Too Many VA Phrases = Hot Air

There is no need, and no excuse, to paint all VA folks with the same tar brush that some in that department fully deserve. Our problem focuses on the gatekeepers in both VHA and VBA who were professionally dedicated to implementing VA policy by blocking our exposure claims.

That policy was to prevent our access to VA medical care and other benefits and disability compensation. "We have to draw the line somewhere," was last year's VBA's quote to the Associated Press.

That was wrong...scientifically, morally and legally.

It pains us that we can point to no heros helping us in the beginning of this miserable struggle and only a very, very few in VA who've stepped up in any meaningful way over the years.

We're blessed with key influencers in VA...leaders who got the IOM C-123 study back on track after we were cheated out of it back in 2012. For them, and for those in VA who finally became aware of the injustice dealt us, our sincere thanks and pledge of cooperation...and a return to more positive attitudes!

A little summary is due of the language used by the VA in dealing with C-123 veterans. "Hot air" is an honest generalization of four years in which VBA and VHA peppered their web pages, internal correspondence and external reports with deceptions and prevarications, as well as simple lies and errors.

• VA Cares

• We take these issues very seriously.

• Each claim is handled on a case-by-case basis.

• VA has no blanket policy of C-123 veterans' claims denials.

• A spokesperson offered to look into the problem.

• VA is dedicated to helping veterans obtain their earned benefits.

• VA and its partners will end the homeless veterans problem by 2015.

• VA is committed to a 60-day claim process through FDC.

• We must insure this never happens again.

• We will hold accountable those responsible.

• Only one C-123 ("Patches") tested positive for dioxin residue.

• The desert C-123s were destroyed to free up precious desert storage space, in an environmentally responsible manner.

* We are unable to verify or document that aircrew members were exposed to Agent Orange, resulting from Agent Orange residue or dioxin contaminated airplane parts.

• Regulations prohibit recognizing C-123 Agent Orange exposure.

• (VA) Office of Public Health concluded that the existing scientific studies and reports support a low probability that TCDD was biologically available in these aircraft.

• There was no cover-up.

• The Denver hospital will be completed in 2014.

• VA has "an overwhelming preponderance of evidence" against C-123 exposure claims.

• "Several scientists" (Young, Ginevan, & Ross) have independently come forward (paid to do so by VA, Dow and Monsanto) made clear no aircrew exposures were possible, while a "few" (NIH, CDC, EPA, US Public Health Service, National Institutes of Environmental Health Sciences, Department of Defense, Columbia University, Oregon Health Sciences University, VA physicians, dozens of independent scientists, university researchers) have provided alternate input.

• There is no possibility C-123 Agent Orange exposure.

• We will get  back to you with that information.

• VA is committed to assisting these veterans and evaluating their claims, and ensuring that AO exposure related laws are applied in a fair and equitable manner for all Veterans.

• VA applies the benefit-of-the-doubt principal contained in 38 United States Code § 51 07(b) and 38 Code of Federal Regulations § 3.102. 

• There is no conclusive evidence of adverse health effects from TCDD exposure.

• Agent Orange is no more than teenage acne.

• It is difficult to ascertain a basis upon which to find a health risk among crew members of post-Vietnam Operation Ranch Hand C-123s.

• "Exposure" = concentration present + bioavailability

• VA takes the exposure concerns of Veterans very seriously, and will carefully review new sources of information on exposures and health outcomes as they become available.

• If there is evidence that a Veteran was exposed to herbicides during service, VA will acknowledge the exposure in evaluating any claimed disability that is presumptively associated with herbicide exposure.

• The available reports and studies lead Public Health officials to conclude there was a “low probability” of exposure.  

•One scientific advocate supporting post-Vietnam C-123AO “exposure” points to percentage of TCDD in wipe samples from “Patches” as exceeding a military standard for direct environmental exposure. (actually, several did, including CDC/ATSDR) 

• The majority of scientists on record, including those with VHA, state that any solidified TCDD in post-Vietnam aircraft is not active in the environment and cannot biologically enter the human body in any significant amount; therefore no TCDD “exposure.” (actually, only two outside scientists, one VA contract scientist and VHA staff concurred. Dozens of other federal agencies, universities, VA physicians, and independent physicians and scientists concluded the opposite.

• CS has scientific statements from Dr. Alvin Young and unsolicited statements from two other toxicologists refuting “exposure” and Carter’s supporters. Memo creator does not mention dozens of other scientists and federal agencies confirming veterans' exposure, only the VA consultant (Young) and the Dow and Monsanto writers.

Why Were The C-123s Destroyed by USAF in 2010?

C-123 HAZMAT Quarantine Area

Because they were toxic. Because veterans might learn of the toxic exposures and turn to VA for
medical care (AF agreed this was to be prevented.) Because USAF sworn testimony in federal court was that the airplanes were "a danger to public health" and could never be sold or parted out.

Apparently, being a threat to public health had no bearing on whether the crews who flew them years earlier might need to be alerted to toxins and their health concerns.

And the planes also had to be destroyed...quickly and quietly...because of a threatened $3.4 billion EPA fine. $32,000 per day, per airplane. Good thing the EPA had never been fully informed of the Bone Yard's special C-123 HAZMAT quarantine area, but the toxic airplanes couldn't sit behind that "restricted access" fence forever. There were even concerns that rainwater off the airplanes might contaminate the soil beneath them.

But $3.4 billion was a stand-alone major focus, and compelled action. Unless they could continue the cover up, a $3,400,000,000 for an EPA fine is not a mistake Hill or Davis-Monthan AFB officials wanted to have on their annual efficiency reports – not much efficiency in such a monumental fine. So the planes had to be destroyed, and it had better be done very, very quietly.

And it was. Nobody noticed. Ever. And the exposed veterans didn't notice, either, and didn't know we'd been exposed to harmful levels of dioxin until years later. A great success for Hill AFB Public Affairs.

In 2014, a VA consultant told the Institute of Medicine the C-123s were destroyed "because they were obsolete." He did not mention the fact that in 2009 he'd personally recommended destruction of the airplanes due to their toxicity and to prevent veterans' claims.

Here's the AF memo detailing concerns about the EPA fine:

Questions from USAF PA About C-123 Veterans' Complaints (see last two blog entries)

In response to my inquiries over the last week or so, Air Force public affairs would like some clarification. I have placed their questions immediately below, and the larger type below them is my response.

 A. Questions to C-123 Veterans:

The emails appear to show that Terry Pittman, of Aerospace Maintenance and Regeneration Group Business Affairs, and the Senior Consultant on Agent Orange for the office of the Secretary of Defense, were opposed  to publicizing the planes’ destruction, so why a complaint with Air Force Materiel Command and the Defense Department.

From the documentation you provided, it looks as though the 75^th Air Base Wing spokeswoman Barbara Fisher said the public affairs shop recommended making public that the planes had been destroyed (page 32).

B. My response to USAF PA sent 2/9---------------------------

Gentlemen,

I've added page numbers for clarity as to my references. 

In 2011 I submitted complaints to AF IG. In July 2011 I submitted the attached USAF PA to PA in the Pentagon, not knowing any other address. In 2013 I visited and filed an IG with AFMC at Wright-Patterson (Mr. Dennis Lange dennis.lange.1@us.af.mil,) without any response, but that complaint focused in failure to abide by FOIA requirements. (note 2/10/15: I have retracted this 2013 complaint to AFMC as they have no record and I did not keep a copy) 

USAF PA may have misunderstood that the 309th AMARG (Terry Pittman's memo) is actually a military organization under AFMC--is that perhaps why USAF PA asked why the complaint went to them?  Answer is...because it is an AF unit and an AF press release never released.

When the 2011 USAF IG was denied, I filed a DOD IG complaint...is that what USAF PA is referring to? It, too, was years ago.

Hill PA may have suggested somewhere, somehow outside the FOIA results released to C-123 veterans, a public release but obviously yielded to the improper editing of it and withholding to await inquires which never came...this disserved the commander, the mission and the media, and certainly the veterans. 

The only recommendation for a release I find by 75th ABW PA is on page 32. This is Ms. Fisher's recommendation to Terry Pittman at AMARG for release of the edited press release to Mr Martin Swann. She recommends providing the press release if Mr. Swann inquires again. As one can see, this is a press release about an event about which the media had to already be aware. 

I offer the example: if reporters don't see columns of smoke rising from the base runway, is PA spared the necessity of a press release about an aircraft downed on takeoff? One they've typed and held ready in the event that plume of smoke is noticed and inquires result? Otherwise, no media inquires = a non-event.

A closer parallel to our C-123 toxic airplanes. If there is a toxic spill in the Childcare Center, is PA spared the uncomfortable necessity of insuring the information is provided those exposed children, parents and staff? Never to be informed, just as our C-123 veterans have never heard from the Air Force. Does PA believe they'd type a press release about a Childcare Center spill and hold it unless parents notice their children sickening and bring their inquiries to PA?

Newsworthy? Here, PA obviously understood a press release was important because one was carefully crafted. Federal lawsuits had happened over these airplanes. Base employees had filed IG complaints reaching the USAF Surgeon General. The Air Staff was involved as well as AFMC leadership. Hundreds of thousands had been spent cocooning and moving the fleet into special HAZMAT storage. The EPA threatened a $3.4 billion fine. The airplanes and their background was historic. AFMC officials traveled to Wisconsin to personally witness and certify the smelting. Individuals kept propellor hubs as souvenirs. The issue of Agent Orange and its toxicity was important to veterans and the public. They felt the importance of the C-123 issue, however, best addressed by keeping it quiet.

The final press release described the destruction as "normal," which it most certainly was not (p.9-10, 20-21)  This was the first and last time such a procedure was used on USAF aircraft at Davis-Monthan. The initial press release (p.11,) more honest and revealing, shows the extent of editing out too much of who/what/when/why/where/how details of concern to the public.

As he is entitled to do, Dr. Young specifically recommended no publicity for the unacceptable reasons he offered. None of the three officials (Major McCrady, Mr. Malmgren, Mr. Boor) to whom his memos were directed took exception and opted to do handle correctly. Indeed, these officials and their organizations cited his memos as their authority for the actions. On page 24, Dr. Downs also agrees with Dr. Young's recommendations. 

Dr. Young, as a contractor, is not at issue here, but actions by Air Force civilian

and military personnel acting on his "decision memos" are. He later told the Washington Post he was acting in an unofficial capacity, yet his recommendations were accepted as instructions and authority for the final shredding and smelting as well as media cover-up.

While these folks were not base or MAJCOM PA officials, my 2011 complaint brought to USAF PA's attention serious concerns about violations of Air Force standards and regulations, requiring response just as to any complaint from any citizen about the Air Force presented to PA. It happens, of course, that PA issues are also in question. 

AFMC decisions are also questioned in my inquiries. The involvement of a large number of others is shown in the distribution of the memo on page 22. The Air Staff and Pentagon are referenced on page 23 and by Mr. Michael Crane's email, as he is on the Air Staff. No action is known to have been taken by any of them regarding the recommended goal "of preventing future liability to the US Air Force and the US Department of Defense." 

Question here, please: what about already exposed veterans...the ones mentioned by Dr. Young? It is clear the intent of this process was to avoid liability to them as well.

As Dr. Young, "Senior Consultant on Agent Orange to the Office of Secretary of Defense" congratulated officials on page 35, this was all done with "minimal publicity". Indeed, there was none at all until exposed C-123 veterans sought care from the Department of Veterans Affairs.

As a former Stan/Eval flight examiner for my crew position, I am not unfamiliar

with the C-123K but rather an expert on it. I believe this, along with an Air Force enlisted and commissioned career, gives me reasonable insight to the issues I've raised and ability to read and understand applicable guidance in the form of operating instructions and regulations. 

I've tried to express myself accurately but suggestions from AF Public Affairs back in 2011 would have been quite helpful to correct any misunderstanding on my part. I welcome it today as well.

Remember: this is not some commercial firm's marketing communications department where press release activity is a sales tool. This is the United States Air Force, informing the public about how the nation's treasure in gold and in the lives our servicemembers is spent. This treasure must be carefully accounted for, which is the only way we insure civilian control over the military through an informed public and their legislature.

Hill AFB PA was not what the nation needed relative to this event, with consequent harm to our health.

   WTC

C-123 Vets AGAIN Request Response to USAF Public Affairs Complaint - 1298 Days Have Passed

Dear Chief and Mr. Clavette,

Gentlemen, may I know your thoughts on the inquiry I've lodged? 

It has been 1,298 days: Please do not think me impatient.

I am more grievously ill than when I first sought your counsel in 2011, as are many of my surviving crewmates.

The issue continues to affect the lives of over 2100 veterans, fewer alive today than when the question was first raised with AF PA in 2011. The issue, as managed by the PA shops involved, contributed to the Department of Veterans Affairs' delay in addressing veterans' Agent Orange exposure claims....a stated objective of the various memos and emails.

Quite predictably, there has been attendant financial loss, suffering and deaths from this deviation from Air Force regulations, Air Force values, and denial of the First Amendment rights of local media which prevented informing the public of significant government actions...actions destroying toxic airplanes and information about our health.

I request every kindness in expediting an answer to the questions raised, and welcome correction or clarification where helpful as to the supporting documents provided.

Regards,

   Wes Carter, Major, USAF Retired

  

On Mon, Feb 2, 2015 at 10:47 AM, BAILEY, TIMOTHY R CMSgt USAF AFPAA AFPAA/CCC <timothy.cccccc4@us.af.mil> wrote:

Sir,

I have forwarded your complaint up to the Mr. Larry Clavette, the Director of Air Force Public Affairs Agency. 

v/r

Timothy R. Bailey, CMSgt, USAF

C-123 Vets Renew AF Public Affairs Complaint First Submitted - but ignored - in 2011

Last week leaders of the C-123 Veterans Association renewed our 2011 complaints about Air Force Public Affairs operations at Hill AFB UT and Davis-Monthan AFB AZ. We alleged Air Force deceptions, both by commission and omission, regarding the April-June 2010 destruction of the toxic C-123 fleet stored at Davis-Monthan.

Stored at Davis-Monthan's Boneyard since 1982 and in special HAZMAT quarantine for a decade by orders of the USAF Surgeon General, the airplanes were all quietly shredded and smelted in response to their Agent Orange contamination. The press release, however, did not cover that fact. The press release did not mention Agent Orange at all.

And in fact, the well-crafted press release was never released. A whole fleet of airplanes with a unique 40-year history, considered by many the embarrassment of the Air Force, disappeared and the media took no notice.

They were not meant to. Air Force Public Affairs word-smithed their press release to make it as innocuous as possible, then placed in a desk drawer in case some inquiring reporter raised a question. Base officials and their outside consultant had word-smithed out attention-grabbing words such as "Agent Orange, toxin, TCDD" and other accurate descriptions of the event. Officials also wrote about their concern that, unless the event were kept "below the radar," exposed veterans could apply to Veterans Affairs for treatment of Agent Orange illnesses.

The very mention of this concern...expressed by the consultant, base officials and those up the chain of command...is inappropriate. Instead, the Air Force should have been accurate in its communication with the public, and with the veterans who'd served faithfully but had been exposed to Agent Orange. There is no excuse for such a coverup...no wonder the Air Force fought Freedom of Information Act requests about this for three years, finally releasing mostly redacted white pages, devoid of content.

No questions were raised by local media because they Air Force took pains to insure nobody knew. If somebody found out, a deceptive press release was ready to give them, but no inquiries ever came.

A parallel would be if an aircraft crashed on base and PA typed out a press release saying there'd been an unscheduled mass casualty exercise followed by a test of the unit's voluntary blood donation program, after which the base returned to normal operations. And then put the press release into a drawer in case some newsperson noticed a plume of smoke rising from the base and one less airplane.

This whole scheme abused the First Amendment right of reporters in the area by denying them information about a significant military activity. It abused the duty those reporters had to the public by keeping from their readers information about the conduct of the American military and its expenditure of treasure and peoples' lives. The lives spoken of are ours...the veterans who flew these airplanes, and from whom information was kept from us by deceptions of Air Force Public Affairs at Hill and D-M, which was in violation of Air Force and DOD operating instructions, and also in violation of Air Force ethics and the ethics expected of professional...not marketing communications...public agency public affairs operations.

Lies? Not directly.

Prevarication? Absolutely! In the Air Force, a prevarication is a lie.

Impact? Information about our health kept from us for over a year and the evolution of disability claims with VA delayed for four.

Media and the public which depends on them to be informed about our government? Neither can trust USAF Public Affairs with this as an example of deception possible from military officials. And the veterans affected also have a loss of trust and confidence in our Air Force, knowing it willingly deceives us in issues involving our health to prevent our claims with the VA.

VA Public Affairs – Easiest Job in the Department of Veterans Affairs?"

For the 54 folks staffing Washington DC's VA Public Affairs office, nothing could be easier, even during the 2014 Year of Scandals. Or as Queen Elizabeth put it in 1992 regarding her childrens' divorce troubles and her castle fire, Annus Horribilis.  A VA Annus Horribilis.

Still, just show up for work, write well, have a genuinely nice attitude and good attention to detail. And don't say much about anything worrying the public. or sharing with them the details needed for citizens to monitor and challenge their government's care of veterans.

We do see a better, more responsive attitude and outreach effort on the part of our regional and local public affairs representatives, especialy ours here in Cheyenne. But our problem is at the national level where VA has an information vacuum.  Public Affairs is determined to maintain that vacuum. Except for self-congratulatory press releases.

Job #1: protect the boss and protect the Department. Requirement to inform the public about the full conduct of government: Zero.

And pump out those very empty zero-content responses to nearly every inquiry from the national media, the legislative representatives and veterans themselves. Pick one, use several or use them all in a response...and they provide absolutely zero content. The reporter could have picked the line for the VA to use, fully expecting one of the vapid examples below.

The House Veterans Affairs Committee complained that such protective or non-responsive replies are “blocking the public from having an independent view of important functions of the executive branch of government,”

The Washington Examiner covered this no-value-added in March 2014, featuring the House Committee on Veterans Affairs "VA Honesty Project."

We've read them for years. Our eyes glaze over at their meaningless content-free blurbs:

• "We take these issues very seriously."

• "We want to ensure veterans receive all the benefits they're entitled to."

• "We will look into that and let you know."

• "We remain committed to quality veteran medical care."

• "VA is carefully reviewing the issue."

• "VA will continue to provide safe, effective, high-quality health care to the men and women we have the honor and privilege to serve every day."

• "No comment."

* Or simply, no response at all. Every senator or congressman has dozens of inquiries ignored by VA

From The Blaze: 

    “They tried to misdirect Congress and the American people away from the facts,” House Veterans Affairs Committee Chairman Jeff Miller (R-Fla.) told the Tampa Bay Times. “I think they got caught and now they are trying to modify their story…. The misdirection was, in fact, designed in Washington.”
    According to the Tampa Bay Times article, VA spokeswoman Gina Jackson said: “Is this really the most important question that you have that you want to address? Because it just seems to me it is a misunderstanding of the way the fact sheet is labeled. Am I missing something here?”
    But according to the House Committee on Veterans Affairs, there are plenty more questions that need to be answered. According to its website, there are 117 outstanding requests for information from the VA – many predating even the revelations about the waiting list scandal. Of those, 66 information requests are since 2012."

VA Public Affairs...Where They Fail the Veterans

I am a veteran.

The men and women in the The C-123 Veterans Association are veterans, as are all those we served with over the years. We are their "consumers," we are the final recipients of the professional services of the public affairs staff at the Department of Veterans Affairs.

We are, or we should be, the single most important audience for their professional services. Our needs at least should be of concern to them.

VA public affairs, in communications with us and about us to other audiences, serves our needs. VA public affairs, telling our legislators and the public about it as an institution, serves us. But it doesn't, and it is no way a delivery vehicle for truth.

We are the veterans, so serving us, and serving the VA to better serve us,  should be the role of VA public affairs.

To put it in an aeromedical evacuation context, we are their patients. That I can firmly understand because in aeromedical evacuation, nothing is more important. Nothing else is our focus, and the entire spectrum of what we do is to make that patient come out okay at the other end of our flight. Patients are more than self. The patient is my life and breath, which is why he is entrusted to me. Which is why he knows I'll get him home.

Comrade, ally, civilian, friend or foe...I'll get him home.

So where did VA public affairs become so very tainted and so much unlike us? Why is OPIA so much the servant of the institution that the institution became their only true focus? What happened that my needs as a veteran cannot be trusted to the public affairs staff of the Department of Veterans Affairs, as we learn that OPIA puts VA ahead of the veteran in their mission?

We know, don't we, that nothing, absolutely nothing critical or even mildly corrective would ever be communicated by VA OPIA? We know, don't we, that OPIA would never play a role in a course correction towards more a veteran-friendly Department of Veterans Affairs.

VA Public Affairs' Honesty Challenged!

Veterans Affairs Stonewalling the Press

Veterans’ Affairs Committee website highlights VA refusal to comment

Veterans Affairs Secretary Eric Shinseki / 

(note: C-123 veterans have been disappointed several times by VA public affairs. The first was when reporter Tom Philpot asked for details of our exposure claims and was given a "we care for all veterans" overall statement with a promise to "get back to you," which never happened. 

The next over the years have been VA spokespersons repeating the mantra "we evaluate each claim on a case by case basis." In fact this is so...but then VA denies each claim on a case by case basis! Thus the news, and the question the public needed to be informed about, is that VA has a de facto blanket policy against these veterans while denying it.

The most recent deception by Public Affairs was regarding VA's official definition of exposure and to learn if it differs from the definition used to deny veterans' exposure claims. VA Public Affairs simply referred us to that very office and said they understood we'd been in conversation with those folks...leaving the peculiar redefinition standing without explanation.

Nor in this article is VA's failure in Public Affairs to adhere to the Department's standards in communications and scientific integrity. The concerns about scientific integrity arise from VA's frequent misstatements regarding exposure issues, dry dioxin transfer, and other details surrounding Agent Orange exposure claims. It would seem individuals in the VA consider themselves exempt from standards established by VA Directive 0005....okay to deceive? Incomplete and unscientific statements? Acceptable to promise responses to the media with no intentions of honoring the pledge? Denial of the existence of policies barring veterans from medical care they qualify for? These are the kinds of deceptions which military personnel are, and should be, punished for attempting.)

BY: CJ Ciaramella  March 24, 2014 12:55 pm

The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) failed to respond to nearly 70 media requests for comment over the past year, leading legislators in Congress to accuse it of stonewalling the public in a new website launched Monday.

The VA Honesty Project, created by the House Veterans’ Affairs Committee, shows scores of instances where the VA public affairs office was either refusing to comment or not addressing the questions that were asked, most of them occurring in 2013.

The site shows the VA refusing to give comment to newspapers and TV affiliate stations across the country, as well as publications such as the Military Times and CNBC.

“Despite the serious issues, the VA’s chief of staff walked away when we tried to ask about the report,” CBS Memphis reported in an October 2013 story about negligence at a VA hospital that resulted in three deaths.

“He refused to take any questions about the deaths at his facility and another report News Channel 3

uncovered showing VA center directors were getting bonuses in the millions at the same time their facilities were making deadly mistakes.”

In another instance, the VA stonewalled efforts by the Tampa Tribune to investigate the deaths of 19 veterans who died as a result of diagnostic delays.

VA officials declined to comment and told the reporter a Freedom of Information Act request would be required. The VA then denied the subsequent FOIA request.

Delaware Online reported in January of this year that it had been repeatedly stonewalled seeking information about a growing backlog of VA compensation cases in Wilmington.

As previously reported by the Washington Free Beacon, the VA also added a new layer of bureaucratic review before it releases Freedom of Information Act requests, further delaying the process.

KUOW journalist John Ryan first discovered the new policy while investigating the death of a Seattle Army veteran who died at a VA hospital after receiving a lethal dose of morphine. The VA did not comment on his story.

House Veterans’ Affairs Committee chairman Jeff Miller (R., Fla.) said in a statement that the site is dedicated to showing “how VA’s media avoidance strategy is doing the public an extreme disservice while damaging VA’s reputation in the process.”

“With 54 full-time public affairs employees, VA’s media avoidance strategy can’t be anything other than intentional,” Miller said. “What’s worse, the tactic leaves the impression that department leaders think the same taxpayers who fund the department don’t deserve an explanation of VA’s conduct.”

“At the Department of Veterans Affairs, we strive to provide accurate and timely information as we communicate every day with America’s veterans, their families, their survivors, and the American people,” a spokeswoman for the VA said in a statement to the Free Beacon. “We understand and respect the media’s important role, and we work to ensure veterans understand our commitment to provide them the services and benefits they have earned and deserve.”

“The public affairs office at VA headquarters responds to thousands of media queries each year, and we continually strive to provide reliable information quickly,” the spokeswoman continued. “VA also communicates with hundreds of thousands of veterans and those who care about veterans through many mediums, including social media.”

AF destroys toxic C-123 fleet to keep veterans from learning they'd been exposed!

Summary:

The latest C-123 Veterans Association YouTube video addresses the secret destruction of the Davis-Monthan AFB "boneyard" C-123 fleet. Revealed are documents showing partial justification was specifically to prevent veterans from learning they'd already been exposed...and to keep them from being able to turn to the VA for Agent Orange benefits.

Background:

The USAF faced the necessity of destroying the remaining C-123 aircraft stored at Davis-Monthan AFB's "boneyard" due to their Agent Orange contamination. Sales and parting out were not possible and a potential $3.4 billion EPA fine was in view. DOD Agent Orange Consultant's recommended destruction of the airplanes, especially because veterans (already exposed!) who'd flown the airplanes earlier might learn of the contamination, and their exposure, and turn to the VA for well-earned medical care. OSD's statement clearly was crafted to prevent veterans from learning about the Agent Orange issues and then proceeding on their claims, and the statement to the AF was taken up by managers at the 505th Sustainability Squadron as they sought and received the Air Staff approval for C-123 shredding and smelting...and by repeating OSD's recommendation to hide the process from the media and the veterans, it became AF policy. Special procedures were taken to make sure the destruction of the C-123 fleet was accomplished with as little public attention as possible, with hopes that no information would leak out at all.

It should be clear. Veterans had already been exposed. They should have been told of this, rather than having the evidence about it destroyed specifically to prevent their learning of the C-123 contamination history and the right...indeed, for many, the NEED to turn to the VA for medical care for exposure to deadly dioxin.

Shame on all parties involved for this "magnificent" deception. Shame on those who congratulated the Air Force players for their secrecy. Shame on Air Force Public Affairs for a piece of tainted "journalism" which brings discredit to the United States Air Force! The video shows cuts from military documents and other materials released under FOIA, the originals of which can be downloaded at www.c123kcancer.blogspot.com for further study.

What Agent Orange Looks Like - Soft Tissue Sarcoma

Sorry to be grim, but here is what dioxin does: soft tissue sarcoma, photo taken last month, with our friend's cancer also evidenced in many lung spots. He formerly was our squadron First Sergeant, and recently retired as he concluded an extended tour of Active Duty at Robins AFB, only to face these medical miseries. We're all praying for Gabby every morning at 7:30 with a world-wide prayer circle! God bless and keep him. (note: MSgt Gadbois passed away in January 2012)

We flew the C-123K/UC-123K. 

We flew the airplane Hill AFB's Public Affairs office decided not to tell us was contaminated with Agent Orange. 

We got sick.

They could have helped.

They didn't.

Gabby on the left, me in the center, on my return from Desert Storm