Master Sergeant Vincent G. McCrave Jr., USAF Retired

We lost one of the best on April 11, 2024! Family and friends gathered to say farewell on April 22 in Clermont, Florida, followed by military honors.

Vinny was a leader in the 74th Aeromedical Evacuation Squadron at Westover, and one of the first men I met when I joined in 1974. In a unit full of wonderful people, he was exceptional. 

Vinny was a med tech flight examiner and Desert Storm veteran. He had years of flying the unit's C-123 aircraft, and consequently suffered many of the typical Agent Orange illnesses.

In addition to his beloved wife, he leaves two sons Vincent G. McCrave III and his wife Lynn of Bellville, IL and Michael McCrave and his wife Bev of St. Petersburg, FL. His daughter Michele Bessette of Pawtucket, RI. was especially helpful arranging Vinny's veterans benefits.

He will be missed by eight grandchildren – Dan McCrave-Bessette, Shannon Schwoebel, Britt Whitney, Meghan McCrave, Mitchell McCrave, Matthew McCrave, Thomas Bessette and Hailey Roberson.

April 1987: Vinny's son swearing him in
for another six year reenlistment.

Be at ease, Sergeant McCrave. You honored the flag all your life. Now the flag honors you.

VA Disability Claim Form VA 526EZ now includes Agent Orange C-123 details

 Reference VA Form 526EZ disability claim form.

I hadn't noticed but Veterans Benefit Administration now includes C-123 veterans in their Agent Orange exposure section. BTW: if you haven't checked with VA for their full range of toxic exposure disabilities, do so NOW!

VA 526EZ, Section IV EXPOSURE INFORMAON

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Respectfully submitted,

W. Carter, The C-123 Veterans Association

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

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

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

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

COMMENT BY THE C-123 VETERANS ASSOCIATION:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Respectfully submitted,

The C-123 Veterans Association

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

VA eases rules for exposures to Agent Orange in the US

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

UPDATE (now opened again) National Museum of the Air Force Closed Until Further Notice

According to a museum representative, water supply issues have prompted the closure of the museum.