DAV HONORS VBA LEADER THOMAS MURPHY. DAV SHOULD BE ASHAMED!

WHAT THE HECK? As a lifetime DAV member, I'm outraged! DAV has just debased itself and honored the administrator who bottled up our C-123 claims for four years, Mr. Thomas Murphy of the Veterans Benefit Administration. DAV forgets it was Mr. Murphy who approved the infamous no-bid sole-source $600,000 contract to Al Young to oppose Agent Orange claims. DAV forgets its own powerful denunciation of VA and that contract. Only with a blank memory could DAV or any other veterans organization lower itself to "honor" Mr. Murphy. Background: Along with Major Marlene Wentworth, I sat in front of Mr. Murphy in his office the afternoon of February 28, 2013 and read back to him his toxic September 25, 2012 advisory opinion in which he personally denied a C-123 veteran’s disability claim that the regional office had wanted to approve.Each of the four pages of Murphy’s opinion reeked of mistakes and revealed his passion in preventing C-123 claims. He excelled in that passion by denying 100% of our claims for over four years. For this disservice to thousands of C-123 veterans DAV now chooses to honor him? Outrageous! The thrust of that advisory opinion back in 2012 was his dismissal of all expert input establishing a veteran’s exposure from our Agent Orange-contaminated C-123 aircraft. Supporting the claim were reports from federal agencies, including the CDC/ATSDR, NIH, US Public Health Service, the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences. Dozens of experts of the Committee of Concerned Scientists and Physicians also confirmed C-123 veterans’ exposure injuries. 

It is my understanding this particular application had more supporting evidence than any other VA disability claim ever submitted. Where typically a doctor’s note, some proof of service and perhaps an outside expert opinion would accompany a disability claim, this C-123 claim had a full-court press of government and independent experts, all making clear the fact of C-123 Agent Orange exposure. It was, in VA terms, “an overwhelming preponderance of evidence.”

None of which sufficed for Mr. Murphy. Determined to maintain the zero-approval stone wall he and others built against C-123 claims, he simply dismissed everything. He said these scientists and physicians, many of whom previously were VA and IOM experts, weren’t even qualified to comment.

Most outrageous was his dismissal of the report by Dr. Thomas Sinks, Deputy Director of the CDC/ATSDR. Dr. Sinks’ opinion on C-123 Agent Orange was dramatic: C-123 vets had exposure 182-times military safety limits and face a 200-fold greater risk of cancers. Later, Sinks' report would prove pivotal in the final IOM report confirming C-123 exposure injuries.

The Sinks report was also affirmed by the CDC/ATSDR director Dr. Christopher Portier and other NIH executives, including Rear Admiral R.Ikeda MD, US Public Health Service.

Not nearly enough for Mr. Murphy, who trashed the CDC/ATSDR report:

Read carefully Mr. Murphy’s last sentence: "In summary, there is no conclusive evidence that TCDD exposure causes any adverse health effects."  Read that he did not repeat the frightening CDC/ATSDR details about exposures 182-times safety limits, or increased cancer risks.

Agent Orange is harmless? No health effects? Mr. Murphy summarized the CDC/ATSDR report about our 200-fold greater risk of cancers as “no adverse health effects?”

Later, a VA spokesperson called that “an unfortunate choice of words,” but it sufficed for Mr. Murphy’s purpose of ensuring that no C-123 claims would get past his desk. Years would pass before the first claim did succeed in 2015.

With his staff also present, I read his statement to him during our meeting on February 28, 2013 and Mr. Murphy said it would stand. He also said no evidence from whatever expert would permit C-123 claim approval because VHA had already decided we were never exposed. Meanwhile. on the other side of its official mouth, VA was falsely insisting that all our claims were evaluated on a case-by-case facts-proven basis. 

For Mr. Murphy’s mistreatment of thousands of C-123 veterans and his failure to follow his own VAM21-1MR regulation, DAV now stoops to “honor” this Agent Orange claim opponent. Totally disgraceful!

CNN Report: Army Officers Routinely Lie - officers' honor code ignored!

Deeply troubling news about a failure
of ethics and honor among Army officers!

Washington (CNN) 

U.S. Army officers often resort to "evasion and deception,"
and everyone at the Pentagon knows it, according
to a new study conducted by the U.S. Army War College.

"In other words, in the routine performance of their duties as leaders and commanders, U.S. Army officers lie," reads the study, which was conducted by the War College's Strategic Studies Institute.

The 33-page report, compiled following interviews with officers across the Army, concluded that the Army's culture is rife with "dishonesty and deception" at all levels of the institution -- from the most junior members to senior Army officials.

The study's results come after Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel -- who officially left his post Tuesday -- had raised concerns over ethics in the military. Rear Adm. John Kirby, the Pentagon's press secretary, said two weeks ago that Hagel was "deeply troubled" over a spate of ethics investigations in the military.

"I think he's generally concerned that there could be at least at some level a breakdown in ethical behavior and in the demonstration of moral courage," Kirby said of Hagel.

(note: click here to read the C-123 Veterans 2014 challenge to VA ethical failures, presented at the Society of Toxicology.)

And last week, days before Defense Secretary Ash Carter succeeded him, Hagel wrote a memo to the U.S. military's most senior leaders emphasizing the need for increased accountability and a higher standard for ethical behavior -- including among the military's senior leaders.

"The vast majority of our senior leaders are men and women who have earned the special trust and confidence afforded them by the American people. However, when senior leaders forfeit this trust through unprofessional, unethical or morally questionable behavior, their actions have an enormously negative effect on the profession," Hagel wrote.

Hagel urged the military leaders to "strengthen your cultures" and "assess gaps and close them."

The senior officials who received the memo likely didn't learn anything new as the War College's study published this week indicated that senior leaders -- both civilian and uniformed -- also take part in the dishonesty and ethically questionable behavior, or are at least aware of that behavior.

The study describes a "culture where deceptive information is both accepted and commonplace" and where senior officials don't trust the information and data receive -- such as compliance with certain Army training requirements or forms outlining how a mission was carried out.

But Army officers are faced with an increasing number of requirements and bureaucratic hoops, according to the study, and rather than work with a rigid military brass to reform a burdensome bureaucracy, officers will simply sidestep those requirements, lying on forms and often rationalizing their answers.

The result? "Officers become ethically numb," explains the study, which was conducted by Leonard Wong, a research professor at the Strategic Studies Institute and retired Army officer, and behavioral sciences Professor Stephen Gerras, who held company and battalion command roles during his 25 years in the Army.

"Eventually, their signature and word become tools to maneuver through the Army bureaucracy rather than symbols of integrity and honesty," the researchers wrote. "This desensitization dilutes the seriousness of an officer's word and allows what should be an ethical decision to fade into just another way the Army does business."

The study also comes after a string of high-profile ethics scandals involving senior military leadership in recent years, from a cheating scandal involving nuclear missile officers last year and a still-ongoing federal investigation into one of the biggest corruption affairs in the Navy's history.

USAF C-123 Exposure Cover-up? How Could That Be? Impossible !!!

(sarcastic, but it is certainly meant to be!)

C-123 Agent Orange and Veterans’ Exposure – A Coverup? NEVER!

How Could You Think Such a Thing?

Let the word go forth…there could be NO cover-up of the Agent Orange exposure allegedly experienced by those cranky old C-123 veterans. Nothing could be farther from the truth, and veterans need to appreciate the honest, straight-forward treatment of this issue by Air Force civilian and military leaders dedicated to truth, justice and the American way. Honor means everything to today’s Air Force leadership. 

How could the C-123 veterans, guys who flew C-123s, know anything? Even if they variously flew A-37s, F-105s, T-38s, C-124s, KC-135s, C-141s, F4s, B-52s, F5s, C-130s, C-17s and C-5s, in addition to every type civilian jetliner, what could C-123 guys know about flying? What could these guys with basic and frequently, advanced degrees in law, engineering, public health, nursing, physics, history, journalism, theology, fine arts, music, chemistry, criminology, international relations, business administration, accounting, education, aeronautics, public administration, education…what could the C-123 vets possibly know or understand about cover-ups? About aviation? About military issues? Even though their combat experiences range between Vietnam, Grenada, Panama, Gulf One, Somalia and later, what could they possibly understand of warfare?

Let’s make those veterans dispense with foolish thoughts of cover-up right away. Even mentioning cover-up is certain to cause eyes to glaze over, ears to stop hearing, and minds to stop thinking. No, no! No C-123 cover-up ever and here’s the story. Actually, a “non-story” because officially there’s no cover-up, right?