A little C-123 Agent Orange history:

• October 2011: teleconference with VA where they insist no possibility of C-123 veteran Agent Orange exposure

• January 2012: following request from C-123 veterans, CDC Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry informs VA and USAF C-123 veterans experienced a 182-times higher exposure to dioxin than standards, and experienced a 200-fold greater cancer risk; VA dismisses everything

• May 2012: USAF School of Aerospace Medicine completes report demanded by C-123 veterans, finds no evidence of Agent Orange exposure or harm; "command interference" suggested by scientists associated with the study

• December 2012: USAF Surgeon General DECLINES request to notify C-123 veterans of potential exposures, stating, "Given the absence of a clear finding of potential harm, we believe it unnecessary to relay such individual findings to persons whom had entered or worked on C-123s between 1972 and 1982, and whom may be unaware of this assessment."

• January 9 2015: National Academy of Sciences Institute of Medicine reports C-123 veterans were exposed to harmful amounts of Agent Orange, repeating the CDC report that C-123 aircraft were unsafe in American airspace and should have been grounded, and the aircrews should have been flying them in full HAZMAT protection, not simple NOMEX flight suits. IOM also concludes the May 2012 USAFSAM C-123 report was scientifically flawed

• After four and a half years of foot-dragging VA begins awarding C-123 veterans Agent Orange exposure benefits, having denied them all medical care and other benefits prior to June 18 2015, and forbidding any retroactive compensation

USAF Conceals All C-123 Agent Orange Exposure Information

Yesterday, in response to our suit in the US District Court of Washington DC, the Surgeon General of the Air Force determined which materials relating to C-123 Agent Orange exposures are to be publicly released.

Nothing.

Certainly, a loud echo of the 1996 memo from JAG attorneys in the USAF Office of Environmental Law which directed all C-123 Agent Orange information "be kept in official channels only."

General Travis withheld everything except their disputed 2012 report, and copies of some of my own letters to the AF.

In an action very unusual for involving a lieutenant general, he insisted AF would not release anything explaining his decision. VA recently did the same, releasing blank pages and withholding virtually everything.

You see our conundrum: The VA and the USAF say, without any basis, that C-123 vets were not exposed. Neither will explain anything about their research, references, correspondence, emails, staff contributors, reviews, approvals, reports, manuals, orders, regulations, notes, recordings, conclusions – all restricted from us, other than VA providing a contractor's selected monographs. 

The Air Force will not release any of its correspondence with VA, NIH, or CDC/ATSDR. ATSDR, like the others, continues to insist we were exposed and were harmed aboard our C-123s. Yet the Air Force has told Senator Burr its report was somehow "consistent" with ATSDR.

Exposed (CDC/ATSDR) is "consistent" with not exposed? (USAF)

What is the justification for any secrecy involving a 60-year old airplane, and our duties aboard it three to four decades ago? Since VA has decided in advance to refuse us care for our Agent Orange exposures, don't we have the right to insist they reveal completely their justification?

It seems neither agency is in tune with the President's executive order on transparency in government! The 2009 memo instructed federal officials "to make discretionary FOIA releases of documents that might be technically exempt from release (especially with respect to the "deliberative" b(5) exemption), to proactively post records of interest to the public, and to remove "unnecessary bureaucratic hurdles." General Travis somehow concluded the President did not include the military in his FOIA rule, and on his authority redacted virtually everything that might be relevant.

It is clear that DOD or VA place veterans ahead of whatever policy or hidden agenda they have regarding this problem of C-123 aircrew exposure.