Skillful Independent Medical Opinion re: Agent Orange & USAF Line of Duty

Here's a terrific independent medical opinion (IMO) written to argue that a post-Vietnam War C-123 veteran should be given a USAF line of duty determination (LOD.)
Why the LOD? Because the VA requires itself to recognize military records when considering a veteran's disability claim. DD-214, OJT records, TDY orders...all these are service medical records establishing a veteran's eligibility for benefits. The LOD is almost as pivotal as the DD-214.
My hope is that the Air Force Board of Correction, or the Federal Circuit Court, will investigate this veteran to determine whether an LOD is warranted. If so, my objective will have been met. I want an example for all post-Vietnam C-123 veterans to anchor their exposure disability back around 1980, so that denies Agent Orange-related VA disability claims submitted between then and now can be reconsidered.
Nothing is certain, even if the AFBCMR issues an LOD. But the example of one C-123 vet getting a retroactive LOD can help everyone else!

Institute of Medicine C-123 Agent Orange Committee Audio

The first panel consisted of Wes Carter, representing the C-123 veterans, and Dr. Al Young, discussing the Department of Veterans Affairs. We each had a five minute intro followed by questions from the committee for about an hour. Two other panels followed, with representatives from Sandia Labs, UC Berkeley, Columbia University, Rutgers University and others.

After lunch the committee arranged five-minute open mike sessions. The most interesting and passionate was from Dr. Peter Kahn of Rutgers University, who not only has spent his life as a scientist but was also leader of New Jersey's Agent Orange Commission for years.

To put it mildly, Dr. Kahn took on the VA (not the IOM) for its intransigence. In the recording, his presentation begins at 3:17:00 and runs about four minutes. Also heard is the C-123 representative, Dr. Loren Erickson who is the new director of Pre 9/11 Post-Deployment Health in the VA's Public Health Section, and finally Mr. Rick Weidman, Legislative Director of the Vietnam Veterans of America.

A couple points. As expert listeners will note, VA makes Agent Orange sound innocent...as innocent as kool-aid in the jungles of Guyana as Rev. Jim Jones hands you a cup and says, "Drink this..good for you!" VA has been a defender for VA/Dow/Monsanto for decades and nothing changes. VA has paid $600,000 for a series of reports, some of which were shared with the IOM.

VA materials also wrongly emphasized the refurbishment of the C-123s before use by the Reserve. VA was wrong in submitting photos of C-123 #664 (Ponderous Polly) of the flight deck and the cargo deck, saying and writing that they were taken as the aircraft came out of Dothan AL on return from Vietnam in 1972. Actually, the photos seemed clipped from the Air Heritage Museum's web page and were taken in recent years, not back in 1972.

At least one committee member challenged VA emphasis on the refurbishment of the C-123s, asking if they'd been so thoroughly redone, why did Patches still test so toxic in 1994. I hope the committee understands that the dioxin was more intense in 1972 when we got the first C-123s than when tested decades later. In one of the VA reports the Department stressed the deterioration of dioxin on the Boneyard aircraft by 2010 but in the committee switched and said there would be very little, if any, deterioration and that the 2009 test results should be interpreted to equal what would have been the case in 1972.

Clearly, all the VA cares about is blocking claims. Any way they can!

All the VA's documents are available to review here.
Our responses to VA documents thru June 16 to the IOM are available to review here.
All the materials submitted at the last minute or after the 16th are available here.
We did a super-rush job clipping a video together, seen here.

The first voice at 00:00;00 is the committee chair, Professor Henrick of Harvard. The second is Wes Carter, then Dr. Al Young, followed by questions from the committee, then another panel, etc.

We tried hard, just as we've done for three hard years (so far.) Now the committee meets over the next couple months to complete their report and submit it for review of the National Academies of Science. Expect it to be several hundred pages. It then should be on the Secretary's desk by the end of September and we'll keep pushing for a prompt decision. Any of our pilots or flight engineers would have done better, but I feel I did okay (for an AME.)

Other efforts continue. We're now going to have time to help individual members get their claims and appeals in with supporting information. We have friends in Congress who are pushing VA and its staffers HARD on their illogical position. We have friends in science, and in government, doing the same on our behalf.

What should you be doing?
1. Get your request in to VA for an Agent Orange Registry exam
2. Watch your PSAs
3. Get your claims in for Agent Orange-associated illnesses...benefits date from the application, not when VA approves!
3. Find other C-123 veterans. We have done a miserable job connecting with folks from Pittsburgh and Richenbacker...they are in the same situation as us but need to get in touch with us – I can't believe they simply aren't interested. Their illnesses must be similar to ours, and they even had one or two maintenance folks win their Agent Orange claims on appeal.
4. Have a great summer and take care of yourselves!

Dow and Monsanto Issue New Defenses of Agent Orange

In papers recently released by the Department of Veterans Affairs (although earlier withheld against Freedom of Information Act requests by stating no such documentation exists,) an article was identified as authored by scientists sponsored by Dow and Monsanto, the wartime manufacturers of Agent Orange. Veterans might recall that Dow and Monsanto are quite defensive when questions arise about their role spreading the toxin worldwide, and their money continues to be spread about to defend themselves.

Authors Ginevan and Ross were retained to focus on the Stellman finding which confirms the C-123 veterans' exposure, and the subsequent Committee of Concerned Scientists and Physicians letter reaching the same conclusion. The chemical firms' writers attack the science used by the independent and unpaid experts...unsuccessfully!

The only news here is that Dow and Monsanto are still spending money whenever and wherever
they can challenge any veterans' hopes of receiving VA medical care for Agent Orange illnesses.

C-123 Exposure Study by Institute of Medicine – More Details Emerge

The National Academy of Sciences Institute of Medicine has been handed a contract by the
Department of Veterans Affairs to evaluate the C-123 Agent Orange contamination and exposure concerns raised by veterans. The study has its first committee meeting May 15, and the final on June 16, with a report due back to the Secretary of Veterans Affairs by the end of September. Veterans hope that, with such a narrow study focus, the report might be finished earlier.
A full description of the VA assignment, the IOM plans for its meetings, and committee members is available at the IOM website or here.

Dermal Exposure – Denied by VA But Confirmed by Science

VA rejects all C-123 clams based on their selective literature review which was designed to avoid reference to publications not fitting their predetermined objective of preventing any acknowledgement of exposure aboard the C-123s. It is not a "blanket policy" for denials, but instead a 100% rejection with what they call a "claim-by-claim" process. We fail to see the distinction...the fact of the matter is the same, total rejection of all C-123 exposure claims. The Senate was misled with Secretary Shinseki's letter.

The fact that the VA's position was formed against us is based on their obvious decision to ignore publications not fitting VA's objective of pretending no exposure occured. Publications such as Leung and Paustenbach and the many government publications addressing hazards of TCDD exposure were dismissed as through they didn't exist.

As mentioned before, exposure is the only qualification we must meet under the law, but VA overlooks that and denies claims not on exposure facts but their redefinition of exposure to include bioavailability. Not very nice of them, indeed, but VA's objective was met...a barrier was constructed to prevent C-123 exposure claims by redefining away our exposure facts.

No C-123 claims are permitted on their watch because they decided in 2011 to prevent claims. That was Job #1. Job #2 was automatic to these folks...just say "no." Then VA Compensation and Pension simply provided boilerplate denial language for the VAROs to use, and twisted VA21-1MR's requirement for the VAROs to consult C&P into similar orders from DC to deny. 

Deny, deny until they die. It doesn't take long to get that impression, true or not.

Further, VA uses their reinvented concept of exposure which requires proof of bioavailability, yet then forbids testing for TCDD bioavailability. Their experts know it is unlikely that any TCDD would be still found, as one study showed known intensive exposures to twelve people only had two showing TCDD still in the body two decades later.

Our exposures, between 1972-1982 were so far back, and TCDD has a half-life in body tissue of about seven years, so testing wouldn't be an effective way to make any conclusion about our own bioavailability.

But studies do support our having had TCDD enter our bodies via dermal contact and inhalation of TCDD-laden dust. 

Check it out. Go to the OSHA Technical Center at Salt Lake City website which states how OSHA wants a surface contamination exposure assessment done.  On pg 2 of the website, in the section titled: Exposure Evaluation:  The fourth reference by Leung and Paustenbach includes a bioavailability dermal factor specific to dioxin and they even included a surface wipe example of dioxin in the paper on pg 194 and use a 1 percent bioavailability factor for dioxin.  

https://www.osha.gov/SLTC/surfacecontamination/

Leung and Paustenbach (1994) Techniques for Estimating the Percutaneous Absoprtion of Chemicals Due to Occupational and Environmental Exposure, Appl. Occup. Environ. Hyg. 9(3) 187-19 cite Shu, et al (1988) Bioavailability of Soil Bound TCDD: Draml Bioavailability in the Rat.  Fund. Appl. Toxicol. 10:648-654 for this bioavailability factor.  In other papers, Paustenbach noted the bioavailability was as high as 1.75% for dioxin.  

So basically, we claim that there is bioavailability of TCDD or dioxin and it was established as early as 1988 and again cited in a peer-review article in 1994 and presented in the OSHA website for how to conduct an exposure assessment of surface contamination of chemical.

And always remember: the law requires only exposure, which we've proven. The VA

pretense that bioavailability is necessary is wrong, but literature supports our having had TCDD bioavailability as well. The most recent scientific article from Environmental Research was "Air Force Aircraft Returned from Vietnam Identified as Source of Post-War Agent Orange Contamination." (Stellman, Berman, Lurker, Clapp)

If you have exposure claims before the VA, consider submitting additional material to counter the VA stacking the deck against us with only half the science. 

Check over the hundred or more source documents on our blog. Submit the rest of the science by including copies of:

1.  Federal Register 31 August 2010, page 53205
2. Air Force Aircraft Returned from Vietnam Identified as Source of Post-War Agent Orange Contamination
3. CDC/ATSDR determination that C-123 crews were exposed and had greater risks of cancer
4. OSHA Chemical Sampling Card
5. NIH/National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences C-123 Finding
6. Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health C-123 Finding
7. Concerned Scientists and Physicians Letter to Secretary of Veterans Affairs re: C-123 Exposures
8. US Public Health Service C-123 Exposure Findings
9. University of Texas Medical School C-123 Exposure Finding
10. Oregon Health Sciences University Toxicology Department C-123 Exposure Finding
11. C-123 Aircrew VA Claim Approval (Paul Bailey)
12. C-123 Maintenance Personnel VA Claim Approval (Rickenbacker–Name Withheld for Privacy)
13. Washington Post Article, Agent Orange's Reach Beyond the Vietnam War
14. ATSDR Terminology, including official definition of EXPOSURE

Most likely, your claim will still be denied on order of Compensation and Pension, but you will have ample evidence to show the Board of Veterans Appeals clear error on the VA's part in denying exposure claims.  The BVA and other officials know that C-123 veterans are being required to submit more documents, reach a much higher threshold of "as likely to as not" proof, than any other veterans ever have been.

Further, as with Paul Bailey, your medical evidence and the documents listed above can motivate a claims official to actually do the right thing and concede service connection.

Press Deception at Hill – and it WORKED – Public Was Completely Deceived!

Air Force Press Deception. Deliberate deception of the public to prevent veterans' disability claims.

In June 2010, eighteen multi-engine Air Force transports were shredded, and then smelted, ridding the military of one of its last legacies of the Vietnam War use of Agent Orange.

Years of plans for this destruction of eighteen Fairchild UC-123K cargo planes were firmed up in 2009. Included in those plans were suggestions from the Office of Secretary of Defense Senior Consultant emphasizing the need for minimal public attention. Agent Orange, dioxin, TCDD, Operation Ranch Hand are still attention-grabbing words of great concern to the public, and especially, veterans.

Hill AFB Public Affairs cooperated with leaders at Davis-Monthan AFB in creating the overall plan, which included a unique example of dishonest, unethical public deception. Focused on minimizing public awareness of the destruction process but aware absence of the aircraft might be noticed, the Air Force crafted a press release. As the consultant recommended, the press release was to be readied in the event of inquiries.


But it was to be a press release not released. And in its creative, but misleading wordsmithing, it remains as much a deception of the press and the public as was failure to distribute the document a deception. In two areas, therefore, it not only violated Air Force regulations governing public affairs, but violated the public trust.

Were there laws broken? Probably not, although EPA should look into some actions. It turns out that the Executive Branch, even the president, has no constitutional obligation to speak the truth. However, most of us consider that part of his/her job description. And we certainly expect truthfulness from military leaders, whose only excuse for deception would be for reasons of security. Not embarrassment.

This entry will take a bit of patience for our readers...there is a great deal of background, all of it relevant. And like colors of painter's palette, the facts come together to form the complete picture. Please give it your patience as the full story comes into view.

The "colors' we'll use for form our picture of Air Force press deception, and Air Force violation of its own strict rules about honesty and openness. Upon those rules rest the public's trust and the trust of our press, and the trust of those wearing the uniform.

The issue begins with the C-123s stored at Davis-Monthan and growing awareness that decades were passing without resolution of the political and environmental problems associated with the warplanes everyone (generals, scientists, attorneys, political leaders) called "the Agent Orange airplanes."

In 2000, base employees filed a complaint with their union, worried about exposure to dioxin on the airplanes which had been moved into HAZMAT quarantine.

Before discussion of the particulars of the C-123 destruction deception, let’s look at what obligations the Air Force sets forth in its public affairs program. While the Executive Branch may not be constitutionally required to be truthful, the military accepts that responsibility...with reservations.

The Air Force regulation governing Public Affairs is AFI 35-101, “Public Affairs Responsibilities and Management.” There we see very interesting statements, including:

a. "The purpose of Air Force PA operations is to communicate timely, accurate, and
useful information.” "The Air Force’s credibility depends on two factors: maintaining professional integrity and communicating timely and truthful information to the public.”
b: "Achieve informed public support for the Air Force and joint operations.”
c. "Information is not withheld merely because it casts criticism on or causes embarrassment to the Air Force."
d. Department of Defense Principles of Information. DOD makes available timely and accurate information so that the public, Congress, and the media may assess and understand the
facts about national security and defense strategy.”
e. "A free flow of general and military information will be made available without
censorship or propaganda to the American public.” “Information is not classified or otherwise withheld from disclosure only to protect the government from criticism or embarrassment.”
f: The Air Force should provide the public with information on its major programs; they may require detailed PA planning and coordination within DOD and with other  government agencies. The sole purpose of such an activity is to expedite the flow of information to the public. Propaganda has no place in DOD PA programs.”
g. Air Force Commanders: Ensure legally required community involvement in environmental issues is conducted in a thorough and timely manner.”
h: All Air Force Personnel:  each person must strive to make sure public
contacts show the highest standards of conduct and reflect the Air Force’s core values of integrity first, service before self, and excellence.

In April 2010 the 75^th ABW, Hill AFB, Utah prepared in advance a press release describing the destruction of the remaining C-123K/UC-123K aircraft at the Davis-Monthan AFB. Management of the information about this process was faulty and greatly harmed Air Force interests.

Throughout the period 2000-2010, intense concern was raised at different agencies, including the Office of Secretary of Defense, the Air Staff, the Air Force Surgeon General, the Air Force Office of Environmental Law, the Deputy Undersecretary of the Army, HQ Air Force Material Command and more. 

The concern: dioxin contamination left on the aircraft from their Vietnam War service as Agent Orange spray aircraft in Operation Ranch Hand.

1993 seems to be the first time when tests were ordered on Patches, the Air Force Museum’s famous C-123, was tested before positioning inside the museum. It tested positive for dioxin…in the words of the Air Force toxicologists it was “heavily

C-123K "Patches" at USAF Museum

contaminated”.

More tests and correspondence accumulate during the period 1994-2000 with the only concerns expressed being the disposal of the aircraft, safety of personnel at the Boneyard, whether Walt Disney films should be told that two of the C-123s they purchased for movie production were possibly contaminated, whether foreign governments should be informed that the aircraft transferred to them were contaminated, and similar correspondence. 

No mention has ever been found of concern for the aircrews who flew these airplanes and had already been exposed, until 2013 when Air Force leaders reported the information had been withheld from the veterans "to prevent undue distress."

In 1996 AFMC’s Office of Environmental Law recommended the contamination be “kept within official channels”, a recommendation endorsed by the writer’s commander, the Director of the Office of Environmental Law.

In 2000 the Air Force joined with the General Services Administration in a court action to stop the contracted sale of some contaminated C123s. The federal judge took their sworn testimony of the aircraft being “heavily contaminated, extremely dangerous, extremely hazardous, extremely contaminated, danger to the public” and other descriptions, and ordered the sale terminated. (note: In 2012, faced with veterans' claims for exposure, the USAF reversed its opinion, saying the planes were actually no danger to the veterans.)

In 2009 the AMARG/AFMC moved towards disposal of the remaining 21 aircraft, but officials knew the planes couldn’t be buried as they were too toxic for a landfill. The recommendation of the Office of Secretary of Defense (OSD) Senior Consultant was to stop testing the aircraft immediately for toxicity…all four had tested positive (two significant and two trace, but any trace is unsafe) and his suggestion was that that result could be taken two ways:

First, because the first four tested had two that were contaminated, it could be inferred that “only two of the 21 aircraft were toxic."

Or worse, that “50% or more of the remaining aircraft were toxic.” As the testing was costly, base officials, acting on the OSD consultant's authority, opted to shred the entire fleet of C-123s, having discovered a loophole in EPA regulations that shredded metal could avoid being classified as toxic waste. EPA regulations were looked at carefully, due to a threatened $3,400,000,000 fine.

The OSD consultant also recommended that the public affairs at Hill and Davis-Monthan prepare for possible media inquiries. He mentioned an article from Orion Magazine, and discussed the worry that a media “storm” that might develop could inform Air Force Reservists who flew the airplanes between 1972-1982 that their dioxin-related illnesses might be brought to the VA for treatment. 

Various drafts of a press release were offered, and the OSD consultant along with other officials “corrected” the drafts by eliminating words such as “Agent Orange”, “dioxin”,  “contamination” and replacing them with words less likely to alarm the public. Agent Orange and dioxin and contamination were replaced with “herbicide” and “aged Vietnam-era airplanes no longer flown.” 

The consultant's words...his agenda formed the Air Force press release:

The question of adverse publicity related to additional sampling or the immediate destruction of the aircraft is important to address. Clearly the Public Affairs Office needs to be involved in either course of action. The longer this issue remains unresolved, the greater the likelihood of outside press reporting on yet another “Agent Orange Controversy”. I recommend the IMMEDIATE DESTRUCTION OF ALL THE UC-123K AIRCRAFT. Public Affairs should prepare a news release in the event that there is a press inquiry. The key issues to emphasize in a press release are “that these old and obsolete aircraft sprayed defoliants in Vietnam 40 years ago”, “they were retired to Davis-Monthan AFB many years ago”, and “that recent analytical data from sampling a representative number of the aircraft indicated that only negligible levels of contamination could be detected.” Thus, “they were destroyed in an approved method used for the destruction of all obsolete aircraft at Davis-Monthan AFB.”

The last part of the statements was clearly deceptive, given the volumes of Air Force memos about companies desperate to purchase the valuable engines and propellers, and museums which wanted them, and private buyers who wanted them so desperately they unsuccessfully sued in federal court to try to force a sale. And lost, because the planes were shown to be dangerously toxic.

The final version of the UC-123’s story was approved by the necessary authorities at the 75^th Air Base Wing. It was not distributed, but held in case of media inquiry. This was a further element of the effort to minimize public awareness of the true story of the event.

Perhaps no lies were told. But there were, indeed, pages of prevarication. Mistruths were constructed to build a story which really had nothing to do with the real news of the event…dioxin contaminated aircraft. Nobody at the 75th ABW PA shop inquired of the managers of the event about the Air Force Reserve aircrews which had been exposed to dioxin on their airplanes for a full decade. Instead, the public affairs officers bent without objection, indeed, apparently with eager willingness, and in complete disregard for Air Force Instruction 35-101, to construct a press release to deceive the media and the public, as well as the Air Force Reservists beginning to wonder why they have cancer, heart disease, acute peripheral neuropathy, ALS, and other dioxin-related illnesses.

A careful reader will note a possibly inappropriate use of a business title implying official actions within and by the Office of Secretary of Defense. That particular consultant was described in several documents from HQ AFMC and the 75^th Air Base Wing as Agent Orange “Senior Consultant to the Office of Secretary of Defense.” 

Later, in an interview with Steve Vogel of the Washington Post, the consultant, Dr. Al Young, said he was acting privately in his work overseeing the C-123 destruction.

This person's attitudes and reactions to Reserve Component aircrews are a specific concern. In his 26 June 2009 position paper regarding the need for speedy destruction of the dioxin-contaminated aircraft, the OSD consultant mentions the media “storm” which might attend the operation and cause aircrews and maintenance workers with dioxin-related illnesses to seek care at the Department of Veterans Affairs. Concerned with the visibility of this event, which he frequently wrote must be low key (and even congratulates base officials on concluding the operation with minimal public attention). 

There has been an obvious careful selection of words to hide the actual event – a prevarication - destruction of dioxin-contaminated aircraft with a potential $3.4 billion dollar EPA or State of Arizona fine. This by presenting a completely misleading press release. There is an ethical standard in preparation of press releases, but it seems to have been ignored here in disregard for AFI 35-101.

The OSD consultant, a retired Air Force officer, in a 10 July 2011 message described the dioxin-exposed Air Force Reserve combat veteran aircrews as “trash haulers, freeloaders looking for a sympathetic Congressman for tax-free dollars.”  This is an inappropriate perspective from a person editing Air Force press releases especially when he helps direct the misinformation concerning events vital to the C-123 veterans' health.

His perspective was certainly consistent. He was hired by the VA to report on the C-123 veterans' exposure concerns and in his November 2012 report he recommended against any recognition of their exposure or disability claims. His involvement is also unique: He helped develop Agent Orange as a tactical weapon while in the Air Force. He advised the AF on disposing the airplanes because of their toxicity, he expressed distain for the veterans who flew the warplanes, and then he recommended that, regardless of other scientific proofs (which he opted not to reference in his report) that the VA block the veterans' disability claims. Thus, he had a significant role in each key part of the C-123 contamination story.

Particular concern has been raised with the 12 February 2010 Staff Summary prepared by Mr. Dwight Eagle of the 505^th. He noted the OSD consultant’s suggestion that although the UC-123K was principally used to spray Agent Orange, because some of them sometimes sprayed other liquids or conducted other missions, it could thus be described in terms of those missions, rather than the Agent Orange-Ranch Hand missions which were the principal employment for the airplane. Cleverly, the consultant had “clarified that the low levels of contamination are not necessarily attributed to Agent Orange, since not all aircraft were used in defoliant operations. Therefore, according to Dr. Young, the aircraft disposal does not have to be publicly announced as portraying or relating to Agent Orange.”

The Air Force Academy Cadet Honor Code Handbook, and other military volumes dealing with honor, considers this press release word-twisting to be quibbling, evasive, and incomplete…a lie constructed from half-truths, and dishonorable. It is perhaps not in keeping with the requirements of the State of Arizona or the Environmental Protection Agency’s rules and regulations regarding hazardous waste storage and their threatened $3.4 billion fine. The work product of the 75th ABW was not public affairs. It was an exercise in prevarication and public deception.

What was the news? The destruction of Agent Orange spray airplanes. And that was precisely the news to be obscured, twisted, avoided.

Today, thanks to many media reports, this story has changed quite a bit from what it could have been, and should have been – the simple “destruction of Agent Orange contaminated aircraft in an environmentally responsible way” to one where the news value is in the early attempts to keep the information in official channels, to one where Air Force public affairs abused the trust of the public and media by misleading them through a poorly-crafted and deceptive press release. 

It morphed, and grew into a situation where public affairs at both Hill AFB and Davis-Monthan AFB failed to bring to the attention of leadership their military and civil service ethical responsibilities. And, although public affairs professionals with clear guidance provided by AFI 35-101, they failed to alert their leaders as to the negative impact of failing to notify aircrews who’d been exposed to the toxins and the health dangers this press release was designed to conceal from us, our families, the media and the public.

Mission...failed.

C-123s Returned from Vietnam Identified as Postwar Source of Agent Orange Contamination

Air Force Aircraft Returned from Vietnam Identified as Postwar Source of 

Agent Orange Contamination

New evidence published in Environmental Research shows personnel exposed to meaningful levels of Dioxin, contrary to current position held by Air Force and VA

·       BY JOSH HICKS

·       

·       February 26 at 6:00 am

The C-123 transport planes that sprayed Agent Orange during the Vietnam War may have sickened service members who worked with the aircraft after the conflict, according to a new study.

The report, published last week in the scientific journal “Environmental Research,” supports claims that exposure to the toxic defoliant after the war is greater than previously believed.

TCDD-contaminated C-123 Aircraft, Tucson AZ

Columbia University health-policy professor Jeanne Mager Stellman, who authored the study, said the findings conflict with U.S. Air Force and Department of Veterans Affairs conclusions and policies.

“Aircraft occupants would have been exposed to airborne dioxin-contaminated dust as well as come into direct skin contact, and our models show that the level of exposure is likely to have exceeded several available exposure guidelines,” Stellman said.

The VA has said that any postwar contamination on C-123s was not high enough to be linked to disease. But some lawmakers think the agency may be wrong.

Sen. Richard Burr (N.C.), the top Republican on the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee, and Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) have asked the VA’s inspector general to review whether the department is inappropriately denying disability benefits to veterans who claim they were sickened by postwar Agent Orange contamination.

 “This is further evidence VA is out of step with the prevailing science — the facts speak for themselves,” Burr said of the report in a statement on Monday.

The VA said it will continue to review new scientific information on the issue as it becomes available and that it has asked the Institute of Medicine to study possible health complications among post-Vietnam C-123 crews.

“VA does not presume by regulation that these veterans were exposed to Agent Orange,” the agency said in a statement. “VA does presume exposure to Agent Orange for veterans who served in Vietnam because of the lack of exposure information that is available. We encourage anyone who believes they were exposed to Agent Orange to file a disability compensation claim or visit a VA health care facility.”

C-123s sprayed Agent Orange in Vietnam from 1962 to 1971 as part of Operation Ranch Hand, and about 1,500 Air National Guard and Reserve crew members flew the planes on cargo missions until 1982.

The study used U.S. Army algorithms and data from surface-wipe samples from aircraft used in Operation Ranch Hand to estimate “dioxin body burden,” comparing the results with available guidelines and standards.

“These models suggest that the potential for dioxin exposure to personnel working in the aircraft post-Vietnam is greater than previously believed and that inhalation, ingestion, and skin absorbtion were likely to have occurred during during post-Vietnam use of the aircraft by aircrew and maintenance staff,” a summary of the report said.

Merkley said in a statement on Monday that he hopes the study “prompts the VA to finally reverse their position and make sure all veterans suffering from Agent Orange exposure get the treatment and compensation they need and deserve.”

The VA in July reversed its denial of benefits for Paul Bailey, a retired Air Force lieutenant [colonel] and postwar C-123 crew member who is sick with cancer. Advocates of the decision have described the move as the first of its kind for veterans seeking compensation for post-Vietnam exposure to the defoliant.

New Science Supports C-123 Exposure Claims - but automatically dismissed by VA

What happened? What'd they do?

That’s right...dismissed. Automatically, with reasons to be developed later if necessary, but like all other evidence supporting C-123 veterans' claims, refused without evaluation.

The decision was against us was reached a year ago...that all evidence supportive of C-123 claims is to be dismissed...disregarded...ignored.(clarification...VA C&P told us that no evidence would ever be accepted to bring a claim to "as likely to as not" and that "probably" all claims would be denied...as all have been since we were told this by VA's Dr. Michael Peterson)

VA Post Deployment Health as well as Compensation and Pension Service (C&P) will not accept Friday’s Environmental Research article about C-123 veterans' exposures for support of the veterans' claims.

This has already been decided and the C-123 veterans informed of the decision. At our February 2013 meeting with the Compensation and Pension Service Director, he and his staff explained that no amount of support or evidence, such as the recent Environment Research article or even official findings confirming our exposures from CDC or other federal agencies, will be allowed to elevate a C-123 veteran's claim to "as likely to as not."

While this seemed extraordinary when we were told by the Director, Compensation and Pension, subsequent conversations with the Acting Chief Consultant Post Deployment Health did make things clearer. We learned, through Post Deployment Health, that none of the C-123 veterans were ever exposed.

As simple as that. Change the definition and the problem goes away. That is, their problem...our diseases still sit on our doorstep, if not theirs. The benefit to the VA is that the infamous backlog gets reduced, it goes into the appeals backlog which nobody cares about, and the decisions due the veterans are postponed for years, with tremendous savings in VA medical care denied in the interim which can be as much as five to seven years.

No dental, no vision, no audiology, no prosthetics, no pharmacy, no rehab, no surgery, no anything. Years with the veteran either doing without these services or paying privately, unless otherwise eligible for VA care for other wounds or injuries.

Any civilian or Civil Service employees out there willing to wait seven years to be treated for an on-the-job injury? Hello? Hello??

Which is why Post Deployment Health directed the regional medical centers to refuse requests from C-123 veterans to receive the Agent Orange Registry exam – VA has already decided these vets were not exposed, by having redefined exposure, so no need for the physical. This was double-checked with Post Deployment Health leadership who explained the policy.

Perhaps...it depends how you define the word exposure? To paraphrase a former president.

Post Deployment Health ruling was made based on her group’s internal redefinition of exposure (Exposure = contamination field + bioavailability.)

Thus, even though C-123 veterans have clearly qualified under the law for Agent Orange exposure benefits, no claims will be approved and, in fact, all claims will be ordered denied by C&P, which even provides the rating officials proper boilerplate language to use.

We're reminded of the Secretary's assurances to the Senate that claims will be carefully, individually evaluated without any blanket policy against C-123 veterans. Instead, claims are carefully, individually evaluated and all denied by policy, whatever name it goes by.

And even though C-123 veterans have clearly met scientific criteria for claiming Agent Orange exposure and proved their exposure as well as increased cancer risk and other health impacts, no claims will be approved. Just ask Post Deployment Health.

At first the C-123 veterans concluded that this was a blanket policy against our claims. Both the
Secretary and the Under Secretary for Benefits assured us and our legislators that VA has no blanket policy against C-123 claims. Apparently, VA uses a different word for blanket policy and can thereby nullify the law providing for our benefits.

No C-123 claims will be permitted to be approved, per VHA. They're right...none ever have been approved, although one denied claim was "reconsidered" once enough attention was generated by newspapers and legislators...LtCol Paul Bailey of Bath, NH. His claim was denied in Feb 2013 and reconsidered in August 2013, just after he entered hospice.

The VA blanket policy (I don't know the word VA uses to describe their universal denial of C-123 claims so I'll use that word for now) leaves only legislative relief, which is unlikely given our ages and illnesses, or federal court action. Court action is also unlikely due to the cost and well-known determination of VA to fight claims as far as possible, thus outspending any resources we might muster for the effort.

Nothing will ever help our claims get approved unless the Secretary takes notice of what has been done to us, or if DOD designates the C-123 spray planes retrospectively as Agent Orange Exposure Sites.

Even then, we can expect Compensation and Pension to fight every claim with passion. That’s their job, their mission. They do it well and with pride.

Hill AFB and Davis-Monthan Officials Deceived Public & Media

In June 2010 the Air Force managed quite well a non-event. Press releases were prepared to not be released.

That's right...press releases were wordsmithed and approved, just in case the media made inquiries. But nobody did. It was a total non-event, just as planed.

The non-event was the destruction as toxic waste of the surplus fleet of obsolete former Agent Orange spray airplanes, the C-123. Davis-Monthan AFB's famous Boneyard had stored them for decades. Something had to be done with what the AF leaders, medical folks and scientists all called "the Agent Orange airplanes."

Why destroy them? Because the EPA was a constant threat...if EPA found out about the earlier base civilian employee complaints, or if the inspectors were able to locate the special HAZMAT quarantine storage area the planes had been moved to, a potential $3.4 billion fine could be levied against the USAF.

$30,000 a day, warned Air Force officials to each other!

So destruction of the C-123 fleet was approved, and accomplished by shredding and smelting the scraps in April-June 2010. All very hush-hush.

The idea was spelled out in base memos...keep everything below the radar. Of particular concern to the Office of Secretary of Defense Consultant was his worry that veterans who'd flown the C-123s after Vietnam, and who were already exposed to Agent Orange residue, would turn to the VA for treatment of their Agent Orange-associated illnesses.

Logical enough from the veterans' perspective. Must be prevented, from base officials' perspective.

The consultant guided base public affairs in eliminating those attention-grabbing words like "Agent Orange." "dioxin," "toxin," and instead created a masterpiece of PA manipulation and press deception..."the airplanes were recycled in an environmentally safe manner to free up desert storage space."

The news was that Agent Orange airplanes were being destroyed by special process because they were too toxic for landfill and too poisonous to be sold. The news was that veterans...already exposed....were to be kept from news that they'd been exposed to the Agent Orange residue left in the warplanes after Vietnam.

At first this was all innocent...nobody seemed to know the planes had remained contaminated. But that fact became known in 1994 when USAF toxicologists learned the planes were heavily contaminated and a danger to public health...their words in sworn federal court testimony.

The AF decided not to tell the veterans. According to senior Air Force leaders, the decision to keep mum was "to prevent undue distress."

Now, the VA and AF both deny the possibility of the veterans having become exposed. VA did this by redefining the word "exposure" in 2012 to require veterans to prove that Agent Orange had affected them..decades after the fact that's an impossibility. The AF opted to simply say it couldn't decide one way or the other, but probably no exposure occurred.

Anything to prevent another 2000 or so veterans burdening the overtaxed VA medical facilities!

Fortunately for the veterans, researchers Drs Jeanne Stellman, Peter Lurker, Fred Berman and Richard Clapp published their article, "Post-Vietnam Military Herbicide Exposures in UC-123 Agent Orange Spray Aircraft." This appeared in the Journal of Environmental Research, and establishes the fact of the veterans' exposures. Not only did the authors contradict the AF and VA positions, they also sharply criticized both agencies' lack of scientific basis for obstructing veterans' claims.

Sometimes, scientists deserve a salute, too!

Environmental Research Journal Proves C-123 Veterans Exposed!

The journal Environmental Research released its article  "Post-Vietnam military herbicide exposures in UC-123 Agent Orange spray aircraft" today. It proves post-Vietnam aircrews were exposed to Agent Orange, previously denied by both the USAF and the Department of Veterans Affairs.

Authors Dr. Jeanne Stellman, Dr. Richard Clapp, Dr. Peter Lurker and Dr. Fred Berman have established that C-123 aircrews and maintenance workers were exposed. That word "exposed" is critical...the law requires veterans claiming Agent Orange outside Vietnam to prove exposure. This article does that!

Dr. Lurker is particularly familiar with the 2012 Air Force Consultant Report which concluded aircrews were probably not exposed. This suggests the report from the Air Force was faulty...the Air Force report was not subjected to critical outside peer review, as was this article released today.

Congratulations to the authors on their contribution to toxicological scholarship. And our thanks as well as for their scientific expertise and assistance to veterans of the C-123 seeking VA medical care and other benefits, thus far denied.

Every veteran submitting an Agent Orange exposure claim, or who has a claim in process, or who has a denied claim being appealed, needs to submit this article to substantiate the fact that our "boots on the airplane" meant Agent Orange exposure. 

Confirmed!