Shamed St. Paul VA executive "demoted" to highly desired job at troubled Phoenix VA Regional Office

St Paul Administrator Ms. Kim Graves

By Allison Sherry, Phoenix Star Tribune

WASHINGTON – Embattled former St. Paul veterans benefits director Kim Graves is being moved a lesser (but one still highly desired and richly rewarded) VA job in Phoenix, senior House Veterans Affairs Committee officials said Tuesday.

The U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs said last week that they demoted Graves to assistant director after the department’s Inspector General found she orchestrated a move to Minnesota from the East Coast and received $130,000 in moving expenses. She also kept her high $173,949 salary, even though her VBA responsibilities in St. Paul were greatly diminished.

After the inspector general’s findings, Graves was forced to testify in Washington. She pleaded the Fifth Amendment in front of the committee, in order to avoid making any self-incriminating statements.

The inspector general’s report, which uncovered similar instances of potential misconduct from other administrators, drew intense and bipartisan criticism in Washington, where VA officials have been scrambling to correct the problems.

Top VA officials in Washington reassigned Graves to the assistant director position in Phoenix, a much larger organization, VA officials told the House Committee.

Graves will take a pay cut, too, though will likely make more than $100,000 a year.

Kay Anderson, the current assistant director in St. Paul, has taken over the helm of the regional benefits office.

The VA has not commented on the shuffling and has not taken steps to make Graves pay back her relocation allowance to St. Paul. It was not clear whether she would get another relocation stipend to move to Arizona.

Graves and other administrators identified in the inspector general’s report could still face criminal prosecution.

Allison Sherry • 202-383-6120

VA IG Report: "VA Managers Lied to Federal Investigators"

By Associated Press September 9 at 3:25 PM
"WASHINGTON — Managers at more than a dozen Veterans Affairs medical facilities lied to federal investigators about scheduling practices and other issues, the department’s inspector general said Tuesday. (Altogether, nearly 50% of VHA management lied to federal investigators, which is a crime.)

Richard Griffin, the VA’s acting inspector general, said his office is investigating allegations of wrongdoing at 93 VA sites across the country, including 12 reports that have been completed and submitted to the VA for review."

That was the bad news from September 9. It shows the breakdown of integrity at the VA's Veterans Health Administration. It leaves veterans convinced that Post Deployment Health and VA National Center for Ethics in Heathcare, both components of the Veterans Health Administration, cannot avoid sharing in this scandal. 

For Post Deployment Health, the failure is their dedication and creativity in obstructing veterans' exposure claims, even in the face of "as likely as not" medical and scientific evidence. The result of their actions has been the denial of VA medical care to an unknown number of post-Vietnam C-123 veterans.  

For VA's National Center for Ethics in Healthcare, their failure is avoiding action on ethical concerns brought to them regarding patient privacy and other issues. Instead of careful investigation in line with their mission statement, their response was to defer concerns to VA's IG which the Center knew had no jurisdiction, or other buck-passing non-solutions.

Other VA agencies have also failed veterans. VBA's Compensation and Pension Service failed Secretary Shinseki by drafting a crafty, disingenuous and error-ridden response to Senator Burr's C-123 inquiry. This is a perfect example of what General Shinseki meant by trusting in the honor and integrity of those helping him meet the needs of America's veterans.

For VA's Office of General Counsel, their failure is willingness to support Post Deployment Health in obstructing veterans' exposure claims by seizing non-existent authority to redefine fundamental scientific and toxicological terms. OGC, rather than guiding the Department in using the breadth of law and regulation to include veterans, instead created barriers to exclude otherwise eligible veterans. Responding to the Yale Law School brief on C-123 veterans, OGC attacked rather than welcomed legal research and scholarly confirmation of the veterans' eligibility for VA care.

For Veterans Benefits Administration Compensation and Pension Service, their failure is also obstructing eligible veterans' claims for exposure care. From preventing input to the JSRRC body of knowledge, from denying claims on the basis that TCDD (a known carcinogen) is harmless, to refusing to accept scientific and medical input supporting veterans' disability claims, Compensation and Pension has faithfully kept in step with VHA's insistence that "We cannot permit C-123 claims." Faced with scientific argument supporting C-123 veterans' exposure claims, VBA instead contracted for $600,000 to create obstruction and confusion, and also failed to follow its own regulations and honor commitments published in the Federal Register.

VA Inspector General Complaint Submitted by C-123 Veterans Seeking Agent Orange Care

To: VA Inspector General

As this issue concerns the denial, or delay, of benefits to approximately 2100 eligible veterans, this is a national, systemic concern. It has led to death and suffering. I request an acknowledgement from the IG for receipt of this concern.

Challenges to VA ethics and science by veterans' associations, legislators, other federal agencies, and by university experts, were answered in June 2014 by Dow and Monsanto-sponsored letters, and by VA-contracted reports described in the attached VA 21-4138.

The construction of claims delays by unscientifically rephrasing of fundamental terms in toxicology, also challenged by other federal agencies, has left eligible veterans denied VA care and forced to seek medical care elsewhere, with resultant death and suffering. This was done without peer review or regulatory authority.

When faced with juried scientific articles clarifying the veterans' situation, and faced with legal findings from Yale University challenging the VA's improper perspective on "exposure," VA's reaction was to create yet another delay in the form of a study.

By contracting an unnecessary study with the Institute of Medicine, and phrasing

the charge to the IOM in such a way that regardless of the IOM finding, no change in the eligibility of the affected veterans could ensue. The information gathered by the hard work of the IOM is of interest but also mostly available from VA and other federal agencies. The study imposed a delay of many months in resolving veterans' access to VA care, and the request for an interim presumptive eligibility was refused.

Calling together a committee of the Institute of Medicine to evaluate the veterans' degree of medical harm, the VHA then sought to frustrate its own process by advocating in the negative, using outside consultants to present the VA perspective who had personal experiences with the issue, and publicly-expressed disdain for the concerned veterans, and who were thus inappropriate advocates for the VA's position, a position itself inappropriate in opposing C-123 veterans' claims. 

No VA contracts were let to affirm the veterans' claims, only to oppose them. Veterans, as individuals, lacked the funds to sponsor research or investigations to counter VA's well-funded advocacy against them.

VA should seek a path to qualify, not disqualify veterans from receiving VA medical care and benefits. VA most especially must not construct barriers for what the law permits, but here VA has built and reinforced those illogical, unscientific and extra-legal barriers since 2011.

Faced with input from a committee of concerned renowned toxicologists, VBA determined the scientists were not qualified to opine on the issue of exposure and veterans' health. Faced with input to the Joint Services Records Research Center from acknowledged experts, medical schools and other federal agencies including CDC, NIH and the US Public Health Service, VA directed JSRRC not to forward any affirming scientific information or interpretation of original scientific source documents, clearly frustrating the veterans' claims by preventing science from reinforcing their arguments.

The standard of "as likely to as not" and "every benefit of the doubt rests with the veteran" is not observed in this instance. Further, VHA and VBA sought not to qualify these veterans but to obstruct their claims. Although repeated assurances published in the Federal Register made clear to Congress VA's commitment to treat Agent Orange exposures of non-Vietnam veterans the same as veterans of that war and that VA informed Congress that no new legislation was needed to do so, VBA and VHA then unscientifically redefined exposure in a VA-unique manner to prevent exposure claims from C-123 aircrew and maintenance veterans.

Attempts by veterans to address this issue through the Secretary, Under Secretary for Benefits, General Counsel, VBA Director Compensation and Pension Service, Portland VARO supervisor, JSRRC and other authorities were unproductive and over three years have passed with continued abuse of these veterans' earned right to VA medical care. VA thus avoided the cost of their medical care and reduced waiting time for appointments by preventing these veterans from entering VA hospitals.

The issue was well-reported in the press, beginning in 2011. The issue was brought to the attention of the Secretary by Senators and Congressmen. The issue was brought to the attention of the Secretary by concerned scientists and physicians. The issue was brought to the attention of the Under Secretary for Benefits by other federal agencies. The issue was brought to the attention of the VA National Center for Ethics in Health Care. All without solution.

VBA even created an Advisory Opinion denying a veteran's Agent Orange exposure claim with the statement, "In summary, there has been no conclusive evidence that TCDD exposure causes any adverse human health effects." Denying Agent Orange exposure benefits because Agent Orange exposure is harmless is wrong. When read in person to the Director Compensation and Pension (over whose signature the opinion was issued) no correction or explanation was made and the Opinion left to stand in denying the veteran's claim.

Denial of VA medical care has predictable suffering and death. Creating special definitions of exposure to prevent exposure claims is a situation demanding classification as to what kind of wrong.

The C-123 veterans consider that the VA redefinition of exposure to prevent our exposure claims is unethical and borders on the criminal, at least from the perspective of our own pain and suffering, and watching dear comrades die with claims delayed or denied.

Wesley T. Carter, Major USAF Retired

DOD Inspector General Complaint filed by C-123 Veterans Association

Today the C-123 Veterans Association filed an official complaint via the Department of Defense Inspector General Hotline, asserting failure of DOD officials to designate Agent Orange-contaminated C-123 aircraft as "Agent Orange Exposure Sites," on a list maintained by the Department of Defense.

Because the presence (or absence) of sites on the Agent Orange Exposure Site List guides VA in approving or denying veterans' exposure claims, failure by DOD to place these toxic Agent Orange spray aircraft has endangered the health of veterans. VA cites the absence of these Vietnam War Agent Orange-spray aircraft as proof against veterans' claims.

This is unscientific and illogical. The contamination of the aircraft was established

by the Air Force itself over decades of testing. More current analysis of those tests led the CDC/Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, the NIH/National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences and the US Public Health Service to inform the VA that the aircraft were contaminated with deadly dioxin, and the veterans exposed.

Most telling was the analysis by Dr. Tom Sinks, Deputy Director of the CDC/Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry who concluded that the veterans were indeed exposed, and have a 200-fold greater cancer risk.

C-123 veterans have sought VA care for their Agent Orange illnesses for years, without success. VA even has denied C-123 veterans' exposure benefits, insisting that the toxin in Agent Orange is harmless. This is a wrong which veterans call on DOD to remedy.

President Obama Orders Investigation of VA "Secret Lists" & Veterans' Deaths

MANILA, Philippines (AP) — President Barack Obama says the U.S. will get to the bottom of whether veterans were denied help they needed at a VA hospital in Arizona.

Obama says he immediately ordered Veterans Affairs Secretary Eric Shinseki to investigate following allegations that up to 40 Arizona veterans died while awaiting medical appointments at the Phoenix VA Health Care Center.

Obama says he takes the allegations, quote, "very seriously." He says an inspector general is also investigating.

Obama says he wants to ensure not a single U.S. veteran lacks the help they need. He says he's increased the VA's budget more than any other agency in his government.

Obama spoke at a news conference in Manila while traveling in the Philippines.

US Army Fails to Respond to IG Inquiries: Months Pass Without Action

US Army Inspector General

Problems in Fort Belvoir!

In the Fall of 2012, C-123 veterans submitted concerns via proper channels to the US Army Inspector General regarding the Army's Joint Services Records Research Center, Fort Belvoir, VA. The concerns were the failure of proper interaction between JSRRC and the VA liaison office. VA inquiries to JSRRC were being returned with inadequate documentation which doomed C-123 veterans' Agent Orange exposure claims.

Initially, discovering the absence of JSRRC documentation and the subsequent VA denial of claims based on that JSRRC response, the C-123 veterans delivered in person hundreds of pages of official documentation.

Months have passed. And so have too many veterans, passed waiting for help from the Army!

JSRRC, Fort Belvoir, VA

JSRRC's archivists work only with official documentation. Unit histories, ship logs, after action reports, anything official. In our case, flight orders, C-123 dioxin test results, official correspondence, all such things were provided the Chief of JSRRC in person as well as via repeated emails. We were told they then had enough in hand to respond properly to VA inquiries.

We even provided input from the USAF Historical Records Research Agency regarding Patches and other other Agent Orange spray aircraft. Flight orders, Form 5s, AF test reports, correspondence.

Things seem to have broken down. First, we'd expected JSRRC to update their responses to earlier VA inquiries which had been improperly substantiated. That didn't happen. JSRRC explained they would provide such updates only to military or VA sources.

As of March 2014, VA still has JSRRC material denying any evidence of my own Agent Orange exposure dated 2012, before JSRRC's records were updated. That is because VA's liaison officer to the JSRRC, Mr. Sampsel, very deliberately does not ask for an update – that is to insure that only the initial, negative JSRRC documents are in VA files to insure that the exposure claims and appeals remain denied.

VA Mr. Sampsel informing Portland VA no info or acknowledgement of C-123 exposures; he has been provided that for his own VA files but defers to JSRRC, and then directs JSRRC which info to use or ignore on response

JSRRC info has been updated to adequately substantiate C-123 veterans' exposure to military herbicides. That even includes federal agency (CDC, NIH, EPA, US Public Health Service) interpretations of that AF test data and establishes the contamination and the veterans' harmful exposures. Mr. Sampsel, apparently, has directed JSRRC not to accept that information with his instructions that only MILITARY source documents will be acceptable, and discarding as well all the universities and other scientists who've analyzed the military documents to explain the veterans' exposure.

Further, Mr. Sampsel suggests PVARO continue in his own pretense that C-123 exposures were "secondary" or "remote." Not the case. Our exposures were direct skin-on-toxin as well as via inhalation. His clever but deceptive word switcheroo notwithstanding, exposure was direct and primary.

All this was detailed to the IG without response. For some reason, they asked for the details again, and were given it in great detail along with supporting documentation. Complaints went to our congressional representatives, who were told the VA has faithfully asked JSRRC for C-123 information, and told by the JSRRC that they have at least three "acceptable" military source documents to use, but nothing has changed.

Why? VA needs to prevent or at least delay veterans from entering their system, at least, Agent Orange exposed veterans not specified by law as eligible for VA care. The law also provides that veterans outside the Vietnam Boots on the Ground population will be treated if they prove exposure...and using a negative JSRRC response is an important element in VA's ability to refuse care. By keeping accurate JSRRC information from being fed to the VA, VA can deny claims.

JSRRC negative response, dooming VA exposure claim. Amazingly, VA is even referred back to its own incorrect web pages to help deny the veteran's exposure claims. Despite requests to JSRRC and to VA and to Congressional representatives, JSRRC has not updated this 2012 response even though JSRRC acknowledges it now has updated archival materials confirming the veterans' exposures aboard the C-123 fleet, blocked by VA maneuvers to prevent accurate and complete information from interfering with claim denials

Veteran with exposure claim

Obviously this problem might straighten itself out based on the solid evidence once the veteran's claim reaches the BVA, but even there VA wins...they've been able to delay providing care for the three to five years a BVA appeal requires.

From their VA perspective, hopefully the veteran is dead by that time and VA is faced with only the goal of obstructing the survivor's claims and prevent paying burial costs...that's another battle but VA delays, delays, medical care at the most important time.

Another victory using delay tactics, stalling a sick veteran's claim for years: get the vet discouraged enough with the claims that they seek treatment through Medicare or private insurance. Thank them for their service, then show 'em the door. Veterans sick with prostate cancer get their treatment outside the VA system and VA saves costly medical care by thrusting it onto private insurers...or the vet postpones treatment altogether.

VICTORY! Another valid claim denied

Remember: The vet files for VA disability when the vet is already ill. By design, VA has the claimant wait two years or so to have VA issue their automatic denial. The vet then waits two to three years, sometimes five, for Board of Appeals final justice.

Four to seven years, when the veteran has been already diagnosed with illnesses such as ALS, soft tissue sarcoma, heart disease...those years are critical to the patient seeking life-saving medical care, but also critical to the VA seeking to avoid providing that expensive life-saving medical care. The partnership between JSRRC and VA insures millions of dollars in avoided medical care for Agent Orange exposed veterans...and it is a highly successful partnership. To VA, this is a take-it-home and brag about it to the family victory to be proud of. And they are so very proud.

Repeat: The vet is already ill and VA established a delay system preventing any care at all letting for around four to seven years...that saves big, big bucks!

The catch-up financial compensation is nothing compared to costly medical care for a terminally ill multisymptom vet. VA avoids the most expensive part of a veteran's lifetime of medical requirements.

JSRRC still has its two-year old negative response to the Portland VARO inquiry,and no update with correct information.  There has been a very deliberate decision by VA to avoid any request to JSRRC for an update, because that would support the veteran's claim rather than insure it being denied.

Compounding the problem, the Army's IG has avoided any action on an official IG complaint to them for over six months in the face of people being denied VA medical care for want of Army assistance.