ROA Calls on Secretary McDonald To Do The Right Thing For C-123 Veterans!

Yesterday, Reserve Officer Association Executive Director Major General Jeffrey Phillips added ROA's powerful voice to the Air Force Times and other calls for the Department of Veterans Affairs to act quickly, and inclusively regarding C-123 veterans' claims.

ROA first sought justice for C-123 vets in 2012 and subsequently, the late CAPT Marshall Hanson's very nice article about us in 2013. We appreciate this leadership and trust ROA's voice will be heard...loud and clear.

AF Times: C-123 Veterans Were Exposed!

White House unveils expanded support for military, vets' caregivers

(note: while respectful of generous support for post 9/11 veterans and their families, veterans of other conflicts note the very careful exclusion of them from this vital program) 

By Patricia Kime, Air Force Times Staff writer

The White House continued its focus on veterans and military families by announcing new programs Friday to expand support and services available to those who care for injured or ill troops. 

In a Joining Forces event at the White House that brought together military family members, First Lady Michelle Obama, former First Lady Rosalyn Carter, former Sen. Elizabeth Dole and Jill Biden, wife of vice president Joe Biden, Obama announced several programs to support caregivers, from training, financial and legal guidance to employment opportunities. 

The expanded opportunities follow the release last week of a Rand Corp. study that found many of the one million caregivers of the nation’s post-9/11 veterans face challenges ranging from isolation and financial strain to poor health and inadequate training.

The study said these caregivers, who help veterans and medically retired troops with dressing in the morning, making doctors appointments, managing households, serving as sole providers and much more, save taxpayers more than $3 billion a year by offsetting the cost of home health care and medical aides.

“The burden these men and women bear for our country is real and they shouldn’t have to shoulder it on their own ... we are here to show that we have their backs,” Obama said.

Air Force Times Publishers Demand VA Recognize C-123 Exposures – "VA CALLOUS & TONE DEAF!"

The editorial staff at The Air Force Times took a principled stand stand last week.

The Times, published by Gannett, and in allied issues of the Navy Times, Coast Guard Times, Marine Corps Times and Military Times, published what is always recognized as an editorial statement when they used a full page for their overview of the C-123 and our exposures. This could have been a single column review of facts and a couple quotes...a few column inches, but instead the Times went deep into reporter Patricia Kime's investigation. That full page is a statement of the editor's appreciation of the problem.

Remarkably, that editorial emphasis continued to page 36. I missed this at first, but veteran Paul Bergeron is a more careful reader. Today on learning of Paul's retelling of the editorial, I got a copy and quickly came to appreciate what's been done for us: The Times took a stand, and that stand is in support of us, and proclaims the need for VA to do the right thing. No need for Congress to step in, however...the VA has enough evidence, and has enough interest in justice for its veterans, that it should come to the realization that presumptive service connection is precisely the correct choice to make. Folks at VA will realize that constructing time delays, such as the interesting but claims-irrelevant Institute of Medicine C-123 study, form both intrinsic and extrinsic ethical failures.

AF Times, 31 March

There is no legal or moral or scientific reason not to receive a complete C-123 veteran's FDC today and process without the C&P automatic orders for denial. 

There must be a moral condemnation of any VA employee who takes such an delaying action knowing it is only to prevent access to medical care by a fully eligible C-123 veteran. 

There should be, perhaps, an even stronger, more formal action taken by authorities – and not just authorities in the VA itself –  addressing the full range of actions by VA staffers who engineered these delays once the full price in C-123 deaths and suffering over the period 2012-2014 is known.

Air Force Times, 31 March 2014, page 36

Air Force Times: C-123 Veterans Battle VA on Post-Vietnam Agent Orange Claims

Vets battle VA on post-Vietnam Agent Orange claims

Proof C-123-123 'spray birds' caused illnesses long after war

Posted today, by Gannett's Patricia Kime who has covered this issue with sensitivity and remarkable accuracy for several years. Reporter Kime details the track record of C-123 contamination, destruction, experts' opinions, other federal agency findings, test reports and recent scientific investigations.

She also reports the VA's standard response to any proofs against their predetermined refusal of C-123 claims, quoting VA spokesperson's promise to consider claims on a case-by-case basis, not reported was that gentleman's position, as detailed to W. Carter and M. Wentworth at our meeting with his staff on 28 Feb 2013, that no claims will be approved. 

Or VHA Chief Consultant Post Deployment Health assurances given C-123 veterans that "probably none" of the veterans' exposure claims would ever be approved before our deaths. VHA then comforted us with his assurance "We all die."

Obviously, there is a contradiction between VA uniform denials and VA assurances to the Senate, the veterans and the public that individual C-123 veterans' claims will be carefully evaluated on their merits, on their qualification for meeting the law's requirements and regulations enacted by the VA. And all then denied.

The contradiction is created by VA having both written and perfectly understood unofficial policies that all such claims are to be prevented, the laws apparently being waived in this situation.

So, on a case-by-case basis, all claims are uniformly denied. So much for law, justice, medicine, science, ethics, honesty, honor, and other values and standards we respect...and expected of VA. Just as the VA spokesperson promises, on a case-by-case basis, as each inquiry comes in from the VAROs in accordance with VA21-1MR, each claim then receives one of the boilerplate denial orders.

Why do all the VA spokespersons skip that last part? About all C-123 claims being denied on orders of Post Deployment Health staff?

The Secretary must have authorized various VA units to disregard VA commitments expressed in the Federal Register 31 Aug 2010, freeing the VA in some way from the rule of law (Administrative Procedures Act)

The Secretary must have authorized Post Deployment Health to overturn his earlier order to allow all veterans claiming exposure to receive an Agent Orange Registry exam. 

Although we've written, and the Washington Post carried full details in August just as the Air Force Times did today, the Secretary must not have been informed of the repeated findings by other federal agencies which confirm C-123 veterans' exposure, the staff at Post Deployment Health having a different perspective than the rest of Science, Law and Medicine.

We respect the talent of Dr. Davey's staff, with Post Deployment Health. However, would it not seem that the expertise of the NIH, CDC, EPA, and US Public Health Service might have some influence also?

The veterans' concerns were detailed (as a confidential communication to Dr. B.) to the VA National Center for Ethics in Healthcare, where staff, including its chief, declined to act in any way when we sought advice. This is perhaps because no ethical issues rose to their level of concern, or because the issues were voiced by veterans and not VA professional staff.

We are assured by Assistant General Counsel Hipolit that claims are handled appropriately. After detailing to him our concerns about VA legal shortcuts denying us our rights without due process, he reminded us that any objections can be brought to the Board of Veterans Appeals.

This is where surviving C-123 veterans can have their cases heard on actual legal and scientific merits, contrary to VARO decisions and orders from Compensation and Pension to deny such claims. To many C-123 veterans, the average 900 day wait for a BVA hearing is but fatal advice from Mr. Hipolit...as he knows.

No C-123 claims, other than Paul Bailey's, have ever been allowed by Compensation and Pension. They fulfill the instructions from Post Deployment Health that C-123 exposure claims "just cannot be permitted."

Appeal Readied to Seek Reversal of Aaron Olmsted's VA Claim Denial

Aaron Olmsted's VA claim was submitted and denied, then denied finally in his appeal decided 23 August 2007. Judge Stephen Cohn ruled that Tim had failed to provide evidence that the C-123s he flew were ever used to spray Agent Orange, and failed to provide evidence that there was any residue of Agent Orange in the aircraft. Tim, one of the country's more experienced aviators, died a couple months ago and an unexplained airplane crash.


Recent emails exchanges with VA, DOD, DOJ and documents provided by Hill AFB seem to give adequate meat to prepare an appeal to have the injustice done Tim reversed. I don't do this for a living...I don't know how such things are done. 


So, my draft of an appeal offered in simple English is attached. Normalspeak. And I've asked for editing from anyone except my wife who has already torn it apart nicely, thank you very much!


What now? Who can I get this to so that somebody will understand that the Air Force withheld documents which Tim's BVA judge cited as the ones missing from his hopeed for appeal for disability compensation? Is there an association of BVA attorneys (on both sides of the isle?) Is there a way to approach one of the judges or even the chairman of the BVA judges to say.."HEY...the government cheated Tim and his family."


Also, some emails and web postings have mentioned that I'm a pilot. Squash that. I am an MSC and therefore, by definition, a gentleman and not a pilot. John's the pilot, poor man.


Best,


   /s/  Wes Carter

Air Force & Army Times - Article about C-123 & Agent Orange

The Air Force Times today carried a nice article about how the VA has denied our exposure aboard the C-123, giving it extra emphasis with a quote from an official of the Vietnam Veterans of America who called the VA's position "bull"!

New Discovery - 1979 Toxins Test on Patches - ACFT 362

Thanks to Prof. Jeanne Stellman of Columbia University, yesterday a newly-found document dating back to 1979 was released dealing with what seems to be the first known testing of Patches for contamination. As everyone knows, Patches was a stinker to fly...summer or winter, the dang thing smelled terrible! Many crew complaints in the period 1972-1979 and the difficulty getting crews to fly the aircraft up to scheduling expectations led AFMC to conduct an in-place examination for Agent Orange and other possible contamination...mostly, though, to simply STOP THE STINK!


Conducted in March of 1979 and written up in September 1979 by Staff Sergeant William Conway and approved by the commander of the Air Force Occupational and Environmental Health Laboratory, Report 79-59 summarized a request by the 439MAW clinic to investigate "Herbicide Orange and Malathion contamination". It reported the contamination present ("a black, viscous, odorous residue") but in amounts low enough not to be considered possible health hazards...and this was in consideration of 1979 levels of what constituted hazardous mounts. It notes the assignment of Patches to the 731st TAS in November 1972 as well as the airplane's use in Vietnam from 1965 until 1972 with the 12th Special Operations Squadron, spraying Malathion and Agent Orange.


The 1979 report also mentions a 1975 examination of residue taken from the airplane completed while the airplane was in depot maintenance at Dothan, AL.


Here's what is confusing: tests done in 1994 did show Agent Orange contamination. In fact, "heavily contaminated" was the summary of the analysis prepared by the Air Force using testing equipment twenty years more sophisticated!


The answer to this seeming contradiction was provided by Professor Stellman, who noted that the report looked for AGENT ORANGE and not dioxin, its poisonous component. Professor Stellman writes us:

The report does not measure TCDD (dioxin) - only the herbicides themselves, which would be expected to be much more volatile and dissipate much more rapidly than the TCDD - so there is no contradiction.

Thus, the 1994 report which examined Patches for dioxin contamination stands as accurate! Heavily contaminated! And so were the aircrews who flew her 1972-1982. Further, in the years after Vietnam it dawned on the scientists and medical professionals that any level of measurable dioxin was unsafe...if it was detectable in any concentration it was too contaminated for safety of those around it, and there is no question, after the decades of testing between 1994 and the final destruction of the fleet in 2010, that the C-123K/UC-123K aircraft were "extremely contaminated, extremely hazardous, extremely dangerous" (in the words of Air Force tests and federal court records!) Now let's hope the VA will finally "man up" and give us recognition for "boots on the airplane"! 

Complete Document Set Assembled - but you have to download

We've finally gathered a pretty complete set of all the documents uncovered thus far, adding explanations here and there, highlighting sections on pages where things seem more important...or more ridiculous, depending on your view! The doc set is too large to email as servers reject such big files...you'll have to click to download.


Today I got a call back from the office of Jim Willis, Oregon's Director of Veterans' Affairs, and those folks are going to see what can be done at their level...perhaps miracles?? No word from my senators, other than Sen. Burr's office. My kids haven't written lately, either. What's going on out there?


Let's hope we're all behind the same marching band: Our goal is "boots on the airplane" recognition of the C-123K as an Agent Orange Exposure Site. Seems that's the fastest route for now...certainly faster and cheaper than a lawsuit which other organizations, far bigger and far richer than we, are still struggling with. However...if that's what it takes...


I heard through Dee Holliday from Gabby Gadbois, first shirt of the 74th who wrapped up chemo today, only to have MRIs and CAT scans which showed the cancer spreading so much more than he'd feared.


Thanks to the folks who looked over the amateur "appeal" ...the best I could put together by myself, however, regarding the late Tim Olmstead's obvious injustice at the hands of the Air Force. This time, surprise, NOT the BVA's fault ...the judge ruled correctly in Docket 06-42 315, in that Tim had failed to present proof of his claim that the C-123s we flew were those used in Vietnam and had actually sprayed Agent Orange, and he'd failed to proof that there was Agent Orange residue on the airplane. Why did Tim fail in this? Because the Air Force, beginning with the Office of Environmental Law at HQ AFMC decided to keep this vital information "in official channels only" and that later, when the aircraft were destroyed by smelting in 2010, a misleading press release was crafted to tell a lie by saying otherwise truthful words.


Prevaricate is the word, where here the issue is the decontamination by destruction of valuable aircraft because of dioxin contamination. That's the news here...the destruction of the airplane, and the destruction because of Agent Orange contamination. But here, this kind of Public Affairs dishonesty coming out of the 75th's PA shop... deception, misdirection and frankly stupid issue-dodging (as they were told to do, I agree) should come to the attention of the Air Force PA professionals who care about their profession. 


American citizens and our news media expect and deserve an Air Force PA to eventually, slowly, perhaps regretfully...actually get around to keyboarding something approximating the truth. Not deal from the bottom of the PA deck of cards a crafty, sneaky, evasive, flim-flam handout solely meant to mislead the public. 


A fictional example which best comes to mind is a situation where, say, a crowded 747 crashes on your runway. The PA shop prepares, but does not distribute...they wait in case anybody notices...a press release describing the event as

"a rapid airframe disassembly activity, followed by an unscheduled base-wide mass casualty exercise. 324 body bags were utilized to provide extra realism. Coincidently, the base runway will be closed for the next few weeks for unscheduled repairs. In other news, volunteers of all blood types are invited to visit the base clinic, now accepting donations on a 24-hour a day basis."

 In the case of the C-123s, the Agent Orange Consultant to the Office of Secretary of Defense recommended removing from the draft PA release tainted words like "Agent Orange, toxin, dioxin" in his personal fear of a media "storm", a storm certain to alert, as he points out, aircrews and maintenance folks who'd turn to the VA for treatment of Agent Orange-presumptive illnesses. Gosh, the 505th, AFMC and the PA profession sure don't want that! One specific PS lie was the inference that the aircraft were without value, when in fact, the Air Force and GSA had been forced to go to Federal court to PREVENT the sale of the toxic airframes to eager buyers. Even the "rare and valuable" engines were to be smelted, but not mentioned in the press release. Somehow, I think a little birdie is going to wing its way to a responsible journalist's ear with this news...and the Air Force would be blessed if somehow this joke was corrected by the service itself. Good thing Disney got its airplanes before the well ran dry!


Oh..and don't forget, this week a member of the senior federal executive service made special mention was made of us "freeloading, trash-hauling Air Force Reservists" looking for a Congressman to feed us tax free dollars. Kind, respectful, Total Force- type welcoming words from the Office of the Secretary of Defense in the person of the Secretary's Agent Orange Consultant.


Guess he didn't feel our F4, AC-130, C-141, B-52, and other combat flyers met his high standard for patriotism and valor.

I imagine OSD feels a C-123 vet like Colonel Charlie Brown, by arranging to be a guest at the Hanoi Hilton after being shot down, was the epitome of the Air Force Reserve freeloader because Charlie even managed to get free meals and tax-free fish heads and rice plus other cool stuff from the North Vietnamese while a POW.


Complete Document Set

Appeal Readied to Seek Reversal of Aaron Olmsted's VA Claim Denial

Aaron Olmsted's VA claim was submitted and denied, then denied finally in his appeal decided 23 August 2007. Judge Stephen Cohn ruled that Tim had failed to provide evidence that the C-123s he flew were ever used to spray Agent Orange, and failed to provide evidence that there was any residue of Agent Orange in the aircraft. Tim, one of the country's more experienced aviators, died a couple months ago and an unexplained airplane crash.


Recent emails exchanges with Dr Alvin Young and documents provided by Hill AFB seem to give adequate meat to prepare an appeal to have the injustice done Tim reversed. I don't do this for a living...I don't know how such things are done. 


So, my draft of an appeal offered in simple English is attached. Normalspeak. And I've asked for editing from anyone except my wife who has already torn it apart nicely, thank you very much!


What now? Who can I get this to so that somebody will understand that the Air Force withheld documents which Tim's BVA judge cited as the ones missing from his hopeed for appeal for disability compensation? Is there an association of BVA attorneys (on both sides of the isle?) Is there a way to approach one of the judges or even the chairman of the BVA judges to say.."HEY...the government cheated Tim and his family."


Also, some emails and web postings have mentioned that I'm a pilot. Squash that. I am an MSC and therefore, by definition, a gentleman and not a pilot. John's the pilot, poor man.


Best,


   Wes Carter

SAF/IG Dismisses Complaint 6/15/2011

Today received notice from Mr Vincent Debono of the SAF/IG office that the complaint I filed on 9 May had been dismissed on 9 June 2011. The letter conveying the information is below. Please compare it to the IG complaint I filed and you'll think they were dealing with two separate subjects...the SAF/IG response doesn't begin to deal with any of the IG complaints!

-------------------------

here is the detail page of my IG complaint. Five allegations are made...do you see any answered?
-------------------------

Note: The complaint was escalated to a DOD/IG complaint effective 18 June 2011.

(from the IG form:)

To the Secretary of Defense Inspector General:

"I submitted an IG complaint to the Secretary of the Air Force on 9 May 2011 and it was rejected 9 June 2011 with the recommendation that the issues I raised be brought to the Department of Veterans Affairs and the AF Historical Office. 

I do not know what rule, law or regulation this may have violated but it isn't the purpose for which the SAF/IG is established.

None of the specifics were addressed in Mr. Debono's response to the complaint. The issues raised were detailed on page 2 of the complaint, and the names of numerous Air Force officers, general officers and enlisted personnel were provided as persons having knowledge of the situation. As best I can determine, none of them were interviewed relative to the allegations. 

I am concerned that the allegations I raised concerned actions by multiple Air Force commands, JAG officers, general officers and the General Services Administration, yet the IG complaint was referred to a base-level IG for resolution.

In addition, while I did not raise the issue of Agent Orange exposure of our aircrews needing to be brought to the attention of the Department of Veterans Affairs for resolution, it would be appropriate for the Secretary of the Army to provide a determination to the DVA that the contaminated aircraft flown by crews between 1972-1982 constitute, together, an Agent Orange exposure site, as multiple Air Force tests clearly indicate. 

Finally, in the response to Mr Debono's email announcing the dismissal of the allegations, I asked if the Secretary of the Air Force's office could at least notify the aircrews involved of the possibility of their exposure to dioxin, an issue obviously of concern to them regarding their health and that of their families. Mr. Debono's response, on behalf of the Secretary of the Air Force, was:


"Maj Carter, 
Unfortunately we do not have the ability to identify or notify the individuals in the categories you mention. "

Vincent G. DeBono, Jr., DAFC

Chief, Case Management Division 

Office of the Secretary of the Air Force

Getting the word out!

Late last week and this weekend we've had several former members of the 74AES as well as LtCol John Harris active in contacting veterans' organizations, news outlets, reporters specializing in military issues, newspapers in the Springfield MA and New Hampshire area, as well as a couple law firms. One firm specializes in veterans issues which are before the Board of Veterans Appeals, and one specializes in Agent Orange issues and thus far has been very successful.

Personal: Today I learned my great brother-in-law, Sergeant First Class Willie Chiquina USA Ret, passed away with complications from Alzheimer's. Born and raised on Guam, and stationed there for some years later, Willy and my sister lost their first child while being medevac'd from Berlin to Landstuhl...the child died of neurological issues the parents always thought were associated with Agent Orange. In 1983 I had the honor of doing his last reenlistment before his retirement.