VA's initial denial of C-123 Agent Orange exposure claims - ABSURD!

A little history about VBA's deceptions and cruelty in treating Agent Orange claims:

We started discussions with VA about C-123 Agent Orange exposure in 2010 and met brick-wall resistance. In 2012 we were told during an in-person conference with Mr. Tom Murphy (Director of VBA Benefits Administration) and his staff that VA had already concluded no C-123 crew or maintainer exposure was possible.

Adding a kicker that this, he told me directly that regardless of what medical, scientific or military evidence we might present then or in the future, absolutely no C-123 claims for Agent Orange exposure would ever be approved. 

For claims that were denied and then appealed to the Board of Veterans Appeals, here is the boilerplate denial verbiage they came up with:

VA's Office of Public Health is noted to have thoroughly reviewed all available scientific information regarding the exposure potential to residual amounts of herbicides on the C-123 aircraft surfaces. It was concluded that the potential exposure for the post-Vietnam crews that flew or maintained the aircraft was extremely low and therefore it was concluded that the risk of long-term health effects was minimal.

Naturally, I inquired as to exactly what was meant by their "thoroughly reviewed all available scientific information". VA's answer was they'd simply reached a staff consensus in the VHA Post-Deployment Public Health office that no exposure threat existed. And if there was any exposure, it wasn't significant "enough" to cause any adverse health effects. In other words, there was NO such thorough review of relevant literature and only a knee-jerk decision to deny claims.

And boy, did they ever deny claims! Every single one of them.*

I'll point out here that prior to meeting with Murphy, VA had been provided input from numerous scientific and medical authorities as to our exposures. Columbia University, Yale, University of Texas, Oregon Health Sciences University and others had specifically concluded that C-123 vets had been exposed to Agent Orange. I'll remind readers that VA is required to give every benefit of the doubt to veterans' claims, to review claims sympathetically and in a pro-veteran manner yet"required" didn't seem to apply to C-123 claims.

Other federal authorities had also chimed in to support us against VA: the CDC Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry had reported to VA that C-123 veterans experienced 180 times the published military exposure threshold for Agent Orange. Further, that we have a 200-fold greater risk of cancers developing. Eventually, even the Army's Joint Services Records Research Center tried to tell VA we met exposure requirements, but VA's Mr. Jim Sampsel refused to recognize such input. Note here that VA's own regulations specified that Joint Services Records Research Center input was authoritative as regards Agent Orange exposure claims. Nonetheless, Sampsel disputed everything. (Later, Sampsel even told VA's Disability Compensation Committee that Agent Orange was merely hype and hysteria.)

It seems VA was very selective as to what "available scientific information" they were willing to consider, and that nothing affirming the veterans' exposure would be acceptable to them. And nothing ever was acceptable, at least until the Institute of Medicine virtually jammed it down their throats in January 2015.

* Here was a special VA deception. Every single C-123 claim was denied until June 2015, yet Sampsel and Murphy insisted there was no "blanket denial" policy. Clearly, their only policy was that none would ever be approved regardless of what the policy might be named. They disingenuously insisted that each claim was carefully evaluated on its merits, while quietly pretending that C-123 claims were without any merit regardless of medical and scientific evidence.

VA DECEPTIONS USED TO DENY C-123 AGENT ORANGE CLAIMS, 2011-2015

   Every C-123 Agent Orange claim ever submitted was denied until June 2015, but still, VA insisted it had no blanket denial policy. How else are ten years of 100% denials described? With instructions like the examples below, there clearly was an official blanket denial policy. This denied Due Process, misled Congress when it tried to help us, ignored VAM21-1MR and provisions of US statutes and Federal Regulations. It was deceptive and an amazing abuse of discretion.

    Look at the following list of promises of case-by-case consideration. All of them, however earnestly offered, are shown to be false in the memo authored by VBA's Agent Orange expert, Mr. James Sampsel. He wrote, "If we were to adopt a case-by-case plan, an additional problem would be how to determine whether a particular post-Vietnam C-123 crew member was flying stateside on a former Ranch Hand aircraft." 

    See the point? He's discussing VA adopting a case-by-case plan, making it clear VA never had one! Why? Because VBA wanted to avoid the "slippery slope" his memo warned of.

VA has the means to punish veterans making false claims, but veterans have nothing except outrage to deal with VA's abuse of discretion and false promises.

      – FALSE VA PROMISES OF PROPER C-123 CLAIMS  –

"Scouts' Honor?"

• "All claims are considered on a case-by-case basis." – former Secretary Shinseki

• "All claims considered on case-by-case basis." – Under Secretary Hickey

• "All claims are evaluated on a case-by-case basis." – VA Office of General Counsel

• "All claims are considered on a case-by-case basis." – VA Deputy Chief Consultant Post-Deployment Health

• "Claims accepted and reviewed on case-by-case basis." – Federal Register (VA per Dr. Terry Walters), May 11, 2011, December 26, 2012, May 23, 2014

• "Makes a case-by-case determination..." – VA Office of General Counsel

• "Evaluations...conducted on a case-by-case basis." – VA response to Senate Veterans Affairs Committee

• "VA decides these claims on a case-by-case basis." – VA C-123 Agent Orange web page

• "These claims will be decided on a “case-by-case basis" – VA Agent Orange consultant

• "All claims are evaluated on a case-by-case basis.” – VBA Director Compensation & Pension Service

    • "Claims are evaluated on a case-by-case basis." – VA Public Affairs

   – FALSE EXCUSES VA CITED TO DENY C-123 CLAIMS –

"I cannot tell a lie!...except about C-123s"

     VBA informed regional offices how to deny all claims, and when ROs asked CS for they were told how to deny C-123 claims (VBA and VHA leaders made similar statements.)
     Every one of these was eventually shown to be in error, yet VA has never made right the harm done affected veterans.

•  "Therefore, there was no exposure"

• "We have to draw the line somewhere" 

•  "VA has an overwhelming preponderance of evidence against exposure"

• "Comp Svc has never had a policy of supporting such "remote" or  "secondary" AO exposure"

•  “VHA has already informed CS that no C-123 exposure claims will be approved because there was no exposure” (Mr. Tom Murphy to Wes Carter and Major Marlene Wentworth, NC USAF on 28 Feb 2013, in his office)

•   "No amount of proof from whatever source will permit a C-123 claim approval. Because we've already determined there was no exposure." (Dr. Mike Peterson VHA to Wes Carter and Mr. Brooks Tucker [Senator Burr's staff] at Senate Hart Building meeting, May 2012)

•  "TCDD in post-Vietnam C-123s cannot be absorbed by the human body in any significant amounts and there is no scientific evidence for long-term health effects from such 'exposure' "

•   "Preponderance of scientific evidence does not support TCDD “exposure” in post-Vietnam aircraft and VA laws and policy do not generally support service connection on this basis"

•   "VHA and independent scientists have stated that this solidified TCDD could not be absorbed by the human body and could not cause long-term health effects"

•   "There is no legal basis for providing this disability benefit and insufficient scientific evidence to establish long-term health effects from any such 'remote' exposure"

•  "VA does not recognize such 'secondary' or 'remote' exposure to Agent Orange"

•  "VA regulations do not allow us to concede exposure to herbicides for Veteran's who claim they were exposed to herbicides after the Vietnam war while flying in aircraft used to spray these chemicals"

•  "Evidence was found not to be competent and sufficient in this case to establish a link or nexus between your medical condition and military service or to establish that such a link has been found by a medical professional

•  "No 'presumption' or 'acknowledgment' of exposure to AO based on indirect, secondary, or remote contact with aircraft or equipment previously used in Vietnam"

• "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' "

•  "VHA's medical expertise on lack of evidence for long-term health effects speculative evidence for "high levels" of exposure from his supporters (CDC/ATSDR, NIH, USPHS, NIEHS, Committee of Concerned Scientists & Physicians) who are not qualified to provide the medical nexus"

•  "The potential for exposure to Agent Orange and TCDD and subsequent development of any adverse health effects from flying in potentially contaminated C-123 aircraft years after the Vietnam War is essentially zero.

•  “C-123 vets are 'Trash-haulers. Freeloaders looking for a tax-free dollar. I have no respect.'"

• "The potential for exposure to TCDD and subsequent development of any adverse health effects from flying in potentially contaminated C-123 aircraft years after the Vietnam War is essentially nonexistent. As a result, there is no scientific basis for VA to establish the  presumption of Agent Orange exposure among this group of Veterans."

• “The overwhelming preponderance of evidence is against such exposures, including a VHA website specifically stating such exposure could not have occurred” 

•  “Please tell veteran. "We are unable to verify or document that aircrew members were exposed to Agent Orange, resulting from Agent Orange residue or dioxin-contaminated aircraft or aircraft parts. Although residual TCDD. the toxic substance in Agent Orange, may be detected in C-123 aircraft by sophisticated laboratory techniques many years after its use, the Office of Public Health concluded that the existing scientific studies and reports support a low probability that TCDD was biologically available in these aircraft. “Therefore, the potential for exposure to TCDD from flying or working in contaminated C-123 aircraft years after the Vietnam War is unlikely to have occurred at levels that could affect health."

• “Veteran failed to prove his airplanes were the ones used in Vietnam

• “There is (no) evidence of exposure to herbicides during military service.”

•  "The C-123 veterans are not currently eligible for compensation"

•  "There was no exposure. (Consultant representing VA at June 2014 IOM C-123 hearing)

• "Current scientific review indicates that any residual herbicide in the post-Vietnam C-123s cannot be absorbed by the human body or cause long-term health effects."

•  "VA laws and policies related to Agent Orange exposure, whether presumptive or based on fact-found evidence, address exposure contact that occurs during the actual spraying or handling of the dioxin-containing liquid herbicide"*


• "TCDD is believed to persist in the metallic (or painted) environment with the lack of direct sunlight; however, its exposure risk is low due to lack of bioavailability and possible routes of exposure."

• "Therefore, it can be concluded that crews who worked on C-123 aircraft after they were used in the Vietnam War were not at risk of developing TCDD/Agent Orange-related health effects"

• "The scientific evidence available to establish a medical nexus in these cases is limited and the VA Office of Public Health has provided a medical opinion that it is insufficient to establish the required nexus. While your letter**focuses on the issue of potential dioxin exposure, it does not offer an opinion on the medical nexus issue nor does it address the potential for long-term health effects or disabilities resulting from service on the post-Vietnam C-123 aircraft."

    –––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

* Liquid Agent Orange only? A novel concept, but an outrageous one in toxicology. Agent Orange and its contaminant TCDD are deadly as a liquid, gas, solid or anything in between. The IOM concluded that, despite VA's "liquid" slight-of-hand. C-123 veterans were exposed via dermal, inhalation and ingestion routes of exposure.
** Mr. Murphy references the letter to Secretary Hickey from the Committee of Concerned Scientists and Physicians, which sought to satisfy the legal and scientific requirements for veterans' Agent Orange benefits per 38 USC and the VA's three eligibility statements in the Federal Register, i.e. exposure alone.

    ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

• Here is VA's first position statement from April 2011 addressing C-123 exposure inquiries. 

• The first point is correct: at that time, only Vietnam veterans had "presumptive exposure." The law was that other claimants would have to prove exposure on a fact-proven basis as we proceeded to do.

• The next four VA points were either disproved by the IOM or, with the third point, clearly CUE.

It needs to be repeated: From the very beginning, VA science and policy were 100% WRONG on C-123 Agent Orange

In fact, VA was wrong and was determined to prevent our disability claims as a matter of policy regardless of the science involved. From the very beginning our search for help, VA ignored it's fundamental obligation to us as veterans.

No other veteran or veterans organization, supported in the scientific claims for harmful Agent Orange exposure by the CDC and other federal agencies as well as dozens of independent positions and university based scientists, has faced such an automatic VA opposition.  Today's perspective, 18 months after the release of the Institute of Medicine C-123 Report, clearly shows VA opposition was policy-based. VA simply had no scientific or legal basis to oppose the claims – yet they did.

Rather than permit us the benefit of the doubt required by law and M21-1MR they immediately took an adversarial position. That was most perfectly expressed by Mr. Thomas Murphy (Director, VBA Pension and Compensation) when on February 28 2013 he insisted no amount of proof from whatever source would be accepted by VA to support our claims.

Mr. Murphy explained that Veterans Health Administration Public Health decided upon our first inquiries back in early 2011 that, no matter what, C-123 vets were not exposed and VA would deny every claim. VA would do this while insisting that every claim would be considered on a case-by-case basis... and then automatically denied.

As regards the requirement to give us benefit of the doubt, VA reserved it for itself and denied it to the veterans. Even after support for our exposures was submitted to the VA by the CDC ATSDR as well as the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, DoD JSRRC and dozens of independent physicians and researchers VA stuck to its illogical and unscientific as well as blatantly anti-veteran position

Nothing illustrates the deception VA used against us better than the simple comparison of the May 2011 VA position statement (below, formulated by Dr. Terry Walters and her colleagues in VHA Public Health) and the final report on us published by the Institute of Medicine in January 2015.

Let's look at VA's five bullet points:
1) Correct, but irrelevant. The 1991 Agent Orange Act requires VA to treat all veterans exposed to Agent Orange if they have relevant illnesses. VA repeatedly assured Congress and the public via the Federal Register that it would do so.
2) Deceptive. There is only the issue of exposure, not the kind of exposure. For the purpose of opposing our claims, VA introduced the idea of remote/secondary exposure and claimed it made proven contamination of our aircraft no different than the theoretical contamination of the equipment used in Vietnam.
3) Ridiculous! VA stated it would ignore all proof of exposure from whatever source such as the CDC. We did not know it for years but VA had unscientifically redefined the word exposure to require bioavailability for exposure to be recognized. VA created its own unique redefinition of exposure to block our exposure claims, and were criticized for doing so by leaders in other federal health agencies. Even under this redefined exposure, VA should have acknowledged the bioavailability of the C-123 Agent Orange contamination when the CDC informed of them that veterans had a 200 times greater risk of cancer. VA uses Dorland's  Illustrated Medical Dictionary as the standard text of definitions... except for the word exposure.
4) Deceptive. The 1991 Agent Orange Act eliminated the requirement that a veteran establish medical nexus of illnesses associated with Agent Orange and instead provided a presumption. The scientific evidence suggested as missing was already established by the Institute of Medicine and it's numerous earlier reports. Further, as with the first point, VA have a legal obligation as well as the duty under its own regulations to treat all veterans with a proven Agent Orange exposure.
5) The last bullet point is perhaps the VA's most blatant policy driven deception. The opinions referenced as supporting our claims came from the CDC ATSDR, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, and dozens of university scientists and independent physicians. Rather than acknowledging this volume of proof, the VA Agent Orange desk in Veterans Benefits Administration simply asserted that it had "an overwhelming preponderance of proof" against our exposures. In fact there was no such proof against our exposure claims and VA insistence otherwise was merely a policy statement. The IOM C-123 Agent Orange Report relied on the same body of evidence to reach an opposite conclusion – veterans were indeed exposed!

VA Conclusions Rigged Uo To Deny Claims For Five Years:
1) "Even though residual Agent Orange may be detected in C-123 aircraft by laboratory techniques years after Agent Orange use, it must be remembered that there is no bio-availability of TCDD in these aircraft. "

2) "The potential for exposure to Agent Orange and TCDD and subsequent development of any adverse health effects from flying in potentially contaminated C-123 aircraft years after the Vietnam War is essentially zero."

Terry J, Walters, MD MPH: Director, Environmental Health, VHA

BUT, the Institute of Medicine concluded after studying the same data:
1)  Veterans suffered bioavailability of the dioxin aboard the aircraft by all three possible routes (dermal, inhalation, and ingestion.) IOM specifically disproved the VA theory of no bioavailability of dried dioxin advanced by VHA Post-Deployment Public Health. That flawed concept was earlier advanced by Dr. Alvin Young who actually argued against any hazards of Agent Orange in his article "Environmental fate of TCDD and Agent orange and Bioavailability To Troops in Vietnam."  A frequent VA and DoD consultant, Young was beneficiary of a no-bid sole source $600,000 consulting contract most of which focused on our aircraft.
2) "Reservists experienced increases in their risks of adverse health outcomes." In fact, the CDC told VA veterans had a 200 fold greater risk of cancer.

VA Needs to Hear Our Argument on Retroactive Disability Compensation

Here’s the law for veterans and the VA on retroactive disability compensation (38 C.F.R. 3.114)

“(a) Effective date of award. Where pension, compensation, dependency and indemnity compensation, or a monetary allowance under 38 U.S.C. chapter 18 for an individual who is a child of a Vietnam veteran or child of a veteran with covered service in Korea is awarded or increased pursuant to a liberalizing law, or a liberalizing VA issue approved by the Secretary or by the Secretary's direction, the effective date of such award or increase shall be fixed in accordance with the facts found, but shall not be earlier than the effective date of the act or administrative issue. Where pension, compensation, dependency and indemnity compensation, or a monetary allowance under 38 U.S.C. chapter 18 for an individual who is a child of a Vietnam veteran or child of a veteran with covered service in Korea is awarded or increased pursuant to a liberalizing law or VA issue which became effective on or after the date of its enactment or issuance, in order for a claimant to be eligible for a retroactive payment under the provisions of this paragraph the evidence must show that the claimant met all eligibility criteria for the liberalized benefit on the effective date of the liberalizing law or VA issue and that such eligibility existed continuously from that date to the date of claim or administrative determination of entitlement. The provisions of this paragraph are applicable to original and reopened claims as well as claims for increase.”

C-123 veterans ask that VA more closely follow this section of 38 C.F.R. and further, interpret when possible in the most pro-veteran manner. Our exposures constitute injuries, which satisfy both our service’s and the VA’s requirements for statutory veteran status. Having all eligibility criteria met when the liberalizing benefit was promulgated, and having continuously maintained that eligibility, retroactive compensation is appropriate and not proscribed by 38 C.F.R. but instead provided for by it.

There is no justification in VA21-1M or 38 U.S.C. to prohibit Reservists and Guardsmen exposed to toxins which science and also VA acknowledges result in subsequent disabling injuries, illnesses and death. Indeed, prior to June 18 2015 and the C-123 Interim Final Rule, there was no prohibition to granting service connection for those exposures and grants were made repeatedly for Air Force Reservists’ C-123 exposure claims, including by different Boards of Veterans Appeals over many years.

Since early 2011 VA leaders, from the Secretary to more junior staffers, knowing that nearly all of the claims would be from Reservists, assured veterans and our legislators that each C-123 exposure claim would be considered on a case-by-case basis. This assurance was accompanied with directions to regional offices that no possibility existed to honor C-123 exposure claims and that VA regulations prohibited doing so. Secretary Shinseki published his June 7 2013 C-123 Fact Sheet through Senator Burr, in which he repeated that assurance and commitment. Any prohibition against retroactivity only arises from the June 18 2015 Interim Final Rule inclusion of an unnecessary liberalizing rule.

Between 1972 and June 2015, there have been no denials of C-123 Agent Orange exposure claims for Air Force Reservists, either at VARO-level or BVA, on the only recently raised question of veteran qualification. When BVA decisions addressed the issue of Reserve veteran status at all, it was to specify that the exposure injury, dating from the exposure, satisfied the statutory requirements.

This comports with binding VA OGC precedential opinions, which themselves have frequently been cited in VARO, DRO and BVA decisions on different illnesses and injuries.

The VA has stated it cannot permit awards retroactive from the date the Secretary’s dates for new rules. If that is the case, certainly VA cannot attempt to make retroactive the prohibition of retroactive compensation for claims properly submitted to Veterans Benefits Administration prior to the Interim Final Rule.  That, too, is blocked by the Secretary’s inability to effect changes for his rules prior to the rules taking effect.

It is proper for VA to determine it has the authority to deny retroactive benefits only for claims not filed before the June 2015 Interim Final Rule, and proper to also determine that it has authority to provide or deny retroactivity for claims received after the rule’s promulgation. Again, the Secretary’s authority to prevent retroactive compensation only derives from the Interim Final Rule but on a prospective basis, not prior to June 2015 for claims already submitted. Claims received by VA prior to June 2015 must be considered on a case-by-case basis with full retroactive effect of any awards. After June 18 2015 VA can apply both its barrier to retroactivity and presumptive service connection.

The Board of Veterans Appeals has repeatedly acknowledged the “veteran” status of Reservists exposed to toxins, BVA Docket 06-18 270 in 2007 held that a Reservist exposed to Agent Orange aboard my own C-123 aircraft (citing in particular #362 which I flew) at my own base(s) (Westover AFB and Hansom AFB, both in MA and both of which were bases I flew from) during the same time period, satisfy statutory requirements: The Board concluded:

“The Board will concede that the veteran was exposed to an herbicide during service. The service and museum (USAF Museum Dayton Ohio re: C-123 #362) records document the veteran’s reserve service in 1972 and 1973, the presence of that C-123 at Hansom in 1972 and 1973, the use of that C-123 in spreading defoliant in Vietnam, and service of that aircraft in Vietnam in 1972.
The board accepts that the veteran was exposed to an herbicide during service. The veteran was diagnosed with type 2 diabetes after service. The Board presumes that the veteran’s diabetes is service connected, and grants his claim.”

Another BVA case dealing with Air Force Reservists flying the same C-123s, concluded in its 2001 decision:

“Therefore, the Board resolves such reasonable doubt in favor of the veteran to find that the veteran was exposed to an herbicide agent used in support of the United States and its allied military operations in the Republic of Vietnam during, his active duty for training performed at Rickenbacker Air Force Base between 1970 and 1975. 38 U.S.C.A. 5107(b) (West Supp. 2001); 38 C.F.R. 3.102.

Other BVA decisions addressing Air Force Reservists in 2013 and 2014 (Matte [2014, Boston DRO] and Bailey [2013, Manchester DRO]) paralleled the several earlier decisions. In fact, there are no known BVA decisions addressing C-123 Air Force Reservists which did not acknowledge assume their satisfaction of statutory requirements for veteran status.

Thus, seven years of multiple well-reasoned BVA decisions about C-123 Air Force Reservists indicate that until the June 18 2015 Interim Final Rule was published, no such barrier existed to recognize satisfaction of an Air Force Reservist’s claim to veteran status via the herbicide exposure. There was no barrier because the VA OGC opinions satisfied the issue completely – until created in June 2015.

The C-123 AO exposure claim which generated the most attention from VA leadership was that of LtCol Paul Bailey. His denial in February 2013 dealt with the claim without concern for veteran status. When his claim was reconsidered by DRO, no concern was raised regarding statutory veteran status because it was conceded.

The Bailey decision received immediate and extensive scrutiny from VA leadership, including Secretary Shinseki. After the Washington Post’s August 3 story about the grant it generated email and other correspondence from VBA Compensation and Pension, VBA Agent Orange Desk, VHA Post Deployment Public Health, the Under Secretary for Health Administration, VA OGC, Congressional Liaison, and other officials…all without concern ever raised for any statutory veteran status and the only comments being that the claim was supported by credible scientific evidence and that is was proof of VA’s promise of “case by case” consideration.

On my own initial AO denial in 2012, no issue was made of statutory veteran status. Indeed, Mr. Tom Murphy in C&P directed the claim be denied, not on the veteran issue but instead by disregarding all the scientists’ and physicians’ input and asserting no exposure – my veteran status was unchallenged as in all the other veterans’ claims mentioned above. Mr. Murphy and the other VA executives with whom I’ve exchanged communications (VA OGC, Under Secretary Shinseki, VA Office of Congressional Liaison, regional offices) a question might have been raised by now regarding statutory veteran status, especially from Mr. Murphy or General Hickey. Denying my claim and appeal for years never touched on veteran qualification. If veterans failed to satisfy statutory veteran requirements for the specific time period associated with the exposure injury, that problem should have been raised by VA years ago. Instead, but problem of the Reservists’ status was created only with publication of the June 2015 Interim Final Rule.

Between 2007 and May 2014, each of the handful of approved Air Force Reservists’ Agent Orange exposure claims were granted on the fact-proven basis of herbicide exposure, but granted only through an appeals process involving DRO, or BVA actions where each of them was successfulasd433. In January 2015 the Institute of Medicine made that point even more clearly in its answer to Secretary McDonald’s charge to the committee. Before June 2015 each veteran granted service connection for C-123 Agent Orange exposures received full retroactive compensation. Our claims were submitted in the same time frame.

I flew with these veterans and was their flight instructor and flight examiner to train and certify them on the same aircraft on the same days, and we’ve had the same illnesses, yet my own claim was “postponed” for years and only recently awarded but with retroactive compensation blocked. Thus, my students received proper retroactive compensation but I do not, nor do other similarly situated Air Force Reservists, despite how perfectly parallel all the claims are, and only because VA did not process my claims or appeals within the 52 months it had them. The significant distinction here is only that some claims were granteed prior to June 2015 and most others, afterwards but without the same retroactive compensation. This is unfairly discriminatory.

Should this request for retroactive compensation for C-123 veterans be denied, we specifically ask for assurances that every effort was made by VA leadership to take the most pro-veteran perspective on each aspect of the issue.

A ray of hope might be found in the military Line of Duty determination process. In the Air Force, this is AF Instruction 36-2910, and the overall tone is strongly pro-veteran, and protective of servicemembers' VA rights. If the Air Force can generate LODs for our C-123 exposures and injuries, VA is supposed to accept them and thus we'll have satisfied the statutory requirement for "veteran" status and injury, and hopefully, then be qualified for retroactive disability compensation dated from date of VA claim. We'll see...here's the VA policy per 38 C.F.R. 3.1.:

In line of duty means an injury or disease incurred or aggravated during a period of active military, naval, or air service unless such injury or disease was the result of the veteran's own willful misconduct or, for claims filed after October 31, 1990, was a result of his or her abuse of alcohol or drugs. A service department finding that injury, disease or death occurred in line of duty will be binding on the Department of Veterans Affairs unless it is patently inconsistent with the requirements of laws administered by the Department of Veterans Affairs. Requirements as to line of duty are not met if at the time the injury was suffered or disease contracted the veteran was:(1) Avoiding duty by desertion, or was absent without leave which materially interfered with the performance of military duty.(2) Confined under a sentence of court-martial involving an unremitted dishonorable discharge.(3) Confined under sentence of a civil court for a felony as determined under the laws of the jurisdiction where the person was convicted by such court.(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 105)