Help! Somebody else needs to run our association!

Help. Somebody needs to take over management of our C-123 Veterans Association. PLEASE!!
I started it and have been running it for five years but it is somebody else's turn at the helm. I say "We" a lot in the paragraph below but actually, nobody else is doing the work that needs to be done..Whoever leads our group pretty much has to do it by himself or herself.
Further, there is some expense getting this work done, mostly for travel and communications. When we started back in 2011 some very welcome financial help was offered by guys from the 731st, a couple windows and a few folks like Alan and Gail Harrington. Those of us who already had veterans benefits appreciated how important benefits are. What was chipped in was generous but was only a fraction of what we needed. I'm glad my wife wasn't watching our checkbook too closely.
There is nothing to do regarding membership, But everything to do regarding advocacy with the VA for the remaining issues on our plate. You will need a firm grasp of VA benefit programs, you should enjoy strategizing and have a bent for creative writing and negotiating. And of course, a detailed background on the C-123 and Agent Orange.
Let me explain:
A. Retroactivity:
1. Principally, we are working with our law firm with the goal of retroactive compensation for those veterans whose claims were submitted prior to June 2015. The VA only recognizes that as a start date and that is simply unacceptable. Besides our law firm generously providing pro bono assistance we are helpED by the National Veterans Legal Services Project.
2. We have further assistance from the principal veterans organizations, all of whom have signaled their support in writing directly to the Secretary of Veterans Affairs... VFW, DAV, Vietnam Veterans of America, ROA, Air Force Association, American Legion and Jewish War Veterans.
3. Senators Burr and Merkley have supported us from the start and continue to do so with their very energetic staffs.
B. Ongoing support for members claims:
1. We need to locate survivors to help them initiate claims for Dependents Indemnity Compensation. This is been very rewarding to reach out to folks like Cliff Turcotte's wife and others to get them the benefits we want for our families. We need to find others like Bob Boyd's wife
2. . It seems like every week or so one of our folks gets messed over by the VA on acclaim an opportunity presents itself to straighten things out. Sec. McDonald gave us a contact in the VA regional office in St. Paul Minnesota who provides excellent support in every way possible.
3. We need to keep up our efforts getting the word out to veterans from Westover, Pittsburgh and Richenbacher who have yet to hear that they have Agent Orange benefits available.
4. maintain the blog to inform our members and keep pressure on VA
I've done this for five years now, and it's simply time for somebody else to do this work. It is very rewarding every time I've had a phone call from a veteran whose claim just went through, but I want to share the joy and walk away from this as soon as possible.
Who's next? Give me a call.

"To render a decision which grants every benefit that can be supported in law while protecting the interests of the Government"

VA Office of General Counsel (OGC) considered the needs of C-123 Agent Orange veterans and, skillfully skirting the requirements of law expressed above for policy reasons, ruled the VA would not care for them in any way. Other than the Secretary of Veterans Affairs' memorandum acknowledging their exposures and the harm cause by Agent Orange, OGC felt the most they could stretch the law was to simply say "no."

As regards VA's statutory "duty to assist," it is hard to consider the $600,000 no-bid, sole source contract awarded an opponent of C-123 veterans' claims as assistance in any form. Rather, VA has provide none since we first approached them with our exposure concerns. Perhaps, at some distant BVA or COVA hearing, VA will permit me to see my C-file, and consider that satisfaction of their legal duty to assist me, and those like me, in our claims.

"Grants every benefit" quoted above from the statute has instead meant OGC must prevent any benefits at all, and they are great courtroom attorneys.

They were faced with their own binding OGC opinion which has stood for over a decade, which they dismissed by saying it was flawed. Blithely, they ignored expert legal input from Yale School of Law which perfectly detailed C-123 veterans' eligibility for "veteran" status per federal statute and entitlement to VA care and benefits.

OGC smiled at all the legislative and political pressure directed at them to do right by C-123 vets, but then dismissed all the authority granted by Congress to the Secretary, as well as his obligation to do all duties prescribed by law, by saying it was best left to the Congress to get around to the veterans' needs perhaps someday in the future. Also, OGC ruled it best to use VA's proposed legislative language which blocked any benefits for widows, widowers, and vets whose claims have been in since 2007. Studies eventually showed VA's  proposed weak legislation won't affect any C-123 vets at all...objective met!

Yup, best to do nothing. That was their superb courtroom approach. Problem: we aren't in a courtroom and this is a non-adversarial process. Actually, OGC should be helping the Secretary find, rather than avoid, a path forward to care for us.

Certainly, if VA was attempting to fight something for which their OGC precedential opinions and statutory duties were favoring the VA, VA would cite everything possible to get their way.

But not here. Rather than being the veterans' advocate by serving the Secretary well, OGC seeks to save VA money to help build the Denver VA hospital, and meet other needs, by ensuring Post Deployment Health's position against C-123 veterans' claims remains denied today, just as in 2011.

VA OGC Mission: Prevent claims when possible, delay claims in all cases, and PROTECT THE INTERESTS OF THE GOVERNMENT as best fitted to Post Deployment Health policy.

NEWEST VA FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT RELEASE VERY INFORMATIVE – & Even More Disturbing

There are hundreds of files on the most recent VA Freedom of Information Act document release just provided us by our terrific attorneys at Davis Wright Tremaine.

You can read them all in this Google Docs folder...and you'll find an eye full if you read with your eyes wide open, and consider what was written compared to the Institute of Medicine recent affirmation of our exposures! No wonder it took four years to get to the point today, when VA is only now considering how to care for us. And no promises made yet!

A great many of these FOIA files clearly show VA's unending resistance to C-123 veterans' Agent Orange claims. "Not on my watch," is the motto smearing so many of these files, although not in those words.

Not a single file here, or in any earlier documents we've received, has a single question raised about whether our veterans were exposed. Instead, VA puts its brick wall in front of us and invites head-banging, knowing we would get nowhere. Never was a question raised about whether a way could be found to include, rather than forbid, C-123 veterans from entering their wonderful hospital corridors.

No wonder we had to fight in US District Court to get these papers. No wonder, even with so many obviously vital parts redacted, VA didn't want this record made public.

The attitude of is clear, especially in VBA where staffers look for unflattering references in this blog or in correspondence with VA and take umbrage. From 2011 when the issue first appeared at 1800 G Street in Washington, dedicated opponents rose to dispute any C-123 veteran's claim. VA staffers consistently informs others that the 1991 Agent Orange Act was meant only for Vietnam veterans during the time period allowed, but skipped mention of the multiple postings in the Federal Register by which VA assured Congress that all veterans with evidence of exposure would be treated the same as men and women who served in Vietnam.

VBA also insisted that non-Vietnam exposures to Agent Orange, even if fact-proven and claiming Agent Orange-recognized illnesses, must require proof that the illness didn't result from another cause. VA is of course expert with this issue and cannot have made these statements in ignorance, but rather policy. VA folks know the law and regulations dictate otherwise, but why worry about such niggling details which conflict with policy? Even if that policy was unpublished, unofficial, and in the end...in error.

VA regulations provide for inquiries to the DOD Joint Services Records Research Center if veterans claim on-Vietnam exposures. Many times, JSRRC tried to forward documents from other federal agencies, only to have them dismissed by VBA, Reading these files, I find myself described in words I'd consider unflattering, let's say.

Except for persistent. I see persistent a lot in reading these FOIA files.

That begs the awful question...why does any veteran have to be persistent, any more than completing the FDC and speaking honestly about the claim? Why did this veteran, rated by VA itself as "catastrophically disabled,"  have to spend four of the last few years in my piggy bank of life trying so hard? What about other veterans, other disabilities, other exposures? Are those veterans going to face a VA like the VA which put their brick wall in our faces?

Conclusion about this most recent FOIA release? It is policy that VA was clearly determined to preserve, and that policy was to prevent C-123 veterans' claims.

Compare responses to legislators, governors and state directors of veterans affairs (thank you, Oregon and North Carolina!!) hard with the recent release of the Institute of Medicine C-123 report. Policy, at least the policy of individual players, kept us out of those hospitals for years. We'd be outside still, fingers on the door bell, if not for the skills and care of reporters, scientists and legislators who've stood up for us since 2011.

God bless you all, VA included. Let's take care of veterans from this point forward, okay?

More disturbing facts from the FOIAs:
1. Secretary Shinseki said that Lt Col Paul Bailey's cancer claim shouldn't have been granted and sought opinions on getting it reversed as an error. Some VA staffer asked how Bailey could have qualified as "exposed" with "only two days on Patches." This statement required deliberately overlooking all the flight documents submitted placing Paul on Patches and the other contaminated former Ranch Hand aircraft. Note: Pauls VA award came just before his death...he'd already entered hospice.
2. VA's Agent Orange consultant was persistent (my turn for that word, having noted VA's frequent use of it) in steps to prevent C-123 veterans' claims. He got $600,000 for his efforts through his no-bid sole source contract with VA; we got financial loss, suffering and death.
3. Not a single mention is made anywhere of VA's frequent Federal Register statements about non-Vietnam Agent Orange exposures. VA is held to these publications, but did they feel best to pretend the don't exist?
4. I'm stopping here. You read. You decide if this is how VA promised to treat our veterans. It is depressing to keep writing about.

ARE YOU ILL? We have to identify C-123 Veterans needing urgent help!

Please contact me by email (wes@c123kcancer.com) to identify C-123 veterans who are in immediate need of assistance.

With last Friday's very helpful Institute of Medicine report confirming our Agent Orange exposures, we may be able to bring serious cases to the attention of the VA. There is no assurance of any intervention but we can ask VA to try cutting the red tape!

Updated C-123 Agent Orange Document List - corrects broken links

Updated C-123 Agent Orange Document List - corrects broken links:

The C-123 Veterans Association

Chronology Of C-123 Agent Orange Exposure Documents (this list)

(generally newer to older):
Note: About one-quarter of all C-123K/UC-123K

cargo  aircraft were used for spraying  Agent Orange in Vietnam until 1971. Most Vietnam-based aircraft returned USAF Reserve inventory in 1971-1972,  had spray tanks removed, and then flown for regular airlift and aeromedical evacuation missions until 1982 when most were sent to Davis-Monthan AFB AZ for storage with some diverted to museum use.  

Three bases were used for these warplanes: Westover AFB, Chicopee, MA, Pittsburgh Airport, PA and Rickenbacker AFB, Ohio. Each base had maintenance squadrons, and Westover AFB and Pittsburgh AFB also had aeromedical evacuation squadrons. Unit commanders and senior enlisted leaders have estimated their veterans total 2100 men and women, mostly aged between 45-80 years of age.

 42% of all post-Vietnam C-123 aircraft had been Agent Orange spray airplanes during the war. VA awards service connection to veterans evidencing a source of Agent Orange contamination, exposure to that contamination, and an Agent Orange-presumptive illness (Title 38 3.09.) 

The C-123 Veterans Association is an informal association of former aircrews (including flight surgeons and aeromedical evacuation crews,) maintenance and aerial port personnel, advocating for recognition by the Department of Veterans Affairs of presumptive service connection for Agent Orange illnesses experienced by our members.VA opposes C-123 veterans' claims by refusing to recognize exposure, redefined in 2012 by VA to include the toxicological event of “bioavailability” as a component of exposure...no bioavailability proof equals denied exposure claim. The laws and Federal Register (8 May 2001 & 31 Aug 2010) only address "exposure" thus the VA redefinition to exclude exposures where veterans cannot prove bioavailability. The Director, National Toxicology Center calls this unique definition "unscientific."

DOD Denies Request to Designate C-123 as "Agent Orange Exposure Sites"

In May, the C-123 Veterans Association requested the Department of Defense to designate the already-destroyed toxic C-123 fleet as "Agent Orange Exposure Sites."

This designation is used by VA claims officials in denying exposure claims from C-123 veterans, as well as throughout the Internet and especially, on VA pages. DOD has refused, citing VA and USAF reports.

Why is this important? Because VA cites the absence of C-123s on the DOD list as their reason for denying claims.

Why is this ridiculous? Because DOD says they don't maintain such a list, and in particular, cites the VA as their authority for determining C-123s weren't contaminated. DOD also cites the 2012 USAF C-123 Consultative Letter which was flawed in so many scientific areas that it stands discredited. For instance, the Consultative Letter could never have withstood peer review and publication!

Next step? We again ask DOD's help. Framing our request around their response to our May inquiry, we'll ask that DOD realize that the issue of the amount of dioxin contamination is irrelevant. We'll ask that DOD weigh the role of OSD and AFMC officials in their efforts to destroy the C-123s to prevent veterans' claims. We'll ask that DOD weigh the USAF Office of Environmental Law's recommendation in 1996 to "keep all information in official channels only." And finally, we'll ask that DOD accept the fact that numerous other federal agencies have concluded C-123s were contaminated and the crews exposed.

Let's hope our request reaches somebody who actually wore a flight suit at some point in their careers, somebody who can weigh the importance of this argument.

The Difference between Agent Orange and Dioxin

Clarity on Two Terms: 

Agent Orange

---

Agent Orange was one of a class of color-coded herbicides that US forces sprayed over the rural landscape in Vietnam to kill trees, shrubs and food crops over large areas. Agent orange was a 50/50 mixture of two individual herbicides, 2,4-D and 2,4,5-T. It remained toxic over a short period—a scale of days or weeks—and then degraded.  The production of agent orange was halted in the 1970s, existing stocks were destroyed and it is no longer used.  The effects of agent orange do however persist in the form of ecologically degraded landscapes in parts of the hilly and mountainous areas of Vietnam.  The pre-war forests that existed in most of these areas took hundreds of years to reach an ecologically-balanced mixture of large numbers of species of flora and fauna. Natural regeneration would take centuries to reproduce those landscapes.  In addition, in some of the sprayed areas soil erosion and landslides have sharply lowered soil nutrient levels and altered the topographical features of the landscape.  These changes have encouraged a few species of invasive grasses of low value.  Active replanting with species of trees and shrubs which are ecologically viable and have economic value will require substantial and sustained long term investment.

 

Dioxin

---

Dioxin is a member of the class of persistent organic pollutants which resulted from the deliberately accelerated production of 2,4,5-T, one of the components of agent orange.  Dioxin can shorten the life of humans exposed to it and is associated with severe degradation of health in this and, potentially, future generations. Dioxin is toxic over a long period—a scale of many decades—and does not degrade readily. Dioxin is not absorbed by plants nor is it water soluble. It can attach to fine soil particles or sediment, which are then carried by water downstream and settle in the bottoms of ponds and lakes. It continues to adversely affect people who eat dioxin-contaminated fish, molluscs and fowl produced around a handful of point sources of dioxin called dioxin “hot spots.” Dioxin's continuing impact can be slowed or halted by genetic counselling, cutting the dioxin exposure pathways in the human food chain and by environmental remediation of contaminated sites. The adverse effects of dioxin on human health can be ameliorated in most cases if detected early, but they cannot be fully corrected in some cases by any amount of time or money.  If dioxin permanently alters the intricate internal cellular and chemical balances involved in maintaining good human health, there is serious risk of life-long health problems which may ultimately lead to mortality.

Written by Wayne Dwernychuk, Hatfield Consultants and Charles Bailey, Director, Ford Foundation Special Initiative on Agent Orange.

AFMC Agrees to Release C-123 Agent Orange Documents!

In response to repeated Freedom of Information Act requests, HQ Air Force Material Command Friday agreed to release the materials collected by the Air Force School of Aerospace Medicine during their preparation of the C-123 Agent Orange study!

Because the aircraft were all destroyed as toxic waste in 2010, such documentation is all experts have to  consider in evaluating aircrew and maintenance personnel exposure. While it was never actually "Secret" or any other classification, the Air Force Office of Environmental Law did direct in 1996 that all "information be kept in official channels only" so it has been visible since 2011.

By agreeing to release the materials at no cost, the AF didn't use money to build an impossible barrier as did the VA who insisted on $4500 to allow C-123 veterans to review the materials used to prevent our gaining recognition for Agent Orange exposure.

Now we will just have to wait a bit, as the separate request for expedited research and release was denied...none the less, once available we will post on a special Google Docs site for everyone to investigate.

Good news! Now, if only we could get each of our veterans to get supporting statements from their physicians! If you have prostate cancer or any other Agent Orange-presumptive illness, get your doc to write that, in his/her professional opinion, it is as likely to as not" be caused by your Agent Orange exposure aboard the C-123.

A couple of those letters are all we need!