VA Claims for Peripheral Neuropathy – CLAIMS ARE NOT RESTRICTED TO ONE YEAR AFTER AGENT ORANGE EXPOSURE!

I've had so many conversations with veterans complaining that VA refuses their disability claims for delayed onset peripheral neuropathy. Theylling me that VA insists peripheral neuropathy (PN) is only covered if diagnosed within a year of Agent Orange exposure.

WRONG. But also just partly right: VA does have a presumptive disability for early onset-peripheral neuropathy diagnosed within a year of exposure. PN can also be claimed as a secondary disability from diabetes, and diabetes is a presumptive illness and that claim easily established. Very few veterans had early PN diagnosis because it most often develops over years.

But in no way does having PN diagnosed later in life prohibit PN disability claims based on what VA terms "direct service connection." 

Put simply, direct service connection means a little more work convincing VA that, more likely than not, your peripheral neuropathy developed as a result of Agent Orange exposure regardless of the disease onset. You do this with a physician's nexus letter, which hopefully cites some of the many medical articles showing PN onset years and even decades after leaving military service.

Here's one such article, and it mentions PN developing 25-30 years after exposure:

de la Monte SM, Goel A. Agent Orange Reviewed: Potential Role in Peripheral Neuropathy and Neurodegeneration. Journal of Military Veterans Health. 2022 Apr;30(2):17-26. PMID: 36785586; PMCID: PMC9920643.

If needed, here's a helpful guide for submitting direct service connection and secondary condition service connection claims.

Great News for Retirees Qualified for Combat Related Special Compensation

NVLSP Issues FAQ for Veterans on Retroactive Combat-Related Special Compensation (CRSC) under Supreme Court Unanimous Ruling on Soto v. United States

On June 12, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously in favor of a class of over 9000 disabled Army, Navy, Marine Corps, Air Force, and Coast Guard veterans who were wrongfully limited to six-years of retroactive combat-related special compensation (CRSC). The Supreme Court unanimously held that there is no six-year cap on retroactive CRSC payments.

On August 25, 2025, NVLSP published a Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) guide regarding the Soto case. These questions include:

• Which Veterans will Benefit?

Veterans who (1) have been granted CRSC benefits, (2) qualified for retroactive CRSC benefits for a period longer than six years from the date they filed for CRSC, and (3) whose retroactive benefits were limited to only six years from the date of their initial application.

• How do I know if I am a member of the Soto class?

In 2021, DOD sent notices to approximately 9,000 individuals who were identified as belonging to the Sotoclass at that time.For veterans who were retired, obtained service connection, or received a CRSC decision after the 2021 notice to class members, there has not been any class notice. A detailed review of files would be required to determine whether a veteran is a class member. 

• Will retroactive benefits be the same as current CRSC benefits?

Probably not. CRSC rates are based on VA compensation rates and there has been a cost-of-living adjustment most years. Rates paid in 2025 are different than rates paid, for example, 10 years ago.

• What is being done to implement Soto?

Counsel for the military has stated in a court filing in mid-August 2025: “The Department of Defense (DoD) is in the process of drafting a directive to the military branches and the Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS) with guidance for implementing the decision in Soto both retroactively to individuals who have had the Barring Act applied to their Combat Related Special Compensation (CRSC) claims and prospectively with respect to future CRSC claims."

About The National Veterans Legal Services Program (NVLSP)
The National Veterans Legal Services Program (NVLSP) is an independent, nonprofit veterans service organization that has served active duty military personnel and veterans since 1981. NVLSP strives to ensure that our nation honors its commitment to its 18 million veterans and active duty personnel by ensuring they have the benefits they have earned through their service to our country. NVLSP has represented veterans in lawsuits that compelled enforcement of the law where the VA or other military services denied benefits to veterans in violation of the law. NVLSP’s success in these lawsuits has resulted in more than $5.6 billion dollars being awarded in disability, death and medical benefits to hundreds of thousands of veterans and their survivors. www.nvlsp.org.

Next Veteran Claim Packet: Avascular Necrosis

COMPLETED in draft form:

Our next document to support veterans' disabilities claims is for avascular necrosis (AVN) also known as bone death.

In my own situation, I associated Agent Orange exposure as the probable cause of two "new" hips (and a third because of infections), but it can also result from fractures, radiation, long-term steroid medication, alcohol abuse, parachuting, and joint dislocations. Suggestions most WELCOME!

Newest Claims Project: Peripheral Neuropathy

 I've drafted a sample VA disability claim for peripheral neuropathy as SECONDARY to diabetes. Vietnam War and C-123 veterans are presumed exposed to Agent Orange and already get service connection for diabetes if diagnosed. The effort here will be to illustrate how a veteran can get service connection by using diabetes type 2 (and other causes) and then peripheral neuropathy as a secondary issue.

Many vets have complained that their peripheral neuropathy claims long after Vietnam are denied due to VA's one year for symptoms requirement – this effort is an alternate approach using peripheral neuropathy as secondary to another illness or injury already recognized by VA as service connected. It’s for anyone, not just Agent Orange folks. Many other ailments are associated with peripheral neuropathy and if you have PN, you'd be wise to investigate.

"Maude DeVictor, Continuing Her Crusade to Expose Agent Orange" - Washington Post, November 1986

Heros come in all shapes, all sizes, wherever they are needed. Vietnam Veterans needed Maude DeVictor
and she was there for us. Our hero, Navy veteran Ms. Maude DeVictor.

(First Published November 9, 1986)\

By Desson Howee

She welcomes you into her hotel room like a distracted hostess -- glad to see you but worried about the pot roast.

"I'm looking ragged and battered and pudgy," she says. She asks you to cool your heels a bit, while she adjusts. Her garment bag lies unopened on the bed. Mister Rogers is welcoming everyone to his neighborhood loudly on the unwatched television and the phone rings constantly with calls from the press.

This is an elated Maude DeVictor. The woman known for her advocacy for Vietnam veterans -- particularly over the issue of Agent Orange -- has just jetted in from Boston, where she was received by Mayor Raymond Flynn and Gov. Michael Dukakis (Flynn declared today Maude DeVictor Day). This past weekend in Washington she attended "In Service to America," a conference sponsored by the Vietnam Veterans of America.

DeVictor's frenetic activity is connected with tonight's "Unnatural Causes," a controversial NBC television drama based on her battle to establish a connection between the defoliant Agent Orange used in the war and a plethora of deaths, illnesses and physical ailments that many Vietnam veterans have suffered. A consultant on the film, she says the docudrama "accurately depicts" the circumstances of her career with the Veterans Administration's Chicago Regional Office.

"Just do the top," she says to a photographer. She points to her hips and laughs.

"Have you heard of Nam-myoho-renge-kyo?" she asks, referring to a Buddhist chant. She throws a visitor a leaflet on Nichiren Shoshu Buddhism before heading for the bathroom with a lipstick.

"This is like a victory for fat people," she says just before disappearing and lets out a cackle that threatens to vibrate the infrastructure.

When DeVictor, a benefits counselor at the VA office, filed a claim in 1977 on behalf of a Vietnam veteran who had terminal cancer, it was the beginning of what may be a lifelong mission. The veteran's widow claimed his death resulted from exposure to Agent Orange, and DeVictor -- a divorced mother raising a son -- began to discover other veterans who also believed their medical problems came from the toxin.

The Origins of the Agent Orange Act of 1991

On February 6, 1991, President George H. W. Bush signed the Agent Orange Act of 1991. This act was the first piece of legislation to officially establish a group of presumptive conditions for Vietnam Veterans exposed to herbicides, meaning that Veterans with non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, soft tissue sarcomas, and chloracne could now receive medical benefits from the Veterans Administration (VA) as a result of their service in Vietnam. 

This legislation was applauded by Veterans groups, government officials, and the general public. Yet, it was rooted in over a decade of fierce debate, VA institutional resistance, and confusion over the long-term health effects of Agent Orange and dioxin exposure.

Agent Orange was the most common of the so-called Rainbow Herbicides used during Operation Ranch Hand in the Vietnam War. It was made up of a 50:50 mixture of 2,4-D and 2,4,5-T, the latter of which contained a contaminant known as TCDD, a type of dioxin or organic pollutant. The herbicide was remarkably effective at clearing jungle foliage and depriving Viet Cong forces of both cover and workable farmland. Operation Ranch Hand lasted from 1962 until 1971. 

By the time the Air Force ceased these herbicide spraying missions, Agent Orange alone accounted for 11.22 million of the over 18 million gallons of herbicide sprayed in Southeast Asia. Many Veterans still recall being sprayed with Agent Orange but were instead "treated" with malathion, sprayed from C-123 Tail Number 362 for insect control. Planes spraying for insect control had the green paint removed as the malathion would foul the surfaces.

By the late 1970s, the public was seriously questioning the health effects of dioxin exposure. Many Veterans claimed (and VA totally denied) Agent Orange or other herbicides were behind their chronic fatigue, vision loss, numbness, cancer, birth defects in their children, and a myriad of other health concerns. VA began receiving medical claims from Veterans alleging dioxin exposure at least as early as 1977, but, as media coverage on the issue grew, so did the number of claims. At the time, only chloracne, a rare skin condition, had been scientifically linked to dioxin exposure. If Veterans claimed that contact with herbicides was the cause for any other illnesses, VA ultimately denied all their medical claims "due to the lack of scientific evidence."

However, VA did take some baby steps to address the issue, mostly because of Veteran pressure, some press coverage, and a determined Veteran's advocate named Maude DeVictor. In 1978, VA established an internal Agent Orange Registry and began conducting in-depth medical examinations for Veterans claiming they were exposed to Agent Orange. They also assigned “environmental health physicians” at each of their medical centers who were specifically tasked with gathering information related to chemical exposures. In 1979, they established the VA Advisory Committee on Health-Related Effects of Herbicides, and in the early 1980s, they also created the Agent Orange Projects Office, the Chloracne Task Force, the Data Analysis Task Force, and the Agent Orange Research and Education Office, each of which were tasked with studying various aspects of Agent Orange exposure among Veterans.

Under Congressional pressure, VA also launched multiple weak-kneed outreach efforts related to dioxin exposure. The Agent Orange Bulletin was launched in December 1980 and provided updates on Agent Orange activities for VA medical center staff. For Veterans themselves, VA released a 30-minute videotape titled Agent Orange: A Search for Answers, as well as pamphlet titled “Worried About Agent Orange?” which was distributed to all Veterans during their Agent Orange medical examinations. Both the videotape and pamphlet emphasized the fact that chloracne remained the only known medical condition directly attributable to herbicide exposure. 

In November 1982, VA also introduced the Agent Orange Review, a recurring newsletter meant to keep Veterans up to date on the latest developments on Agent Orange research and policies. Even so, official VA policy still called for physicians in VA medical centers to refrain from prematurely attributing a Veteran’s ill-health to Agent Orange exposure until more concrete evidence proving association became available: VA physicians were prohibited from offering opinions on Agent Orange-suspected illnesses.

Multiple agencies, including VA, began publishing the results of dioxin-related studies throughout the 1980s. Most of these initial studies maintained that there was no link between dioxin exposure and long-term health problems, although it was difficult to prove which had Veterans had been exposed while in the service. In 1990, however, studies by the CDC and VA’s Advisory Committee on Health-Related Effects of Herbicides determined that non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma and soft tissue sarcomas among Vietnam Veterans were “at least as likely as not” connected to herbicide exposure. 

VA’s secretary at the time, Edward J. Derwinski, was especially invested in the Agent Orange issue. The day after each of these studies were released, he classified each respective illness as service-connected for Vietnam Veterans. These classifications officially became law with the Agent Orange Act of 1991.

Upon the passage of the bill, Derwinski noted that “VA has [always had] one overriding goal in this area: providing, as best we can, the truth for our Vietnam Veterans about the effects of exposure to Agent Orange. Because, in our opinion, that is the goal of this fine legislation, we are pleased to offer our support.” Derwinki’s “open mind” on the Agent Orange debate was lauded by the public and members of Congress alike. Representative Thomas Daschle, who had previously been critical of VA efforts concerning herbicide exposure, commented that Derwinki’s “willingness to listen to Veterans, to reexamine the scientific evidence, and to give Veterans the benefit of the doubt has been crucial to the effort to redefine the federal government’s response to the Agent Orange problem.”

Still, neither Derwinki nor the VA moved on Agent Orange benefits until Congress shoved the 1991 Agent Orange Act down the VA's throat.

While many of the questions surrounding Agent Orange remained, the Agent Orange Act of 1991 was a turning point in providing Vietnam Veterans with needed care, and over the following decades, VA classified over a dozen additional conditions as presumptive for Veterans who were exposed to herbicides.

Our association's second response to proposed new VA regulation on veterans' hazardous exposure issues.

Our association has posted a second response to the proposed new VA regulation covering veterans' hazardous exposure issues. (First response here.)

The proposed regulation does much to address a wide range of exposure locations and does finally address members of the Reserve Components. It does not mention three earlier failed assurances by the Department of Veterans Affairs in the Federal Register that it would care for veterans who did not serve in the Republic of Vietnam, but were exposed to herbicide agents. Pages from the Federal Register are attached (Federal Register Vol. 66, No. 89, May 8, 2001 and Vol. 73, No. 74, April 16, 2008 and Vol. 75, No. 168, August 31, 2010.)

Instead, Veterans Benefits Administration took steps to insure veterans were refused all care and benefits they should have received for their exposures,  dishonoring VA responses published in the Federal Register.

Between 2001 and 2010, the Department of Veterans Affairs proposed important regulatory changes in the care offered veterans exposed to military herbicides. Responding to public concern for veterans exposed in situations outside the Republic of Vietnam, in three separate and deceptive answers, the VA specifically said no regulatory changes were needed or would be made because:

"If a veteran who did not serve in the Republic of Vietnam, but was
to an herbicide agent defined in 38 CFR 3.307(a)(6) during active military service, has a disease on the list of diseases subject to presumptive service connection, VA will presume that the disease is due to the exposure to herbicides. (See 38 CFR 3.309(e)). 

We therefore believe that there is no need to revise the regulation based on this comment."

By implication, these three deceptive VA responses it also assured Congress that no legislation would be necessary for protection of the affected veterans because the VA had already arranged to offer the same full range of exposure benefits provided Vietnam War veterans.

VA was deceptive between 2001 and 2015 in that, despite assuring the public and Congress that veterans exposed to military herbicides would receive benefits, it instead routinely refused to honor virtually all such claims. A VBA physician and Agent Orange subject matter expert with the "Agent Orange Desk" stated to the Associated Press, "We have to draw the line somewhere." 

The C-123 Veterans Association believes any such "line" may only be drawn in accord with law and regulation, not the preference of VBA staffers determined to block veterans' valid herbicide exposure claims.

VA Regulation M21-1 required it check with the Joint Services Records Research Agency for support of non-Vietnam exposures, but then refused confirmation when offered unless the Agent Orange Desk first requested such confirmation. In many instances, the Agent Orange Desk either refused to make such a request or wouldn't accept JSRRC confirmation even when offered.

This is not ancient history. Veterans and their families were assured of exposure benefits by theVA with empty, dishonored promises made in the Federal Register but were denied those benefits. Note must be made as VA seeks to publish this newest regulation to address earlier failures and deceptions on the same subject.

Respectfully submitted,

W. Carter, The C-123 Veterans Association

Federal Register posts our comment on the VA's new Agent Orange regulation

https://www.regulations.gov/comment/VA-2024-VBA-0006-0044

VA proposes vast new coverage for non-Vietnam Agent Orange exposures. We offered comment on the new regulation.

AR10-Proposed Rule-Adjudication Regulations for Disability or Death Benefit Claims Related to Exposure to Certain Herbicide Agents

COMMENT BY THE C-123 VETERANS ASSOCIATION:

We commend the Department of Veterans Affairs for advancing benefits to affected veterans in this manner and, on the whole, this change is comprehensive and in accord with current law and regulations. There are some flaws. This proposed regulation is not in accord with numerous earlier entries by VA regarding non-Vietnam Agent Orange exposures 

The proposal fails to reference prior commitments made in the Federal Register by VA on this issue. The Department repeatedly assured Congress over the decades that every veteran who did not serve in the Republic of Vietnam but was exposed to Agent Orange during active military service would, upon proof, be offered presumptive service connection for the list of diseases associated with that herbicide. (see Federal Register Vol. 66, No. 89, May 8, 2001 and Vol. 73, No. 74 April 16, 2008 and Vol. 75, No. 168, August 31, 2010). It never met this obligation and denied virtually all such claims.

When affected veterans sought presumptive service connection, even when citing VA promises in the Federal Register, the Department’s Veterans Health Administration Post-Deployment Public Health Section and its Agent Orange Veterans Benefit Administration Agent Orange Desk blocked claims specifically because exposed veterans lacked Vietnam service or, in some cases, because veterans failed to scientifically prove an exposure plus subsequent “bioavailability.” Per the Federal Register entries, proof of exposure alone was all that was required. Redefining the concept of exposure to require “bioavailability” was never in accord with any law or regulation dealing with veterans and Agent Orange. Rather, it was an unofficial office policy. It was also bad science. 

VA denying the fact of an exposure by also requiring proof of bioavailability was deceptive. Bioavailability is a related but separate concept in toxicology, as confirmed by the Director, National Institute for Environmental Health Sciences. Specifically addressing VA using the issue of bioavailability to deny Agent Orange exposure claims, she wrote, “In all my years as a toxicologist, I have never heard bioavailability as part of the exposure definition.” 

The Department’s failure with firm commitments first made in 2001 has been to the great disservice of affected veterans and their families. VA repeatedly assured Congress that it needed no new legislation or revision to regulations to meet its obligation. VA withstood Congressional concern with Agent Orange claims for veterans’ exposures outside the Republic of Vietnam using deceptive assurances while at the same time denying virtually all such claims. The Federal Register must account for earlier entries from the Department of Veterans Affairs in its submission of this newer regulation or else muddy the Register’s historical record. Clearly, “exposure” was the sole requirement for presumptive service connection, yet VA failed to honor the three assurances made to Congress. Cited below is the Federal Register Vol. 66, No. 89, May 8, 2001, the first of these failed assurances:

“…if a veteran who did not serve in the Republic of Vietnam, but was exposed to an herbicide agent defined in 38 CFR 3.307(a)(6) during active military service, has a disease on the list of diseases subject to presumptive service connection, VA will presume that the disease is due to the exposure to herbicides. (See 38 CFR 3.309(e).”

Respectfully submitted,

The C-123 Veterans Association

BULLETIN: VA to ease benefits rules for exposures to Agent Orange in the US

VA eases rules for exposures to Agent Orange in the US

Thousands of veterans exposed to Agent Orange while serving in the United States will for the first time be eligible for fast-track disability benefits under plans unveiled by the Department of Veterans Affairs on Friday. As readers of this blog are aware (and as the new rules reiterate,) C-123 veterans are already considered presumptively exposed to Agent Orange and eligible for full veterans' benefits thereby. This coverage dates from June 2015.

The move represents another major expansion of toxic exposure benefits for veterans, this time for individuals suffering from illnesses dating back to the Vietnam War era. The changes follow mandates included in the Promise to Address Comprehensive Toxics Act — better known as the PACT Act — passed by Congress in August 2022.

Over the last two years, a combination of administration moves and new legislation opened access to disability benefits for millions of veterans who incurred injuries from burn pit smoke, radiation contamination and other military toxic exposure events.

In a statement, VA Secretary Denis McDonough said the proposed moves “would make it easier for veterans exposed to herbicides who served outside Vietnam to access the benefits they so rightly deserve.

“Our goal is to provide every veteran of every era with the VA health care and benefits they deserve, and this is another step in the right direction,” McDonough said.

Rules outlining the change were filed in the Federal Register on Friday, and will still take several months before going into effect. The new proposal would give presumptive benefits status to veterans who served in “locations where herbicides were tested, used, or stored outside of Vietnam.”

That includes military locations in 12 states — Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Maryland, Mississippi, Montana, New York, Tennessee, Texas and Utah — where Agent Orange was present in the 1940s, 1950s, 1960s and 1970s. A full list of the specific states and times is available on the VA website.

The rule would also cover troops stationed at Canadian Forces Base Gagetown in New Brunswick, Canada, in June 1966 and June 1967; individuals stationed in Kumbla, India, in 1945 and 1946; and expanded timelines for troops who served in Cambodia, the Johnston Atoll, Guam, American Samoa, Korea, Laos, and Thailand during the 1960s and 1970s.

A full list of these foreign locations is also available on VA websites.

Troops who served in Vietnam between January 1962 and May 1975 — either on the ground or in waterways around the country — already qualify for presumptive benefits status by the department because of Agent Orange exposure.

The toxic defoliant has been linked to a host of cancers and heart illnesses. Presumptive status means that individuals who develop certain illnesses believed caused by the chemicals do not have to document specific instances where they were exposed, but instead only provide service records showing they were in the area (or the C-123 unit) to be presumed contaminated.

As a result, advocates have pushed for broader use of presumptive status for troops who served around toxic chemicals while in the military but may not have been able to document every instance of exposure because of records lost over the years.

More information on Agent Orange presumptive benefits is available on the VA website.

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 Ripped Off By Phony C-123 Agent Orange Claim!

Some con artists come from our own military ranks. Take this dishonorable clown for instance: A clinic lab tech at Hanscom AFB between 1972-1973 claimed Agent Orange exposure from doing his medical lab work. This was probably for aircrew annual physicals, and probably with gloves on. He even claimed he went to the flight line to "recover medical specimens" form the aircraft!
The VA granted his phony claim in 2022. The USA will waste hundred$ of thousand$ on the clown...tax dollars from his fellow citizens.  His claim (and the resultant money!) will be backdated seven years...he is raking in big bucks with the phony claim and his lies made under sworn testimony.

Citation Nr: 22065492
Decision Date: 11/22/22	Archive Date: 11/22/22
ORDER
Entitlement to service connection for prostate cancer, secondary to herbicide exposure, is granted.
FINDINGS OF FACT (???????)
1. The evidence is at least in approximate balance as to whether the Veteran was exposed to herbicides in service at Hanscom Air Force Base (AFB).
2. The Veteran's diagnosed prostate cancer is presumed to be related to exposure to herbicides during service at Hanscom AFB.
CONCLUSION OF LAW
Resolving reasonable doubt in the Veteran's favor, the criteria for entitlement to service connection for prostate cancer, secondary to herbicide exposure, have been met.  38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1116, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.307, 3.309.
REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION
The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Air Force from October 1970 to October 1974. Entitlement to service connection for prostate cancer, secondary to herbicide exposure, is granted.
Factual Background.??????
The Veteran's service records indicate that he was stationed at Hanscom Air Force Base (AFB) from April 1972 to October 1974 and that his principal duty was medical laboratory specialist, military occupational specialty (MOS) code 90450.  See Service Personnel Records.

In a November 2019 Congressional correspondence, the United States Air Force confirmed that three Ranch Hand C-123 spray aircrafts were utilized as cargo and passenger aircraft at Hanscom AFB between November 1972 and September 1973.  

The Veteran's VA treatment records indicate that he was diagnosed with prostate cancer in July 2015.  

In an October 2015 Notice of Disagreement (NOD), the Veteran asserted that, while stationed at Hanscom AFB, he was required to analyze bodily fluids and other material that had been transported by C-123 aircrafts.

In a November 2017 VA Form 9, the Veteran asserted that, while stationed at Hanscom AFB, he was directly involved with receiving medical specimens, equipment, and personnel that had been transported on C-123 aircraft.  The Veteran also stated that this was performed without protective gear.  

In an October 2018 correspondence, the Veteran stated that, while stationed at Hanscom AFB, he attended all patients requiring lab work, including C-123 crew members, and performed lab testing on medical specimens that were transported by C-123 aircraft.  See October 2018 Veteran Correspondence. 

In the October 2020 Board hearing, the Veteran TESTIFIED (to a VA administrative judge) that, while stationed at Hanscom AFB, he frequently went to the flight line to retrieve medical specimens that had been transported by C-123 aircraft.  The Veteran estimated that he came in contact with a C-123 aircraft approximately 30 times. 

VA makes all toxic-exposure conditions presumptive immediately following signing of PACT Act! Great News - no further waiting!

By 

SARA SAMORA

STARS AND STRIPES • August 31,

WASHINGTON — The Veterans Affairs Department has declared all 23 health conditions outlined in the recently enacted PACT Act “presumptive” from the date the bill was signed, reducing the burden on veterans or their survivors to prove that certain diseases were caused by service-related exposure to toxins and burn pits.

The VA had planned to phase in the system, under which specific health conditions likely resulting from exposure to toxins are recognized as service-related, over the next few years. Those conditions include brain cancer, gastrointestinal cancer, kidney cancer, lymphoma and melanoma, among others. President Joe Biden signed the legislation Aug. 10.

"Veterans have waited too long for this care and these benefits already and we're not going to make them wait any longer," VA Secretary Denis McDonough told the American Legion National Convention in Milwaukee on Wednesday. “So instead of phasing in the conditions over the coming years, we're making all conditions outlined in the PACT Act presumptive August 10."

The law will provide an easier path to health care and benefits for veterans who served near open-air burn pits, which were widely used by the military throughout the 1990s and the post-9/11 wars to dispose of garbage, jet fuel and other materials. Veterans diagnosed with cancer, respiratory issues and lung disease at early ages have blamed exposure on the toxic fumes from these pits, but the VA contended for years that there wasn't sufficient evidence to support their claims.

The new law will also expand the list of presumptive diseases related to Agent Orange to include exposure in Thailand, Cambodia, Laos, Guam, American Samoa and Johnston Atoll. It also strengthens federal research on toxic exposure, and boosts the VA's resources and training to help cope with new claims.

McDonough also said the VA will begin processing PACT Act claims on Jan. 1, describing it as the earliest possible date. He also said that implementing and executing "one of the biggest expansions of VA benefits in history" won't be easy.

"We will really need your help communicating because we want every veteran, every single veteran to get the care they need and the benefits they deserve, the benefits they have earned, and we will not rest until they do," McDonough said.

The bill was named after Sgt. 1st Class Heath Robinson, who was diagnosed with a rare autoimmune disorder and lung cancer after serving with the Army National Guard in Kosovo and Iraq, where he experienced prolonged exposure to burn pits. He died in 2020.

US Court of Appeals agrees Agent Orange exposure & PTST can be disabling despite absence of medical diagnosis

 

SAUNDERS v. WILKIE (2018)

"In some situations, such as for post-traumatic stress disorder, herbicide exposure in Vietnam, and unexplained illnesses affecting Middle East veterans, medical science simply has been unable, as of yet, to diagnose the disabling impact of service for veterans affected by these conditions." 

This ruling might help vets claim disabilities not included in the VA's recognized list of Agent Orange illnesses.

New Diagnosis - Parkinson's Disease

New Diagnosis - Parkinson's Disease

They might have figured out some of the problems I've been having...I got diagnosed with Parkinson's last week. The symptoms are there but don't seem to be advancing too fast, so at age 75 I can hope to "age out" of the worst of it.

Another blessing brought to us by Agent Orange! Parkinson's, Parkinsonism and Parkinsons-like symptoms are now considered Agent Orange presumptive illnesses, along with bladder cancer and all the old favorites!

Helped my college roommate win huge, 52-year old VA disability claim!

$155,000. It will be in his bank on Monday," said his attorney K. E, when she called to give me the great news. My old college roommate has won a 52-year old VA claim he'd long-forgotten having submitting in 1969 when he left active duty. 

I got his initial VA claim approved earlier this year at 40% disability with an initial check for $7,000, paying what was due from November 2020 when I mailed it. However, I knew he needed professional help trying to get other serious disabilities related to what the VA decided is already service-connected.

I recommended the attorney I knew best, who also has her solo veteran-focused practice near my friend. Her expertise uncovered the fact that his initial claim had been submitted back in 1969, filed and lost somehow into his VA dental records and never adjudicated. She slapped the paperwork into the mail to catch up with this VA error, and today's great news comes as a blessing for my old friend.

What a happy day!

Update on VA use of AFSC codes for C-123 service:

Update on VA use of AFSC codes for C-123 service:

I argued with VA recently about their poor quality collection of eligible AFSCs for establishing C-123 service, and they apparently now will accept an AFSC on their list as well as a specific description of duties involving C-123 contact. They are covering aircrews, maintainers, AME and others. Most importantly, I believe this should help Aerial Port personnel apply and succeed with Agent Orange claims. Let me know.

    WTC

Their letters to/from me:

Sir,

Hello, Dr. Erickson spoke very highly of you and so it was nice to see your email.

BVA actions are a legal review process over which I have no jurisdiction, but I am happy to forward your email and the attachment to VBA and the office that handles Agent Orange related actions. 

I will ask that they review the unit name change from 33rd AES (Pittsburgh) to the 911^th and the occupational codes.  I will also make them aware that Mr. Dominic Baldini at JSRRC is available to address questions as necessary.

Thank you

Pat

V/R

Dr. xxx

Chief Consultant, Post-Deployment Health Services  (10P4Q)

Patient Care Services, 810 Vermont Ave NW, Washington, DC 20420

O: 202-xxx-xxxx

 

VA Motto: ICARE [Integrity-Commitment-Advocacy-Respect-Excellence]

 

From: Wes Carter <
Sent: Saturday, May 23, 2020 9:14 AM
To: Hxxxa R. 
Cc: xxxDomenic A CIV USARMY HQDA OAA AHS (US) <
Subject: [EXTERNAL] CONTINUED DIFFICULTIES RE: C-123 AFSC AND UNITS

 

Dear Dr. Hxxx,

Please forgive another intrusion on an issue involving C-123 veterans. We continue to have BVA claims denied on the basis of veterans having AFSCs not listed, or units not listed, or units which are the same organization but have changed names.

In on case most troubling to me, a widow's 2008 claim continues being denied by VBA and BVA. Her husband's AFSC 90250 (medical technician) is for aeromedical evacuation technician but isn't on the various lists, at least not those used by BVA to deny claims. Her husband's C-123 aeromedical evacuation squadron was the 33rd AES at Pittsburgh, now changed names to the 911th as shown on VA lists but her claim was denied by BVA disregarding that detail.

Once BVA has successfully denied a claim the veteran or survivor is lost unless able to afford an attorney and this woman, living on Social Security, is not so fortunate. 

Five years ago C-123 veterans won Agent Orange benefits. Four years ago I provided expert details to support her claim, and last year her claim was successfully opposed by BVA citing the AFSC and unit name.

I realize this is but one claim but it is a person, one of our veteran's widows and thus particularly important to every Air Force veteran. Please do what you can to invite Mr. Dominic Baldini at JSRRC to update VA on the basis of Air Force documents I've provided him, and do what you can to update BVA on the injustice they do blocking worthwhile claims.

Here is the BVA language used to prevent a claim's approval. Even though the text mentions medical crew members, the claim is denied because no listing of medical crew AFSCs is shown.  Fortunately, some BVA judges are less concerned with using the issue for preventing approvals and realize the problem, thus permitting flight nurses, flight surgeons and aeromedical evacuation technicians' claims to be considered even though not one of their AFSCs is listed.

VA has published a list of military units who had regular and repeated exposure to contaminated Operation Ranch Hand C-123s, used to spray Agent Orange in Vietnam, as flight, maintenance, or medical crew members.  VA has also published a list of specialty codes for military personnel who had regular and repeated exposure to contaminated Operation Ranch Hand C-123s, used to spray Agent Orange in Vietnam, as flight, maintenance, or medical crew members. Those codes for enlisted personnel are flight engineer/aircraft loadmaster (1130-1149), aircrew life support specialist (1220-1229), and aircraft maintenance specialist/flight technicians (4313-4359). Id. 

Thus, to warrant presumptive exposure based on contact with a C-123, a Veteran must have been stationed at one of the identified bases during the specified time period with one of the listed units. The Veteran must also have a military occupational specialty that entailed that he regularly and repeatedly operated, maintained or served onboard C-123 aircraft.

And from another BVA decision:

Can you please bring this to the attention of VA folks able to correct the injustice being done these claimants?

Thank you,

-- 

   Wes Carter

VA includes C-123 veterans in Agent Orange publication

 They haven't forgotten about our little group of veterans! The VA included our agent orange exposure in this recent publication titled: 

Garrison exposures and health concerns

publicationhttps://www.publichealth.va.gov/exposures/publications/military-exposures/meyh-2/garrison.asp

Passing of Dave Fitzgerald, 731st Nav

Sad to say, I missed this email from John Harris about the passing of Dave Fitzgerald in August. 

Friends and fellow reservists,

It is with sadness that I tell you that my good friend and fine gentleman Dave Fitzgerald passed away Sunday from a complication from an Agent Orange disease. Dave was 83, a retired navigator in the 731st, and a school teacher here in Mashpee.

 

Susie and I met him and his wife Sue at our fitness center frequently and met for lunch or dinner occasionally over the years. He was a very popular teacher and the PA Announcer for the High School football team. He was always ready to tell his students stories about his time in the 731st. (Don't worry, he always cleaned them up, according to my sons who were both in his Spanish class!)

The ceremony will be for family only at the VA cemetery at Bourne.

John Harris

Who says VA has no sense of humor? NOT ME!!

 I LEARNED TODAY FROM THE CHEYENNE VA CLAIMS OFFICE THAT I'D BEEN DECLARED  DEAD!

"Not so," I insisted and whipped out my ID cards. "Oh, bother," said the claims agent as she looked forward to an entire afternoon correcting VA's boo-boo. Here's how VA posted the changes: (Third line under "STATUS of Your Claim")