VA Leadership CONTINUES Fighting Veterans' Exposure Claims

Today's Camp Lejeune toxic water claimants would do well to remember the anti-veteran words of Mr. Brad Flohr, VA's Senior Advisor for Compensation Services. In 2013, Mr. Flohr commented on an Agent Orange disability award for a C-123 veteran, LtCol Paul Bailey (note: all affected C-123 vets were eventually provided presumptive service connection via an Interim Final Rule promulgated by the Secretary effective June 19, 2015.)

"-----Original VA message released by Dept of Justice under FOIA lawsuit-----

From: Flohr, Brad (SES EQV), VBAVACOSent: Monday, August 26, 2013 8:40 AM
To: Murphy, Thomas (SES), VBAVACO; Bilosz, Mark, (SES), VBAVACO; Black, Paul, VBAVACO
Cc: Flynn, Mary A. (SES), VBAVACO; Sampsel, James, VBAVACO
Subject: RE: VASec Wants to Know How We Granted SC for AO Exposure for a Vet Who Did NOT Serve in Vietnam

Unfortunately, there is evidence from credible sources, including ATSDR, noting the presence of Agent Orange in the C123 aircraft, so it would be difficult to sever service connection, not to mention politically unpopular."

"Unfortunately" he wrote? Evidence from the CDC and US Public Health Service and nationally-respected scientists and physicians supporting a vet's claim for medical care is somehow "unfortunate?" Evidence supporting a vet's claim is unfortunate AND credible, as he acknowledges. What the heck kind of evidence does Mr. Flohr find acceptable before he trashes a veteran's disability claim? How does he feel exempted from the Veterans Claims Assistance Act? From the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment? Did he get a special pass to trash valid veterans' claims and ignore VA's legal duty to be pro-veteran, non-adversarial and paternalistic?

 Mr. Flohr's August 26 2013 memo was triggered by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, who on August 14 2013, asked his staff to account for how LtCol Bailey's C-123 Agent Orange exposure claim was permitted on August 3 2013 by the Manchester NH Veterans Affairs Office...which acted on the evidence but against VA HQ instructions (the DRO told VA HQ he acted on the evidence)...and the background on all such C-123 claims. Here is what Secretary Shinseki asked:

"I hope you are doing well and that you enjoyed your time off.  I have a question regarding disability claims and have no idea who to send it to.  Though you may be able to route me to the correct person. I would like to obtain information on claims for disability compensation based on exposure to Agent Orange during service on c‐123 aircrafts (post‐Vietnam) that were used to spray agent orange.
Specifically, I would like to know the result of such claims and a summary of why such claims are denied or approved.  Also, a summary of claims that were appealed and if the decision was reaffirmed by BVA or overturned.  If overturned, the reasoning for such action." 

VBA and VHA most senior leadership (the "VASec" – General Shinseki and staff) viewed evidence supporting this exposed combat veteran's claim as "unfortunate?" These words of Mr. Flohr leave an even more toxic taste in my mouth when considering the vindication given C-123 veterans by the Institute of Medicine's Agent Orange report in January 2015 and, eventually in June, the Secretary's Interim Final Rule. The C-123 veterans, it turns out, had been right all along...right in the science, right in the law. VA was wrong to have refused these veterans medical care for their cancers and other ailments. As Senator Burr said for his colleagues, "it shouldn't have taken this long or been this hard." And veterans shouldn't have died, denied VA medical care!

Perhaps Mr. Flohr, whose paramount duty should be insuring all eligible veterans are provided benefits earned as per the law, feels credible evidence needs to be withheld, much as VA withheld the JSRRC confirmation of C-123 vet's exposures in March 2013.

His documented background of anti-veteran perspective is enough to disqualify Mr. Flohr in any VA role where he determines whether veterans will or will not be permitted essential medical care and other benefits.

That would be "unfortunate" for Mr. Flohr but a Heaven-sent blessing for the troops! What should our analysis be of the people Mr. Flohr's August 26 memo was distributed to, including Mr. Tom Murphy, Director Compensation and Pension? 

Mr. Murphy, remember, authored the denial order for a C-123 veteran's claim by insisting that TCDD (the toxin in Agent Orange) was harmless! This prejudicial and unscientific comment stood to block the veteran's claim until October 2015. On December 1 2015, the Department of Justice reported that Mr. Murphy's statement "was in error and incomplete." In error and incomplete, but unfortunately it still sufficed for Mr. Murphy's purpose of blocking a claim for as long as he could, and until retroactive benefits were no longer available to the vet.

Finally, why the heck didn't anyone copied on this memo then or since act to correct the harm done by Mr. Flohr's blatant "unfortunate" remarks? Co-conspirators in VBA's objective of, as VHA's Dr. Terry Walters put it to the Associated Press, of having to "draw the line somewhere" should be questioned about exactly how bad such actions have to be before blowing the whistle!

What kind of VA do we have if it sees credible evidence supporting a veteran's claim as UNFORTUNATE? And the staffers get away with this for years! Are they free to disregard VA regulations (VAM21-1MR,) as well as the Veterans Claims Assistance Act and the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment?

Mr. Flohr was interviewed by NPR but on a different exposure concern – Mustard Gas: "This is not an easy, not a simple thing," Flohr says. "But we have done everything that we could do, I definitely believe that." This was his weak defense of VA's failure to contact suffering volunteers for early Mustard Gas experiments...his defense was for twenty years of VA failing to honor its commitment to Congress and failure to contact over 75% of those veterans in the two decades since it said it would. Mr. Flohr is aided in VA's efforts to prevent Mustard Gas claims by the fact even the Pentagon says the necessary records have been destroyed. NPR reported, "And yet Flohr insists the VA still needs (lost government) proof in order to grant claims. "I'm sorry, " Flohr says. "But the only thing we can do is follow our statutes and regulations.

He offered much the same over five years ago, in an interview about Camp Lejeune with McClatchy Newspapers. "We're committed to do training for staff dedicated to do these claims." Five years ago he gave that interview and made that promise, yet VA's stall techniques continue to block Camp Lejeune vets still today. Although NPR's librarian found 1200 surviving veterans in just one month's effort, Flohr insisted that VA managed only found half that in over two decades, even with all the resources of the federal government.

"But the only thing we can do is follow our statutes and regulations," Mr. Flohr said.

EXCEPT...when those "statutes and regulations" happen to establish solid proof...credible government proof thrust upon VA by the NIH, CDC and the Department of Defense for C-123 veterans and our Agent Orange exposures, Mr. Flohr then considers proof "unfortunate" and best disregarded by VA.

Can these VA staffers, regardless of their position within the government, freely ignore laws and regulations? Can these staffers continue their quiet, unofficial, and personal vendetta against veterans with exposure injuries simply because they feel, as stated by Dr. Terry Walters to the Associated Press on May 14, 2014, "We have to draw the line somewhere." Echoing Mr. Flohr, she said VA was simply following the law...but now it is clear that these staffers worked hard to misinterpret the law, picking and choosing parts, ignoring other parts, all to block or delay veterans' claims. Were they somehow free to do this? Free to set their own special barrier to keep VA medical care away from these veterans?

Yes. No problem at all. They do it all the time without even having to answer for it. They work for the VA.

Secretary of Veterans Affairs: "Agent Orange and Vets: A 40-Year Wait

Agent Orange and Veterans: A 40-Year Wait (first published August 30, 2010.) The Secretary states VA policy about Agent Orange being harmful, a position now disputed by VA consultants and by Veterans Health Administration.

Secretary Eric K. Shinseki
August 30, 2010

With the unwavering support of President Obama, VA is transforming to meet its 21st Century responsibilities.  Advocacy, on behalf of every generation of Veterans, is central to this transformation.

Agent Orange was a blend of herbicides used by the U.S. military, during the Vietnam conflict, to deny concealment to enemy forces.  More than 19 million gallons of herbicides were sprayed to remove foliage and undergrowth.  The most common, Agent Orange, was sprayed in all four military zones of South Vietnam.

Heavily sprayed areas included the inland forests near the Demilitarized Zone; inland forests at the junction of the borders of Cambodia, Laos, and South Vietnam; inland forests north and northwest of Saigon; mangrove forests on the southernmost peninsula of Vietnam; and mangrove forests along major shipping channels southeast of Saigon.

The issue of Agent Orange’s toxic effects on Veterans, who served in Vietnam, has simmered for decades.  Its insidious impact on those exposed to it has become increasingly apparent. (emphasis added) That growing awareness has resulted in the Congress’, this Department’s, and the Institute of Medicine’s previous validations of some 12 diseases, which, to date, have been granted presumption of service connection for those exposed to Agent Orange.

Last October, based on the requirements of the Agent Orange Act of 1991 and the Institute of Medicine’s report, “Veterans and Agent Orange: Update 2008,” I determined that the evidence provided was sufficient to support presumptions of service connection for three additional diseases: Parkinson’s Disease, Hairy Cell and other Chronic B-Cell Leukemia, and Ischemic Heart Disease.  After a public rulemaking process, we are now issuing a final regulation creating these new presumptions.

This action means that Veterans who were exposed to herbicides in service and who suffer from one of the “presumed” illnesses do not have to prove an association between their medical problems and their military service.  This action helps Veterans to overcome the evidentiary requirements that might otherwise make it difficult for them to establish such an association in order to qualify for healthcare and other benefits needed as a result of their diseases.  The “Presumption” simplifies and accelerates the application process and ensures that Veterans will receive the benefits they deserve.

As many as 150,000 Veterans may submit Agent Orange claims in the next 12 to 18 months. Additionally, VA will review approximately 90,000 previously denied claims from Vietnam Veterans for service connection for these three new diseases. All those who are awarded service-connection, and who are not currently enrolled in the VA health care system, will become eligible for enrollment.

Veterans who served in the Republic of Vietnam, including its inland waterways, between January 9, 1962 and May 7, 1975, are presumed to have been exposed to herbicides.  If you know a Veteran who may have been exposed to herbicides in service and who suffers from one of the diseases that may be presumptively service connected, the Veteran or the Veteran's family can visit our website to find out how to file a claim for presumptive conditions related to herbicide exposure, as well as what information is needed by VA to determine disability compensation or survivors’ benefits.  Additionally, VA’s Office of Public Health can answer questions about Agent Orange and VA’s services for Veterans exposed to it. (blogger: Actually, they construct redefinitions of exposure to prevent exposure claims.)

This rule is long overdue.  It delivers justice to those who have suffered from Agent Orange’s toxic effects for 40 years.  I have been invited to testify before the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee on 23 September to explain these decisions, and I am happy to do that.  It was the right decision, and the President and I are proud to finally provide this group of Veterans the care and benefits they have long deserved.

VA is committed to addressing the health care needs of Veterans from all eras.  Forty years from today, a future Secretary of VA should not be adjudicating presumptive disabilities associated with our current conflicts.  Change is difficult for any good organization, but we are transforming this Department to advocate for Veterans.  We will not let our Veterans languish without hope for service-connected disabilities resulting from their service.

VA Has a Penchant for Denial

However, the VA has taken an official position that there is no evidence of any long-term problems associated with these incidences. The laissez faire opinion from the VA shows a shocking lack of respect for the issue itself, let alone the disturbing disregard for our veterans.

During Vietnam, soldiers were informed that Agent Orange was safe. The truths about Agent Orange are still being revealed today, even after 51 years of the war’s ending. Our veterans, their children, and the Vietnamese people have suffered from cancers to physical deformities.

Ironically, the VA does acknowledge that, “Veterans who were closer to burn pit smoke or exposed for longer periods may be at greater risk. Health effects depend on a number of other factors, such as the kind of waste being burned and wind direction.”
Eric K. Shinseki was Secretary  of Veterans Affairs until replaced by Secretary McDonald

Oregon Public Radio Interview: C-123 Veterans & Agent Orange

The interview with a C-123 Veterans Association member follows after about 45 seconds of local broadcasting. We discussed the aircraft contamination, the amusing strategies developed by the VA to prevent lawful claims, and what this has done to Air Force veterans.

http://www.kboo.org/sites/default/files/episode_audio/kboo_episode.2.130712.0900.2854.mp3

Secretary of Veterans Affairs Reaffirms Barriers to C-123 Veterans Agent Orange Claims

Last Monday, 7 June 2013,  Secretary of Veterans Affairs Eric Shinseki released his response to the challenge raised by Senator Richard Burr, Ranking Member of the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee, regarding post-Vietnam C-123 aircrew Agent Orange exposure.

Overall, the VA reaffirmed its determined opposition against our exposure claims. There is enormous value in General Shinseki's letter, however, for the following reasons:

1. for the first time, the issue has reached cabinet level officials, and General Shinseki has earlier proven himself immune from any monitory impact of decisions to do the right thing; the Secretary's statements, however much in error, get attention and, eventually, more correctly stated

2. the General repeats with a broad brush the push-back we've had from VA leadership, mostly expressed by VBA's Director of Compensation Services, and by the Veterans Health Administration. The VA Deputy Director of Post Deployment Health, told Major Terry Redd, US Army Army Chemical Corps officer, then serving as a Military Legislative Fellow, that she and the VA "cannot permit" more Agent Orange claims like ours; this was at the conclusion of the March 2012 meeting (at the Senate Hart Building Minority Veterans Affairs Committee conference room)  of VA representatives with C-123 veterans, Dr. Jeanne Stellman of Columbia University, and representatives of Senator Burr's staff . Clearly "cannot  permit" doesn't relate to the Secretary's assurance that claims will be fairly considered! VA was asked privately by us to correct this statement if it had been made in error, and no such correction has been made. VA has been privately asked about a lot of errors at 810 Vermont and 1800 G Street, with our offer to forgive and forget, without response. Veterans had hoped law could trump policy - but VA feels entitled to decide what the law is!

3. the Secretary failed to consider one of the strongest pillars of our claim, that of the 8 May 2001 Federal Register in which VA agrees to treat veterans exposed to Agent Orange outside Vietnam, the same as veterans of Vietnam

4. the Secretary completely failed to address the fundamental justification for our claims, that of actual exposure, and did not notice or comment on the multitude of other federal agencies and outside experts asserting our position and challenging the VA's 2012 redefinition of the word "exposure" to add "bioavailability"

5. the Secretary relied on the recent input to him offered by Colonel Al Young, without noting the consultant's role in advising the USAF to destroy all the toxic C-123s to prevent veterans learning of their exposures and seeking VA care. Dr. Young was referred to the USAF by the Office of Secretary of Defense where he serves as Senior Agent Orange Consultant. Dr. Young is the OSD official who first recommended the complete destruction of all stored C-123 aircraft specifically because C-123 vets might apply for "presumptive compensation", as he put it, for their Agent Orange illnesses even though veterans had already been exposed! Dr. Young provided his input, in writing, to at least three AF officials, and Mr. Buddy Boor repeated it specifically as he sought Air Staff approval, soon granted, for, as AF officials put it, the "Navy way, the quiet way" "below the radar" smelting of the toxic aircraft

6. the Secretary noted a 1996 test of four aircraft and reported only two were contaminated; the Secretary seemed unaware of other tests that year on 14 C-123s, 14 of which reported positive for dioxin contamination, per the 2012 C-123 USAF Consultative Report. Other documents from AFMC and AMARC report 17 of 17, or 18 of 18 aircraft positive for dioxin

7. the Secretary restated the VA position that TCDD (dioxin) hasn't been proven to be harmful, and in stating this, ignored other VA publications explaining the potential hazards of that toxin, as well as warnings from EPA, NIH, ATSDR. Besides - the 1991 Agent Orange Act relieved veterans of having to prove the dangers of TCDD...all the LAW requires of us is an AO-presumptive illness and proof of exposure

8. the Secretary referred to the "scientific study" conducted by the VA, without being aware that the VA's Assistant General Counsel McCallum in March 2013 certified that no such study was ever done (in her denial of the FOIA request from veterans)

9. while assuring C-123 veterans their claims would be fairly evaluated on a case-by-case basis, the Secretary seems not to be aware of the boilerplate claim denial provided to VAROs, and the predetermination that no C-123 veterans were ever exposed (a ruling by VHA in guiding VBA in forbidding C-123 veterans' claims)

So all is kinda well, but getting much, much better. Today we had a DC-based law firm agree to evaluate and present on a pro bono basis our two appeals to the US District Court in Washington DC regarding the deceptive USAF and VA responses to our FOIAs. This is thanks to the intervention of the Yale Veterans Law Clinic. On another legal front, the National Veterans Legal Services Program agreed to conduct a legal review of our status under the 1991 Agent Orange Act, 38CFR and the Federal Register, with the goal being a formal brief to accompany claims as well as our request for legislative intervention. Stay tuned: there are significant newspaper articles about us nearing publication. 

Yesterday, we received reaffirmation from Rear Admiral Robin Ikeda, USPHS, the incoming Director CDC/Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. She informed C-123 veterans of her conclusion that C-123 veterans were indeed exposed, just as we have claimed. We also received excellent legal advice regarding recent decisions in both the 8th and 9th Circuit Courts, where jurists held arbitrary dismissal of expert toxicologist evidence (as done by Compensation Services rejecting all input from all toxicologists) is an abuse of discretion, unfair and illegal in both court and government agencies.  VA does, however, permit its own toxicologists to submit evidence but only in opposing claims. Clear and unmistakable error, we were told!

What can you do, you ask? Please phone your senators' and congressional representative's office to identify their veterans affairs staffer. Speak with that person and review our issue and ask that VA be challenged for our mistreatment...don't hang up the phone until you get their promise to call either Will White on Senator Merkley's staff (Democrats) or Brooks Tucker on Senator Burr's staff (Republicans)! The only demand we have is that our specifically identified Ranch Hand spray aircraft be designated Agent Orange Exposure Sites, so that veterans with proper documentation of duty aboard them can proceed to making exposure claims with the VA for Agent Orange-presumptive illnesses.

Things are moving along. Slowly.

Chairman Senate Veterans Affairs Committee Promises Agent Orange Claims Support

Today I received from America's favorite "Socialist" Independent Senator from Vermont, crusty Bernie Sanders, a letter in response to our messages to him about C-123 veterans' claims.

His response: "I promise to do everything in my power to endure that the brave men and women who have put their lives on the line to defend our country, receive the highest quality benefits." We certainly cannot ask for more from Senator Sanders or his dedicated staff headed by Mr. Steve Robertson.

The Chairman's guidance, along with that of Senator Richard Burr of North Carolina, Senator Merkley and Congresswoman Bonamici (both of Oregon) and their staffs, has been extremely helpful in getting attention from the VA about this issue, and in forcing VA to reveal their extra-legal policies and activities designed to prevent C-123 veterans' claims. Armed with the knowledge of VA mistakes, we can answer better and more completely their demands for well-documented "fully developed claims."

VA Denies C-123 Veterans' Claims with Deceptions

It is just a paragraph...a bunch of type characters printed onto the claim denial the VA sent this veteran (click to open) of the 731st Tactical Airlift Squadron, received just a few days ago. The paragraph doesn't look particularly evil or vicious. But it is.

Below is the vicious (because of the extent of the awful harm the VA knows they cause and don't give a damn) boilerplate language heartlessly tossed out by VA rating officers dedicated to prevent this veteran, and any others like him, from darkening the door of VA hospitals as he seeks care for Agent Orange illnesses.

"As of this date, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) does not currently recognize remote or secondary exposure to Agent Orange from contact with aircraft or equipment previously used in Vietnam. It should also be noted that the U.S. Air Force (USAF) recently collected and analyzed numerous samples from C-123 aircraft to test for Agent Orange. The Air Force's recent risk assessment report dated April 27, 2012 found that potential exposures to Agent Orange in C-I23 planes used after the Vietnam War were unlikely to have put aircrew orpassengers at risk for future health problems. The report concluded that a) there was not enough information and data to conclude how much individual persons would have been exposed to Agent Orange, b) that exposure to Agent Orange in these aircraft after the Vietnam War was lower than exposure during the spraying missions in Vietnam, and c) potential Agent Orange exposures were unlikely to have exceed standards set by regulators or to have put people at risk for future health problems."

VA makes a pretense that this claim denial from Providence RI was the result of the veteran's careful "individual" evaluation of his claim. VA makes a pretense also about the other C-123 claims being "individually' evaluated as well. But what is amazing is that VA claims denial officials in Portland and Memphis and Hartford and Boston and Providence (and who knows where else) are all coming up with the very same, identical, boilerplate repeated language...word for word. The raters caved to inappropriate to inappropriate VA HQ demands that C-123 claims be denied, and HQ kindly provides the boilerplate information. 

So much for the "individually considered" promises of how claims

will be evaluated, made by senior VA folks including General A. Hickey, Undersecretary for Benefits and her Director of Compensation Services. We expected more of these folks.

The only thing "individual" about C-123 claims being denied upon Washington's orders is each veteran's name on the denial package. That's a promise broken...and a promise broken which was made to the United States Senate which asked about C-123 exposure.

The "evil and vicious" parts mentioned above come in because the raters, and those who directed them to deny these fully qualified claims, know the words they copied (fed to every regional office from 1800 G Street in Washington, D.C.) are simply false. Words so false that if on active duty we'd used similar lies in anything involving airplanes or patient health, we'd be facing criminal charges, our honor lost. Planes would crash, patients would die...but that's why honor is required of military folks. It seems honor is not a problem, for some VA people.

Although the VA people also take oaths to support and defend the Constitution, things seem different so deceptions, half-truths, prevarications...anything goes. Their mission comes first, and that mission is barring C-123 veterans from VA hospitals.

What are the "vicious lies" in VA claim denials?
1. To deny claims, VA decided it doesn't recognize secondary or remote Agent Orange exposure. So what...not our problem! Our exposure is direct and primary. "Secondary" exposure is via something touching a contaminated surface and then carrying the contamination elsewhere. In the C-123 the dioxin was tested as "heavily contaminated on all test surfaces."  The LAW promises veterans proving their exposure will be treated...but the VA feels comfortable redefining law to their liking.
2. VA mentions the USAF tested the airplanes. To better deny

claims, VA doesn't get around to saying the AF found the C-123 fleet toxic even decades after the last Agent Orange spray missions and that the airplanes eventually had to be destroyed as toxic waste. Yes, the AV tested the C-123 and the warplanes were so toxic nobody could enter after that without HAZMAT protection!
3. VA mentions the AF report, but doesn't mention that the AF Surgeon General asked the VA that it not be used to deny veterans benefits. 
4. VA viciously lies by going on about exposure, but doesn't mention that the LAW does not specify how much, what kind, what color, what anything. The LAW says exposure, and if a veteran is exposed the veteran gets treated. Neither does the LAW permit the VA to deny veterans medical care because some VA administrator doesn't feel we deserve the care, or anything...no qualifiers in the law, simply the word EXPOSED.
5. VA lies by omission, leaving lots out of their paragraph which they really should publish...but leaving these things out helps VA prevent a claim's approval. VA don't mention that experts from all over have investigated the C-123 contamination and reached opinions that we were exposed. Ignored are experts like the Director, CDC/Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. Not mentioned either are the Director National Toxicology Program, or experts from the EPA and US Public Health Service. Not mentioned are experts from Columbia University, University of Texas Medical School, Oregon Health Sciences University and so many others. Others, with the statutory authority for making these decisions, and having far greater expertise about dioxin than the VA. Lies, lies and more lies.
6. VA mentions that exposures "after the Vietnam War" were lower than those experienced by the Ranch Hand spray veterans. True enough, but tossed in here just to be disarming, because again the law says EXPOSED, without requiring a veteran to be more or less exposed than any others. Dr. Jeanne Stellman of Columbia concluded C-123 vets were exposed less than Ranch Hand bur more than Vietnam War ground troops. Dr. Christopher Portier of the CDC.ATSDR felt the exposure was on a par with ground soldiers - but again, absolute confirmation C-123 vets were exposed.

VA people. They're not like us.

Petition to US Senate: VA Must Care for C-123 Veterans

Click to Sign C-123 Petition to Senate

Please CLICK TO READ OUR PETITION - Sign if you wish.

Taking advantage of wonderful social media such as Google's Blogger and YouTube has helped get our message out to over 80,000 visitors. Today we add another useful tool, the petition services of CHANGE.ORG. We created a brief petition to the Senate Veterans Affairs committee, asking that they direct VA to treat C-123 veterans in accordance with the benefits we have earned under the law.

Please consider signing it, and please consider forwarding it to others for their support as well.

VA CLAIM DENIED! What to do next...

FINANCES & LEGALITIES May 17, 2013, 1:57 pm 17 Comments

After the Denial Letter Arrives

By SUSAN SELIGER

If you’ve been rejected for the Department of Veterans Affairs Aid and Attendance (A&A) benefit, there are steps you can take to get your application reconsidered. But first, a warning: Do not do what the V.A. denial letter suggests you do, as that may only bring you years more of delays. And second, you’ll need to invoke the spirit of Winston Churchill in his 1941 speech to the Harrow School: “Never give in — never, never, never, never, in nothing great or small, large or petty, never give in.”

The V.A.’s Caregiving Benefit

Veterans’ families struggle to qualify for the Aid and Attendance pension benefit.

• A Little-Known Benefit
• The Long Wait

Patsy Jones, the widow of a Vietnam veteran, had to go back to the V.A. five times over the course of a year before she finally qualified for the benefit, which reimburses veterans and their families for the costs of caregivers working in the home or can be used to pay for assisted living or nursing home care. Mrs. Jones, 64, had so many ailments (a stroke, dialysis three times a week, dementia, diabetes and hypertension) that she needed constant care in an assisted living facility, which her family struggled to pay for.

“They had my gas turned off in my house,” said her daughter, Tamara Jones. “I couldn’t pay car insurance. A&A was our last hope. When we were denied, it felt like somebody had killed our last hope.” Now, one year later, the Jones’s family received their first A&A pension benefit check, for $800, in April.

This week, the V.A. acknowledged the criticism over long delays in handling disability claims and announced that claims processors in all 56 regional offices would have to work at least 20 hours of overtime per month until the end of 2013 in an effort to eliminate the backlog. Unfortunately, this may not much help those awaiting decisions on A&A, who are often in their 80s and 90s and running out of time.

So here are the steps you should take if you or a family member has been turned down.

If possible, don’t go it alone. Although the V.A. does not allow you to pay someone to help you fill out the application right from the start, the department does allow applicants to pay for a V.A.-accredited professional to handle an appeal.

"Diamond Jim" Jimmy Maynard passes - God Rest this Merry Gentleman!

James R. Maynard Jr.

ORLAND - James R. Maynard Jr., 74, took his final flight Friday, May 3, 2013, surrounded by family as he succumbed to a long illness."Diamond Jim" or "Big Jim" is survived by wife, Kathleen; four children, three grandchildren, a sister and extended family.Jim worked for the U.S. government for 49 years, including 29 years in the U.S. Air Force and 20 years in the Department of Defense. Jimmy had years of service with the C-123 Provider at Westover AFB, MA. and will be missed by all members of the C-123 Veterans Association.A celebration of life will be held 1-4 p.m. Sunday, May 19, at Elks Club Lodge, Enfield, Conn. Being a Vietnam veteran, he requested in lieu of flowers, donations be made to Wounded Warrior Project, www.woundedwarriorproject.org or Disabled American Veteran Organization,www.dav.org. Published in BDN Maine on May 6, 2013

Audie Murphy, the most decorated soldier of World War II (and a Texas National Guardsman) was a great soldier and not-so-great husband. His widow Mrs. Pamala Murphy, passed away last month in California. She dedicated her life to serving veterans, working as patient liaison at the Sepulveda Veterans Hospital full-time until age 87. She gave every veteran the same respect she had for her distinguished husband. (BTW, the first VA hospital I was ever in was Audie Murphy VA Medical Center, San Antonio TX). Audie Murphy was young...so young that after the war he could portray himself in To Hell and Back as a 16-year old kid! His best movie was The Red Badge of Courage...interesting to have a genuine hero like him explore the character's fear and cowardice with such understanding and passion. 


Great input from Ranch Hand veterans, the elder statesmen of Agent Orange issues, who on 20 May offered us a reference about dioxin which is excellent reading. Dioxin comes from lots of sources. 


I have been trying to get various AF leaders to comment on the Narrative and the reports generated by the AF about C-123K contamination. Everyone, including EPA, keeps bouncing inquiries back to the VA. It is a knee-jerk reaction and gets a hot potato off their desk, but I sure wish we could get input one way or the other. 
Several 74th and 731st members have their AO/dioxin paperwork in with the VA, and the New Hampshire  State Department of Veterans Affairs VSO considers it a solid case very likely  (for his particular client) to get approval on the first pass, and virtually certain on appeal. Hard to deny the AF reports about contamination, hard to deny exposure to that contamination when flight orders place a veteran aboard the contaminated aircraft for years, and hard to deny the numerous AO-presumitives...but still the VA will try very, very hard to do just that...deny the claims! 


Potato (and onion) farmer Paul Bailey is traveling this next week but still working on getting health information and flight orders from everyone and building a data base for us. John Harris has been super about digging up other influential folks, ROA leadership, 731st veterans, and paperwork of use to us. One important thing we're looking for now is any VA denials of application for service connection from aircrews on Providers submitted between 1972-1982. 

We need to better understand the approach the VA took on denying applications. General Walker had prostate cancer and applied for service connection but was denied...others have as well and we need to get info. I will be submitted an FOIA to the VA on that today but a response will be a month or more away. 


Please...if you have a VA application which has been denied, please copy me on it after blocking your personal information! If you know the survivors of folks who've died of AO presumptive illnesses (such as MSgt Bob Boyd, General Walker and Lou Paskovitz) please contact them and offer information from our group...they might benefit from our efforts and I need their input if they'd be kind enough to correspond.