BY: Jennifer Barnhill December 20, 2019
‘Widow’s Tax’ finally axed when the President signed the National Defense Authorization Act for FY 2020.
As the President signed the National Defense Authorization Act Friday night, a 40-year battle to repeal the military “widow’s tax” came to an end.
Surviving families joined forces with advocates and lawmakers to pass nonpartisan legislation, with Congress putting actions in front of words and dollars in the hands of those who paid the ultimate price. The “widow’s tax” was a longstanding policy oversight that affected over 65,000 military survivors. When a service member dies while on active duty or from a military-related illness their families may be eligible for both the Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP) & Dependency and Indemnity Compensation (DIC). Because of concurrent receipt laws (provisions to avoid double-dipping in government benefits), for every dollar paid out via the DIC, one dollar was deducted or “offset” from the SBP insurance payment. This offset cost families roughly $11,000 annually. Not only have these families lived through the nightmare of losing a spouse or loved one, they have had to fight to stay afloat both emotionally and financially.
In 2013, Gold Star widow Kathy Prout started the Military Widows: SBP-DIC Offset Facebook Group as a way for survivors to share their concerns about the offset and related legislation. What began with six members grew to over 2,000 today.
“With privacy laws you can’t find anybody. You can’t find another widow unless somebody says ‘I know somebody,’” Prout said. Over time — and with the power of social media — this group grew in number and purpose.
Prout, who is a teacher, used lesson plans to create a plan of the week with assignments to call representatives who were on the fence.
“Everybody in the [Facebook] group was responsible for calling their own congressmen and senators weekly to remind them about the issue and to keep this on the front burner,” she explained.
One key focus of their effort was coupling consistency with kindness. When cosponsors signed on to support the repeal of the offset, she instructed members to write thank you letters. No one was to be shamed for not signing. Instead, they were to be educated. They didn’t take out frustrations on congressional staffers, who they now knew by name. They helped make supporting their cause easier.
“We provided all the information. Staffers have too many issues [to research] … there is no time in the day,” Prout said.
By speaking the language of government in addition to telling their own authentic stories these survivors became an unstoppable force.
Key players:
As intentional as surviving families were, they needed an advocate, someone to champion their cause. While there were many supporters, Senator Doug Jones, D-Ala. made passing this legislation a main priority. According to Jones, including the repeal of the offset in the 2020 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) demonstrates “our commitment to our veterans, our military service members and their families because they are the ones making the sacrifices for us. We have got to do more than just give this lip service and talk about the support for our military and throw money at modernizing our military. This is for families. This is for human beings.”
Jones emphasized the need for consistency and maintaining momentum. Because of the lack of understanding and high price tag associated with this legislation, “it wasn’t something that you could just file and make a speech on. You had to constantly work at it. That is what we did and it made a big difference,” Jones said.
His personal investment in the cause was evident as he emotionally recalled hearing from a widow in an Alabama press conference who said, “‘now my husband can finally rest in peace knowing that his commitment to me has been fulfilled.’ That was incredibly gratifying,” Jones says.
Advocacy groups:
Another resource that made 2019 more successful than the previous two decades was the unified message presented by a coalition of military service organizations, including Tragedy Assistance Program for Survivors (TAPS), VFW, National Military Family Association, Gold Star Wives of America, MOAA and others. Because of the groups’ familiarity with government along with connections to elected officials, they provided guidance and leadership to the widows-turned-activists.
“The most significant thing this year was the grassroots advocacy effort from the impacted spouses themselves. It was stellar. That is really what has been missing in the past,” Candace Wheeler, policy director for TAPS, said.
Alongside military survivors and political leaders, these organization emphasized that this was not a partisan issue. It was not even a bipartisan issue. It was a nonpartisan issue that needed to be corrected.
What’s next:
There is still work that still needs to be done. Defense Finance and Accounting Services (DFAS) will now begin to calculate what is owed to these families, an undertaking that will likely require a significant amount of work and time. There will be a phase-in process to receive this SBP benefit starting in 2021. DIC benefits will remain the same. Details:
January 1, 2021: ⅓ of owed SBP, SSIA
January 1, 2022: ⅔ of owed SBP, SSIA
January 1, 2023: full benefits, child-only option phased out & those whose children “aged out” can start to receive benefits
QUESTIONS?
Updates to the SBP-DIC Offset can be found on online or contact TAPS at policy@taps.org.
Don’t forget the ‘kiddie tax’:
Whenever there is “bad” legislation, like the offset, there are workarounds. In this case, many spouses with dependents chose to transfer SBP payments to their children to avoid the offset reduction. However, the 2017 Trump tax law moved these surviving children into a higher tax bracket, in the same category with wealthy trust-fund kids, costing survivors thousands more in taxes each year. This penalty is called the “kiddie tax.” This oversight has also been corrected with the inclusion of the Rep. Elaine Luria’s (D-Va.) Gold Star Family Tax Relief Act in another appropriations bill. Affected families are now eligible to amend last year’s tax returns.
25 December 2019
18 December 2019
90,000 Sailors Owe John Rossie the World's Biggest "THANK YOU!"
For years John Rossie of Colorado Springs was the principal fighter for Agent Orange benefits he felt due Navy veterans of the Vietnam War...the Blue Water Navy.
On January 1, under pressure from Congress and veterans' organizations, VA will finally begin honoring Agent Orange exposure claims from the approximately 90,000 former sailers, providing they evidence one of the recognized Agent Orange illnesses.
I did the work for our C-123 veterans, but we number only around 2,100. John's work has a potential to impact 90,000 veterans...truly a staggering victory. John had to pursue his distant victory for four more years after we won ours.
Congratulations!
John and the sailors he served in his years-long mission give me the thought, "shipmates forever," though most will have never met John. That's dedication! Every veteran he has served so doggedly must thank him for never giving up, for years of brilliant ideas, crafty schemes and down-right unflinching target-oriented hard work. Not for himself, but for shipmates, their families and survivors.
God Bless.
Wes Carter, Major, USAF Retired
Chairman, The C-123 Veterans Association
On January 1, under pressure from Congress and veterans' organizations, VA will finally begin honoring Agent Orange exposure claims from the approximately 90,000 former sailers, providing they evidence one of the recognized Agent Orange illnesses.
I did the work for our C-123 veterans, but we number only around 2,100. John's work has a potential to impact 90,000 veterans...truly a staggering victory. John had to pursue his distant victory for four more years after we won ours.
Congratulations!
John and the sailors he served in his years-long mission give me the thought, "shipmates forever," though most will have never met John. That's dedication! Every veteran he has served so doggedly must thank him for never giving up, for years of brilliant ideas, crafty schemes and down-right unflinching target-oriented hard work. Not for himself, but for shipmates, their families and survivors.
God Bless.
Wes Carter, Major, USAF Retired
Chairman, The C-123 Veterans Association
VA extends Agent Orange benefits to Blue Water Navy Vietnam Vets January 1, 2020
Law also affects survivors of Veterans, certain dependents and Veteran homebuyers
WASHINGTON – The U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) begins deciding Blue Water Navy Vietnam Veterans Act of 2019 claims, Jan. 1, 2020, extending the presumption of herbicide exposure that include toxins such as Agent Orange, to Veterans who served in the offshore waters of the Republic of Vietnam during the Vietnam War.
Prior to the measure, only Vietnam War Veterans who served on the ground in Vietnam or within Vietnam’s inland waterways were eligible to receive disability compensation and other benefits based on a presumption of herbicide exposure. (CORRECTION: certain post-Vietnam War C-123 veterans are also entitled to a presumption of exposure to Agent Orange.)
Signed into law June 25, the law specifically affects Blue Water Navy (BWN) Veterans who served as far as 12 nautical miles offshore of the Republic of Vietnam between Jan. 6, 1962 and May 7, 1975, as well as Veterans who served in the Korean Demilitarized Zone (DMZ) between Jan. 1, 1967 and Aug. 31, 1971. These Veterans can apply for disability compensation and other benefits if they have since developed one of 14 conditions that are presumed to be related to exposure to herbicides such as Agent Orange. Veterans do not need to prove that they were exposed to herbicides. The specific conditions can be found by searching Agent Orange on www.va.gov.
“For six months, VA worked diligently to gather and digitize records from the Naval History and Heritage Command in order to support faster claims decisions,” said VA Secretary Robert Wilkie. “These efforts will positively impact the claims process for Veterans filing for these benefits.”
Qualifying recipients, in addition to affected Veterans still living, are certain survivors of deceased BWN and Korean DMZ Veterans.
Survivors can file claims for benefits based on the Veteran’s service if the Veteran died from at least one of the 14 presumptive conditions associated with Agent Orange. The law also provides benefits for children born with spina bifida if their parent is or was a Veteran with certain verified service in Thailand during a specific period. The Blue Water Navy Act also includes provisions affecting the VA Home Loan Program. The law creates more access for Veterans to obtain no-down payment home loans, regardless of loan amount, and the home loan funding fee is reduced for eligible Reservists and National Guard borrowers who use their home loan benefits for the first time. Certain Purple Heart recipients do not pay a funding fee at all. VA’s website describes these and other benefits.
Veterans who want to file an initial claim for an herbicide-related disability can use VA Form 21-526EZ, Application for Disability Compensation and Related Compensation Benefits or work with a VA-recognized Veterans Service Organization to assist with the application process. Veterans may also contact their state Veterans Affairs Office.
BWN Veterans who previously filed a claim seeking service connection for one of the 14 presumptive conditions that was denied by VA may provide or identify any new and relevant information regarding their claim when reapplying. To re-apply, Veterans may use VA Form 20-0995, Decision Review Request: Supplemental Claim. As a result of the new law, VA will automatically review claims that are currently in the VA review process or under appeal.
For more information about the Blue Water Navy Act and the changes that will take effect visit https://www.benefits.va.gov/benefits/blue-water-navy.asp.
14 November 2019
Flight Nurse Wins Unique C-123 Agent Orange Claim
The VA Board of Veterans Appeals recently published their decision on a Westover C-123 veteran's Agent Orange claim, and it granted full benefits. There was no question about this veteran's eligibility for Agent Orange benefits but the disability claimed was not one VA presumes associated with exposure. The claim was submitted in August 2015, denied in October 2015, and finally won on appeal effective retroactive to the date first submitted.
Winning a claim for a disability VA doesn't associate with Agent Orange exposure is difficult. I won my claim for, among other things, avascular necrosis, and here VA accepted a type of cancer not on their list. It can be done but requires persistence and lots of skillful argument.
Congratulations are due here for the years this veteran invested in pursuit of the justice due C-123 veterans for our Agent Orange exposure!
Winning a claim for a disability VA doesn't associate with Agent Orange exposure is difficult. I won my claim for, among other things, avascular necrosis, and here VA accepted a type of cancer not on their list. It can be done but requires persistence and lots of skillful argument.
Congratulations are due here for the years this veteran invested in pursuit of the justice due C-123 veterans for our Agent Orange exposure!
Rickenbacker vet CMS Ray Maxwell has passed
Sad word from Tom McVey and the "Buckeye Wing" of the passing of veteran Ray Maxwell. Ray died on Veterans Day, November 11, 2019, and arrangements are uncertain thus far.
17 September 2019
SITREP: C-123 Vets' Agent Orange Claims as of September 2019
Over $20,000,000 in benefits won thus far by C-123 veterans!
That's great, but the best part of our gaining VA acknowledgement for Agent Orange exposure is medical care, always our primary objective for the estimated 2100 C-123 aircrew, aeromedical, life support and maintainers.
Last week's news included a flight nurse's appeal won for squamous cell carcinoma, and a widow's claim for her husband's Dependents Indemnity Compensation (DIC.) Her late husband died twelve years ago, well before the VA date of 19 June 2015 for recognizing our exposure, but VA accepted the fact of his lung cancer as an Agent Orange illness. I've contacted the few widows I could reach and they've also won DIC benefits (about $1300/month tax-free) but I'm afraid most have never heard of their entitlements. Can you help get the word out?
Other welcome successes include a couple Rickenbacker maintainers' claims honored by VA. I've seen some Pittsburgh veterans' claims being honored but as a group, these folks have been invisible to us...no communication other than one senior NCO. And no help from them, either, but it would be so very welcome to help get their folks informed. If ever they need a seminar on Agent Orange and the C-123 issues, all they have to do is ask!!
So far, out of about 2100 potentially eligible C-123 veterans, about 210 have had their VA Agent Orange claims honored. Sadly, as time goes along, more and more of us develop one or more of the Agent Orange presumptive illnesses and add to this number. Some retroactive awards have been well over $150,000, and our military retirees have also benefited from either Combat Related Special Compensation or Concurrent Receipt of Special Compensation.
Let me know if I can help with anything. I'm looking forward to joining with other old 74th Aeromedical Evacuation Squadron members at our October 12 dinner in Springfield, MA. Care to join us??
Meanwhile, loving my Tesla Model 3 electric vehicle...best car I've ever had! I'm proud that the USA can invent, build, market and support a car that has earned Tesla the top safety award, goes 315 miles between "fill-ups," and is so cool.
That's great, but the best part of our gaining VA acknowledgement for Agent Orange exposure is medical care, always our primary objective for the estimated 2100 C-123 aircrew, aeromedical, life support and maintainers.
Last week's news included a flight nurse's appeal won for squamous cell carcinoma, and a widow's claim for her husband's Dependents Indemnity Compensation (DIC.) Her late husband died twelve years ago, well before the VA date of 19 June 2015 for recognizing our exposure, but VA accepted the fact of his lung cancer as an Agent Orange illness. I've contacted the few widows I could reach and they've also won DIC benefits (about $1300/month tax-free) but I'm afraid most have never heard of their entitlements. Can you help get the word out?
Other welcome successes include a couple Rickenbacker maintainers' claims honored by VA. I've seen some Pittsburgh veterans' claims being honored but as a group, these folks have been invisible to us...no communication other than one senior NCO. And no help from them, either, but it would be so very welcome to help get their folks informed. If ever they need a seminar on Agent Orange and the C-123 issues, all they have to do is ask!!
So far, out of about 2100 potentially eligible C-123 veterans, about 210 have had their VA Agent Orange claims honored. Sadly, as time goes along, more and more of us develop one or more of the Agent Orange presumptive illnesses and add to this number. Some retroactive awards have been well over $150,000, and our military retirees have also benefited from either Combat Related Special Compensation or Concurrent Receipt of Special Compensation.
Let me know if I can help with anything. I'm looking forward to joining with other old 74th Aeromedical Evacuation Squadron members at our October 12 dinner in Springfield, MA. Care to join us??
Meanwhile, loving my Tesla Model 3 electric vehicle...best car I've ever had! I'm proud that the USA can invent, build, market and support a car that has earned Tesla the top safety award, goes 315 miles between "fill-ups," and is so cool.
10 June 2019
Maude DeVictor has passed; helped begin struggle for Agent Orange care and benefits
Maude Esther Elmore-DeVictor, 79 of San Mateo, CA passed away peacefully on Sunday, May 12, 2019.
Born March 24, 1940 in Lovejoy, Illinois, she was the birth daughter of the late Mary V. King-Glass and the adopted daughter of the late John T. Elmore and Earlie M. Elmore.
She is survived by her son Vincent DeVictor and his wife Monica of San Mateo, CA.
A Navy veteran, she went on to careers in the U.S. Postal Service, the Veteran's Administration, San Mateo County Deputy Public Guardian, Drug Rehabilitation Counselor, Investigator for the Chicago Dept. of Child and Family Services and finally working 30 years for the U.S. Census Bureau, up until the onset of her illness.
Known as the "Mother of Agent Orange", when employed as a Veteran's Benefits Counselor for the V.A. in Chicago, she investigated and made public the link between the use of the defoliant Agent Orange in the Vietnam War and its effect on the veterans that served there. This resulted in forcing the V.A. into changing its policies to include exposure to Agent Orange as a service related illness/disability. She received many accolades for her courageous and determined actions, including the American Legion Unsung Heroine Award. In 1986 the movie "Unnatural Causes" starring John Ritter and Alfre Woodard debuted, chronicling these events of her life.
Guided by her Buddhist faith and always an activist, Maude volunteered for many community programs throughout her life. Her favorites included, U.N. Election Observer in Nicaragua, Library Commissioner for the City of Richmond, CA, a reading mentor for disadvantaged children and election poll worker.
Her lists of accomplishments were not ones that necessarily benefited her in this lifetime but they were ones that benefited her community and the world.
Memorial Services will be conducted at 1:00pm, June 15, 2019 at Nichiren Shoshu Myoshinji Temple, 2631 Appian Way, Pinole, CA 95464.
In lieu of flowers the family respectfully requests donations be made to the charity of the givers' choice in memory of Maude Elmore-DeVictor.
05 June 2019
Finally Official: Blue Water Navy Veterans Get Agent Orange Benefits!
It is the biggest news since our own C-123 Veterans Association won benefits in
2015, and by far this news eclipses C-123 Veterans in the sheet numbers of veterans affected...perhaps as many as 90,000 Vietnam-era vets can now access vital benefits and health care.
The decision by U.S. Solicitor General Noel Francisco ended months of uncertainty for tens of thousands of former service members or their survivors who may now be eligible for benefits stemming from exposure to Agent Orange. The benefits have been estimated to cost the Department of Veterans Affairs more than $1 billion over 10 years.
“I am thrilled that the solicitor general has determined not to seek certiorari review,” said Mel Bostwick, a partner at Orrick Henderson & Sutcliffe who represented veteran Alfred Procopio pro bono. “While I have every confidence that the Supreme Court would have upheld the Federal Circuit’s sound decision, the choice by the solicitor and by Secretary [Robert] Wilkie to enforce the court’s ruling now means that deserving Vietnam veterans will not have to endure further delay or uncertainty before obtaining the benefits that they were promised decades ago.”
In January, the so-called “blue water” Navy veterans, who served on ships within the 12-mile territorial sea of the Republic of Vietnam, secured a long-sought victory in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The full court, ruling 9-2, said the Agent Orange Act of 1991 includes those veterans.
Until the ruling by the full Federal Circuit, those veterans had been denied the presumption of Agent Orange exposure during the Vietnam War. The Justice Department, supporting the Department of Veterans Affairs’ interpretation, had argued that the Agent Orange Act covered only those veterans who served on the ground or inland waterways of Vietnam.
This great news almost makes me forget about our new Tesla...finally we are all-electric!
2015, and by far this news eclipses C-123 Veterans in the sheet numbers of veterans affected...perhaps as many as 90,000 Vietnam-era vets can now access vital benefits and health care.
The decision by U.S. Solicitor General Noel Francisco ended months of uncertainty for tens of thousands of former service members or their survivors who may now be eligible for benefits stemming from exposure to Agent Orange. The benefits have been estimated to cost the Department of Veterans Affairs more than $1 billion over 10 years.
“I am thrilled that the solicitor general has determined not to seek certiorari review,” said Mel Bostwick, a partner at Orrick Henderson & Sutcliffe who represented veteran Alfred Procopio pro bono. “While I have every confidence that the Supreme Court would have upheld the Federal Circuit’s sound decision, the choice by the solicitor and by Secretary [Robert] Wilkie to enforce the court’s ruling now means that deserving Vietnam veterans will not have to endure further delay or uncertainty before obtaining the benefits that they were promised decades ago.”
In January, the so-called “blue water” Navy veterans, who served on ships within the 12-mile territorial sea of the Republic of Vietnam, secured a long-sought victory in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The full court, ruling 9-2, said the Agent Orange Act of 1991 includes those veterans.
Until the ruling by the full Federal Circuit, those veterans had been denied the presumption of Agent Orange exposure during the Vietnam War. The Justice Department, supporting the Department of Veterans Affairs’ interpretation, had argued that the Agent Orange Act covered only those veterans who served on the ground or inland waterways of Vietnam.
This great news almost makes me forget about our new Tesla...finally we are all-electric!
18 May 2019
Colonel Frederick Lindahl laid to rest at Arlington
Dr. Fred Lindahl, Colonel USAF Retired "The Perfect Warrior" |
Fred was laid to rest at Arlington National Cemetery on April 18, 2019, in a moving ceremony of full military honors. His wife Liz and family were comforted by the company of Dr. Lindahl's Georgetown colleagues and many Air Force friends.
"Fred honored the flag in his lifetime of service.
Now, the flag honors Fred."
Now, the flag honors Fred."
23 April 2019
Skillful Independent Medical Opinion re: Agent Orange & USAF Line of Duty
Here's a terrific independent medical opinion (IMO) written to argue that a post-Vietnam War C-123 veteran should be given a USAF line of duty determination (LOD.)
Why the LOD? Because the VA requires itself to recognize military records when considering a veteran's disability claim. DD-214, OJT records, TDY orders...all these are service medical records establishing a veteran's eligibility for benefits. The LOD is almost as pivotal as the DD-214.
My hope is that the Air Force Board of Correction, or the Federal Circuit Court, will investigate this veteran to determine whether an LOD is warranted. If so, my objective will have been met. I want an example for all post-Vietnam C-123 veterans to anchor their exposure disability back around 1980, so that denies Agent Orange-related VA disability claims submitted between then and now can be reconsidered.
Nothing is certain, even if the AFBCMR issues an LOD. But the example of one C-123 vet getting a retroactive LOD can help everyone else!
Why the LOD? Because the VA requires itself to recognize military records when considering a veteran's disability claim. DD-214, OJT records, TDY orders...all these are service medical records establishing a veteran's eligibility for benefits. The LOD is almost as pivotal as the DD-214.
My hope is that the Air Force Board of Correction, or the Federal Circuit Court, will investigate this veteran to determine whether an LOD is warranted. If so, my objective will have been met. I want an example for all post-Vietnam C-123 veterans to anchor their exposure disability back around 1980, so that denies Agent Orange-related VA disability claims submitted between then and now can be reconsidered.
Nothing is certain, even if the AFBCMR issues an LOD. But the example of one C-123 vet getting a retroactive LOD can help everyone else!
09 April 2019
Last WWII ‘Doolittle Raider’ dies at age 103
Retired Air Force Lt. Col. Richard "Dick" Cole, the last surviving member of World War II’s Doolittle Raiders, died Tuesday in Texas at the age of 103. The president of the Doolittle Tokyo Raiders Association told The Air Force Times that Cole died in San Antonio on Tuesday morning with his son and daughter by his side.
Cole, originally from Dayton, Ohio, was mission commander Jimmy Doolittle's co-pilot in the 1942 bombing attack less than five months after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.The bold raid on Japan is credited with providing the United States with a morale boost and helping turn the tide of the war in the Pacific.
Cole parachuted to safety, and he and other Raiders were helped by Chinese partisans. But seven crewmembers died – three were killed during the mission; three others were captured and executed, and one died in captivity.
In 2015, Cole’s book about his service called “Dick Cole’s War: Doolittle Raider, Hump Pilot, Air Commando (American Military Experience)” was published. Proceeds from the book go to a scholarship fund in Doolittle’s name for students in the aviation field,.
Acting Secretary of Defense Patrick Shanahan tweeted Tuesday:
A memorial service is being scheduled at Joint Base San Antonio. Cole will be buried at Arlington National Cemetery.
Cole, originally from Dayton, Ohio, was mission commander Jimmy Doolittle's co-pilot in the 1942 bombing attack less than five months after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.The bold raid on Japan is credited with providing the United States with a morale boost and helping turn the tide of the war in the Pacific.
"I think the main thing was that you had to go in with a positive attitude," Cole said in September of the against-the-odds mission. "I really didn't worry about it. It was our job, and we knew what to expect."In 2015, the Raiders, including Cole, were honored with the Congressional Gold Medal for their "outstanding heroism, valor, skill and service to the United States."
Cole parachuted to safety, and he and other Raiders were helped by Chinese partisans. But seven crewmembers died – three were killed during the mission; three others were captured and executed, and one died in captivity.
In 2015, Cole’s book about his service called “Dick Cole’s War: Doolittle Raider, Hump Pilot, Air Commando (American Military Experience)” was published. Proceeds from the book go to a scholarship fund in Doolittle’s name for students in the aviation field,.
Acting Secretary of Defense Patrick Shanahan tweeted Tuesday:
“Our Nation has lost a legend. Our thoughts are with the family of Lt. Col. Dick Cole, the last of the Doolittle Raiders, who passed away at age 103. He was a true trailblazer, and his selfless legacy of service lives on in our Airmen of today and tomorrow. Lt Col Dick Cole has slipped the surly bonds of Earth & reunited w/his fellow Doolittle Raiders. We offer our eternal thanks & condolences to his family.We will proudly carry the torch he & his fellow Raiders handed us. May we never forget the long blue line...it's who we are."
A memorial service is being scheduled at Joint Base San Antonio. Cole will be buried at Arlington National Cemetery.
26 March 2019
BLUE WATER NAVY VETS WIN AGENT ORANGE BENEFITS!
By NIKKI WENTLING | STARS AND STRIPES
Published: March 26, 2019
WASHINGTON — Department of Veterans Affairs Secretary Robert Wilkie recommended the Justice Department not contest a federal court ruling that could extend benefits to Vietnam veterans who served on ships offshore during the war, he announced Tuesday.
The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled 9-2 in January that “blue water” Navy veterans are eligible for benefits related to the chemical herbicide Agent Orange. The decision could pave the way for disability compensation for tens of thousands of veterans who served aboard aircraft carriers, destroyers and other ships but had been deemed ineligible for the same disability benefits as those who served on the ground and inland waterways.
The Justice Department and the VA, which disputed the veterans’ eligibility for the benefits, could challenge the decision before April 29 by seeking a review of the case from the U.S. Supreme Court.
Wilkie said publicly for the first time Tuesday that he opposed a Supreme Court review. The announcement came during his testimony to the Senate Veterans’ Affairs Committee.
“Is it true, Secretary Wilkie, that the blue water Navy court decision isn’t being challenged?” asked Sen. Johnny Isakson, R-Ga., the chairman of the committee.
Wilkie replied, “That would be my recommendation from VA.”
His stance differs from last year, when Wilkie fought efforts in Congress to extend benefits to blue water Navy veterans. At the time, he cited high costs and insufficient scientific evidence linking the veterans to Agent Orange exposure.
Since the court ruling in January, some lawmakers and veterans organizations have urged Wilkie and President Donald Trump to end the court battle.
Wilkie announced during his testimony before the Senate Veterans’ Affairs Committee on Tuesday that he recommended the Justice Department not pursue the case.
Sen. Mazie Hirono, D-Hawaii, asked him to “use your persuasive powers to make sure that happens.”
“I think your recommendation will be key,” said Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn. “I would express … that the recommendation be adopted and endorsed heartily by this committee to bring fairness and justice to our blue water Navy veterans. It would culminate a bipartisan crusade.”
Some veterans have fought for years to secure the benefits.
The subject of the Court of Appeals case was Alfred Procopio Jr., 73, who served on the USS Intrepid during the Vietnam War. Ten years ago, the VA denied his disability claims for diabetes and prostate cancer.
At issue in his case was interpretation of the current law, which allows easier access to disability benefits for veterans who “served in the Republic of Vietnam” and suffer from any illness on a list of those linked to Agent Orange. The herbicide has been found to cause respiratory cancers, Parkinson’s disease and heart disease, as well as other conditions.
The court determined that territorial seas should be included in the definition of “Republic of Vietnam” — a point the government disputed.
Published: March 26, 2019
WASHINGTON — Department of Veterans Affairs Secretary Robert Wilkie recommended the Justice Department not contest a federal court ruling that could extend benefits to Vietnam veterans who served on ships offshore during the war, he announced Tuesday.
The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled 9-2 in January that “blue water” Navy veterans are eligible for benefits related to the chemical herbicide Agent Orange. The decision could pave the way for disability compensation for tens of thousands of veterans who served aboard aircraft carriers, destroyers and other ships but had been deemed ineligible for the same disability benefits as those who served on the ground and inland waterways.
The Justice Department and the VA, which disputed the veterans’ eligibility for the benefits, could challenge the decision before April 29 by seeking a review of the case from the U.S. Supreme Court.
Wilkie said publicly for the first time Tuesday that he opposed a Supreme Court review. The announcement came during his testimony to the Senate Veterans’ Affairs Committee.
“Is it true, Secretary Wilkie, that the blue water Navy court decision isn’t being challenged?” asked Sen. Johnny Isakson, R-Ga., the chairman of the committee.
Wilkie replied, “That would be my recommendation from VA.”
His stance differs from last year, when Wilkie fought efforts in Congress to extend benefits to blue water Navy veterans. At the time, he cited high costs and insufficient scientific evidence linking the veterans to Agent Orange exposure.
Since the court ruling in January, some lawmakers and veterans organizations have urged Wilkie and President Donald Trump to end the court battle.
Wilkie announced during his testimony before the Senate Veterans’ Affairs Committee on Tuesday that he recommended the Justice Department not pursue the case.
Sen. Mazie Hirono, D-Hawaii, asked him to “use your persuasive powers to make sure that happens.”
“I think your recommendation will be key,” said Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn. “I would express … that the recommendation be adopted and endorsed heartily by this committee to bring fairness and justice to our blue water Navy veterans. It would culminate a bipartisan crusade.”
Some veterans have fought for years to secure the benefits.
The subject of the Court of Appeals case was Alfred Procopio Jr., 73, who served on the USS Intrepid during the Vietnam War. Ten years ago, the VA denied his disability claims for diabetes and prostate cancer.
At issue in his case was interpretation of the current law, which allows easier access to disability benefits for veterans who “served in the Republic of Vietnam” and suffer from any illness on a list of those linked to Agent Orange. The herbicide has been found to cause respiratory cancers, Parkinson’s disease and heart disease, as well as other conditions.
The court determined that territorial seas should be included in the definition of “Republic of Vietnam” — a point the government disputed.
12 March 2019
Retiring Veterans Court judge calls VA appeals system a 'tragedy'
(Note: Appeals to the VA Board of Veterans Appeals now take between three and seven years. The Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims can take another three or more years to hear a case. Most often, cases decided in the veteran's favor are returned to regional offices where more delay eats up yet more time.)
By NIKKI WENTLING | Stars and Stripes | Published: March 12, 2019
WASHINGTON — The retiring chief judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims told lawmakers Tuesday that the Department of Veterans Affairs appeals system is “ancient” and “inefficient” and in need of drastic change.
While testifying before a House Appropriations subcommittee, Chief Judge Robert Davis said the pressure on VA employees to get through a large backlog of benefits claims leads to poor decision-making and a high number of appeals. Davis, a Navy veteran, has held a seat on the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims for nearly 15 years. The court, often referred to as “Veterans Court,” provides veterans an impartial review of decisions made by the VA Board of Veterans’ Appeals.
“I think it’s a tragedy, the way the system operates currently,” Davis said. “I think we’ve been tied to a structure that is ancient and inefficient. The sooner Congress and all of us in this area look at this system from a 50,000-foot level and say, ‘We need to make these kinds of adjustments,’ the sooner we’ll be able to meet the needs of our veterans in a much better way.”
Davis has been critical of the VA system. The topic was brought up Tuesday by Rep. Matt Cartwright, D-Penn., who cited an August article by the Wall Street Journal in which Davis criticized the appeals process as “horribly flawed.” “We can’t ignore that when you come here to testify, chief judge,” Cartwright said.
‘Cautiously optimistic’ about new law
Davis elaborated Tuesday on his comments to the Wall Street Journal. He said he remains skeptical of a new law implemented last month that VA officials promised would allow veterans to receive decisions on their benefits claims in days or months, instead of years.
The new law, titled the Veterans Appeals Improvement and Modernization Act, was approved by Congress in 2017 and went into effect Feb. 19. It involves multiple avenues for veterans to appeal their claims, including an option to get a review from a higher-level adjudicator or go directly to the Board of Veterans’ Appeals.
Under the old system, veterans waited three to seven years to reconcile their appeals. The new one could get veterans through the process in as few as 125 days, VA officials vowed. Officials also said the new system would help cut down the backlog of appeals, which included 402,000 cases as of last month.
“I’m cautiously optimistic that this modernization act may help the system, but in my view, congressman, it is tinkering around the edges, when a larger fix is needed,” Davis said. “And it’s a fix that might be viewed as radical by some.”
When pressed for specifics, Davis suggested using mediation to negotiate a settlement between the VA and veterans or providing them general pensions. He said there were “a lot of possibilities” that he believed should be discussed with the VA secretary.
Once he retires from the court, Davis agreed to discuss the issue further with Rep. Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, D-Fla., who is chairwoman of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Military Construction, Veterans Affairs and Related Agencies.
Court experiences a ‘second surge’
Davis appeared before the subcommittee Tuesday to discuss the court’s budget request for fiscal year 2020, which totals $35.4 million. The proposed amount — released Monday as part of President Donald Trump’s budget plan — didn’t increase from the fiscal year 2019, though Davis said the court experienced a surge of work in 2018.
The court had its first surge in 2009, when its case load increased from about 2,000 cases each year to more than 4,000. That year, Congress temporarily approved two more judges to join the court, bringing it from seven judges to nine.
Davis described a “second surge” last year, during which the case load rose from about 4,000 to more than 6,800.
The VA touted last year that the Board of Veterans’ Appeals had worked through a record number of cases – about 85,000, up from 52,000 cases the previous year. Davis attributed the surge at the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims to the board’s increased pace.
He warned appropriators Tuesday that the court might soon need congressional approval for an additional two judges, bringing the total to 11. Of the nine judges now on the court, two – including Davis – are scheduled to retire at the end of their 15-year terms in December 2019.
“We’re watching our numbers carefully to track the very real possibility that nine judges may not be sufficient to keep pace with this growth trend,” Davis said.
26 February 2019
Supreme Court: Retirees Can Be Court-Martialed for Crimes Committed After Service
22 Feb 2019
Military.com | By Patricia Kime (FORWARDED BY PAUL BERGERON)
The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld the Defense Department's authority to prosecute retired service members for crimes they commit, even after retirement.
The court on Tuesday chose not to hear the case of a retired Marine who was court-martialed for a sexual assault he committed three months after leaving the service in August 2015. By not accepting the case, Larrabee v. the United States, the court upheld the status quo: that military retirees are subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice. The denial of Larrabee's petition marks the high court's second rebuff in a year of a case involving a military retiree accused of non-military crimes in retirement.
Retired Marine Corps Staff Sgt. Steven Larrabee was convicted of sexually assaulting a bartender, the wife of an active-duty Marine, at a bar in Iwakuni, Japan, where he worked as a civilian. He had been retired -- technically, placed on the Fleet Marine Corps Reserve status list -- for three months.
Following a general court-martial in which he wore civilian clothes, Larrabee was sentenced to eight years' confinement, a reprimand and a dishonorable discharge. In a pre-trial agreement, Larrabee's prison term was reduced to 10 months.
Larrabee served his sentence but tried to have his conviction overturned on appeal, arguing that he should have been tried in a civilian court, as the offenses occurred after he was retired.
The case closely resembles that of retired Gunnery Sgt. Derek Dinger who, also while living on Okinawa and on the Fleet Marine Corps Reserve list and, later, the Active Duty Retired List, was found to be in possession of and producing child pornography. He was arrested and initially indicted within the civilian courts, but his case ended up in the military court system, where he was convicted and sentenced to nine years' confinement and a dishonorable discharge.
Dinger appealed his discharge, arguing that the case should not have fallen under the military court system and that a dishonorable discharge should be reserved for "those who separated under conditions of dishonor."
His challenge also was petitioned to the U.S. Supreme Court. It was denied last June.
Attorneys for both Marines argued that the cases should have been considered by the U.S. Supreme Court because they have far-reaching consequences for military retirees. The law stipulates that "retired members of a regular component of the armed forces who are entitled to pay" and "members of the Fleet Marine Corps Reserve" are subject to court-martial jurisdiction.
The reasoning, the government argues, is that retirement is simply a change of military status and retired personnel are subject to recall should the need arise.
But Stephen Vladeck, a University of Texas law professor who represented Larrabee, said that this argument no longer holds true with the rise of the reserve component. He called the idea that retirees are reserved for future service "anachronistic," adding that military retirees are no longer among the "pool of persons at the ready" and thus should not be subject to the UCMJ.
"Increasingly, the function has been performed by reserves, not retirees," he said.
Furthermore, Vladeck said in an interview with Military.com, there are articles in the UCMJ that could place many military retirees at risk for arrest, and the U.S. Supreme Court has an interest in weighing in on how cases involving retirees are handled.
He cited one provision in the UCMJ that makes "contemptuous words" used by a commissioned officer "against the president, the vice president, Congress" and others as punishable by court-martial.
"From Adm. Bill McRaven to Gen. Michael Hayden and Gen. Martin Dempsey, some of President Donald Trump's more visible critics of late have been retired military officers. And a provision of federal law ... makes it a crime, triable by court-martial," he wrote in a blog post on Lawfare. "But does the Constitution really allow the government to subject to military trial those who have retired from active duty -- in some cases, long ago -- even for offenses committed while they are retired?"
Yes, it does, according to the Supreme Court, in its denial of Larrabee's and Dinger's writs of certiorari.
Retired Maj. Gen. Charles Dunlap, former deputy judge advocate general of the Air Force, concurs.
In a Feb. 16 post on Duke University School of Law's Lawfire blog, Dunlap said Congress explicitly states that the UCMJ applies to retirees and that Vladeck's arguments about the impropriety of senior officers speaking out against the president, as well as the "anachronistic" idea that retirees can be recalled to active duty, aren't valid.
He added that the very act of receiving retired pay means that retired personnel are choosing to keep a relationship with the military and accept all that goes with the choice not to terminate their commission or request a discharge.
"As a retired service member subject to military jurisdiction, count me among those of my comrades-in-arms who believe it a small price to pay to maintain the connection with the armed forces," Dunlap wrote.
Meanwhile, the Supreme Court's refusal to hear the Larrabee case may not be the end of the legal road for the retired Marine. According to Vladeck, Larrabee may consider suing for back pay in the Court of Federal Claims. Vladeck believes his client is entitled to do so under the Military Pay Act.
-- Patricia Kime can be reached at Patricia.Kime@Military.com. Follow her on Twitter at @patriciakime.
Military.com | By Patricia Kime (FORWARDED BY PAUL BERGERON)
The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld the Defense Department's authority to prosecute retired service members for crimes they commit, even after retirement.
The court on Tuesday chose not to hear the case of a retired Marine who was court-martialed for a sexual assault he committed three months after leaving the service in August 2015. By not accepting the case, Larrabee v. the United States, the court upheld the status quo: that military retirees are subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice. The denial of Larrabee's petition marks the high court's second rebuff in a year of a case involving a military retiree accused of non-military crimes in retirement.
Retired Marine Corps Staff Sgt. Steven Larrabee was convicted of sexually assaulting a bartender, the wife of an active-duty Marine, at a bar in Iwakuni, Japan, where he worked as a civilian. He had been retired -- technically, placed on the Fleet Marine Corps Reserve status list -- for three months.
Following a general court-martial in which he wore civilian clothes, Larrabee was sentenced to eight years' confinement, a reprimand and a dishonorable discharge. In a pre-trial agreement, Larrabee's prison term was reduced to 10 months.
Larrabee served his sentence but tried to have his conviction overturned on appeal, arguing that he should have been tried in a civilian court, as the offenses occurred after he was retired.
The case closely resembles that of retired Gunnery Sgt. Derek Dinger who, also while living on Okinawa and on the Fleet Marine Corps Reserve list and, later, the Active Duty Retired List, was found to be in possession of and producing child pornography. He was arrested and initially indicted within the civilian courts, but his case ended up in the military court system, where he was convicted and sentenced to nine years' confinement and a dishonorable discharge.
Dinger appealed his discharge, arguing that the case should not have fallen under the military court system and that a dishonorable discharge should be reserved for "those who separated under conditions of dishonor."
His challenge also was petitioned to the U.S. Supreme Court. It was denied last June.
Attorneys for both Marines argued that the cases should have been considered by the U.S. Supreme Court because they have far-reaching consequences for military retirees. The law stipulates that "retired members of a regular component of the armed forces who are entitled to pay" and "members of the Fleet Marine Corps Reserve" are subject to court-martial jurisdiction.
The reasoning, the government argues, is that retirement is simply a change of military status and retired personnel are subject to recall should the need arise.
But Stephen Vladeck, a University of Texas law professor who represented Larrabee, said that this argument no longer holds true with the rise of the reserve component. He called the idea that retirees are reserved for future service "anachronistic," adding that military retirees are no longer among the "pool of persons at the ready" and thus should not be subject to the UCMJ.
"Increasingly, the function has been performed by reserves, not retirees," he said.
Furthermore, Vladeck said in an interview with Military.com, there are articles in the UCMJ that could place many military retirees at risk for arrest, and the U.S. Supreme Court has an interest in weighing in on how cases involving retirees are handled.
He cited one provision in the UCMJ that makes "contemptuous words" used by a commissioned officer "against the president, the vice president, Congress" and others as punishable by court-martial.
"From Adm. Bill McRaven to Gen. Michael Hayden and Gen. Martin Dempsey, some of President Donald Trump's more visible critics of late have been retired military officers. And a provision of federal law ... makes it a crime, triable by court-martial," he wrote in a blog post on Lawfare. "But does the Constitution really allow the government to subject to military trial those who have retired from active duty -- in some cases, long ago -- even for offenses committed while they are retired?"
Yes, it does, according to the Supreme Court, in its denial of Larrabee's and Dinger's writs of certiorari.
Retired Maj. Gen. Charles Dunlap, former deputy judge advocate general of the Air Force, concurs.
In a Feb. 16 post on Duke University School of Law's Lawfire blog, Dunlap said Congress explicitly states that the UCMJ applies to retirees and that Vladeck's arguments about the impropriety of senior officers speaking out against the president, as well as the "anachronistic" idea that retirees can be recalled to active duty, aren't valid.
He added that the very act of receiving retired pay means that retired personnel are choosing to keep a relationship with the military and accept all that goes with the choice not to terminate their commission or request a discharge.
"As a retired service member subject to military jurisdiction, count me among those of my comrades-in-arms who believe it a small price to pay to maintain the connection with the armed forces," Dunlap wrote.
Meanwhile, the Supreme Court's refusal to hear the Larrabee case may not be the end of the legal road for the retired Marine. According to Vladeck, Larrabee may consider suing for back pay in the Court of Federal Claims. Vladeck believes his client is entitled to do so under the Military Pay Act.
-- Patricia Kime can be reached at Patricia.Kime@Military.com. Follow her on Twitter at @patriciakime.
02 February 2019
C-123 Agent Orange victory one reason blue water sailor campaigned for his benefits.
Court Rules ‘Blue Water’ Vietnam Veterans Are Eligible for Agent Orange Benefits Sailors had long been excluded from health benefits related to the dioxin-tainted herbicide the military spread during the war.
SMITHSONIAN.COM
Read more: HERE
Follow: @SmithsonianMag on Twitter
Court Rules ‘Blue Water’ Vietnam Veterans Are Eligible for Agent Orange Benefits Sailors had long been excluded from health benefits related to the dioxin-tainted herbicide the military spread during the war.
SMITHSONIAN.COM
Between 1961 and 1971, the U.S. military spread about 20 million gallons of herbicide across 4.5 million acres of the Vietnamese countryside, as well as parts of Laos and Cambodia. The devastating mission, dubbed Operation Ranch Hand, used various herbicides in an effort to defoliate the forest, making hidden enemies easier to spot, and to destroy food crops used by the North Vietnamese Army and Viet Cong. Each herbicide was denoted by a specific color and named after the markings on their barrels. Among them, History.com details, there were Agent Green, Agent Purple, Agent Pink, Agent White and Agent Blue. But the most common 55-gallon drum found on military bases was Agent Orange, which came in various strengths and made up about two-thirds of the herbicides spread during the war.
n 1991, veterans of the Vietnam War won a major victory with the passage of the Agent Orange Act, which acknowledged that these powerful herbicides were strongly linked to various cancers and other diseases later in life. The bill authorized special health benefits to those exposed to the chemicals. But the act was interpreted by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs to cover only those who spent time on the ground in Vietnam or serving on its river system, excluding “blue water” Navy personnel serving on ships off the coast. Now, reports Quil Lawrence at NPR, a Federal Court has ruled those veterans are eligible for the benefits as well.
n 1991, veterans of the Vietnam War won a major victory with the passage of the Agent Orange Act, which acknowledged that these powerful herbicides were strongly linked to various cancers and other diseases later in life. The bill authorized special health benefits to those exposed to the chemicals. But the act was interpreted by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs to cover only those who spent time on the ground in Vietnam or serving on its river system, excluding “blue water” Navy personnel serving on ships off the coast. Now, reports Quil Lawrence at NPR, a Federal Court has ruled those veterans are eligible for the benefits as well.
Court papers show that the U.S. knew that the herbicides weren’t just harmful to plants at least two years before it stopped using Agent Orange in Vietnam in 1971. The byproduct of the manufacturing process, a dioxin called 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin or TCDD was found in large concentrations in Agent Orange and other herbicides. Dioxins accumulate in fatty tissues, and can last for hundreds or thousands of years, contaminating areas for generations and can lead to cancer even in small doses.
Soon after the war, some veterans began noticing higher cancer rates and other illnesses. In 1979, a group filed a class-action lawsuit against the chemical companies on behalf of 2.4 million service members who were exposed to it. After years of legal wrangling, the Supreme Court validated a $240 million settlement that would go to some sick veterans or their next of kin in 1988. But the exposure to Agent Orange was a lifetime risk, and the government acknowledged that many more veterans would likely develop diseases related to dioxin exposure for decades to come. That led to a 1991 bill which directed the Veteran’s Administration to treat diseases caused by Agent Orange exposure as the result of wartime service, meaning the government would foot the bill for treatment.
In implementing the act, the VA did not require direct evidence of Agent Orange exposure, but worked under the presumption that service personnel who served anywhere in Vietnam were exposed, Charles Ornstein at ProPublica reported in 2015. But there was one catch—veterans had to have literally set foot on Vietnamese soil or sail on its inland waterways, which excluded those serving at sea or at Air Force bases outside the country.
After several years of political pressure, in June 2017, 1,500 to 2,100 troops who served as flight and ground crews for the C-123 aircraft that sprayed Agent Orange were finally added to the benefit roles. But the VA did not relent when it came to the blue water sailors, arguing that there was no evidence of exposure to those at sea, despite recent reports that showed how sailors could have been exposed via their drinking water and laundry.
That’s one reason 73-year-old Alfred Procopio Jr., who served on the aircraft carrier USS Intrepid during the war, filed an Agent Orange claim after he developed prostate cancer and diabetes mellitus.
The VA initially denied him aid because he had not actually set foot on Vietnam, but the Court of Appeals's new ruling found that the 1991 law was intended to cover everyone who served in Vietnam, not just ground troops. “Mr. Procopio, who served in the territorial sea of the ‘Republic of Vietnam,’ is entitled to [the law's] presumption. We find no merit in the government's arguments to the contrary,” the 9-2 decision reads.
“The government's foot-on-land requirement, first articulated in 1997, does not provide a basis to find ambiguity in the language Congress chose,” Judge Kimberly Moore ruled in the majority opinion.
Lawrence at NPR reports that Congress had taken up the issue before, and a bill to cover the sailors passed the House last year but a Senate bill stalled.
“These Vietnam veterans sacrificed their own health and well-being for the good of the country, and the benefits that Congress provided — and which the court’s decision now secures — are part of the debt of gratitude we owe them for their service,” Mel Bostwick, one of Procopio’s attorneys said in a statement, reports Ann E. Marimow at The Washington Post.
Nikki Wentling at Stars and Stripes reports that the VA could appeal the decision to the Supreme Court, but there’s no indication yet what the agency will do.
Ornstein at ProPublica reported some 650,000 veterans had made Agent Orange claims at the time of his 2015 reporting. It’s estimated that the new change will make 50,000 to 70,000 additional veterans eligible for Agent Orange benefits.
Veterans and their offspring— whom research indicates may also have been put at risk by their parent’s exposure—are not the only ones suffering from the long-lasting contaminant. On study estimates that 2.1 to 4.8 million Vietnamese people were directly exposed to the chemical during the war. The compound has lingered in the countryside ever since, making its way into food and water, which has caused a multi-generational health crisis and an environmental catastrophe that is still unfolding to this day.
Read more: HERE
Follow: @SmithsonianMag on Twitter
31 January 2019
Benefits For Navy Sailors Claiming Agent Orange Exposure – but the vets had to wait half a century!
BIGGEST AGENT ORANGE NEWS IN THREE YEARS (Since the C-123 decision. My biggest worry: VA will appeal to the Supreme Court to fight this decision)
January 30, 201912:23 PM ET
by Rick Merron/AP
Navy veterans long denied VA benefits are declaring victory after a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The court sided with the plaintiff, a Vietnam vet with cancer who sued the Department of Veterans Affairs, demanding it recognize that his health conditions were caused by Agent Orange.
It took the government decades to acknowledge that the defoliant Agent Orange - widely used during the Vietnam War - was causing cancer and other ailments in veterans.
In 1991 Congress passed a law that vets who had come down with any of a list of cancers could presumptively link their condition to exposure to the chemical while serving in "the Republic of Vietnam." That meant the VA would pay them a disability benefit as they got sicker and dropped out of the workforce.
But the VA later took the position the presumption only applied to vets who had served on land or inland waters. "Blue Water Navy" veterans - so-called because they served at sea - would have to prove that their illness was directly connected to the defoliant.
Alfred Procopio served on the aircraft carrier USS Intrepid off the coast of Vietnam, one of about 90,000 Blue Water Navy veterans of the war. VA denied his claim that his prostate cancer and diabetes mellitus - both on the law's list of presumptive conditions - were linked to his service, and he sued.
The Court of Appeals ruled in Procopio's favor, deciding that the 1991 law was clearly meant to include vets who served off the coast of Vietnam.
"Mr. Procopio, who served in the territorial sea of the 'Republic of Vietnam,' is entitled to [the law's] presumption. We find no merit in the government's arguments to the contrary," read the court's 9-2 decision.
"The government's foot-on-land requirement, first articulated in 1997, does not provide a basis to find ambiguity in the language Congress chose," wrote Judge Kimberly Moore for the majority.
"VA is reviewing this decision and will determine an appropriate response," the agency said in a statement to NPR.
Lawyer and Navy veteran John Wells had argued the case. The group he directs, Military Veterans Advocacy, had also been lobbying Congress for years to change the law to specifically include Blue Water Navy vets. Wells said he personally knows several Navy vets who have died of conditions linked to Agent Orange exposure, which the VA failed to recognize.
"Delay, deny – until you die," Wells told NPR the day before the decision came down, repeating a bitter joke many Vietnam veterans tell about their treatment by the VA.
Last year the House unanimously passed legislation to address the problem. But a Senate bill was held up by Republicans Mike Enzi of Wyoming and Mike Lee of Utah, and it died when Congress adjourned.
Former VA Secretary David Shulkin had supported the bill, but President Trump's appointment to replace him, Robert Wilkie, surprised veterans groups by coming out against the measure, citing inconclusive science and a potential cost of billions of dollars.
"While the VA and Senate stalled, innumerable veterans were denied palliative and potentially lifesaving benefits," said John Wells in a statement after the decision.
"We are thrilled by today's ruling from the Court of Appeals," Wells said. "The many people who fought this battle alongside us and the veterans whose lives have been forever changed by the VA's policy are all due thanks and credit."
January 30, 201912:23 PM ET
by Rick Merron/AP
Navy veterans long denied VA benefits are declaring victory after a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The court sided with the plaintiff, a Vietnam vet with cancer who sued the Department of Veterans Affairs, demanding it recognize that his health conditions were caused by Agent Orange.
It took the government decades to acknowledge that the defoliant Agent Orange - widely used during the Vietnam War - was causing cancer and other ailments in veterans.
In 1991 Congress passed a law that vets who had come down with any of a list of cancers could presumptively link their condition to exposure to the chemical while serving in "the Republic of Vietnam." That meant the VA would pay them a disability benefit as they got sicker and dropped out of the workforce.
But the VA later took the position the presumption only applied to vets who had served on land or inland waters. "Blue Water Navy" veterans - so-called because they served at sea - would have to prove that their illness was directly connected to the defoliant.
Alfred Procopio served on the aircraft carrier USS Intrepid off the coast of Vietnam, one of about 90,000 Blue Water Navy veterans of the war. VA denied his claim that his prostate cancer and diabetes mellitus - both on the law's list of presumptive conditions - were linked to his service, and he sued.
The Court of Appeals ruled in Procopio's favor, deciding that the 1991 law was clearly meant to include vets who served off the coast of Vietnam.
"Mr. Procopio, who served in the territorial sea of the 'Republic of Vietnam,' is entitled to [the law's] presumption. We find no merit in the government's arguments to the contrary," read the court's 9-2 decision.
"The government's foot-on-land requirement, first articulated in 1997, does not provide a basis to find ambiguity in the language Congress chose," wrote Judge Kimberly Moore for the majority.
"VA is reviewing this decision and will determine an appropriate response," the agency said in a statement to NPR.
Lawyer and Navy veteran John Wells had argued the case. The group he directs, Military Veterans Advocacy, had also been lobbying Congress for years to change the law to specifically include Blue Water Navy vets. Wells said he personally knows several Navy vets who have died of conditions linked to Agent Orange exposure, which the VA failed to recognize.
"Delay, deny – until you die," Wells told NPR the day before the decision came down, repeating a bitter joke many Vietnam veterans tell about their treatment by the VA.
Last year the House unanimously passed legislation to address the problem. But a Senate bill was held up by Republicans Mike Enzi of Wyoming and Mike Lee of Utah, and it died when Congress adjourned.
Former VA Secretary David Shulkin had supported the bill, but President Trump's appointment to replace him, Robert Wilkie, surprised veterans groups by coming out against the measure, citing inconclusive science and a potential cost of billions of dollars.
"While the VA and Senate stalled, innumerable veterans were denied palliative and potentially lifesaving benefits," said John Wells in a statement after the decision.
"We are thrilled by today's ruling from the Court of Appeals," Wells said. "The many people who fought this battle alongside us and the veterans whose lives have been forever changed by the VA's policy are all due thanks and credit."
18 January 2019
Vietnam War Agent Orange Spray Ops Approved 57 Years Ago Today
After a period of testing, on this day in 1962, President John F. Kennedy gave final approval to “Operation Ranch Hand” — a massive UC-123K effort to defoliate the forests of Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos with an herbicide known as Agent Orange.
It involved the spraying of an estimated 20 million gallons of powerful herbicides over rural South Vietnam to deprive Viet Cong insurgents aligned with the communist government in Hanoi of food and vegetation trail cover. To a lesser extent, areas of Cambodia and Laos were also sprayed. The U.S. Air Force flew nearly 20,000 UC-123K sorties from 1961 to 1971.
During the decade of spraying, more than 5 million acres of forest and 500,000 acres of crops were heavily damaged or destroyed. Some one-fifth of South Vietnam’s forests were sprayed at least once — at up to 50 times the concentration that would be deployed for normal agricultural use.
Kennedy insisted on approving individual spray runs until November 1962, when the president authorized Military Assistance Command, Vietnam and the U.S. ambassador to South Vietnam to approve them.
Previously, top administration officials had debated whether to allow the destruction of crops, at the risk of violating the Geneva Protocol, which the United States had signed in 1925. However, Dean Rusk, the secretary of State, had told Kennedy on Nov. 24, 1961, that "[t]he use of defoliant does not violate any rule of international law concerning the conduct of chemical warfare and is an accepted tactic of war. Precedent has been established by the British during the emergency in Malaya in their use of aircraft for destroying crops by chemical spraying.”
In early 1964, members of The Federation of American Scientists began to object to the use of defoliants. The American Association for the Advancement of Science passed a resolution in 1966 calling for a field investigation of the Vietnamese herbicide program. In 1967, 17 Nobel laureates and 5,000 other scientists signed a petition asking for the immediate end to the use of herbicides in Vietnam. The administration ignored it.
The spraying program led some 3 million Vietnamese to suffer health problems caused by exposure to Agent Orange, including a million birth defects. Additionally, the toll on members of the U.S. military who handled the chemicals or were deployed in and around the targeted drop zone areas during the war caused another 2.8 million personnel and their offspring to suffer from its long-term affect — chiefly various cancerous conditions. Post-Vietnam C-123 veterans were also affected but granted disability benefits only after June 19, 2015.
While Operation Ranch Hand ended in 1971, its impact is still being felt today. The Veterans Administration recognizes a long list of diseases associated with exposure to Agent Orange. Vietnam War and C-123 veterans who were exposed and suffer from one of these conditions receive automatic presumptions of a service linkage, making them eligible for treatment at government expense, without the need to positively prove that such connections exist.
SOURCE: “This Day in Presidential History,” by Paul Brandus (2018)
16 January 2019
Coast Guard Paychecks Stopped - I’m offering my savings
The Coast Guard has stopped paying their uniformed personal effective today, so I have offered all my savings to the Coast Guard foundation for helping Coasties in Colorado. Not as a gift, but rather direct $3,000 loans until personnel can repay once their paychecks start up again.
You can also help by contacting their organizers:
Rear Admiral Cari Thomas USCG Retired
https://m.facebook.com/CGMutualAssist/. http://www.cgmahq.org/
o far as I've learned, various drives are underway, such as the $12 million from USAA, but only $1000 per servicemember with dependents, or $750 without. Folks, that's not enough to cover rent! Further, some efforts are focused on $20 gift cards...you can see the mess 40,000 Coasties are in due to the shutdown.
The good news is that the President signed legislation assuring them of their lost wages when the budget turmoil is over. Thus loans can be expected to be repaid promptly, and I'm willing to take any risk otherwise.
Find a way to help out. I don't see how we can sit on our butts (and on our savings accounts) when comrades in arms are on duty worldwide without pay for their families!
What are your thoughts and ideas?
Wes Carter
You can also help by contacting their organizers:
Rear Admiral Cari Thomas USCG Retired
https://m.facebook.com/CGMutualAssist/. http://www.cgmahq.org/
o far as I've learned, various drives are underway, such as the $12 million from USAA, but only $1000 per servicemember with dependents, or $750 without. Folks, that's not enough to cover rent! Further, some efforts are focused on $20 gift cards...you can see the mess 40,000 Coasties are in due to the shutdown.
The good news is that the President signed legislation assuring them of their lost wages when the budget turmoil is over. Thus loans can be expected to be repaid promptly, and I'm willing to take any risk otherwise.
Find a way to help out. I don't see how we can sit on our butts (and on our savings accounts) when comrades in arms are on duty worldwide without pay for their families!
What are your thoughts and ideas?
Wes Carter
12 January 2019
05 January 2019
C-123 Agent Orange Veterans: Too Few Know About Our Special VA Benefits
The Buckeye Wing's Tom Scanlon forwarded VBA records on C-123 Agent Orange disability claims. CONCLUSION: The word hasn't gotten out! Only about 10% of our vets have had disability claims approved, a much lower percentage of disabilities for our population than others in our age group, plus the overall number of applications is lower than it should be.
Actually much lower, because VA has seen a significant number of claims from obviously ineligible people...passengers, people who might have worked on one at some base, people who were out of the service before Agent Orange was used, or claim exposure long after the C-123s were all retired.
It seems VA might be shutting down its C-123 dedicated claims team in St Paul, believing that most veterans who needed to will have already applied. I don't agree. To me, the low numbers mean that VA and USAF/DFAS simply need to do a better job informing potentially eligible C-123 veterans that anyone with Agent Orange disabilities can apply for disability benefits.
Help get the word out to other C-123 veterans, won't you? Not only are our Agent Orange illnesses going to be cared for, but we get the full range of other VA benefits...compensation, Combat Related Special Compensation (for military retirees,) home loan, medical care, pharmacy, counseling, pretty much everything. You earned it with "boots on the airplane," so get your application in to VA today!
Actually much lower, because VA has seen a significant number of claims from obviously ineligible people...passengers, people who might have worked on one at some base, people who were out of the service before Agent Orange was used, or claim exposure long after the C-123s were all retired.
It seems VA might be shutting down its C-123 dedicated claims team in St Paul, believing that most veterans who needed to will have already applied. I don't agree. To me, the low numbers mean that VA and USAF/DFAS simply need to do a better job informing potentially eligible C-123 veterans that anyone with Agent Orange disabilities can apply for disability benefits.
Help get the word out to other C-123 veterans, won't you? Not only are our Agent Orange illnesses going to be cared for, but we get the full range of other VA benefits...compensation, Combat Related Special Compensation (for military retirees,) home loan, medical care, pharmacy, counseling, pretty much everything. You earned it with "boots on the airplane," so get your application in to VA today!
02 January 2019
Major Diane Sampson Passed December 31, 2018
This very sad news was received today. Diane attended my wedding at Hanscom AFB, arriving after a hasty departure and two hour drive from her hospital and still in her scrubs...but she was there. In earlier years I attended her brothers' memorial services and admired Diane's steady support to her parents. God bless and keep our dedicated flight nurse.
Diane R.(Nosar) Sampson, 63, passed away on December 31, 2018 at Baystate Medical Center. She was born in Holyoke to Walter and Muriel (Giguere) Sampson. Diane served her country in the United States Air Force as an enlisted aeromedical evacuation technician and after receiving her RN, as a Flight Nurse (74th Aeromedical Evacuation Squadron) for 20 years retiring as a Major. She was a veteran of Desert Shield and Desert Storm.
Diane R Sampson
AUGUST 16, 1955 ~ DECEMBER 31, 2018 (AGE 63)
OBITUARY
SERVICE DETAILS
TRIBUTE WALL
FLOWERS & GIFTS
Diane R.(Nosar) Sampson, 63, passed away on December 31, 2018 at Baystate Medical Center. She was born in Holyoke to Walter and Muriel (Giguere) Sampson. Diane served her country in the United States Air Force as an enlisted aeromedical evacuation technician and after receiving her RN, as a Flight Nurse (74th Aeromedical Evacuation Squadron) for 20 years retiring as a Major. She was a veteran of Desert Shield and Desert Storm.
Following her service she worked as a maternity nurse and a psychiatric nurse for Providence Hospital in Holyoke. Diane was a member of the Massachusetts Nurses Association.
Diane is survived by her loving daughters, Alyssa Sampson of Hampden and Sabrina Sampson of Holyoke, her parents, Walter and Muriel Sampson of Westfield, her cherished granddaughters, Alivia and Taylor, her brothers, Walter Sampson, Jr of Westfield and Donald Sampson of Texas and her best friend Cathleen Wilson of Chicopee. Sadly Diane was predeceased by two brothers, Thomas and Robert. Diane’s funeral will be held on Friday, January 4, 2019 with a Mass at 10:30AM in St. Mary’s Church, Bartlett St. Westfield followed by burial in St. Mary’s Cemetery, Southampton Rd. Westfield. Visiting hours will be held prior to the Mass from 8:30-10 AM in the Firtion Adams FS, 76 Broad St. Westfield, MA 01085. www.firtionadams.com
Review: Our two goals for C-123 Veterans' Agent Orange Benefits
Simple. A mostly successful seven-year effort. Many folks chipped in funds to help and I never wrote thank-you cards. That is because all I did was work and the contributors know it and know their help was vital.
GOAL ONE. VA designation of C-123 veterans as "presumptively exposed" to Agent Orange, thus entitling us to VA medical care and other benefits.
STATUS: MET ON JUNE 19 2015
STATUS: MET ON JUNE 19 2015
GOAL TWO: Get our VA disability claims honored from the earliest date submitted, if earlier than what VA limits for retroactivity (June 19 2015 at the earliest.) This is because many C-123 vets had claims in prior to that date, but were met with the then-automatic VA denial. And VA did deny...100% of all our claims were refused.
STATUS: ONLY VERY PARTLY MET
At least the VA barrier to our retroactive claims has been broken down a little. A handful of C-123 vets had claims approved via BVA appeals (Paul Bailey, Dick Matte) but VA has been firm in limiting retroactive claims to June 19 2015 and no earlier. It has to do with Reservists not being entitled to disability benefits unless disabled during the Reserve duty.
For some, this has cost tens of thousands in anticipated, but denied, "catch-up" checks. An example: a claim submitted in 2007 but denied at the time, then honored by VA once its C-123 rule was published on June 19 2015. If the vet was due a 100% disability rating, that's eight years of compensation VA won't pay...about $200,000 lost by the vet because of VA's limit of retroactivity set at June 2015.
The good news: at least one claim has been awarded retroactive Agent Orange benefits from the date submitted (in this case, March 2011. On the vet's appeal the BVA determined that C-123 exposure itself was a disabling injury that would date from "back in the day" while flying the Provider. That decision meant the affected Reservist satisfied the law's requirements regarding a disabling injury to trigger statutory veteran status, and the claim was honored back to the date the vet first filed for Agent Orange disabilities. That was a lot of money, with thanks due to the National Veterans Legal Services Project and their cooperating pro bono attorneys!
01 January 2019
C-123 Agent Orange VA Benefits: A January 2019 Resource List
Below you'll find a fairly current list of VA and other significant publications about C-123 veterans and our Agent Orange exposures...just click on what you want to read or download.
Here's a reminder: if you are a post-Vietnam C-123 veteran and have any of the recognized Agent Orange illnesses, you are entitled to the full range of VA health care and other benefits. Some veterans have succeeded in having claims approved for disabilities not on VA's list of presumptive ailments, getting benefits for avascular necrosis and other problems, but VA is mighty cautious about such coverage...it is a painful uphill battle.
If you are diagnosed with an Agent Orange-related illness, you are entitled to the full range of VA medical care and other benefits...almost. Our benefits vary in that children of C-123 vets aren't eligible for spina bifida benefits, and our claims cannot be honored prior to June 19, 2015 when VA published the C-123 Agent Orange rule. Fortunately, here too, VA has permitted some exceptions.
For decades,VA turned to one man on whether Agent Orange harmed vets. His reliable answer: No. (ProPublica)
Here's a reminder: if you are a post-Vietnam C-123 veteran and have any of the recognized Agent Orange illnesses, you are entitled to the full range of VA health care and other benefits. Some veterans have succeeded in having claims approved for disabilities not on VA's list of presumptive ailments, getting benefits for avascular necrosis and other problems, but VA is mighty cautious about such coverage...it is a painful uphill battle.
If you are diagnosed with an Agent Orange-related illness, you are entitled to the full range of VA medical care and other benefits...almost. Our benefits vary in that children of C-123 vets aren't eligible for spina bifida benefits, and our claims cannot be honored prior to June 19, 2015 when VA published the C-123 Agent Orange rule. Fortunately, here too, VA has permitted some exceptions.
Federal
Register: Presumption of Herbicide Exposure and Presumption of Disability
During Service for Reservists Presumed Exposed to Herbicides (10/22, final
rule)
Vietnam
War veterans: health concerns and benefits (DAV)Guide
to VA Benefits (Multiple Myeloma Assn.)
For decades,VA turned to one man on whether Agent Orange harmed vets. His reliable answer: No. (ProPublica)
Agent
Orange Newsletter 2018 (VA Public Health) (failed to include C-123 info)
Scientific American: Agent Orange Exposure Endangered Air Force Aircrews (January 2015)
Exposed Veterans Accuse VA of Foot-Dragging on Benefits (Huffpost, 2017)
CDC Report to VA: "C-123s unsafe in American airspace. Crews should have flown in full HAZMAT protection (Dr. C. Portier & Dr. T. Sinks) June 2012) June 2014
Post-Vietnam Military Exposures Aboard Agent Orange Spray Aircraft (Environmental Research, July 2014)
Scientific American: Agent Orange Exposure Endangered Air Force Aircrews (January 2015)
Exposed Veterans Accuse VA of Foot-Dragging on Benefits (Huffpost, 2017)
CDC Report to VA: "C-123s unsafe in American airspace. Crews should have flown in full HAZMAT protection (Dr. C. Portier & Dr. T. Sinks) June 2012) June 2014
Post-Vietnam Military Exposures Aboard Agent Orange Spray Aircraft (Environmental Research, July 2014)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)