VA failure in its "duty to assist" veterans claims, particularly with C-123 Agent Orange

Guest article follows: 
My own experience with the VA duty to assist gathering evidence to support veterans' claim was quite painful. For verification of Agent Orange claims the VA turns to the Department of Defense Joint Services Records Research Center (JSRRC) for confirmation of exposures outside Vietnam. Despite the fact that JSRRC serves as the VA research authority, for years VA succeeded in blocking JSRRC input vital to confirm our exposures aboard C-123s. Fortunately, in 2013 VA was provided proof which was made more substantial in 2014 by the JSRRC.

FACT: VA would not accept the JSRRC input, even though it is required to per the VA Adjudication Manual M 21 – 1MR.
FACT: JSRRC was willing to submit the confirmation to VA and Mr. Sampsel but what is required to wait for his request which he never issued, even with my requests.

FACT: even though JSRRC confirmation eventually reached the VA, VA failed to act on it in violation of its own regulations, because individuals at VA were determined to, in the words of its consultant Dr. Alvin Young, "hold the line" against our disability claims. This was on their personal prejudice and their office unofficial personal policy of blocking our claims.

When I first learned that the JSRRC did not have all the material it needed about our aircraft, I had it sent to them by the Air Force Office of Historical Records Research, by the CDC, by the US Public Health Service, by the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, by medical schools and schools of public health all across the country. I visited the director of the JSRRC, Mr. Dominic Baldini (a Coast Guard veteran) and was impressed by his desire to serve the needs of America's veterans. That is, if VA would allow him to do so.

The JSRRC is in Fort Belvoir Virginia and I wanted to get there so badly I had to take my wheelchair four miles from the bus drop off point to his office where I was warmly received by Mr. Baldini and his staff. And four wheelchair miles back to my bus after that meeting. 

The VA contact for the JSRRC was Mr. James Sampsel who ran the VA Agent Orange desk, and it was his responsibility to liaise between the two agencies. The problem was Mr. Sampsel kept telling the JSRRC he would not accept input about our exposures for a variety of reasons cited in different ways over the years.

When Mr. Sampsel said he would not accept scientist or physician input except from military officers, we had it provided by commissioned officers of the US Public Health Service who are considered by law serving military officers, including Rear Admiral R. Ikeda MD USPHS. Repeatedly, Mr. Sampsel agreed to internal VA authorities that our veterans proof was persuasive (by law that should have settled things in our favor) yet he failed permit permit himself to be moved, contrary to the pro-veteran responsibility he had.

Then Mr. Sampsel wouldn't accept input because he hadn't specifically requested it from the JSRRC. And he wouldn't, for years. Another method Mr. Sampsel used to block JSRRC confirmation of our exposures was to insist only federal government documentation would suffice. This is despite VA Adjudication Manual 21 – 1MR stating JSRRC is responsible for gathering evidence from all the federal government agencies. Regardless, in his zeal to block C-123 veterans' claims, Mr. Sampsel apparently decided the CDC, USPHS, NIEHS and other federal sources would not suffice because they too directly confirmed the veterans exposures and abused his intent to deny VA medical care and compensation.

Further, although JSRRC and VA are to consider any credible source of scientific and medical information regarding a veteran's exposure, Mr. Baldini was forbidden by Mr. Sampsel to submit evidence from dozens of university medical schools and schools of public health as well as the independent experts VA itself had utilized for such studies. Amazingly, Mr. Sampsel's department even refused to accept input from toxicologists and other scientists from CDC and other federal agencies by stating only physician input would be accepted. This was a blatant abuse of rulings from the US Ninth Circuit Court but was also quite amusing because VA itself frequently used PhD experts whereever appropriate including veterans claims.

By 2013 the JSRRC and poor  Mr. Baldini had suffered enough grief for me about this that they simply force-fed confirmation of my exposure to Mr. Baldini by sending him an email. This didn't seem to help much because Mr. Sampsel simply refused to act on it. The issue finally was resolved only by Secretary McDonald and his interim final rule published in June 2015.

But Mr. Sampsel can still claim victory because he personally blocked 2100 C-123 veterans claims for four years and locked us out of VA hospitals and denied us compensation for our injuries and illnesses. His great respect for his friend Dr. Young have much to do with his motivation and his shouting throughout the VA for many years that he had "an overwhelming preponderance of evidence" against our claims – evidence consisting only of the VA webpage saying so, plus his preference for input from Dr. Young rather than the CDC, US Public Health Service and dozens of other federal, state, and scientific authorities supporting our claims. He wrote that EVERY proof of our exposure was his "real problem."

In the end the Institute of medicine study clearly established our exposure injuries but it was only a partial victory against the clear victory Mr. Sampsel enjoyed in keeping us from the VA hospital for four years. Contrary to law, his department was anti-claimant, adversarial, and obstructionist. He succeeded in "holding the line" against our claims as recommended by his favored consultant, Dr. Al Young.

CONCLUSION: VA hurt us through intrinsic and extrinsic ethical failures, none of which remain addressed today.

================================================================
Guest Article
==========================================================================

By Kevin Courtney November 22, 2016 Updated: November 22, 2016 10:06pm

The Navy’s Blue Angels performed jaw-dropping maneuvers and inspired our next generation’s service members during San Francisco’s Fleet Week last month. Unfortunately, those future sailors and Marines might end up like today’s veterans, suffering from a failing U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. Thanksgiving is a great opportunity to reflect on how we can best serve our veterans and their families.

Veterans’ benefits claims may go undecided for more than a year, an unimaginably difficult year for those who haven’t experienced it. Our newly elected government leaders should address how the VA can better care for our veterans.

Today, the VA has a duty to assist veterans in preparing their claims by getting complete and relevant records from any federal agency. Congress created this “duty to assist” by passing the Veterans Claims Assistance Act in 2000. Under this standard, the VA must “make reasonable efforts to assist the claimant.” But what happens when a reasonable effort falls short of accurate or complete records? Deciding a claim based on inferior records likely requires an appeal, and the veteran will consequently suffer unnecessary financial and emotional stress.

The U.S. Supreme Court believes the VA should be a “pro claimant” and “non-adversarial” department when deciding claims because it is the sole agency responsible for providing federal benefits to veterans and their families. And there are two features built into the VA’s claim process to help veterans: first is the lack of a statute of limitations for bringing disability claims. A statute of limitations is usually the maximum amount of time after an event a veteran can bring his legal claim. The second feature is the VA’s more liberal burden of proof, which should allow it to decide in the veteran’s favor when the evidence supporting his claim is only 50/50. But are VA employees following these standards?

Congress has increased the VA’s budget every year over the past decade, so insufficient funding is not a reason why the VA fails to be “pro claimant.” While VA executives continue to receive performance bonuses, veterans are left waiting for help. It is important for President-elect Donald Trump’s secretary of veterans affairs to change the ethos found within the VA, improve its efficiency and ingrain compassion in employees. There are thousands of dedicated, caring VA employees, but some require a reminder that behind every claim is a veteran who honorably served this country. And they need the VA’s help before it’s too late.

Twenty veterans commit suicide every day in our country. If the VA streamlined its system, then some of these veterans might get the timely help they need.

The VA has an obligation to realize its mission: “To fulfill President Lincoln’s promise ‘To care for him who shall have borne the battle, and for his widow, and his orphan’ by serving and honoring the men and women who are America’s veterans.”

This Thanksgiving holiday, consider the benefits you enjoy thanks to a veteran. Then consider how you want the VA to treat our veterans.

Kevin M. Courtney is a student judge advocate for the U.S. Marine Corps and a second-year law student at UC Berkeley Hastings College of the Law. When the VA denied his claim for his father’s service-connected death, he spent the next four years trying to understand how the bureaucratic system functioned — or failed to function.

Guest article follows: my own experience with the VA duty to help gather evidence to support

veterans' claim was quite painful. For verification of Agent Orange claims the VA turns to the Department of Defense Joint Services Records Research Center (JSRRC) for confirmation of exposures outside Vietnam. Despite the fact that JSRRC serves as the VA research authority, for years VA succeeded in blocking JSRRC input vital to confirm our exposures aboard C-123s to the VA.

FACT: VA would not accept the JSRRC input, even though it is required to at the VA Adjudication Manual M 21 – 1MR. 

FACT: even though JSRRC confirmation eventually reached the VA, VA failed to act on it in violation of its own regulations, because individuals at VA were determined to, in the words of its consultant Dr. Alvin Young, "hold the line" against our disability claims. This was on their personal prejudice and their office unofficial personal policy of blocking our claims.

When I first learned that the JSRRC did not have all the material it needed about our aircraft, I had it sent to them by the Air Force Office of Historical Records Research, by the CDC, by the US Public Health Service, by the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, by medical schools and schools of public health all across the country. I visited the director of the JSRRC, Mr. Dominic Baldini (a Coast Guard veteran) and was impressed by his desire to serve the needs of America's veterans. That is, if VA would allow him to do so.

The JSRRC is in Fort Belvoir Virginia and I wanted to get there so badly I had to take my wheelchair four miles from the bus drop off point to his office where I was warmly received by Mr. Baldini and his staff. And four miles back to my bus after that meeting.

The VA contact for the JSRRC was Mr. James Samsel who ran the VA Agent Orange desk, and it was his responsibility to liaise between the two agencies. The problem was Mr. Sampsel kept telling the JSRRC it would not accept input about our exposures for a variety of reasons cited in different ways over the years.

When Mr. Sampsel said he would not accept scientist or physician input except for military officers, we had it provided by commissioned officers of the US Public Health Service who are considered by law serving military officers.

Then Mr. Sampsel wouldn't accept input because he hadn't specifically requested it from the JSRRC. Another method Mr. Sampsel used to block JSRRC confirmation of our exposures was to insist only federal government documentation would suffice. This is despite VA Adjudication Manual 21 – 1MR stating JSRRC is responsible for gathering evidence from all the federal government agencies. In his zeal to block C-123 veterans' claims, Mr. Sampsel apparently decided the CDC, US PHS, NIESH and other Federal sources would not suffice because they too directly confirmed the veterans exposures and abused his intent to deny VA medical care and compensation.

By 2013 the JSRRC and Mr. Baldini had had enough grief for me about this that they simply force-fed confirmation of my exposure to Mr. Baldini by sending him an email. This didn't seem to help much because Mr. Samsel simply refused to act on it and the issue finally was resolved only by Secretary McDonald and his interim final rule published in June 2015.

But Mr. Sampsel should still claim victory because he personally blocked 2100 C-123 veterans claims for four years and blocked us out of VA hospitals and denied us compensation for our injuries and illnesses. His great respect for his friend Dr. Young have much to do with his motivation and his shouting throughout the VA for many years that he had "an overwhelming preponderance of evidence" against our claims – evidence consisting only of the VA webpage saying so, plus his preference for input from Dr. Young rather than the CDC, US Public Health Service and all the other authorities supporting our claims.

In the end the Institute of medicine study clearly established our exposure injuries but it was only a partial victory against the clear victory Mr. Sampsel enjoyed in keeping us from the VA hospital for four years. Contrary to law, his department was anti-claimant, adversarial, and obstructionist. He succeeded in "holding the line" against our claims as recommended by his favored consultant, Dr. Al Young.

CONCLUSION: VA hurt us through intrinsic and extrinsic ethical failures, none of which remain addressed today.

----------------------------------------------------------

By Kevin Courtney November 22, 2016 Updated: November 22, 2016 10:06pm

The Navy’s Blue Angels performed jaw-dropping maneuvers and inspired our next generation’s service members during San Francisco’s Fleet Week last month. Unfortunately, those future sailors and Marines might end up like today’s veterans, suffering from a failing U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. Thanksgiving is a great opportunity to reflect on how we can best serve our veterans and their families.

Veterans’ benefits claims may go undecided for more than a year, an unimaginably difficult year for those who haven’t experienced it. Our newly elected government leaders should address how the VA can better care for our veterans.

Today, the VA has a duty to assist veterans in preparing their claims by getting complete and relevant records from any federal agency. Congress created this “duty to assist” by passing the Veterans Claims Assistance Act in 2000. Under this standard, the VA must “make reasonable efforts to assist the claimant.” But what happens when a reasonable effort falls short of accurate or complete records? Deciding a claim based on inferior records likely requires an appeal, and the veteran will consequently suffer unnecessary financial and emotional stress.

The U.S. Supreme Court believes the VA should be a “pro claimant” and “non-adversarial” department when deciding claims because it is the sole agency responsible for providing federal benefits to veterans and their families. And there are two features built into the VA’s claim process to help veterans: first is the lack of a statute of limitations for bringing disability claims. A statute of limitations is usually the maximum amount of time after an event a veteran can bring his legal claim. The second feature is the VA’s more liberal burden of proof, which should allow it to decide in the veteran’s favor when the evidence supporting his claim is only 50/50. But are VA employees following these standards?

Congress has increased the VA’s budget every year over the past decade, so insufficient funding is not a reason why the VA fails to be “pro claimant.” While VA executives continue to receive performance bonuses, veterans are left waiting for help. It is important for President-elect Donald Trump’s secretary of veterans affairs to change the ethos found within the VA, improve its efficiency and ingrain compassion in employees. There are thousands of dedicated, caring VA employees, but some require a reminder that behind every claim is a veteran who honorably served this country. And they need the VA’s help before it’s too late.

Twenty veterans commit suicide every day in our country. If the VA streamlined its system, then some of these veterans might get the timely help they need.

The VA has an obligation to realize its mission: “To fulfill President Lincoln’s promise ‘To care for him who shall have borne the battle, and for his widow, and his orphan’ by serving and honoring the men and women who are America’s veterans.”

This Thanksgiving holiday, consider the benefits you enjoy thanks to a veteran. Then consider how you want the VA to treat our veterans.

Kevin M. Courtney is a student judge advocate for the U.S. Marine Corps and a second-year law student at UC Hastings College of the Law. When the VA denied his claim for his father’s service-connected death, he spent the next four years trying to understand how the bureaucratic system functioned — or failed to function.

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.

VA Veterans Health Administration: Gaming The Wait Lists Via Claims Process

VA Health Benefits Administration

The VA has two key agencies gaming the system against veterans' health.

These are the Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA) which decides disability claims, and Veterans Health Administration (VHA) providing the veterans health care and research. They're working together to keep their waiting lists, and costs, within management's goals.

We report on the prevention of claims by linguistic slight-of-hand: VA prevents exposure claims by redefining exposure to keep veterans from being considered exposed. A simple solution. VA invented for its own use a special definition of exposure, unique in medicine and science:
"Exposure = contamination field + bioavailability."

That redefinition works great. Using it, VA denies every exposure claim crossing their desk for Agent Orange, burn pits, radiation, dirty water, biohazards, toxins, immunizations...everything except situations where VA is compelled by law to provide care. No law=no exposure, regardless of proofs of exposure.

Legislation such as the 1991 Agent Orange Act protects veterans of the Vietnam War with "boots on the ground." That law, and various court decisions and announcements in the Federal Register also require VA to provide care to veterans exposed to Agent Orange outside Vietnam.

So, VA pretends it has the scientific and legal authority, and boldly redefines exposure to pretend no exposures take place. In the case of C-123 veterans, who flew the Agent Orange spray airplanes for a decade after Vietnam, the aircraft tested positive for Agent Orange residue many, many times up until their destruction as toxic waste in 2010. Too toxic for landfill, and the Air Force concerned about a threatened EPA HAZMAT fine of $3.4 billion for illegal storage, all C-123s were shredded and smelted as toxic waste, upon recommendation of the consultant to the Office of Secretary of Defense.

That same consultant then was retained by VA to construct arguments against the veterans' claims, and developed arguments that the veterans' dermal contact, inhalation and ingestion of the military herbicide residue did not constitute exposure, utilizing the VA's unique redefinition. His VA work continues decades of defending Agent Orange and its harmful effects.

This redefinition, and the decision against awarding C-123 veterans exposure benefits, is challenged by many universities as well as other federal agencies. The CDC/Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, the US Public Health Service, and the NIH/National Toxicology Program have all informed VA that tests prove the aircraft contamination and the veterans' exposure.

All input contrary to the VA's objective of preventing C-123 veterans' service connection is disregarded, explained away or simply ignored as with the input to VA from the Director, NIH/National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences who wrote, "Based on contact with the aircraft, exposure is assumed...the magnitude of these exposures is uncertain."

The VHA informs the Veterans Benefits Administration that none of the C-123 veterans were ever exposed, and therefore have no basis for exposure claims. In fact, VHA officials also insist that under their new exposure definition none of the ground soldiers during the Vietnam War were ever exposed, and perhaps only a few of the Air Force crews which sprayed from their C-123s. This directive flies in the face of Secretary Shinseki's repeated assurance to the Senate that all C-123 veterans' claims are considered on a "case by case basis," an obvious misstatement when VA has predetermined all the vets to be disqualified...thanks to that nifty redefinition of exposure from VA's Post Deployment Health Section.

"Unscientific" and "reflects a lack of understanding" are the judgements of leaders in the science of toxicology. But the claims remain denied, with vets told to get in line for appeals taking three to five years.

There, justice may await, but often only for the veterans' survivors. Complaints to the VA's National Center for Ethics in Healthcare resulted in recommendation that veterans turn to the VA IG because of the criminal and ethical implications of preventing medical care to eligible veterans. There, the issue has been ignored for years with inaction.

VA Revises Their C-123 Agent Orange Web Page

We just noticed the revised C-123 page on VA's web site. While

its code shows a date of 31 December 2013, I've read the page a couple times this month and it was the old version.

Here, VA has strengthened their barriers against our claims by analyzing many of the expert opinions in our favor. 

Of course, no mention is made anywhere of challenges raised to this product of the VA's small Post Deployment Health Section...challenges from the CDC/Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, the NIH/National Institute for Environmental Health Sciences, the US Public Health Service and many others. Challenges which have labeled the VA's work "unscientific," and worse!

Of course, VA continues to ignore the simple fact that the 1991 Agent Orange Act, and Title 38, and several postings in the Federal Register only specify "exposure," so this page's attempt to minimize our exposure is irrelevant...we were exposed. 

VA...read the law. Read Yale's C-123 exposure brief. However, we still know that when faced with new evidence in our favor such as Yale's brief, VA's only response is – how to negate the favorable evidence. If they can't dispute it, they'll ignore it. Or redefine words just like they reinvented "exposure" to exclude C-123 veterans. 

If opinions are offered by experts, VA denies their expertise even if the experts are internationally recognized authorities, VA researchers or heads of US government agencies! As Post Deployment Health has already determined and already informed us and Compensation & Pension Service (despite Under Secretary Hickey's and Secretary Shinseki's mistaken written assurances to the contrary) VA will never approve a C-123 Agent Orange exposure claim. 

Regardless of any evidence, proof, testimony, research, opinions, whatever...officially VA has predetermined that all C-123 exposure claims will be denied, per Post Deployment Health. VA told the veterans. VA even told the US Army following a meeting with the veterans. It seems the only two people who don't know that VA has a blanket policy forbidding C-123 veterans' claims are Generals Hickey and Shinseki. 

I'm only a retired major, but I don't think generals use different words..."blanket policy" does seem to cover any situation like ours, where C-123 veterans' denials are predetermined and insisted upon regardless of evidence or law.

If they knew, I'm sure these highly esteemed leaders would correct the situation, especially after the Secretary formally informed the Senate that no such blanket policy exists.

VA Opposed on Its "Exposure" Definition; Word Redefined By VA To Deny C-123 Veterans' Claims

The VA continues to be challenged about their in-house, policy-driven redefinition of the word "exposure," redefined by adding "bioavailability" only to prevent legitimate Agent Orange exposure claims from C-123 transport veterans.

Challenger: Dr. Linda Birnbaum, Director of the National Institutes of Health/National Toxicology
Program and  Director, NIH/National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences:, asked about the VA redefinition of exposure:

In all my years as a toxicologist, I have never heard bioavailability as part of the exposure definition...In my opinion, "exposure" is the contact between a chemical (of any type) and the body. [June 26, 2013]" 

VA: "Exposure=contamination field+bioavailability." VA invented that illogical redefinition of exposure because the law requiring VA to care for Agent Orange-exposed veterans simply states "exposure" as the requirement.

VA and its Compensation and Pension Service, determined as always to frustrate veterans' disability claims, remade the word to their own liking so no matter how much proof the C-123 veterans might submit (touched it, drank it, bathed in it, used as a hair tonic, whatever) VA would deny any exposure having occurred.

But fundamental scientific terms can't legitimately be redefined just for  agency policy objectives – instead, we all have to play by the same rules and regulations, the same science, the same physics, the same language, the same law and rules of justice. Is the VA exempt somehow, able to invent, reinvent, redefine basics just to prevent veterans' claims?

But now, according to the Deputy Director for Post-Deployment Health, none of the C-123 veterans have been exposed. In a conversation with C-123 Chair Wes Carter, she explained that no of Vietnam War veterans had been exposed either, and probably not many of the Operation Ranch Hand spray veterans were ever exposed.

That insertion of "bioavailability" is what VA uses as their magic bullet, because VHA insists NO AGENT ORANGE VETERAN CAN EVER PROVE HIS/HER BIOAVAILABILITY event and were therefore, using the VA's new definition, were never exposed regardless of any ingestion, inhalation or dermal contact with Agent Orange.

Thus, Post-Deployment Health has directed that no C-123 veterans are even  to receive Agent Orange exams, even though VA policy is that ANY veteran believing himself/herself to have been exposed to military herbicides is entitled to an exam if requested. Again, her policy was confirmed in conversation with The C-123 Veterans Association.

Clearly, despite the Agent Orange Law of 1991, Title 38, commitments made in the Federal Register of 8 May 2001, and the requirement to be "veteran friendly," the VA is invested in preventing C-123 exposure claims and has fought hard for two years to deny us medical care and other exposure benefits.

Is this why VA's Director of VA's Compensation and Pension Services ordered C-123 veterans' claims denied on the basis that TCDD (the deadly, cancer-causing toxin in Agent Orange) "no conclusive evidence that TCDD exposure causes any adverse health effects." Imagine that: denying Agent Orange exposure benefits, provided for by law, by pretending Agent Orange is harmless?

Dr. Wayne Dwernychuk, retired scientist from Hatfield Consultants (a leading environmental sciences firm) was not reserved in his comments.  "Frankly, I am dumbfounded by the comment published by Mr. Tom Murphy...Either Mr. Murphy has missed the VA briefing session on the toxicity of TCDD or he genuinely has no idea of the work of the Institute of Medicine...Hundreds of eminent scientists regularly participate in the literature assessment of diseases related to exposure to TCDD...Obviously, Mr. Murphy has twisted science to prevent recognition of your valid claim for exposure to Agent Orange."

It is an amazing situation. Even the US government agencies responsible by law for these fundamental issues cannot get the VA to treat veterans correctly. VA rejected EPA confirmation. VA rejected US Public Health Service confirmation. VA rejected even the CDC Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) which made it clear: "ATSDR concluded aircrews operating in this, and similar environments, were exposed to TCDD." VA reacted by claiming the ATSDR scientists weren't even qualified to make such determinations, even though the ATSDR has reconfirmed their finding three separate times. 

Most recently, incoming ATSDR Acting Director Rear Admiral R. Ikeda (MD, US Public Health Service) said she has reviewed and stands behind the ATSDR C-123 exposure confirmation.

Will nothing will penetrate VA's barriers against C-123 claims? One or two snuck through (I'm thinking of LtCol Paul Bailey, receiving his VA award just two months before his death) but Compensation and Pension Services put a stop to that!

"Unscientific" was the conclusion by physicians and scientists, who complained to the Secretary of Veterans Affairs that Compensation and Pension Services was cheating C-123 veterans out of life-saving medical care.