Supreme Court: Retirees Can Be Court-Martialed for Crimes Committed After Service

22 Feb 2019
Military.com | By Patricia Kime (FORWARDED BY PAUL BERGERON)

The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld the Defense Department's authority to prosecute retired service members for crimes they commit, even after retirement.

The court on Tuesday chose not to hear the case of a retired Marine who was court-martialed for a sexual assault he committed three months after leaving the service in August 2015. By not accepting the case, Larrabee v. the United States, the court upheld the status quo: that military retirees are subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice. The denial of Larrabee's petition marks the high court's second rebuff in a year of a case involving a military retiree accused of non-military crimes in retirement.

Retired Marine Corps Staff Sgt. Steven Larrabee was convicted of sexually assaulting a bartender, the wife of an active-duty Marine, at a bar in Iwakuni, Japan, where he worked as a civilian. He had been retired -- technically, placed on the Fleet Marine Corps Reserve status list -- for three months.

Following a general court-martial in which he wore civilian clothes, Larrabee was sentenced to eight years' confinement, a reprimand and a dishonorable discharge. In a pre-trial agreement, Larrabee's prison term was reduced to 10 months.

Larrabee served his sentence but tried to have his conviction overturned on appeal, arguing that he should have been tried in a civilian court, as the offenses occurred after he was retired.

The case closely resembles that of retired Gunnery Sgt. Derek Dinger who, also while living on Okinawa and on the Fleet Marine Corps Reserve list and, later, the Active Duty Retired List, was found to be in possession of and producing child pornography. He was arrested and initially indicted within the civilian courts, but his case ended up in the military court system, where he was convicted and sentenced to nine years' confinement and a dishonorable discharge.

Dinger appealed his discharge, arguing that the case should not have fallen under the military court system and that a dishonorable discharge should be reserved for "those who separated under conditions of dishonor."

His challenge also was petitioned to the U.S. Supreme Court. It was denied last June.

Attorneys for both Marines argued that the cases should have been considered by the U.S. Supreme Court because they have far-reaching consequences for military retirees. The law stipulates that "retired members of a regular component of the armed forces who are entitled to pay" and "members of the Fleet Marine Corps Reserve" are subject to court-martial jurisdiction.

The reasoning, the government argues, is that retirement is simply a change of military status and retired personnel are subject to recall should the need arise.

But Stephen Vladeck, a University of Texas law professor who represented Larrabee, said that this argument no longer holds true with the rise of the reserve component. He called the idea that retirees are reserved for future service "anachronistic," adding that military retirees are no longer among the "pool of persons at the ready" and thus should not be subject to the UCMJ.

"Increasingly, the function has been performed by reserves, not retirees," he said.

Furthermore, Vladeck said in an interview with Military.com, there are articles in the UCMJ that could place many military retirees at risk for arrest, and the U.S. Supreme Court has an interest in weighing in on how cases involving retirees are handled.

He cited one provision in the UCMJ that makes "contemptuous words" used by a commissioned officer "against the president, the vice president, Congress" and others as punishable by court-martial.

"From Adm. Bill McRaven to Gen. Michael Hayden and Gen. Martin Dempsey, some of President Donald Trump's more visible critics of late have been retired military officers. And a provision of federal law ... makes it a crime, triable by court-martial," he wrote in a blog post on Lawfare. "But does the Constitution really allow the government to subject to military trial those who have retired from active duty -- in some cases, long ago -- even for offenses committed while they are retired?"

Yes, it does, according to the Supreme Court, in its denial of Larrabee's and Dinger's writs of certiorari.

Retired Maj. Gen. Charles Dunlap, former deputy judge advocate general of the Air Force, concurs.

In a Feb. 16 post on Duke University School of Law's Lawfire blog, Dunlap said Congress explicitly states that the UCMJ applies to retirees and that Vladeck's arguments about the impropriety of senior officers speaking out against the president, as well as the "anachronistic" idea that retirees can be recalled to active duty, aren't valid.

He added that the very act of receiving retired pay means that retired personnel are choosing to keep a relationship with the military and accept all that goes with the choice not to terminate their commission or request a discharge.

"As a retired service member subject to military jurisdiction, count me among those of my comrades-in-arms who believe it a small price to pay to maintain the connection with the armed forces," Dunlap wrote.

Meanwhile, the Supreme Court's refusal to hear the Larrabee case may not be the end of the legal road for the retired Marine. According to Vladeck, Larrabee may consider suing for back pay in the Court of Federal Claims. Vladeck believes his client is entitled to do so under the Military Pay Act.

-- Patricia Kime can be reached at Patricia.Kime@Military.com. Follow her on Twitter at @patriciakime.

Important VA and military abbreviations

This list copied from a YUKO post by SC Vet .

Acronyms Used When Veterans Benefits Are Involved. 

Acronymns, Abbreviations, and Short-cuts used by the Government, both State and Federal, as well as by involved individuals when discussing Veterans Benefits, Retirement and Disability:

38 CFR - Title 38 Code of Federal Regulations
38 USC - Title 38 of the United States Code
A&A - Aid and Attendance
AAFES - Army & Air Force Exchange Service
ABD - Annuity Beginning Date
ACE Automated Certificate of Eligibility
AD - Active Duty
ADA - Americans with Disabilities Act
AFEES - Armed Forces Examining and Entrance Station
AIS - Automated Information Systems
AL - American Legion
ALS - Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis
AMC - Appeals Management Center
AMVETS - AMVETS (American Veterans)
AO - Agent Orange
BCD - Bad Conduct Discharge

New Retired Affairs Office Report Issued

Recently the military's Retiree Affairs Office released a huge review of current military and veterans' issues. CLICK HERE for their December 2014 report. CLICK HERE for their equally-helpful October 2014 report, which includes an excellent article debunking the supposed-advantages of the Redux retirement option and its 15-year $30,000 bonus...which ends up costing retirees hundreds of thousands of dollars in lost retirement benefits compared to regular retirement plans.

Tom Philpott also did a great article on this scheme, so horrible a blow to military members it makes the military one of the worst predators around.

Why C-123 Veterans Are Seeking VA Service Connection for Agent Orange Illnesses

I was asked today by one of our veterans why are we requesting VA Agent Orange benefits.

The question was put to him by a local reporter during an interview last week in Phoenix.

I'm no expert but here's what I think apply but do your own research to be sure. The VA and DOD both have comprehensive web sites.

1. Proper honoring of your hazardous service to the Country
2. Most of our C-123 veterans are not retired military nor otherwise VA disabled, so the VA service connection for their Agent Orange-presumptive illnesses means VA medical care and compensation they don't now receive
3. All veterans with 50% or more VA disability can receive optical care, audio, prosthetics and other benefits not provided under Tricare. At 100% disability there is also dental care. At 80% disability plus unemployability, certain long term health considerations. I have been blessed with VA protection for two decades and am grateful for the skill and dedication of every health care practitioner I've encountered! VA care is not sought because it is free but because it is excellent!
4. VA compensation is tax-free and may "shelter" all or most of the military retiree's service pension
5. Most states have significant benefits for disabled veterans, such as property tax relief, motor vehicle registration, etc.
6. Survivors of veterans who die of service-connected illnesses and injuries, or who are totally disabled for ten years or more, are eligible for Dependent's Indemnity Compensation of approximately $1250 per month, tax exempt
7. If the military retiree was paying for survivor benefits and the survivor is also eligible for VA's DIC, the premiums withheld from the military pension are refunded to the survivor
8.  VA medical care to veterans who have to travel certain distances is reimbursed
9. Agent Orange illnesses make military retirees eligible for "combat related special compensation" and can mean keeping certain percentages of both the military pension and the VA pensions
10. Most of us are past having children in college, but eligible dependents have generous federal and often, state educational benefits
11. Disabled dependents of disabled veterans have certain benefits, including benefits which survive the veteran

There are certainly more reasons to seek a VA disability claim than are listed here...and an hour on the Internet or spent visiting a veteran's service officer from your state or DAV,VFW or Legion will be more informative.

National Veterans Legal Services Program Seeks to Identify C-123 Veterans

Projects currently underway at the National Veterans Legal Services Program (NVLSP) have led them to ask The C-123 Veterans Association to identify post-Vietnam War C-123 veterans.

Yesterday, NVLSP informed us they are particularly interested in reaching out to C-123 vets who are military retirees – get word back to them directly by filling out their Internet inquiry page so they can evaluate your individual situation. Of special note is their assistance with Combat Related Special Compensation, and the fact that VA-acknowledged Agent Orange exposure meets the "combat related" or "instrumentality of war" requirement for CRSP...and can make your military disability income tax free.

Don't forget...contact the NVLSP!

VA: Doing it Right Big Time!

VA's Under Secretary for Benefits, retired Brigadier General Allison Hickey, announced some time ago a terrific, terrific, superb prioritization for veterans' claims, the last line of which satisfies me completely!

Finally, people leaving active duty can expect their VA claims to be awarded within two months of separation! It used to be years...literally. Years during which the VA refused medical care and every other type of benefit associated with "service connection."

Like other retirees, I am disappointed with the pace of my own VA claims, but I am perfectly willing to wait in line for a decision behind troops just coming off active duty. This arrangement, plus "presumptive eligibility" to allow VA to treat veterans until their claims work through the system, meets any concerns I have about VA refusing care to those veterans who need it!

Well done, VA!

As we focus on the oldest claims in our inventory, we will continue to prioritize claims for homeless Veterans and those with extreme financial hardship, the terminally ill, former Prisoners of War, Medal of Honor recipients, and Veterans filing Fully Developed Claims. Also, those who can no longer serve in the military because of combat wounds, or other non-combat injuries or illnesses, will continue to have their disability compensation processed through the Integrated Disability Evaluation System (IDES), which is separate and distinct from the inventory of claims impacted by this initiative.  Wounded, ill and injured Service members on average receive their disability compensation within two months of leaving the military."

A Lighter Spirit, Saturday Morning After Feeding the Grandkids

What not to ask a veteran...

Always my favorite - beats "I'm with Stupid –>"

C-123 Veterans Excluded from Agent Orange Registry Exam effective 5 May 2013

This morning, VA's Deputy Director Post-Deployment Health, part of the VA's Office of Public Health, corrected our understanding regarding the Agent Orange Registry exam. C-123 veterans, unless otherwise qualified through Vietnam service, are not eligible for this screening examination.

Originally, the current  Jun 2 2012 Internet page specified eligibility for any veteran believing him/herself to have been exposed.  Recent interpretations of that page have added language denying coverage for dried Agent Orange and specifying only liquid Agent Orange, thus restricting us from eligibility. The new version reads:

"Other potential Agent Orange exposures

• Veterans who may have been exposed to herbicides during a military operation or as a result of testing, transporting, or spraying herbicides for military purposes. Learn about herbicide tests and storage outside Vietnam. Agent Orange or Dioxin dried on surfaces does not present a significant threat to human health. Veterans are eligible if they were in the presence of liquid Agent Orange such as when Agent Orange was sprayed, tested or transported."

The language of the Internet page which now provides for us to be included will probably be updated to exclude us at some point to address this confusion. I don't know what the impact will be on any Agent Orange claims but the Registry exam was never a part of the disability application process so there should be none.

Thanks to the VA's Post-Deployment Health for detailing these important changes for us. 

Help Needed to Refute VA Dismissal of C-123 Dioxin Exposure as "Secondary"

Under Secretary Allison Hickey

The C-123 veterans need help addressing a couple of the positions VA has taken in order that they might deny our Agent Orange exposure claims.

General Hickey, in her 1 October 2012 letter to me, stated “Currently, there is no equivalent legal basis for acknowledging "secondary" or "remote" Agent Orange exposure, such as that from contact with material or equipment previously used in Vietnam.” She, and the Director Compensation and Pension (C&P) have used that language to deny claims like mine.

This language is very similar, and perhaps even taken from Fast Letter 09-20. Issued by then-Director of Compensation Services Bradley Mayes, it addressed Thailand and other exposure situations outside the “boots on the ground’ population, and stated the VA allowed “no presumption of ‘secondary exposure’ based on being near or working on aircraft that flew over Vietnam or handling equipment once used in Vietnam…no studies that we are aware of showing harmful health effects for any such secondary or remote herbicide contact that may have occurred in Vietnam.

 

In their zeal to prevent claim approvals, Compensation Services clearly misstates the situation involving C-123 aircraft, proven contaminated by multiple Air Force tests. The C-123 veterans’ exposure was primary…not secondary. Secondary exposure a completely different situation in toxicology than that which applies to C-123 veterans. The C-123 crews, maintenance and aerial port personnel had long-term, intense, direct contact and thereby exposure to aircraft “heavily contaminated” with military herbicides, including Agent Orange and its toxic TCDD. It is scientifically incorrect for the VA to label exposure aboard C-123 aircraft to be merely “secondary.” It is therefore improper to dismiss C-123 veterans’ claims on the unscientific basis, erroneously presented, of mere secondary exposure when the instead these veterans endured primary (also known as initial) exposure, via dermal and inhalation routes, and perhaps ingestion as well.

Scientifically, and logically, “secondary exposure” is extremely simple – to touch that thing which first touched the contaminant. The hand touching the toxin, then touching the airplane, results in secondary exposure to the next hand touching the airplane. The VA should recognize that ours is the initial hand and not the secondary hand. Follow? The first hand has primary exposure, the second hand secondary expsoure.

C-123 veterans take no position on whether, as General Hickey states, there is or is not any legal basis for acknowledging secondary Agent Orange exposure, or remote Agent Orange exposure. That is not our situation, and that is not our mechanism for having been exposed to Agent Orange and other military herbicides, because our exposure was primary.

Kindly solicit the opinion of qualified experts from the CDC/ATSDR or NIH/NIESH, or any beginning toxicology graduate student, or even Google the definitions of “secondary exposure” and “remote exposure” to resolve any lingering question regarding the inappropriate, and apparently highly selective, application of these terms employed to deny eligible C-123 veterans’ claims. These claims are well-founded, clearly have merit, are substantiated by appropriate federal government agencies, reputable universities (Columbia, University of Texas, Oregon Health Sciences University, others) and independent toxicologists (and whose opinions are perfectly acceptable to the Institute of Medicine which routinely seeks out their counsel [Dr. Stellman, Dr. Birnbaum, Dr. Schecter], and clearly are not “inherently incredible”, to use the language of FL 09-20 and other VA documents. The critical observer will see these names cited through the IOM reports and elsewhere in peer-reviewed publications. The critical observer will not a similar presence for authors of the VA’s position.

Dr. Tom Sinks, Deputy Director of the CDC/Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, reviewed the situation and in his finding repeated the VA position “(the) VA has concluded the potential for long-term adverse health effects from Agent Orange residues in these planes is minimal. Even if crew exposure did occur, it is unlikely that sufficient amounts of dried Agent Orange residue could have entered the body to have caused harm.” He then disputes the VA website information and language used in denying several veterans’ claims with his conclusion “I believe that aircrew operating in this, and similar, environments were exposed to TCDD.” Dr. Sinks did not find our exposure to be secondary. He did not find it to be insufficient to cause harm. He found it quite harmful, and also noted our cancer risk was 200-times greater than the screening value.

Can a reasonable rating officer review the C-123 veterans’ claims and dismiss them as inherently incredible, lacking merit, without scientific foundation, deceptive? That doesn’t seem to be the case, especially given the support of these claims by the EPA, NIH and CDC.

If a rating officer requires a C-123 veteran to submit evidence elevating a disability claim to the threshold of “as likely to or not” or deserving of the “benefit of the doubt,” adequate evidence has been submitted to satisfy that requirement. If a rating officer properly insists the veteran meet the law’s requirement of proving contamination and exposure, those proofs have been submitted and the veteran need only substantiate having an Agent Orange-presumptive illness for a claim’s approval.

The law requires veterans claiming benefits but who do not have Vietnam boots on the ground service to submit evidence of exposure to military herbicides to be considered for disability compensation. The C.F.R.s fine-tuned this with the VA’s stated obligation of treating veterans in this category the same as boots on the ground veterans.

The EPA defines exposure as “contact between a person and a hazard.” Another EPA definition is “contact between a chemical or biological agent and the outer boundary of an organism.” Therefore, our veterans’ skin coming into contact with the military herbicides throughout the interior of a contaminated C-123 resulted in primary exposure. The law does not state how much contamination. The law does not state how much exposure or what kind. The law does not specific what color, what flavor, what brand, what anything regarding the toxin other than it be “military herbicide” which, in our case, is Agent Orange.

Clearly the Department of Veterans Affairs has categorized C-123 veterans’ exposure as “secondary” merely to provide some basis, however shaky, for dismissing perfectly legitimate disability claims. These veterans had primary exposure, that exposure was to dioxin present on a wide variety of surfaces inside the warplanes (dust, ceramics, glues, wood, paper, cardboard, glass, composites, bare aircraft grade aluminum, paint on metal and other surfaces, fiberglass, glass, leather, nylon, dunnage of all types, and other surfaces) and that exposure was via dermal, inhalation and perhaps ingestion routes.

We're calling for any expert to weigh in on this. We need especially those experts in the federal government to comment. The Army's Public Health Command is looking into the issue, and considering especially the VA's dismissal of wipe tests used to determine the C-123 contamination and potential for exposure. Can you help? Can you provide a scientific or a legal opinion to help us?

History of Agent Orange Warfare

from: Agent Orange Record

(Agent Orange Chemical Structure)

A war against an implacable enemy. One who lives among the population. And who hides in the terrain.

Four decades before our involvement in Afghanistan, America had encountered a similar foe in the jungles of Vietnam. It desperately needed some way of countering the enemy’s ability to hide from its guns and bombs while living off the land.

Why Agent Orange?

From 1961 to 1971 (as shown in the Chicago Tribune chart, left), the US government sprayed some 20 million gallons of herbicides and defoliants over vast areas of South Vietnam (and to a lesser extent in Laos, Cambodia, and even, marginally, North Vietnam), in “Operation Trail Dust.” Some 95% of the herbicides were sprayed by the US Air Force flying UC-123Ks as part of “Operation Ranch Hand.” Fitted with specially developed spray tanks with a capacity of 1500 gallons of herbicide, the planes typically sprayed a 14 kilometer (8.5 mile) swath of land in about 4 ½ minutes. The remaining 5% were sprayed by backpacks, hand, helicopters and trucks around US military installations by the US Army Chemical Corps and allied forces. The herbicides sprayed were up to 50 times the concentration that would have been used for normal agricultural use.

The most common herbicide used was Herbicide Orange, more commonly referred to as Agent Orange, a fifty-fifty mixture of the two herbicides 2,4-D and 2,4,5-T. The other most common color-coded chemicals used were Agent Blue, primarily used against food crops, and Agent White. Petroleum distillates such as diesel fuel would be added to achieve the proper viscosity for aerial spraying.

What was the rationale for the program? When President Kennedy came into office in January 1961 the question of what to do in Vietnam was already brewing. By May of 1961 the US objectives in Vietnam were to "prevent communist domination of South Vietnam; to create a viable and increasingly democratic society, and to initiate, on an accelerated basis, a series of mutually supporting actions of a military, political, economic, psychological, and covert character to achieve this objective."

The US helped South Vietnam to develop the Combat Development and Test Center in order to identify which military tactics and weapons could be used against the guerilla struggle they were facing.  Among the prime competitive advantages of the enemy was their ability to hide in the forest cover while living off the land, so a herbicide powerful enough to deny the North Vietnam Army (NVA) and the anti-government forces in the South (the National Liberation Front or Viet Cong) these assets became very appealing. By July 1961 the idea of using herbicides to better control the border areas had developed to the point of coordinating a defoliation test and the necessary herbicides (Dinoxol) were shipped to South Vietnam. The first testing of the herbicides occurred on August 10, 1961 in Kontom province. Two weeks later a second test run took place along highway 13 north of Saigon.

The defoliation program started out small and nearly ended before it began as the Department of Defense, the State Department and the government of South Vietnam debated its efficacy. However, by November 1961 President Kennedy agreed with his advisors that the US should 'participate in a selective and carefully controlled joint program of defoliant operations in Vietnam starting with the clearance of key routes and proceed thereafter to food denial only if the most careful basis of resettlement and alternative foodsupply has been created." The first official Operation Ranch Hand mission took place on January 13, 1962 along highway 15 using UC-123 aircraft

As the American involvement in Vietnam escalated so did the use of herbicides, Operation Ranch Hand was expanded to include parts of southern and eastern Laos in December 1965.  The herbicide program reached its peak in 1967 when over a million and a half acres were sprayed.

While much of the earlier hesitancy to conduct the herbicide program revolved around concerns of its efficacy, there were also concerns in Washington about how the use of chemical herbicides would be perceived in the world community and how the North Vietnamese government would use the herbicide program as a propaganda tool.  None the less, Secretary of State Dean Rusk assured President Kennedy that the use of herbicides was an acceptable war tactic and did not violate international law. The herbicides were seen by the US government as merely a defoliant akin to those in US domestic use, even if many times the original strength.  Unlike mustard gas, Agent Orange and the other herbicides were targeted against trees and crops, not humans.  The environmental movement had not yet begun; Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring had only been published in 1962 (helping to get the insecticide DDT banned in 1972); and the first Earth Day was years away. It was natural, in the context of the early 1960s, that the use of almost any herbicide would be viewed as fair game in war. Especially as early on in the program it is not likley that the US government knew that dioxin was contaminanting the herbicides that contained 2,4,5-T.

However, as Operation Ranch Hand expanded it was not only the enemy that was inconvenienced. The Vietnamese peasants whose hearts and minds the US was trying to win tended to take offense at the destruction of their crops and the laying waste of the countryside, as a RAND study would find in 1967.

“If we think they’re winning, you can imagine what they think.”
– President Lyndon Johnson, in a telephone conversation
with Senator Mike Mansfield, 1965.

 

The Apparent End

While there was opposition to the herbicide program from the very beginning it did not grow in strength until 1967 when the Federation of American Scientists submitted a petition to the White House with more than 5000 signatures of renowned scientists, including 17 Nobel laureates and 129 members of the National Academy of Sciences to end the herbicide program. Concerns about the ecological impacts of the herbicides in Vietnam were also raised by the American scientific community,  the Association of American Association for the Advancement of Science called for field investigations in Vietnam.

In 1969, it became widely known that the 2,4,5-T component of Agent Orange was contaminated with dioxin, a toxic chemical (chemical structure illustrated above) found to cause adverse health effects and birth outcomes in laboratory studies.  In April 1970, the US government restricted use of 2,4,5-T, and therefore Agent Orange, in both Vietnam and the US.

The last official spray run by the US Air Force took place on January 7, 1971. South Vietnamese forces continued to spray the remaining stocks of Agent Blue and White throughout 1971 and 1972. Patches, Tail #362, had switched to malathion spray missions in 1965. Later tests showing Patches "heavily contaminated" were interpreted to show the other spray aircraft were even more contaminated, having sprayed until 1971.

In September 1971, the order came to gather all the remaining stocks of Agent Orange, including those under the control of the Armed Forces of South Vietnam. In an operation code-named "Pacer IVY," the remaining barrels of Agent Orange were re-barreled at Da Nang, Bien Hoa and Tuy Hoa airbases and shipped to Johnston’s Island in the South Pacific. Stocks of Agent Orange in the US were shipped and stored at the Seabees base in Gulfport, Mississippi. Some 8.6 million liters of Agent Orange were destroyed by an incinerator ship in September 1977, in “Operation Pacer Ho.”

While "Operation Ranch Hand" became a footnote in most history books about the war in Vietnam, the on-going impacts of the dioxin that contaminatined Agent Orange and some of the other herbicides used during the war continue to this day.

In 2007, the VA Board of Veterans Appeals denied the Agent Orange exposure claim of Lieutenant Colonel Aaron Olmsted of Hartford, CT, on the basis that he couldn't prove his airplanes had been in Vietnam nor that they were the ones used for spraying Agent Orange. That information had been ordered "kept in official channels only" by the USAF Office of Environmental Law in 1996 and wasn't available until released under the Freedom of Information Act in 2011. Today, the Department of Veterans Affairs continues to deny C-123 veterans' exposure claims, but instead maintains the veterans were not exposed to "enough" dioxin to qualify, a position challenged by the veterans and other federal agencies.

Latest Version of C-123 Agent Orange Binder - 30 Mar 2012

Here's the updated version of our C-123 Agent Orange epistle, AKA "Trail of Tears."
Click Here: https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B88rlJ4p_859dVF4X0NvNEJTa0tQWFBYbFdnRktQdw

It has improvements in the date sequences and page numbering. Also, we've added a very important newly uncovered 1996 USAF report which used water-based swipes for one of the testing sequences on some of the C-123 fleet...this test wasn't for dioxin in particular but it was positive for military herbicides, and it is the broad category of "military herbicides" which various veterans' benefits are based upon and not dioxin in particular!

Why is it important that water was used on this test's swipes? Because the VA's position against the multiple USAF tests which we've been pushing him their face has been that those tests used the industry-standard protocol for a solvent...and the VA immediately created a hypothesis that only such solvents would have released harmful substances...and that crews couldn't have inhaled, ingested or absorbed the military herbicides by dermal contact. Note that when the 1994 and 1996 tests were done, no EPA protocol existed for the toxicologists to follow...yet, their conclusions have been reviewed in 2011 and 2012 and held to be still valid! Yes, we were exposed.

Somehow, in the back of my meager but darkly suspicious brain, I feel the VA would have been quick to develop an argument to any claim we'd make even if we showed them photos of toxins entering us by IM, IV, oral, sub-lingual, nasal, and every other route possible.

It has been suggested that we submit the binder for academic "peer review." I say the heck with that...we do "BEER REVIEWS" in this ancient but honorable flying squadron of amazing aging aviators!

Gee. Major. Is this required reading? Is there gonna be a test? Na...this is just a 430-page, 66MB reference work collecting all the materials we've found since April 2011, and my simple layman's attempt to get our veterans' case explained, simply using the VA and USAF documents that proliferate the record...the C-123K fleet was exterminated because it was contaminated - and here's the proof! You might consider printing parts of whatever you and your veterans service office (DAV, VFW, VVA, etc) feel appropriate to submit and buttress your VA disability claim.

Questions:
1. Isn't it a fact that every USAF and other official document dealing with the C-123K over the decades since the first tests were ordered on Patches in 1979 has labeled the airplanes "toxic, contaminated, Agent Orange, dioxin" or "military herbicide"and treated them (properly) as contaminated waste? answer: yes.
2. In 2009-2010 discussions about the C-123 toxicity and plans to destroy the airplanes, didn't OSD and AMFC officials arrange manage the event to prevent veterans who'd already been exposed from finding out about the dioxin problem, and the need to make sure those veterans wouldn't then get VA benefits - and didn't the officials discuss the fact that the veterans were indeed eligible for VA benefits because of the airplane's dioxin toxicity? answer: yes.
3. Why the heck did the USAF take action in 2010 to prevent already-exposed veterans from being able to get VA medical care? answer: anybody's guess but probably fear of publicity and blame for wrong decisions. This is what happens when military and civil service folks act without considering the impact on their personal honor and the broader good of the service.
4. And isn't it a fact that once our aircrews and ground personnel learned about the contamination the airplanes were suddenly not toxic after all? And already destroy?? Miracles? Or merely VA budget policy? answer: what do you think?