Barbara Haskins, wife of Dick Haskins, has passed.

Our hearts go out to Dick Haskins on the loss today of his wife Barbara. Please keep the Hanskins family in your prayers. Dick is a long-time veteran of the 74AES/439AES at Westover.

                        ....all your friends from Westover!

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.

Questions from USAF PA About C-123 Veterans' Complaints (see last two blog entries)

In response to my inquiries over the last week or so, Air Force public affairs would like some clarification. I have placed their questions immediately below, and the larger type below them is my response.

 A. Questions to C-123 Veterans:

The emails appear to show that Terry Pittman, of Aerospace Maintenance and Regeneration Group Business Affairs, and the Senior Consultant on Agent Orange for the office of the Secretary of Defense, were opposed  to publicizing the planes’ destruction, so why a complaint with Air Force Materiel Command and the Defense Department.

From the documentation you provided, it looks as though the 75^th Air Base Wing spokeswoman Barbara Fisher said the public affairs shop recommended making public that the planes had been destroyed (page 32).

B. My response to USAF PA sent 2/9---------------------------

Gentlemen,

I've added page numbers for clarity as to my references. 

In 2011 I submitted complaints to AF IG. In July 2011 I submitted the attached USAF PA to PA in the Pentagon, not knowing any other address. In 2013 I visited and filed an IG with AFMC at Wright-Patterson (Mr. Dennis Lange dennis.lange.1@us.af.mil,) without any response, but that complaint focused in failure to abide by FOIA requirements. (note 2/10/15: I have retracted this 2013 complaint to AFMC as they have no record and I did not keep a copy) 

USAF PA may have misunderstood that the 309th AMARG (Terry Pittman's memo) is actually a military organization under AFMC--is that perhaps why USAF PA asked why the complaint went to them?  Answer is...because it is an AF unit and an AF press release never released.

When the 2011 USAF IG was denied, I filed a DOD IG complaint...is that what USAF PA is referring to? It, too, was years ago.

Hill PA may have suggested somewhere, somehow outside the FOIA results released to C-123 veterans, a public release but obviously yielded to the improper editing of it and withholding to await inquires which never came...this disserved the commander, the mission and the media, and certainly the veterans. 

The only recommendation for a release I find by 75th ABW PA is on page 32. This is Ms. Fisher's recommendation to Terry Pittman at AMARG for release of the edited press release to Mr Martin Swann. She recommends providing the press release if Mr. Swann inquires again. As one can see, this is a press release about an event about which the media had to already be aware. 

I offer the example: if reporters don't see columns of smoke rising from the base runway, is PA spared the necessity of a press release about an aircraft downed on takeoff? One they've typed and held ready in the event that plume of smoke is noticed and inquires result? Otherwise, no media inquires = a non-event.

A closer parallel to our C-123 toxic airplanes. If there is a toxic spill in the Childcare Center, is PA spared the uncomfortable necessity of insuring the information is provided those exposed children, parents and staff? Never to be informed, just as our C-123 veterans have never heard from the Air Force. Does PA believe they'd type a press release about a Childcare Center spill and hold it unless parents notice their children sickening and bring their inquiries to PA?

Newsworthy? Here, PA obviously understood a press release was important because one was carefully crafted. Federal lawsuits had happened over these airplanes. Base employees had filed IG complaints reaching the USAF Surgeon General. The Air Staff was involved as well as AFMC leadership. Hundreds of thousands had been spent cocooning and moving the fleet into special HAZMAT storage. The EPA threatened a $3.4 billion fine. The airplanes and their background was historic. AFMC officials traveled to Wisconsin to personally witness and certify the smelting. Individuals kept propellor hubs as souvenirs. The issue of Agent Orange and its toxicity was important to veterans and the public. They felt the importance of the C-123 issue, however, best addressed by keeping it quiet.

The final press release described the destruction as "normal," which it most certainly was not (p.9-10, 20-21)  This was the first and last time such a procedure was used on USAF aircraft at Davis-Monthan. The initial press release (p.11,) more honest and revealing, shows the extent of editing out too much of who/what/when/why/where/how details of concern to the public.

As he is entitled to do, Dr. Young specifically recommended no publicity for the unacceptable reasons he offered. None of the three officials (Major McCrady, Mr. Malmgren, Mr. Boor) to whom his memos were directed took exception and opted to do handle correctly. Indeed, these officials and their organizations cited his memos as their authority for the actions. On page 24, Dr. Downs also agrees with Dr. Young's recommendations. 

Dr. Young, as a contractor, is not at issue here, but actions by Air Force civilian

and military personnel acting on his "decision memos" are. He later told the Washington Post he was acting in an unofficial capacity, yet his recommendations were accepted as instructions and authority for the final shredding and smelting as well as media cover-up.

While these folks were not base or MAJCOM PA officials, my 2011 complaint brought to USAF PA's attention serious concerns about violations of Air Force standards and regulations, requiring response just as to any complaint from any citizen about the Air Force presented to PA. It happens, of course, that PA issues are also in question. 

AFMC decisions are also questioned in my inquiries. The involvement of a large number of others is shown in the distribution of the memo on page 22. The Air Staff and Pentagon are referenced on page 23 and by Mr. Michael Crane's email, as he is on the Air Staff. No action is known to have been taken by any of them regarding the recommended goal "of preventing future liability to the US Air Force and the US Department of Defense." 

Question here, please: what about already exposed veterans...the ones mentioned by Dr. Young? It is clear the intent of this process was to avoid liability to them as well.

As Dr. Young, "Senior Consultant on Agent Orange to the Office of Secretary of Defense" congratulated officials on page 35, this was all done with "minimal publicity". Indeed, there was none at all until exposed C-123 veterans sought care from the Department of Veterans Affairs.

As a former Stan/Eval flight examiner for my crew position, I am not unfamiliar

with the C-123K but rather an expert on it. I believe this, along with an Air Force enlisted and commissioned career, gives me reasonable insight to the issues I've raised and ability to read and understand applicable guidance in the form of operating instructions and regulations. 

I've tried to express myself accurately but suggestions from AF Public Affairs back in 2011 would have been quite helpful to correct any misunderstanding on my part. I welcome it today as well.

Remember: this is not some commercial firm's marketing communications department where press release activity is a sales tool. This is the United States Air Force, informing the public about how the nation's treasure in gold and in the lives our servicemembers is spent. This treasure must be carefully accounted for, which is the only way we insure civilian control over the military through an informed public and their legislature.

Hill AFB PA was not what the nation needed relative to this event, with consequent harm to our health.

   WTC

C-123 Vets AGAIN Request Response to USAF Public Affairs Complaint - 1298 Days Have Passed

Dear Chief and Mr. Clavette,

Gentlemen, may I know your thoughts on the inquiry I've lodged? 

It has been 1,298 days: Please do not think me impatient.

I am more grievously ill than when I first sought your counsel in 2011, as are many of my surviving crewmates.

The issue continues to affect the lives of over 2100 veterans, fewer alive today than when the question was first raised with AF PA in 2011. The issue, as managed by the PA shops involved, contributed to the Department of Veterans Affairs' delay in addressing veterans' Agent Orange exposure claims....a stated objective of the various memos and emails.

Quite predictably, there has been attendant financial loss, suffering and deaths from this deviation from Air Force regulations, Air Force values, and denial of the First Amendment rights of local media which prevented informing the public of significant government actions...actions destroying toxic airplanes and information about our health.

I request every kindness in expediting an answer to the questions raised, and welcome correction or clarification where helpful as to the supporting documents provided.

Regards,

   Wes Carter, Major, USAF Retired

  

On Mon, Feb 2, 2015 at 10:47 AM, BAILEY, TIMOTHY R CMSgt USAF AFPAA AFPAA/CCC <timothy.cccccc4@us.af.mil> wrote:

Sir,

I have forwarded your complaint up to the Mr. Larry Clavette, the Director of Air Force Public Affairs Agency. 

v/r

Timothy R. Bailey, CMSgt, USAF

C-123 Vets Renew AF Public Affairs Complaint First Submitted - but ignored - in 2011

Last week leaders of the C-123 Veterans Association renewed our 2011 complaints about Air Force Public Affairs operations at Hill AFB UT and Davis-Monthan AFB AZ. We alleged Air Force deceptions, both by commission and omission, regarding the April-June 2010 destruction of the toxic C-123 fleet stored at Davis-Monthan.

Stored at Davis-Monthan's Boneyard since 1982 and in special HAZMAT quarantine for a decade by orders of the USAF Surgeon General, the airplanes were all quietly shredded and smelted in response to their Agent Orange contamination. The press release, however, did not cover that fact. The press release did not mention Agent Orange at all.

And in fact, the well-crafted press release was never released. A whole fleet of airplanes with a unique 40-year history, considered by many the embarrassment of the Air Force, disappeared and the media took no notice.

They were not meant to. Air Force Public Affairs word-smithed their press release to make it as innocuous as possible, then placed in a desk drawer in case some inquiring reporter raised a question. Base officials and their outside consultant had word-smithed out attention-grabbing words such as "Agent Orange, toxin, TCDD" and other accurate descriptions of the event. Officials also wrote about their concern that, unless the event were kept "below the radar," exposed veterans could apply to Veterans Affairs for treatment of Agent Orange illnesses.

The very mention of this concern...expressed by the consultant, base officials and those up the chain of command...is inappropriate. Instead, the Air Force should have been accurate in its communication with the public, and with the veterans who'd served faithfully but had been exposed to Agent Orange. There is no excuse for such a coverup...no wonder the Air Force fought Freedom of Information Act requests about this for three years, finally releasing mostly redacted white pages, devoid of content.

No questions were raised by local media because they Air Force took pains to insure nobody knew. If somebody found out, a deceptive press release was ready to give them, but no inquiries ever came.

A parallel would be if an aircraft crashed on base and PA typed out a press release saying there'd been an unscheduled mass casualty exercise followed by a test of the unit's voluntary blood donation program, after which the base returned to normal operations. And then put the press release into a drawer in case some newsperson noticed a plume of smoke rising from the base and one less airplane.

This whole scheme abused the First Amendment right of reporters in the area by denying them information about a significant military activity. It abused the duty those reporters had to the public by keeping from their readers information about the conduct of the American military and its expenditure of treasure and peoples' lives. The lives spoken of are ours...the veterans who flew these airplanes, and from whom information was kept from us by deceptions of Air Force Public Affairs at Hill and D-M, which was in violation of Air Force and DOD operating instructions, and also in violation of Air Force ethics and the ethics expected of professional...not marketing communications...public agency public affairs operations.

Lies? Not directly.

Prevarication? Absolutely! In the Air Force, a prevarication is a lie.

Impact? Information about our health kept from us for over a year and the evolution of disability claims with VA delayed for four.

Media and the public which depends on them to be informed about our government? Neither can trust USAF Public Affairs with this as an example of deception possible from military officials. And the veterans affected also have a loss of trust and confidence in our Air Force, knowing it willingly deceives us in issues involving our health to prevent our claims with the VA.

Yale University Seeks C-123 Veterans To Discuss Agent Orange Claims – Westover, Pittsburgh & Rickenbacker

This is the veterans law clinic at Yale University and they want to hear from every single one of us who is a C-123 veteran, who did not serve in Vietnam, and who has or may have an Agent Orange illness. Yale's lead on the project to help us is Mr. Daniel Townsend at daniel.townsend@clinics.yale.edu

Now would be good. And it won't cost anybody anything. Its what they do. Help veterans expertly and for free. Pro bono, in Latin. I've worked my bottom off for four years to get C-123 veterans in this position and now I want you to do this for yourself and for all the rest of us. Aerial Port, AME, maintainers, Life Support and aircrew...get your name and telephone in to me. So far, only 30 names have been collected.

Yale Law = C-123 Veterans' Support - pro bono!

This is the agency which argued Dick Matte's claim (all their helping us is pro bono, of course) through the Boston VA Decision Review Officer and won that recent award. This is the superb law school which challenged VA head-on, explaining in great detail with their report how our Agent Orange exposures are covered under the law. These are the folks, under supervision of the dean of Yale's law school Michael Wishnie, who want hear from you.

Any questions just contact me.  Pilots LtCol John Harris and Col Arch Battista (he's also a retired attorney) and other Westover leaders have worked with these folks in the Dick Matte effort. Now we need your help on Yale's pro bono project involving all of us. Involving YOU!

Email them at daniel.townsend@clinics.yale.edu

Wall Street Journal Addresses C-123 Veterans' Agent Orange Exposure Problem

from today's Wall Street Journal:

Senators Seek Compensation for Veterans Exposed to Agent Orange in the U.S.

VA Typically Provides Coverage for Vets Who Served in VietnamBy BEN KESLING Feb. 5, 2015 5:20 p.m. ET 1 COMMENTS
Thousands of veterans likely exposed to Agent Orange during stateside service gained new momentum Wednesday in a yearslong fight for benefits and compensation after a group of senators highlighted the issue in a query to the Department of Veterans Affairs.

Six senators, including the top-ranking Democrat on the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs, Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut, sent an open letter to VA secretary Robert McDonald asking for compensation for as many as 2,100 veterans who served on Agent Orange-contaminated aircraft in the years following the Vietnam War.

The veterans served on C-123 cargo aircraft that had been used to spray toxic defoliants in Southeast Asia during the Vietnam War. The aircraft had been repurposed after the war and sent stateside for service.

Years after the conclusion of the war, veterans exposed to the herbicide began to have health problems, including cancer, diabetes and skin problems. In the 1990s, the VA instituted policies that allowed veterans who served in certain areas at certain times during the war to qualify for benefits under the presumption of exposure to Agent Orange, even if it wasn’t documented in their health records.

But some veterans say they fall into gaps in this presumptive coverage policy, creating a high barrier to prove their disease was definitively caused by exposure to toxins.

“Justice for these veterans is long overdue to compensate them for the constant effects of Agent Orange contained in dangerous levels in the aircraft they flew,” said Mr. Blumenthal said in an interview. “They’ve been left very unjustly and unfairly without recourse.”

Richard Matte falls into this group. He was a crew member on C-123s based at the Westover Air Force Base in Massachusetts and who has been fighting for full compensation for years with the help of veterans advocates and the Veterans Legal Services Clinic at the Yale Law School.

He and others flew on planes that had seen action in Vietnam and still carried residue from Agent Orange for years after returning stateside. The Air Force has documentation of persistent contamination going back to 1979, when it conducted tests on some of the planes. The aircraft eventually were destroyed by the Air Force because of the threat the Agent Orange contamination posed to crews.

“The tide may finally be turning for this group of disabled, elderly veterans that have long been fighting for recognition,” said Sarahi Uribe, a law student who works at the veteran clinic at Yale.

In January, the Institute of Medicine issued a report indicating between 1972 and 1982 as many as 2,100 Air Force reservists were exposed to toxic dioxins left over from Agent Orange and “some reservists quite likely experienced non-trivial increases in their risks of adverse health outcomes.”

The VA hasn’t responded to the findings but in a statement said “VA has assembled a group of clinical subject matter experts to review and respond to findings and recommendations in the IOM report.”

The senators’ letter calls on the VA to provide compensation and benefits coverage to the C-123 veterans and to then reach out and let veterans know of their new disability status.

US Senators Demand Prompt VA Action on C-123 Agent Orange Claims

For Immediate Release: February 4, 2015

Contacts:             Martina McLennan/Ray Zaccaro (Merkley) (202) 224-3753

                                Rachel Hicks (Burr) (202) 228-1616

                                Josh Zembik (Blumenthal) (202) 224-6452

Following Institute of Medicine Study Confirming Agent Orange Exposure, Bipartisan Group of Senators Calls on VA Secretary to Ensure Post Vietnam Air Force Veterans Receive Proper Benefits and Compensation

WASHINGTON, D.C. – A bipartisan group of senators led by Oregon’s Senator Jeff Merkley (D-OR) and Senator Richard Burr (R-NC) today called on VA Secretary Robert McDonald to ensure that veterans long denied care for exposure to Agent Orange receive timely and proper benefits and compensation. The letter follows a recent Institute of Medicine (IOM) study that provides new and compelling evidence on exposure to Agent Orange of veterans who flew contaminated aircraft after the Vietnam war.

Merkley and Burr were joined in a letter by Sens. Ron Wyden (D-OR), Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), and Michael Bennet (D-CO).

The IOM study, which was published in January, found “with confidence” that post-Vietnam veterans serving on C-123 aircrafts were exposed to potentially dangerous levels of dioxin from aircrafts that were used to carry and spray Agent Orange during the Vietnam War and that were never properly decontaminated.

According to the study, an estimated 1500-2100 personnel served on the affected planes, and numerous veterans among that group have developed symptoms, including cancer, consistent with Agent Orange exposure.  

The senators pushed the VA to reverse previous decisions that have denied veterans benefits and compensation, writing:

“Despite (1) multiple Air Force reports going back to 1979 showing that the C-123s were contaminated, (2) numerous expert opinions from inside and outside the government suggesting these veterans were  exposed to Agent Orange and other toxins, and (3) a judge’s order stopping the resale of these C-123s because the planes were a ‘danger to public health,’ the VA to-date has doggedly insisted  there is no possibility that post-Vietnam era C-123 veterans might have been exposed to dangerous levels of Agent Orange.  It also has denied all but one of the C-123 veterans’ claims for benefits.”

They continued, “It is our desire to see that C-123 veterans who suffer today because of service-related exposure to Agent Orange receive the help they need. To speed the award of benefits, we ask that you provide a presumption of service connection for these veterans.”

The senators also called on the VA to immediately review all C-123 Agent Orange exposure claims, including those that have been denied and are under appeal, and to work with the Department of Defense to proactively contact all veterans who served on any C-123s previously used in Vietnam to spray Agent Orange defoliant that were subsequently assigned to Air Force Reserve units based in the United States from 1972-1982 in order to notify these veterans that they may be eligible for benefits.

The full text of the letter follows below:

February 4, 2015

Dear Secretary McDonald,

We write to bring your attention to the Institute of Medicine’s (“IOM”) January 9, 2015, report on exposure to Agent Orange by veterans who served on Fairchild UC-123 Provider(“C-123”) aircraft post-Vietnam.  The report, commissioned by the Department of Veterans Affairs (“VA”), stated “with confidence” that these veterans were exposed to potentially dangerous levels of dioxin.  Given IOM’s recent finding, we ask that you use your authority to provide a presumption of service connection for C-123 veterans who flew or worked on planes that carried and sprayed Agent Orange and to revisit past and existing related claims.  

During the Vietnam War’s Operation Ranch Hand, the Air Force used approximately 30 C-123s to spray Agent Orange and other herbicides over Vietnam.  Though never properly decontaminated, these planes remained in the fleet until 1982.  An estimated 1500-2100 personnel who served on these planes were the subject of IOM’s recent report.  It found, “with confidence,” that these personnel were exposed to toxic levels of Agent Orange and other herbicides as a result of the failure to adequately sterilize the aircraft. 

Despite (1) multiple Air Force reports going back to 1979 showing that the C-123s were contaminated, (2) numerous expert opinions from inside and outside the government suggesting these veterans were  exposed to Agent Orange and other toxins, and (3) a judge’s order stopping the resale of these C-123s because the planes were a “danger to public health,” the VA to-date has doggedly insisted  there is no possibility that post-Vietnam era C-123 veterans might have been exposed to dangerous levels of Agent Orange.  It also has denied all but one of the C-123 veterans’ claims for benefits. 

The VA’s position has been disappointing.  In a June 7, 2013, response to an inquiry from Senator Richard Burr, then-Secretary of Veterans Affairs Eric Shinseki provided a fact sheet that concluded, “(1) any residual TCDD (dioxin) [the carcinogenic element in Agent Orange herbicide] in the Operation Ranch Hand aircraft had solidified and is unable to enter the human body in any significant amount, and (2) there is no scientific evidence that a Veteran’s presence in an aircraft containing solidified TCDD can lead to adverse long-term health effects.”  Further investigation was impossible due to the fact that the Air Force destroyed all the remaining C-123s before additional testing could be conducted. 

Because of mounting independent scientific evidence concluding that these veterans were exposed to dangerous levels of dioxin, the VA ultimately contracted with IOM to review the available data.  On January 9, 2015, IOM issued its final report.  The IOM committee concluded that C-123 flight crews “were exposed when working in the ORH C-123s and soexperience some increase in their risk of a variety of adverse [health] responses.”  (Emphasis in original).  The IOM’s report also “emphatically” refuted the VA’s long-standing argument that residual TCDD in the C-123s posed no risk for veterans, noting instead that it is “accepted in the field of exposure science” that the TCDD contamination “persist[ed] long after the[] [aircrafts’] use” during the Vietnam War, and that Air Force reservists serving on those planes were exposed to TCDD and herbicides “through multiple routes.”

We hope IOM’s findings will allow C-123 veterans finally to receive the benefits they have earned. However, our offices remain concerned  about the VA’s ability to provide these individuals with consistent, fair access to critical services.  For instance, the VA has repeatedly told some of our offices that it did not have a “blanket policy” of denying C-123 veterans’ claims.  Each claim, they assured us, was “evaluated on a case-by-case basis to determine if the available evidence support[ed] a service connection on a facts-found basis.”  However, at least one VA denial letter stated, “The VA and DOD have specifically provided guidance that such secondary [Agent Orange] exposure cannot be granted service connection, to include working on planes that carried or sprayed . . . the herbicide . . . .”  This discrepancy raises questions about the accuracy and validity of information provided to some of our offices, and the knowledge within the VA about VA policy towards these veterans.  This is why we are bringing the IOM’s findings to your attention. 

It is our desire to see that C-123 veterans who suffer today because of service-related exposure to Agent Orange receive the help they need.  To speed the award of benefits, we ask that you provide a presumption of service connection for these veterans.  Further, we ask that the VA immediately review all claims, including those that have been denied and are under appeal, made by C-123 veterans for post-Vietnam exposure to Agent Orange.  Finally, we ask that the VA proactively cooperate with the Department of Defense to contact all veterans who served on C-123s used to spray Agent Orange and other covered herbicides during the war and notify them that they may be eligible for benefits. 

We thank you for your attention to this matter.  We look forward to working with you to make sure the C-123 vets receive the benefits they deserve. 

Sincerely,

--

Martina McLennan

Deputy Communications Director

U.S. Senator Jeff Merkley

(202) 224-3753

BVA Gives VA C-123 Agent Orange Committee Example to Follow

VA's C-123 Committee should be guided in large part by Board of Veterans Appeals decisions over these last many years.

VA should realize that existing regulations, a decade of very specific Federal Register publications, well-established science even before the 9 January 2015 Institute of Medicine report, and the historical record all led Veterans Law Judges to their 100%* approval of C-123 appeals.

Every single one*. Even without the impact of the IOM report. Before the Joint Services Records Research Center began confirming C-123 aircraft exposures per VA M21-1MR (clearly detailed in Part IV Subpart ii Chapter C Section C.) With no new regulation, no new legislation, no need for additional Federal Register explanations. No need for any delay keeping our veterans from submitting claims for fair consideration, and on award finally allowed to enter VA hospitals.

No reason and certainly no excuse for VA to continue saving money by keeping our folks out of their hospital wards. A simple field training letter should do the trick.

Decisions by the Board of Veterans Appeals do not set precedent for other veterans' claims.

Everyone, including C-123 veterans, understands that quite well. What those decisions do, however, is offer an example of expert thought process by the Veterans Law Judges.

That example is an important one which the committee set up within Veterans Benefits Administration and Veterans Health Administration might consider carefully.

Because every BVA decision has been in favor of Reserve and Air Guard C-123 veterans.*

The point is that all claims which have been denied by BVA (and that is every single C-123 claim that ever was submitted*) have been reversed and awarded by the careful consideration at BVA.

BVA Veterans Law Judges had available to them in their decisions today's VA regulation VA M21-1MR, the veterans' medical information, and the historical and scientific information about these former Vietnam War Agent Orange spray warplanes.

BVA decisions are based on applicable law and the interpretation of the overall situation. Awards are made when the law's requirements are met. Any question, any interpretation, is made in a pro-veteran and non-adversarial manner. Issues in dispute are resolved in the veteran's favor if evidence reaches "as likely to as not" threshold.

BVA judges have shown for years that C-123 veterans' claims need nothing more in law or regulation to be awarded when appropriate. VA could do it today.

Friends of veterans, C-123 aircrews, maintainers and aerial port veterans have reached and far surpassed that threshold!

VA has benefited hugely by blocking C-123 claims for these years. Our vets have been denied VA medical care, pharmacy, rehab, counseling, independent living assistance, Chapter 20, children's educational benefits and allowances, burial, prosthetics, and compensation for their service-associated illnesses.

Any further delay, any further effort by VA to save more money by postponing the full inclusion of C-123 veterans into the Veterans Health Administration and Veterans Benefits Administration protections is unconscionable.

BVA already showed the VHA committee that nothing else is needed.

All VA has to do is open their doors and understand that C-123 veterans have established presumptive service connection for the recognized Agent Orange illnesses.

Just as we have done for many, many years, only to find our claims wrongly decided against us.

To us, there is no part of "clear" remaining. All is perfectly clear: JSRRC, USAFHRA, IOM, VA M21-1MR, 1991 Agent Orange Act. Clear as can be and not needing any new regulation nor Federal Register posting to make any clearer.

Keep that word in your mind, dear VA. Clear.

Clear on 31 August 2010 in the Federal Register Volume V, No. 168, page 53205. Clear? Any effort to make more clear only clouds the issue with attendant delay in providing the medical care we're all focused on, and that is unethical and contrary to VAM21-1MR itself.

A point where we take offense. The entire VA application process is build around the term "compensation." This is deceptive. Most non-veterans, and too many folks in the media, don't understand that vets are not permitted any care until their claims...in a process called compensation claims"...are decided.

At our ages, and our illnesses, we feel the process should be termed "medical care application" instead of compensation claim. Financial compensation may indeed follow if appropriate, but even a zero percent service connection permits the medical care to be provided a veteran.

Stop making us look like we're financially motivated We take offense.

We're looking hard for VA heros...volunteers welcome! Be one!
----------------

*All of them, other than LtCol Aaron (Tim) Olmsted's claim which was denied on appeal for the ridiculous reason given by the Board's opposing attorney that Tim hadn't shown his C-123s had ever been in Vietnam.

That was an obvious error by BVA and perhaps also an ethical question which should be raised in conversation with the attorney who skillfully blocked Olmsted's claim by such deception. VA has a duty to assist veterans in claims and the proof of Tim's airplane Agent Orange background took one email and a couple days to obtain when the veterans inquired. Why didn't the VA inquire?

Why the vicious motivation of the VA opposing attorney to win even in the face of VA's errors and the veteran's eligibility? We don't understand why the American Legion which represented Olmsted in his appeal failed to right this wrong, but it is still on the table in our conversations with VA officials.

The Republican: C-123 Editorial 2/4/2015

The Republican again published an editorial demanding action on C-123 veterans' Agent Orange claims. Among these vets, of course, are aircrews, aeromedical folks, maintenance and aerial port....those with hands-on with the C-123s any time between 1972-1982.

We're grateful to the Republic for noting our plight and covering it with accuracy and compassion.

The press has done its job.

May we hope for similar concern and effective action from Massachusetts legislators on behalf of the C-123 veterans, most of whom live in the Commonwealth? Perhaps...something a bit more forceful than a simple letter sent to the VA so long ago? Perhaps a phone call to VHA to explain firmly that veterans need and deserve their care and benefits now, not months from now.

Current VA regulations already cover these veterans. All that's happened is science has informed the VA that C-123 veterans were exposed to Agent Orange, and VA's regulations describe the proper course of action and no new legislation, regulation or Federal Register comment are necessary.

Springfield (MA) The Republican: Major C-123 News Article by Reporter Jeanette DeForge

Today's The Republican (Springfield, Massachusetts) carries a major article addressing the C-123 exposure situation and VA's tepid reaction to the definitive Institute of Medicine report issued on January 9, 2015.

The Republican, and reporter Jeanette DeForge, have carried news about this situation for four years, since C-123 veterans first filed a formal Inspector General complaint through the United States Air Force. That IG complaint was denied, as were all the veterans' complaints and requests for inquiries with the Department of Veterans Affairs, between 2011 and 2015.

But The Republican carried the story. The Republican saw the kernel of truth, and story after story, editorial after editorial, Deforge revealed the details of an intricate legal, historical, aeronautical, military and medical puzzle the veterans from Westover AFB, Rickenbacker ANGB and Pittsburgh IAP found themselves struggling through.

DeForge is due our thanks...not for her favoritism or special treatment, but because she and her publisher faithfully played their roles in fulfilling the Constitution's expectations of journalists, in its First Amendment guarantees of freedom of the press.

Thank God for that freedom, for The Republican, and for Jeanette DeForge.  They make wearing our flight suits for these past decades worth it all.

AGENT ORANGE
• Westover Reservists exposed to Agent Orange, federal officials rule after 4-year battle
• Support grows for Westover veterans who served in planes contaminated by Agent Orange, but VA scandal stymies efforts
• Editorial: U.S. government needs to own responsibility for Agent Orange exposure at Westover as it does for radiation exposure at Chapman Valve
• Editorial: U.S. government's treatment unconscionable of Westover veterans exposed to Agent Orange
• Westover Air Reserve veterans exposed to Agent Orange file complaint with Department of Defense

HOW LONG CAN VA TAKE TO IMPLEMENT IOM C-123 FINDINGS? (see Feb 4 entry)

How long might we and our families have to wait for VA to act on the C-123 Agent Orange exposure situation?

FIRST FACT: VA could do what's needed tomorrow. Checking with legal scholars specializing in veterans law, and re-reading the Yale University School of Law C-123 report, it is clear that no new legislation is necessary to permit C-123 veterans into the VA healthcare system.

Previous announcements in the Federal Register addressing non-Vietnam herbicide exposures detail VA assurance of treating us with presumptive service connection, and VA's regulation VAM21-1MR (which courts said "has the force of law") have language already in place...so nothing need be done except – do it! 

Note: in comments to the Springfield (MA) Republican published 2/3/2015, a VA spokeswoman said it will take VA "several months."  UNCONSCIONABLE FOOT DRAGGING! What does Post Deployment Health calculate to be our veterans' death toll between January 9 (release date for the IOM report) and "months" later?

SECOND FACT: VA could drag this out beyond our imagination. They could imagine that new legislation is necessary to do what they already have authority to do, and VA Office of General Counsel could direct the whole thing to die by pretending to ask Congress for new legislation. Any legislation coming from that might be enacted, but only years after the last of us has had the final fly-over. They know this. Going to the legislature to ask for authority or guidance VA already has just won't cut it with either house.

THIRD FACT: Next-to-worst case is VA dragging out approval by waiting out the 60 days permitted after an IOM report. Then, burning off another 60 days proposing new regulations with a Federal Register posting (which would only be a repeat of their earlier statements) and then 90 days after that to effect new regulation. VA might see this as a present to us wrapped with a beautiful silk bow – but its not. Seven months to men and women our ages, with our diseases, brings a certain death count and VA knows this perfectly well.

Truth is truth, and VA has the truth in hand now from the IOM report. It is the same truth VA had on their desks seven to eight years ago – when more of us were alive. Truth, law, science together should move VA to make the right decision by us, but it sure would have been welcome those many years ago.

In their last Federal Register comment regarding non-Vietnam Agent Orange ("military herbicide") exposures, VA made their planned treatment of us clear. Very clear. Perfectly clear.

VA even used that very word. What part of "Finally, we wish to make clear" has been left unclear? Of course, VA made this commitment to the Congress and the American people before we came along with our exposure claims but I just can't imagine the Department...the Secretary in particular...reneging on making it "clear."

Been there, done that.

Been there, done that (although I recall dragging bags everywhere.) Off to the Herkybird office at 30,000' but first there was breakfast (SOS, of course, and huge greasy omelets) and coffee. With friends, now even more dear decades later.

Young soldiers...the men and women you serve with now are going to be among the most precious friends in later years. "Been there, done that" means shared experiences nobody else can even imagine. Enjoy their friendship now – later, you're going to savor it even more with those who've been there, and done it with you.

NASDVA Asked to Inform VSOs & Veterans About C-123 Developments

We again have asked the National Association of State Directors of Veterans Affairs to inform C-123 veterans and their survivors of developing eligibility news coming from the VA.

Over the four years of our effort to get VA itself to assist our veterans, NASDA has never responded to inquires or requests and we hope the recent IOM report and VA's reassuring comments since 9 Jan 2015 will help enlist their experts. Even earlier assistance from then-president Dr Linda Schwartz, Connecticut's Commissioner of Veterans Affairs, brought only silence.

We face a tremendous sea-change. VSOs, claims officers, attorneys, veterans themselves and all the web sites and printed literature will have to be inclusive of C-123 veterans' eligibility. Those details, once fleshed out by the VA, need to get in place immediately.

(1/31/2016: actually, we never heard a single word from NASDVA)