011 complaint brought to USAF PA's attention serious concerns about violations of Air Force standards and regulations, requiring response just as to any complaint from any citizen about the Air Force presented to PA. It happens, of course, that PA issues are also in question. 

AFMC decisions are also questioned in my inquiries. The involvement of a large number of others is shown in the distribution of the memo on page 22. The Air Staff and Pentagon are referenced on page 23 and by Mr. Michael Crane's email, as he is on the Air Staff. No action is known to have been taken by any of them regarding the recommended goal "of preventing future liability to the US Air Force and the US Department of Defense." 

Question here, please: what about already exposed veterans...the ones mentioned by Dr. Young? It is clear the intent of this process was to avoid liability to them as well.

As Dr. Young, "Senior Consultant on Agent Orange to the Office of Secretary of Defense" congratulated officials on page 35, this was all done with "minimal publicity". Indeed, there was none at all until exposed C-123 veterans sought care from the Department of Veterans Affairs.

As a former Stan/Eval flight examiner for my crew position, I am not unfamiliar

with the C-123K but rather an expert on it. I believe this, along with an Air Force enlisted and commissioned career, gives me reasonable insight to the issues I've raised and ability to read and understand applicable guidance in the form of operating instructions and regulations. 

I've tried to express myself accurately but suggestions from AF Public Affairs back in 2011 would have been quite helpful to correct any misunderstanding on my part. I welcome it today as well.

Remember: this is not some commercial firm's marketing communications department where press release activity is a sales tool. This is the United States Air Force, informing the public about how the nation's treasure in gold and in the lives our servicemembers is spent. This treasure must be carefully accounted for, which is the only way we insure civilian control over the military through an informed public and their legislature.

Hill AFB PA was not what the nation needed relative to this event, with consequent harm to our health.

   WTC

C-123 Vets AGAIN Request Response to USAF Public Affairs Complaint - 1298 Days Have Passed

Dear Chief and Mr. Clavette,

Gentlemen, may I know your thoughts on the inquiry I've lodged? 

It has been 1,298 days: Please do not think me impatient.

I am more grievously ill than when I first sought your counsel in 2011, as are many of my surviving crewmates.

The issue continues to affect the lives of over 2100 veterans, fewer alive today than when the question was first raised with AF PA in 2011. The issue, as managed by the PA shops involved, contributed to the Department of Veterans Affairs' delay in addressing veterans' Agent Orange exposure claims....a stated objective of the various memos and emails.

Quite predictably, there has been attendant financial loss, suffering and deaths from this deviation from Air Force regulations, Air Force values, and denial of the First Amendment rights of local media which prevented informing the public of significant government actions...actions destroying toxic airplanes and information about our health.

I request every kindness in expediting an answer to the questions raised, and welcome correction or clarification where helpful as to the supporting documents provided.

Regards,

   Wes Carter, Major, USAF Retired

  

On Mon, Feb 2, 2015 at 10:47 AM, BAILEY, TIMOTHY R CMSgt USAF AFPAA AFPAA/CCC <timothy.cccccc4@us.af.mil> wrote:

Sir,

I have forwarded your complaint up to the Mr. Larry Clavette, the Director of Air Force Public Affairs Agency. 

v/r

Timothy R. Bailey, CMSgt, USAF

C-123 Vets Renew AF Public Affairs Complaint First Submitted - but ignored - in 2011

Last week leaders of the C-123 Veterans Association renewed our 2011 complaints about Air Force Public Affairs operations at Hill AFB UT and Davis-Monthan AFB AZ. We alleged Air Force deceptions, both by commission and omission, regarding the April-June 2010 destruction of the toxic C-123 fleet stored at Davis-Monthan.

Stored at Davis-Monthan's Boneyard since 1982 and in special HAZMAT quarantine for a decade by orders of the USAF Surgeon General, the airplanes were all quietly shredded and smelted in response to their Agent Orange contamination. The press release, however, did not cover that fact. The press release did not mention Agent Orange at all.

And in fact, the well-crafted press release was never released. A whole fleet of airplanes with a unique 40-year history, considered by many the embarrassment of the Air Force, disappeared and the media took no notice.

They were not meant to. Air Force Public Affairs word-smithed their press release to make it as innocuous as possible, then placed in a desk drawer in case some inquiring reporter raised a question. Base officials and their outside consultant had word-smithed out attention-grabbing words such as "Agent Orange, toxin, TCDD" and other accurate descriptions of the event. Officials also wrote about their concern that, unless the event were kept "below the radar," exposed veterans could apply to Veterans Affairs for treatment of Agent Orange illnesses.

The very mention of this concern...expressed by the consultant, base officials and those up the chain of command...is inappropriate. Instead, the Air Force should have been accurate in its communication with the public, and with the veterans who'd served faithfully but had been exposed to Agent Orange. There is no excuse for such a coverup...no wonder the Air Force fought Freedom of Information Act requests about this for three years, finally releasing mostly redacted white pages, devoid of content.

No questions were raised by local media because they Air Force took pains to insure nobody knew. If somebody found out, a deceptive press release was ready to give them, but no inquiries ever came.

A parallel would be if an aircraft crashed on base and PA typed out a press release saying there'd been an unscheduled mass casualty exercise followed by a test of the unit's voluntary blood donation program, after which the base returned to normal operations. And then put the press release into a drawer in case some newsperson noticed a plume of smoke rising from the base and one less airplane.

This whole scheme abused the First Amendment right of reporters in the area by denying them information about a significant military activity. It abused the duty those reporters had to the public by keeping from their readers information about the conduct of the American military and its expenditure of treasure and peoples' lives. The lives spoken of are ours...the veterans who flew these airplanes, and from whom information was kept from us by deceptions of Air Force Public Affairs at Hill and D-M, which was in violation of Air Force and DOD operating instructions, and also in violation of Air Force ethics and the ethics expected of professional...not marketing communications...public agency public affairs operations.

Lies? Not directly.

Prevarication? Absolutely! In the Air Force, a prevarication is a lie.

Impact? Information about our health kept from us for over a year and the evolution of disability claims with VA delayed for four.

Media and the public which depends on them to be informed about our government? Neither can trust USAF Public Affairs with this as an example of deception possible from military officials. And the veterans affected also have a loss of trust and confidence in our Air Force, knowing it willingly deceives us in issues involving our health to prevent our claims with the VA.

Congress Urges VA to Recognize C-123 Agent Orange Exposure!

In their letter submitted Monday, October 22, representatives from both parties joined Congresswoman Suzanne Bonamici (D-OR) and Congressman Paul Cook in demanding the VA recognize C-123 veterans' exposure to Agent Orange. The deadly toxin contaminated the fleet of C-123 warplanes, used earlier in Vietnam for spraying Agent Orange.

October 22, 2013

Dear Secretary Shinseki:

Thank you for your work on behalf of our nation’s veterans.  We were pleased to hear that the Department of Veterans Affairs recently reversed its denial of disability benefits for LTCOL Paul Bailey, who served on C-123 aircraft in the years after the Vietnam War.  In light of this, we urge you to reevaluate previously-denied claims for other veterans who also served on C-123 aircraft.  In addition, we ask that you expedite review on current pending cases for the veterans who served aboard these planes, many of whom are suffering from multiple illnesses.

From 1972 to 1982, between 1500 and 2500 aircrew, aerial port, and maintenance staff served on C-123 aircraft that had been used during the Vietnam War to spray military herbicides, including Agent Orange.  These men and women served their country without knowledge of the danger posed to them by the dried herbicide residue on the aircraft.  Many of the country’s top experts on Agent Orange, including the Director of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences and the Director of the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, have written detailed statements supporting the claims of the  crewmembers that they were exposed to Agent Orange.  Despite overwhelming evidence and support from the scientific community, the VA continues to deny that any level of exposure occurred.

As described in a recent Washington Post article, a 2009 recommendation by Hill Air Force Base in Utah stated that “smelting is necessary for these 18 [C-123] aircraft so the Air Force will no longer be liable for ‘presumptive compensation’ claims to any who works around this ‘Agent Orange’ metal.”  This appears to indicate a desire to obscure evidence of Agent Orange exposure in order to deny benefits to those who served; if that is accurate, it is shameful and an affront to many who put their lives on the line for our country.

The C-123 veterans deserve better than this.  Given the vast evidence from the toxicology community, as well as documentation from the military, the VA must seriously reconsider its position on this issue.  Those whose claims were denied deserve to have their files reopened and reevaluated.  And the claims that are still being processed must be given expedited, careful, and thoughtful review.  This attention should be given to all C-123 veterans who, from 1972 to 1982, flew the same aircraft from the same bases and with the same mission.

We will continue to follow this issue closely.  We look forward to a prompt response from you outlining the steps you plan to take to help the C-123 veterans.

Sincerely,

   /Congressional Committee//

C-123 Veterans Expand Website: www.c123cancer.org

The Engineers' Prom??

Acting on the requests and comments, especially from government employees (especially at Hill AFB  and at 810 Vermont Ave) who use office computers barring access to blogs, the C-123 Veterans Association this weekend greatly expanded its web sites www.c123cancer.org and the parallel site, www.c123agentorange.com.

We'll still keep the blog the most current, up-to-date posting of information, but web sites and blogs each offer publishing advantages.

Now, dear readers, you have them both!

C-123 Agent Orange Exposure: Confusion? Cover-Up?

Coverup? Simple failure to act? Dereliction of duty? You decide. In any case, decisions about our C-123 veterans' exposure to Agent Orange were made that worked against our health and welfare, and no competent medical officer, legal officer or aircrew member would have made such decisions without full understanding of the impact on veterans already exposed for a decade to the scientifically-confirmed contamination by dioxin on our aircraft.

So...why did official action after official action over the decades combine only to coverup the Agent Orange impact, and nothing worked to get medical information out to the veterans to guard our health? Is this an event handled differently than would be legally possible in a civil setting - without criminal repercussions for the bad actors involved? Do government and military wonks get to cause such harm without legal response? Where are the heroes of American law to set right this evil ?

Here is the history of the vicious affair as we know it. We don't dare start calling it a coverup or we end up on the heap of dismissed and ignored nutters and conspiracy-therory advocates. So, instead let's call it, without question, a tragic affair, with only the C-123 veterans paying the bill. Another thing we know - after two years of struggle, not a single piece of advice, guidance, or information about the C-123 contamination and veterans' exposure has been offered or released by the Veterans Administration.

Are C-123 veterans (individually, not as a population, evidencing Agent Orange presumptive illness) qualified under the law for Agent Orange exposure benefits? Yes. Other than the amount of push-back exerted against C-123 veterans' claims, total effort wasted helping C-123 veterans: Zero. VA Job One: PREVENT ACCESS TO VA MEDICAL CARE.

C-123 Agent Orange History - USAF takes actions to cover-up?	Yes or No:
•Once 1994 tests showed C-123 “heavily contaminated, USAF also decides not to inform exposed aircrews, meanwhile USAF Museum was forced to decontaminate their C-123 as “a danger to public health”	Yes
•In 1996 USAF Office of Environmental Law directed “all information be kept in official channels only” about Agent Orange contamination	Yes
•DOD Agent Orange consultant, USAF AFMC officials, general officers & Air Staff recommended in 2009 all C-123s be destroyed before exposed veterans learned of contamination & applied for veterans benefits	Yes
•In January 2000 all Air Force surplus C-123s ordered sealed, gathered into HAZMAT “quarantine” storage in specially-selected secure remote area of Davis-Monthan AFB to prevent notice by Arizona EPA & $3.4 billion fine	Yes
•USAF Surgeon General concludes in 2012, following C-123 Agent Orange study, better not to notify exposed veterans to “avoid undue distress”	Yes
•Following January 2000 sworn testimony in federal court by USAF toxicologist Dr. Ron Porter that C-123s were “a danger to public health,” USAF avoided advising exposed veterans	Yes
•USAF informed Walt Disney Films of Agent Orange contaminated C-123s bought for movies in 1999 but avoided also informing exposed veterans	Yes
•Entire C-123 Agent Orange airplane fleet ordered destroyed in 2010 as toxic waste, with Hill AFB Public Affairs taking special steps per DOD Agent Orange consultant to avoid notice by public, press, exposed veterans	Yes

•Special Note: In 2012, DOD’s Agent Orange Consultant publically libels dioxin-exposed C-123 veterans “trash-haulers, freeloaders, looking for atax-free dollar from a sympathetic congressman."   YES

Friends, imagine if this had been the 20-year track record of a chemical spill at a major US employer. Would CNN's Wolf Blitzer, shown company documents like those above focusing on deliberate steps to prevent notifying exposed employees "to avoid undue distress" consider it a cover-up? Would 60 Minutes have fun with the story? 

C-123 Veterans: "Trash haulers, freeloaders" according to DOD official

"TRASH HAULERS, FREELOADERS

 looking for a tax-free dollar from a sympathetic congressman." "I have no respect."

These are the comments, made in an email released earlier this year, by Dr. Al Young. Anyone is welcome to opinions, even if as offensive as this man's, but what makes this absolutely devastating to C-123 veterans is that Dr. Young is the consultant to the Secretary of Defense, and he recommended destruction of the dioxin-contaminated aircraft stored at Davis-Monthan AFB in part, out of concern veterans might learn learn about the contamination and seek VA "presumptive compensation."

The Result: Contempt for C-123 veterans has played a tragic role in preventing access to vital medical care. Another result: VA honored with award of an unsolicited no-bid sole-source two year consulting contract bringing him $600,000 with his VBA contact Mr. James Sampsel from the Compensation and Pension Service. 

Can we assume that VA did not select this particular contractor based on any opinion he held favoring veterans' exposure claims?

The consultant allowed that he had some respect for holders of the Purple Heart and those who'd been in combat. In his contempt, Dr. Young failed to note that a large percentage of C-123 veterans are combat veterans of Vietnam, the Gulf War and other conflicts. Often, many such conflicts, as with the late Lieutenant Colonel Aaron Olmsted. And we C-123 vets wear wings, parachute jump badges, DFCs, Purple Hearts,  POW Medals, Silver Stars, Bronze Stars and other hard-earned decorations as well. Colonel Charlie Brown...a freeloader? General Mike Walker? Master Sergeant George Gadbois?

These offensive comments in an email made public earlier this year in which he was referencing C-123 veterans who might learn the C-123 Agent Orange contamination and who would naturally seek medical care from the VA for Agent Orange illnesses. 

The Deeper Problem: How in the world was anyone able to encourage government officials at Davis-Monthan AFB, Hill AFB, Wright-Patterson AFB and the Air Staff itself to conduct the C-123 destruction project with special efforts to minimize publicity to keep the press and veterans from learning about such a controversial event?

This calls for an IG investigation of the destruction of the retired fleet of C-123 transports, and into the complete failure of Air Force Public Affairs to meet its mission of informing the public!

USAF Agent Orange Consultant Confirms C-123 Dioxin Contamination WAS Greater When First Flown in 1972-1982

In his 24 February 2009 recommendation "Decision Memorandum for Contaminated UC-123K Aircraft" that dioxin-contaminated C-123s stored at Davis-Monthan AFB be destroyed, the DoD consultant commented that the aircraft were less contaminated when tests were conducted in 1994, 1996, 2000 and 2009, than when aircrews flew and maintained them in the years 1973-1982!

OSD'S consultant is the gentleman so familiar with Agent Orange. At first, in the Air Force, he helped develop the military herbicide for use in Vietnam.

One must read his memo of February 2009 carefully! His memo is the most direct smack-down any war veteran could fear! Here is urged the prompt destruction of contaminated surplus C-123 transports stored at Davis-Monthan. He specifically urges the Air Force to attend to likely publicity the event would cause, stating "carefully-worded statements for the media" should be prepared. In other documents, OSD directs that instead of alarming words such as Agent Orange or dioxin in such statements, more benign descriptors of "aged Vietnam-era" aircraft, and that destruction was done because "this action is selected on the basis that these are old aircraft and have been in storage for many years" with little resale potential. Of course, on behalf of the Air Force, William Boor, Director of the 505th ACSS at Hill AFB, UT in November 2009 arranged the prohibition of any further sale of these valuable aircraft specifically "Because of Agent Orange contamination during the Vietnam War"!

This smack-down of C-123 veterans, aircrews whom this OSD consultant and retired USAF colonel publicly labeled "trash-haulers, freeloaders looking for a tax-free dollar from sympathetic congressmen", escalated to the point he recommended destruction of the contaminated C-123s to prevent veterans from learning about their exposure and subsequently approaching the VA for Agent Orange illness treatment. His February 2009 memo detailed the protection which the VA allows for other Agent Orange veterans and stressed media coverage of the destruction he recommended would alert C-123 veterans who did not know of their exposure, and might lead them to seek VA "presumptive compensation."

Does he believe veterans should be barred from such treatment of their exposures? Apparently, both the USAF and the VA eagerly received Young's guidance with the C-123 veterans. In response,  a grateful Major General Busch (the officer who approved destruction of the contaminated C-123s in 2010) promptly labeled Dr. Al Young "one of America's Best." Busch's letters even carried the subject line "Agent Orange airplanes".

Seems the C-123s were no longer Agent Orange airplanes once our veterans started worrying about our illnesses and deaths!

Our C-123 Effort an Embarrassment to the USAF? I hope NOT!

A esteemed gentleman scientist who has kindly guided some of our efforts to gain VA recognition for C-123 aircrews and maintenance troops mentioned that the uncovering of this dioxin problem might be an embarrassment to the USAF. I hope not. I believe not!

The mission is to fly and fight. The mission of the Air Force Medical Service is to maintain the fighting strength, and that is done with world-class health care and by protecting personnel from hazards. Not all hazards of military service can be avoided, but those which can be must be addressed if possible.

This protection should be in place before personnel are at risk. I have never met an airman, NCO or officer who would fail to take every action to protect both civilian and military personnel. I do not believe any Air Force leaders deliberately endangered aeromedical evacuation personnel, aircrews or maintenance personnel.

But, it happened. It happened years earlier than the first signs that our airplanes were toxic, and it was discovered only years after we'd retired the last of them to HAZMAT storage at Davis-Monthan. During the years 1972-1982 there simply wasn't much known about the hazards of TCDD and even less known about how the Provider fleet, once back in CONUS, remained heavily contaminated.

The problem, however, arose when somewhere, somehow...a decision was reached to "keep this information in official channels only" (to quote the AF Office of Environmental Law). Perhaps the need to avoid unnecessary public scrutiny was the reason. Perhaps there was sensitivity to the fact that Disney Films had been sold two toxic airplanes and the dread of a possible headline reading "USAF SELLS DISNEY AGENT ORANGE POISON AIRPLANES" was a concern. Maybe the USAF Security Assistance Center was concerned about visibility for selling toxic airplanes to South Korea and Thailand.

We do know, as the Senior Consultant to the Office of Secretary of Defense detailed in memos to officials at Hill AFB, there was a concern about preventing already-exposed aircrews from finding out and turning to the VA for medical care. This point was also mentioned by Hill officials, as part of the justification for smelting the airplanes and for minimizing the publicity of the final destruction. This last one is most offensive.

This last one really bothers me. Why the heck is the Air Force (with decisions endorsed at the Air Staff level) taking actions in 2010 to prevent veterans injured in 1972-1982, decades after the fact? Why the heck was a consultant who considered the exposed crews "trash-haulers and freeloaders" allowed to make recommendations with such a prejudice against the population involved? Would anyone accept care from a health professional who viewed his/her patients in that way?

So is this an embarrassment? No. There can be no embarrassment about eventually righting a wrong. That's why we wear wings showing unique qualification and acceptance of very important responsibility. Righting a wrong is what responsibility and leadership are all about. What honor is about. That's what the Air Force is supposed to be about! That's what accepting an officer's commission is about. So lets get the facts, understand them, and set things right at least. This can only be done with the Air Force Medical Service supporting the C-123K veterans in our Agent Orange claims before the Department of Veterans Affairs.

This can only be done by the USAF declaring that, even though it is something which is long past, the C-123K was unsafe for flight at the time we flew and subjected our aircrews to a then-unknown toxic hazard. 

The officers and NCOs (almost all now retired) who have taken on this mission have been trained by the best...we are retirees but a core element of the United States Air Force, and we are meeting our moral duty by pursuing this issue with all our strength. Eventually, the lesson will be that the USAF always does the right thing, if given a few chances to think about it :) As officers our commissions continue as do our responsibilities to the Nation and the men and women who serve it.

VA Retroactive AO Rules (per Nehmer decision)

VA Publishes Agent Orange Retroactivity Rules (Nehmer Decision) (this is of greater interest to our Vietnam veterans) Since 1991, the VA has been required to follow special retroactive benefit  rules whenever it grants a disability compensation claim or a claim for death  benefits under the VA’s Agent Orange rules. These rules are very favorable to  Vietnam veterans and survivors of Vietnam veterans and they are contained  in an Order issued by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California  in the Nehmer class action brought by lawyers from the National Veterans Legal  Services Program.                   The VA finally recognized that the retroactive benefit rules are complex and that  VA regional offices and the Board of Veterans’ Appeals need more guidance  on how to apply the rules. As a result, on August 25, 2003, the VA published  detailed regulations that VA regional offices and the BVA must follow in deciding  the effective date of benefits awarded under the VA’s Agent Orange rules. (The  effective date of an award controls the amount of retroactive benefits to which a  Vietnam veteran or a survivor of a Vietnam veteran is entitled when the VA grants  an Agent Orange claim).                                    The new regulations also explain that if the person to whom the retroactive  benefits is owed (that is, the Vietnam veteran or the survivor of a Vietnam veteran  who claimed death benefits) dies before the VA is ready to make the payment,  the VA does not get to keep the money; instead, the VA must make the payment  to the surviving spouse, surviving children, or surviving parent of the deceased  individual, or, if no such surviving family member exists, to the individual’s estate. What follows are:           The new regulation – which is 38 C.F.R. § 3.816; and The VA’s detailed explanation of the meaning of these rules, which the VA published on January 28, 2003, when it first proposed the new regulation.THE NEW VA REGULATION -- 38 C.F.R. § 3.816 § 3.816—Awards under the Nehmer Court Orders for disability or death caused  by a condition presumptively associated with herbicide exposure.               (a) Purpose. This section states effective-date rules required by orders of a United  States district court in the class-action case of Nehmer v. United States Department  of Veterans Affairs, No. CV-86-6160 TEH (N.D. Cal.).                    (b) Definitions. For purposes of this section-              (1) Nehmer class member means:            (i) A Vietnam veteran who has a covered herbicide disease; or              (ii) A surviving spouse, child, or parent of a deceased Vietnam veteran who died  from a covered herbicide disease.               (2) Covered herbicide disease means a disease for which the Secretary of Veterans  Affairs has established a presumption of service connection before October 1, 2002  pursuant to the Agent Orange Act of 1991, Public Law 102-4, other than chloracne.  Those diseases are:               (i) Type 2 Diabetes (Also known as type II diabetes mellitus or adult-onset diabetes).                 (ii) Hodgkin's disease.             (iii) Multiple myeloma.               (iv) Non-Hodgkin's lymphoma.             (v) Acute and Subacute peripheral neuropathy.           (vi) Porphyria cutanea tarda.  | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | Next>>