My Most Recent Claim Denied – For Want of VA Records

Typical VA Claims Result

My latest claim for various VA disabilities (not the Agent Orange-related ones) was denied last week, mostly because the VA regional office in Denver maintained I had no new information to submit against earlier denials, thus the original denials were final.

VBA was especially clever in this response: the adjudicator avoided addressing several elements of the claim (different injuries,) knowing that once the claim reaches the Board of Veterans Appeals they don't have jurisdiction, and the claim will be remanded. That will mean more time at the regional office, and then back in line for more years of waiting for BVA to decide.

They don't do this stuff without strategy, you know! What looks like an oversight is meant to provide VA with several more years of stalling, waiting for the vet to lose interest, or die.

For some reason, eBenefits has been accepting electronic documents for several months, at least since the end of April, but not showing them in the list of either requested or unrequested materials. Things get posted on eBenefits only if mailed or if a vet calls IRIS. Thus all my responses to VA inquiries for the last ten weeks have disappeared, so VA denied my claim.

That's one problem. The other is that the FOIA I submitted in April, which was acknowledged, still hasn't been fulfilled. That was where I'd expected to find the Air Force line-of-duty determinations for the specific injuries in the claim. Originally VA had somehow failed to even note the LODs and denied the claim because the LOD-specified injuries "did not occur during service nor in one year after." Heck, I was even hospitalized in Bethesda Naval Hospital on AD and they missed that.

I should have asked the Denver FOIA office about this earlier, because from their response letter I had no idea their current backlog is actually between six to nine months for a "C" file FOIA response. I'd gone in to see my files but they could only let me see a few pages on their computer, so a trip to Denver was wasted.

Yesterday, Denver FOIA offered to move my request for a copy of my records up and get them here in about a week because I'm so sick. Great. Now I can face two to five years in an appeal but that's way, way past my life expectancy.

Nice folks. Lousy system. Everybody at VA solves claim problems with a vet by telling us to "just appeal."

That's like a kiss of death. They know it. Perhaps their greeting at the 800-number should be "sorry for your loss" instead of "thanks for your service."

VA Inspector General Complaint Submitted by C-123 Veterans Seeking Agent Orange Care

To: VA Inspector General

As this issue concerns the denial, or delay, of benefits to approximately 2100 eligible veterans, this is a national, systemic concern. It has led to death and suffering. I request an acknowledgement from the IG for receipt of this concern.

Challenges to VA ethics and science by veterans' associations, legislators, other federal agencies, and by university experts, were answered in June 2014 by Dow and Monsanto-sponsored letters, and by VA-contracted reports described in the attached VA 21-4138.

The construction of claims delays by unscientifically rephrasing of fundamental terms in toxicology, also challenged by other federal agencies, has left eligible veterans denied VA care and forced to seek medical care elsewhere, with resultant death and suffering. This was done without peer review or regulatory authority.

When faced with juried scientific articles clarifying the veterans' situation, and faced with legal findings from Yale University challenging the VA's improper perspective on "exposure," VA's reaction was to create yet another delay in the form of a study.

By contracting an unnecessary study with the Institute of Medicine, and phrasing

the charge to the IOM in such a way that regardless of the IOM finding, no change in the eligibility of the affected veterans could ensue. The information gathered by the hard work of the IOM is of interest but also mostly available from VA and other federal agencies. The study imposed a delay of many months in resolving veterans' access to VA care, and the request for an interim presumptive eligibility was refused.

Calling together a committee of the Institute of Medicine to evaluate the veterans' degree of medical harm, the VHA then sought to frustrate its own process by advocating in the negative, using outside consultants to present the VA perspective who had personal experiences with the issue, and publicly-expressed disdain for the concerned veterans, and who were thus inappropriate advocates for the VA's position, a position itself inappropriate in opposing C-123 veterans' claims. 

No VA contracts were let to affirm the veterans' claims, only to oppose them. Veterans, as individuals, lacked the funds to sponsor research or investigations to counter VA's well-funded advocacy against them.

VA should seek a path to qualify, not disqualify veterans from receiving VA medical care and benefits. VA most especially must not construct barriers for what the law permits, but here VA has built and reinforced those illogical, unscientific and extra-legal barriers since 2011.

Faced with input from a committee of concerned renowned toxicologists, VBA determined the scientists were not qualified to opine on the issue of exposure and veterans' health. Faced with input to the Joint Services Records Research Center from acknowledged experts, medical schools and other federal agencies including CDC, NIH and the US Public Health Service, VA directed JSRRC not to forward any affirming scientific information or interpretation of original scientific source documents, clearly frustrating the veterans' claims by preventing science from reinforcing their arguments.

The standard of "as likely to as not" and "every benefit of the doubt rests with the veteran" is not observed in this instance. Further, VHA and VBA sought not to qualify these veterans but to obstruct their claims. Although repeated assurances published in the Federal Register made clear to Congress VA's commitment to treat Agent Orange exposures of non-Vietnam veterans the same as veterans of that war and that VA informed Congress that no new legislation was needed to do so, VBA and VHA then unscientifically redefined exposure in a VA-unique manner to prevent exposure claims from C-123 aircrew and maintenance veterans.

Attempts by veterans to address this issue through the Secretary, Under Secretary for Benefits, General Counsel, VBA Director Compensation and Pension Service, Portland VARO supervisor, JSRRC and other authorities were unproductive and over three years have passed with continued abuse of these veterans' earned right to VA medical care. VA thus avoided the cost of their medical care and reduced waiting time for appointments by preventing these veterans from entering VA hospitals.

The issue was well-reported in the press, beginning in 2011. The issue was brought to the attention of the Secretary by Senators and Congressmen. The issue was brought to the attention of the Secretary by concerned scientists and physicians. The issue was brought to the attention of the Under Secretary for Benefits by other federal agencies. The issue was brought to the attention of the VA National Center for Ethics in Health Care. All without solution.

VBA even created an Advisory Opinion denying a veteran's Agent Orange exposure claim with the statement, "In summary, there has been no conclusive evidence that TCDD exposure causes any adverse human health effects." Denying Agent Orange exposure benefits because Agent Orange exposure is harmless is wrong. When read in person to the Director Compensation and Pension (over whose signature the opinion was issued) no correction or explanation was made and the Opinion left to stand in denying the veteran's claim.

Denial of VA medical care has predictable suffering and death. Creating special definitions of exposure to prevent exposure claims is a situation demanding classification as to what kind of wrong.

The C-123 veterans consider that the VA redefinition of exposure to prevent our exposure claims is unethical and borders on the criminal, at least from the perspective of our own pain and suffering, and watching dear comrades die with claims delayed or denied.

Wesley T. Carter, Major USAF Retired

FLIGHT ENGINEERS FIRST TO PONY UP!

Flight engineers doing what Flight Engineers Do
(no, its not a prop change!)

The financial situation was explained to our membership – and our esteemed flight engineers were first to respond. No surprise there!

Many thanks to Bob Corcoran!

Where, oh where...are the AME? Time to help carry the load, dear friends. If not, others certainly will (and have) but in three years, only silence. Come on, AME...along for the ride only?

Thanks, Bob

VA Public Affairs...Where They Fail the Veterans

I am a veteran.

The men and women in the The C-123 Veterans Association are veterans, as are all those we served with over the years. We are their "consumers," we are the final recipients of the professional services of the public affairs staff at the Department of Veterans Affairs.

We are, or we should be, the single most important audience for their professional services. Our needs at least should be of concern to them.

VA public affairs, in communications with us and about us to other audiences, serves our needs. VA public affairs, telling our legislators and the public about it as an institution, serves us. But it doesn't, and it is no way a delivery vehicle for truth.

We are the veterans, so serving us, and serving the VA to better serve us,  should be the role of VA public affairs.

To put it in an aeromedical evacuation context, we are their patients. That I can firmly understand because in aeromedical evacuation, nothing is more important. Nothing else is our focus, and the entire spectrum of what we do is to make that patient come out okay at the other end of our flight. Patients are more than self. The patient is my life and breath, which is why he is entrusted to me. Which is why he knows I'll get him home.

Comrade, ally, civilian, friend or foe...I'll get him home.

So where did VA public affairs become so very tainted and so much unlike us? Why is OPIA so much the servant of the institution that the institution became their only true focus? What happened that my needs as a veteran cannot be trusted to the public affairs staff of the Department of Veterans Affairs, as we learn that OPIA puts VA ahead of the veteran in their mission?

We know, don't we, that nothing, absolutely nothing critical or even mildly corrective would ever be communicated by VA OPIA? We know, don't we, that OPIA would never play a role in a course correction towards more a veteran-friendly Department of Veterans Affairs.

Perceptions of C-123 Veterans Seeking Agent Orange Exposure Care From VA

There are different perceptions of our post-Vietnam C-123 veterans, formed in the minds of the public, our legislators, the Air Force, other veterans, ourselves and our families. (note: last photo is graphic and very disturbing.)

C-123 veterans as seen by families welcoming us back from the Gulf

C-123 veterans (med techs and flight nurses) as seen by their patients

C-123 veterans as seen by ourselves

C-123 veteran, the late LtCol Tim Olmsted, as seen by the ground crew

C-123 veterans, as seen by Hondurans

C-123 veterans, as seen by the flight surgeon

C-123 veteran, the late LtCol Paul Bailey, as seen by New Hampshire American Legion
(combat veteran of 101st Airborne before the Air Force, served 36 years)

C-123 veteran, as seen by surgeon and family. Soft tissue sarcoma.
 Photo provided by the late Master Sergeant George Gadbois. VA claim denied
(photo shown because George wanted it shown)

Institute of Medicine 2012 Report - Covered In-Country Issues Only!

Many point to the 2012 Institute of Medicine Agent Orange Report as somehow disagreeing with non-Vietnam herbicide exposure claims. Nothing could be farther from the truth! The VA assigns specific goals to the Committee ("Charge to the Committee") which restricts what is to be addressed. Thus, proof upon proof could be offered on various topics such as Blue Water Navy or C-123 exposures, and note will be made of the off-topic presentations but nothing done by the Committee nor commented upon!

Open Letter to VA About "Blanket Claim Denials"

Subject: VA Assistant General Counsel Assures C-123 Veterans "No Blanket Denials" 

We C-123 veterans appreciate VA Associate General Counsel Mr. Richard Hipolet's assurances that the Department of Veterans Affairs has no blanket policy prohibiting C-123 veterans' exposure claims. I'm grateful that he wrote to explain VA's perspective.

He reminds us that the late LtCol Paul Bailey's claim was approved, but does not note that this was on appeal after denial months earlier using the standard boilerplate:

"VA regulations do not allow us to concede exposure to herbicides for Veteran's who claim they were exposed to herbicides after the Vietnam war while flying in aircraft used to spray the se s chemicals "
Other statements provided VAROs to deny claims are generally the remark that " Please tell the Veteran 'We are unable to verify or document that aircrew members were exposed..."

In any case, no C-123 veterans' claims have been approved short of reconsideration by a review officer or BVA. There, with more careful reading of the law and Federal Register of 31 Aug 2010 and 8 May 2001, and a somewhat more veteran-friendly and non-adversarial forum, claims are approved. Years later, after improper denials.

On 28 Feb 2013, in his office meeting between himself, his staff, myself and Major Marlene Wentworth NC USAF, the Director of Compensation and Pension Services (C&P) explained that the Deputy Consultant of VHA's Post Deployment Health had already concluded no C-123 veterans were exposed to TCDD. I was told no amount of proof from whatever source would permit C-123 veterans' claims to rise to the level of "as likely to as not" because of her determination. (A similar statement was made to Major T. Redd, an Army officer, following a meeting of C-123 representatives, Senator Burr's staff, and VHA representatives.)

Soon after our 28 Feb 2013 meeting with Compensation and Pension, the Deputy Consultant graciously explained to me by telephone that her decision was reached because no C-123 veterans could ever establish bioavailability. Helping me better understand bioavailability, she explained that with the bioavailability requirement none of the Vietnam War veterans were exposed either (except perhaps some Ranch Hand flyers) but they are covered by "boots on the ground" laws.

Bioavailability does not exist in the law, as Mr. Hiplot explains, but he does offer us the opportunity to appeal any of our claims denied by VA's new requirement for it. I have checked a wide variety of toxicological references and do not find exposure defined as has the VA, "exposure = contamination field + bioavailability."

Adding bioavailability was an effective way for VHA to reintroduce medical nexus, otherwise proscribed, and upon which for VBA to deny claims. It does not seem, however, to be scientifically accepted, and is unique to the VA...and within VA, to Post Deployment Health.

I've asked many experts, and most offered responses similar to that of the Director, NIEHS:
"In all my years as a toxicologist, I have never heard bioavailability as part of the exposure field. Exposure is contact between a chemical (of any type) and the skin." (Dr. Linda Birnbaum)

C&P earlier explained to me that Dr. Birnbaum's opinion is not acceptable, nor those of Dr. Stellman, Dr. Berman, Dr. Garzotto, Dr. Sheers, Dr. James, Dr. Dwernychuk, Dr. Portier, Dr. Sinks, Dr. Schecter, Dr. Miller, and others. He explains that only physicians (but somehow, not the civil or VA physicians whose opinions were overlooked) are qualified to comment on medical nexus...of course, the scientists were commenting on exposure, and not medical nexus.

C&P might note VA's respect for the Institute of Medicine of the National Academies. This last biennial report had only two physician members...all the rest were scientists. Scientists, experts to whom VA turns by law, whom C&P would disqualify for commenting on Agent Orange.

With varieties of sample denial language provided to VAROs, with regulations being cited which prohibit conceding our exposure, with the very word "exposure" redefined to exclude our qualification, with TCDD claims denied with assertions that TCDD isn't harmful, with assurances given us by both Compensation and Pension and by Post Deployment Health that no amount of supporting evidence would permit a successful claim, perhaps "blanket policy" against us could be the wrong words, but any independent viewer would likely reach that conclusion. We have.

Last week I visited with a VA claims specialist, asking about what "regulations" might be the ones mentioned in the claims denials. She pointed to the claim itself, the sentence saying "regulations do not permit," and she insisted that was the regulation. The denied claim, with no other substantiation, was her regulation. She explained that the Federal Register, other federal agency findings, nothing else matters...that was the regulation. She would look no further.

Today I spoke with Master Sergeant Richard Matte, hospitalized at Boston's Brigham and Women's Hospital. He lost his right leg last week to infections. Sergeant Matte earlier underwent a heart transplant, and his health is precarious. Sergeant Matte's claims for service connection for herbicide exposure have been denied.

Sergeant Matte evidences a variety of Agent Orange illnesses as did LtCol Bailey. Sergeant Matte flew the same airplanes on the same days from the same bases performing the same missions eating the same food sleeping in the same facilities with the same duties as LtCol Paul Bailey...whose claim for Agent Orange illnesses was approved. I know the details...I was Sergeant Matte's flight instructor and flight examiner in the C-123K.

We've already watched our first sergeant, Master Sergeant George Gadbois, die in pain with soft tissue sarcoma. Said farewell to General Mike and Doc Jones with prostate cancer, and Lou Patcowitz with ALS, and many others with cancers and heart disease.

Agent Orange exposures aboard Patches and the other toxic C-1123s caused so many leave us, far too early. Sergeant Gadbois and the other men's VA claims were all denied. Yet they, too, flew the same missions, the same days, the same airplanes as did LtCol Bailey.

I was the flight instructor and flight examiner for LtCol Bailey and Sergeant Gadbois. I went to both men's funerals. We've had too many funerals.

Would somebody from VA kindly look into Sergeant Matte's situation...somebody who has read the law regarding herbicide exposures and who is uncomfortable with VA's unique redefinition of "exposure" done by
Post Deployment Health
just to prevent TCDD exposure claims?

Respectfully,

   Wes Carter, Chair
   The C-123 Veterans Association

VA Selectively Choses Data (& ignores the rest) to Deny C-123 Vets' Expsure

Think about it. They were the Agent Orange spray airplanes during Vietnam. But not after?

After Vietnam, in our "age of innocence," they were the cargo C-123s.

Beginning in 1979 with the first comprehensive toxicological tests on Patches (Tail #362), the C-123 fleet began transitioning again to "the Agent Orange airplanes" but we were assured they were quite safe. Quite safe. Except for something called "military herbicides."

Retired in 1982, the toxin evidence became perfectly clear at the USAF Museum in 1994 when Patches was carefully examined by the USAF Armstrong Labs, whose toxicologists labeled her "heavily contaminated on all test surfaces" and "a danger to public health."  Because they love us and care, the USAF Office of Environmental Law felt it better to keep us from worrying about this Agent Orange exposure which we'd already underwent, so they ordered "This information should be kept in official channels only." There it quietly rested until Freedom of Information Act requests in 2011 began uncovering what shouldn't have been covered up at all...we veterans were already exposed to deadly dioxin for a full decade while flying the C-123 fleet.

Now that the word is out, the VA carefully selects which words they'll accept regarding the C-123 history, because their mission is to ignore proofs and deny benefits. Always. Whenever requested - deny. And they indeed denied. Denied - all expert opinions that we were exposed. Denied - all other federal government agencies' opinions that we were exposed. Denied - and the list of excuses goes on. In particular, the VA was very careful to ignore a legal case which grew out of the inadvertent sale of C-123s out of Davis-Monthan. The GSA sold two to Walt Disney Films, and then a GSA whistle-blower notified everyone she could mail that this shouldn't have happened, leading to a court case brought by a buyer who'd wanted five more C-123s for fire-fighting.

Sworn testimony from that court case (GSBCA14165) taken from Air Force toxicologist Dr. Ron Porter and senior leadership at Davis-Monthan, really illustrates the danger of the dioxin contamination. It really demonstrates the degree to which the VA forces blinders on itself and its rating officers to pretend that the C-123 veterans weren't exposed during the years 1972-1982.

The GSA and other reports are further confirmed by the Army's TG312, which analyzed toxins within closed spaces such as offices, and by which standards the C-123 veterans were exposed to 800-times the screening values!
---summation of exposure issues revealed in GSA GSBCA Appeal 14165----

GSA testimony re: Board of Contract Appeals, GSBCA14165, ruling issued 22 Sept 2000

01/24/00 (date of hearing)   

Following is the C-123 Veterans' Analysis of the Government's Testimony:

[The case involved an inadvertent sale by the government of five contaminated C-123 warplanes, an action canceled by the government but contested in court by the buyer. The Air Force and GSA together asserted the airplanes remained hazardous with Agent Orange contamination and the sale was negated by the GSA hearing judge, in agreement with the government’s position. Two contaminated aircraft had been inadvertently sold to Walt Disney Films which brought the issue to greater visibility to the Air Force and GSA (highly embarrassing!)]

The C-123 veterans point out that we flew these airplanes decades before these actions. Decades during which the dioxin described by expert witnesses as hazardous, was far fresher and dangerous in our service. It would require an unusual thought process to consider these warplanes hazardous and in but somehow not also dangerous in the years 1972-1982, given the general predictability of dioxin’s half life having reduced the toxicity in later years.

Of special note is the sworn testimony that the airplane’s dioxin did indeed represent both a dermal and inhalation exposure threat to unprotected personnel in 2000. We were unprotected between 1972-1982, wearing thin NOMEX flight suits and not wearing any respirators.

page 67 (18) the Air Force expert witness testifies under oath in federal court proceedings that the hazards of dioxin exposure existed for all personnel associated with the C-123, not just museum restoration workers or demilitarization workers as suggested by the VA’s interpretation of AF test results.

Page 83 (22) Dr. Ron Porter, AF toxicologist from USAF Armstrong Laboratory Brooks AFB, Texas, and one of the scientists who conducted the 1994 tests of C-123 aircraft at the USAF Museum, confirms under oath the major part of the hazard  “was physical contact with the contaminated (24) surface. He continued, “If there’s significant dioxin there, then dioxin can volatilize into (6) the air, so it could be a respirable hazard, a (7) respiration hazard.” The VA has improperly characterized the exposure hazard as non-existent, yet here the government testifies that it was significant in both dermal and inhalation routes of exposure. VA has characterized dermal exposure as “unlikely” and inhalation exposure as impossible. VA has done so only via literature review, not via hands-on investigation of the contaminated airplanes as has Dr. Porter.

Porter stated that he directed personnel at Wright-Patterson be kept out of the C-123 because of dioxin, once his report was completed in 1994. We were not kept out of the airplane but instead served aboard it for a decade. Porter (5, 107) reminds the judge that the interior of the C-123 is not only metal (upon which the VA asserts the dioxin had dried) but actually bare aircraft-grade aluminum, painted and unpainted metal surfaces of various types, wood, canvas, glass, plastic, fiberglass, paper, cardboard, rubber and a wide range of other materials, all presenting a variety of dermal dioxin transfer characteristics. Porter formed a firm conclusion, expressed under oath, (14) that “there was a potential risk of exposure to chemicals in those airplanes, specifically (17) Agent Orange and/or dioxin.

The C-123 veterans cannot accept any characterization which holds that the C-123 aircraft presented a potential risk of exposure to Agent Orange in January 2000 without that risk being considered also present during our decade of service between 1972 and 1982, when the dioxin was much less degraded, and fresher following the missions in Vietnam which ended only the year before.

Agent Orange Hysteria? By Us?

No. I''d say we C-123 vets are fairly realistic. We know, as scientists and physicians tell us, that we can't actually point to any particular boo-boo ailments and insist they are Agent Orange-related. What we can, and do, insist is that we were indeed exposed. That we incurred abody burden significantly higher than first thought because the airplanes' contamination was "fresher" those years right after Vietnam. And we had a long-term, low-doseage exposure which toxicologists explain is worse than a high-dose, short term exposure. 

And, God knows, we have said farewell to too many friends like Gabby Gadbois, Bob Boyd, Lou Paskowitz and the others. 

New Studies Not Needed- C-123 Agent Orange Benefits NOW!

Mention was made of a possible need for additional statistical or epidemiological studies of C-123 aircrews and maintenance personnel to better understand our dioxin exposure. The following note was submitted to two of the scientists who've looked into the situation:

Argument Against Time-Wasting Further Analysis:

A study could have been a good idea back in 1994 when the AF Museum/Brooks Armstrong Labs first identified the degree of toxicity on Patches. Studies could have been a good thing back in 1996 when, instead, the AF Office of Environmental Law directed that the info should "be kept in official channels only." In 1994 and 1996 most of us were still available to participate in a study, assuming enough veterans were existent to lend any accuracy to the study. It would have been decent...in fact, the only moral and legal decision, to alert our veterans so we could consider precautions and know to watch for AO-type symptoms. It would have been a better study if the veterans who've died before this problem was exposed in April 2011 had been able to participate - Lou Paskowitz, Paul Huffman, Bob Boyd, George Gadbois, Tim Olmsted, Warner Jones...all the others. 

I ask the VA and other government people to imagine what the public outcry would be if some large company exposed thousands of employees to dioxin (however innocently), learned about the exposure after the fact, and spent decades preventing notification of the affected employees...and even took steps to shred and smelt the evidence? This would be evening news headline matter...such criminal behavior would be meat for the grand jury! What would government employee unions do if workers had spent ten years inside a building with a 200-times greater risk of cancer due to dioxin exposure...and the government kept the information from them and even fought to prevent access to medical care when the news leaked? 

Imagine a whistleblower leaking an email in which managers labeled exposed employees "freeloaders", as our aircrews have been described by a VA consultant who has received support from the chemical industry for articles and served as an official of the Secretary of Defense office--he expressly cited the need to destroy the stored C-123s to prevent veterans' benefits from being awarded.

The last comprehensive study of contaminated aircraft at Davis-Monthan found half of the tested airplanes still hazardous in 2009 (nearly forty years after their last spray missions) except for short-term exposure!

It is flat-out unconscionable for VA to take any action that fails to recognize C-123 veterans' exposure NOW by citing cost, difficulty, small population or any other time-killer suggestion regarding further statistical or epidemiological studies, and unconscionable for VA to delay our care for the time to design, conduct, evaluate and obtain peer-review of such a study. Wasting still more time (what the Army veterans call "waiting for an Army to die") would obviously penalize the veterans by denying us essential medical coverage just so the VA could burn away a couple years for more studies followed by outside review of those studies.

The military completely failed to address the problem when it first surfaced, worrying only about the stored airplanes and avoiding EPA fines and bad publicity.Today, there can be no further failure of the AF or VA to promptly recognize our exposure to TCDD. There can be no further delay to conduct more "studies." Time enough is wasted in the VA application (FYI my own has gathered dust for 332 days so far.)

The studies have been done. The results have been validated by federal court, the GSA, the Air Force, the ATSDR and outside scientific experts. Crews and maintenance personnel were exposed to harmful amounts of dioxin....case closed!

The requirement for veterans (outside the Boots on the Ground Vietnam group) seeking service-connection for TCDD exposure is simply reasonable proof of exposure. That proof was developed in multiple tests by the Air Force, and substantiated by the GSA, federal court, ATSDR and reputable scientists. That proof has been offered, and substantiated, in spades!

We're not mad, but those of us still alive are sick as hell and we're not going to take it any more! 

Gulf War Veterans - proposed final VA rules about undiagnosed illnesses

As many of the 74th-439th folks are veterans of Gulf War One, this proposed VA ruling is of interest and we should read carefully. The important points...extended time for illnesses to be noted, greater flexibility in determining noted but undiagnosed illnesses to be grouped into "Gulf War Illness" and easier approvals for ratings from the VA. We'll see, as thus far the VA mostly either denies that an illness or symptom exists or they decide it manifested itself too far after the War to be rated.

-------- from Paul Sutton -------

Published in this morning's Federal Register.

The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) is issuing this interim final rule to amend its adjudication regulation regarding compensation for disabilities suffered by veterans who served in the Southwest Asia Theater of Operations during the Persian Gulf War.  This amendment is necessary to extend the period during which disabilities associated with undiagnosed illnesses and medically unexplained chronic multi-symptom illnesses must become manifest in order for a veteran to be eligible for compensation. This interim final rule is effective December 29, 2011. Comments must be received by VA on or before February 27, 2011 ================================================= If you haven't already read Rosemary's email, Gabby has taken a turn for the worse and has been advised to arrange hospice care. Prayers are always welcomed by this faithful servant of Man, Nation and God.

VA Releases "Scientific" Explanation of C-123 Dixoin Denials

Ever-eager to stomp our hopes into the ground, the VA on December 14 released an explanation of their investigation of the Agent Orange contamination of our C-123 aircraft and how they reached the determination that somehow, despite the aircraft contamination, we have not been exposed.

Readers with a scientific background will recoil in horror at this report being called "scientific". It is not. It was prepared with the predetermined objective of insuring a negative response to our exposure claims...and that ain't science, folks! Science requires being led where the facts take you, not cherry-picking data to make sure your report satisfies the boss.

Simply put their report is full of holes, not full of science.

It cites, first, a report prepared by then-Staff Sergeant Conway who inspected Patches in 1979. While respectful of all NCOs (I spent half of my career as one), I hesitate to base the health care of 1500 veterans upon the report of a 5-level NCO. Further, as confirmed by Prof. Jeanne Stellman of Columbia University's School of Public Health, that inspection did not test for dioxin. Well, duh...isn't that what this is all about?

Next, the VA cites the 1994 test on Patches at the AF Museum, but fails to note those toxicologists (Dr Ron Porter and Capt Wade Weisman) who determined that the airplane was "heavily contaminated" with dioxin. Dr Porter later testified in a federal court case that the C-123s were "a danger to public health." I think this rates another "duh".

The VA concludes by citing the 2009 Hill AFB report "Dioxin and Herbicide Characterization of UC-123K Aircraft - Phase I." However, to make sure their "research" properly reflects their predetermined conclusion, they do not mention that the author of that report himself insisted, on 26 October 2011, that no conclusions be drawn, one way or another, regarding aircrew exposure during 1972-1982! This is another solid "duh".

Finally, to reach for some scientific reason to bolster their denial of veterans' claims, the VA says because chemical wipes were required to release dioxin from the surfaces tested that implies flying personnel wouldn't have been exposed because of dermal protection. Guess these VA "scientists" forgot to read carefully the test protocols which later specified that water, not chemical, wipes would be used for testing. A final, solid "duh" called for here, right?

Good thing that the Armed Services are led by people with a sense of honor and intense dedication to doing their jobs right, rather than by civil servants who yield to their boss' dictating research results to insure veterans are denied well-earned benefits! And that's no duh!

A Gathering of Eagles (old ones, anyway) in honor of MSgt Gabby Gadbois

The Westover club overflowed with fellowship and affection Friday night, as crew members from the early '70s to today's folks met to honor retired Master Sergeant Gabby Gadbois, our former first sergeant. Gabby is a bit lame these days but fighting as he always has, only this time for himself and not us.

A First Shirt always puts the troops first, as Gabby has, but these days we are putting him first. First in our prayers, first in our hearts as well. Gabby has fought long and hard against soft tissue sarcoma, lung problems, chemo troubles and now brain cancer. We saw bravery in action Friday night as we gathered around him, and this time it is our chance to sustain and protect him! And, I confess, some of us there did a bit of moaning and whining about our own boo-boos, gifts of the Agent Orange debacle.

As you know, the VA has refused to recognize Gabby's Agent Orange illnesses as related to Agent Orange, despite his hundreds of hours flying the contaminated C-123s at Westover. The VA's policy is to insure that the number of Agent Orange victims receiving care is kept to a minimum, and this is done by constructing arguments against our exposure regardless of any proofs we offer.

And that's what they've done to this distinguished veteran of nearly 30 years service. Gabby's illnesses, according to the VA, cannot result from his years flying airplanes the Air Force certified as "heavily contaminated," "a threat to public health," "extremely hazardous, extremely dangerous, extremely contaminated."! Even decades after the airplanes' last Agent Orange spray missions in Vietnam, the C-123s tested over eight times the safe building reentry standards for dioxin contamination as recognized by every agency. The contamination had to have been much more intense back in 1972-1982.

Building the case against us was the November 17 VA press release. An amazing piece of work, best called "Bull!" by the Vietnam Veterans of America, and the only time anyone can recall that the VA took preventative strikes against veterans' claims. Still...it was completely amazing.

Amazing because it has holes in it big enough for a Mac truck. The VA says we weren't exposed because the heavy contamination in the aircraft couldn't transfer to humans. They cite the fact that the dioxin was measured by the AF toxicologists in 1994 using chemical wipes. Well, duh??

It turns out that there are two measurements taken to establish dioxin contamination: the first is an air sample, which the Air Force opted not to due as per many 2008 memos. In them, an Army expert opines that the air samples need not be taken, perhaps because of political issues. Mr. Charles Sarafini, an engineer with CBRN Decontamination Systems, stated that the aircraft were contaminated with dioxin in his memos to Major Carol McCrady, Operations Officer for the Proven Aircraft Squadron at Hill. Memos go back and forth, with an eventual decision to do chemical wipe samples because that was the gold standard for tests.

So what does our favorite Veterans Administration do? It turns and twists the facts in response to their orders from above, and reaches the amazing conclusion that because chemical wipes were taken on Patches and other aircraft, somehow the VA has managed to prove no dermal exposure could result. Instead of trying to find a way (you know...they benefit of the doubt which is supposed to be given every veteran submitting a disability claim!) that helps us qualify for the care we need, they proceeded with a mindset, and a determination, to prevent us from coming to them for medical care.

The press release is also amazing other toxicologists, chemists, public health officials and the press. Itshe pushes their opinion over the ledge of credibility by stating that even if exposure did occur, it wouldn't be enough to cause long term health. What about the industry standard regarding dioxin that "contamination equals exposure." VA ignores that one!

So, I guess our current cancers, heart disease, and other troubles are from our imagination! So much for the completely ignored VA requirement to give the veteran every benefit of the doubt. The hard, cold facts are that the VA can't handle any more disabled veterans on their current budget, and the best way to prevent further overload is to convince themselves that we're not eligible...that we're not disabled because of our decades of flying tainted airplanes...that our exposure to dioxin wasn't enough to have the VA give us the benefit of the doubt. The VA gives itself the benefit of the doubt and strikes out against us veterans with their November 17 statement.

So let's fight back!  Let's get all the documents like flight orders, Form 5s, signed personal statements, photographs of any C-123 crud we might have documented, maintenance info...anything you feel will help establish the condition of the aircraft once they were assigned to us. The USAF School of Aerospace Medicine has been tasked with looking into our problem and trying to make a statement about it...the statement may not be one establishing the exposure to a certainty, but at least the AF should reach a conclusion, in VA-speak, that the aircrews "more likely than not" have been exposed. It is called the benefit of the doubt, which the VA has forgotten was to be extended to us.

Let me know if you have documents we can use!

Request for Help from Agency for Toxic Substances & Disease Registry

In August I asked the ATSDR for help and was passed off to the DOD...today I wrote again and asked for their compassionate action, not buck-passing.

November 5, 2011

c123kcancer@gmail.com

Christopher J. Portier, Ph.D.

Director, National Center for Environmental Health and

Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry

Atlanta, GA  30333

Dear Doctor Portier,

In August you kindly responded to my request for help regarding the dioxin exposure experienced by Air Force C-123 aircrews. The C-123 was the plane which, until the year before we started flying it, was used for spraying Agent Orange in Vietnam. We flew them from 1972-1982.

I have to ask for your help. I have a crewmate, Master Sergeant George Gadbois of Warner-Robins, who is at Emory and who learned last Friday he has perhaps a year of declining health before his death from soft tissue sarcoma, lung cancer and brain cancer. Although he is retired Air Force, he has been denied VA Agent Orange benefits…not because he wasn’t exposed, but because the VA says he can’t prove it at least to a greater than 50% likelihood. Master Sergeant Gadbois was decorated for heroism in responding to a civilian chlorine explosion, but I’m afraid his heroism falters when faced with the VA obstructions.

We have had the final Catch-22 event, with a teleconference arranged by Senator Burr (NC) for me to discuss our aircrews’ exposure with VA representatives. The VA has decided, without specific research, that aircrews inside a “heavily contaminated” airplane could not be exposed via dermal contact because the skin is a good barrier. Neither could exposure occur via inhalation because there wasn’t much dust for the dioxin to adhere to. It seems to me that our skins were quite dirty and oily, adequate to permit transfer, and I certainly remember these cargo airplanes with dirt and dust flying everywhere.

The head of the Toxicology Department of Oregon Health Sciences University participated in the teleconference and his study, thus far, convinces him that we “most likely” were exposed. The same conclusion was reached by Columbia University School of Public Health.

The problem remains that the VA will not accept these experts’ opinions, but has said they would move only if the Air Force were to tell the VA that the airplanes were contaminated (nobody disputes this fact) and that the aircrews were exposed. The Air Force has said the VA has to make that determination as they will not. So the author Joseph Hiller would be pleased with yet another government Catch-22, but our aircrews are not amused with these agencies each referring us to the other for help…with the VA and AF already knowing that no action will be taken by either. When we flew the sick and wounded in aeromedical evacuation, we never tried to pass off the responsibility for action to others. Never.

I have been studying dioxin since my own cancer diagnosis in April, and cannot avoid the frequent references to both EPA and ATSDR in the literature. I have read your agency’s congressional mandate and mission statement carefully.

I ask that in response to your core value of compassion, that ATSDR look into our exposure issue.

I ask that in response to your goals of protecting the public from environmental hazards and toxic exposures and advancing the science of environmental public health, that ATSDR review the Air Force tests conducted on our airplanes and answer a simple question, vital to whether or not the VA will permit our veterans access to health care:

“Is it as likely to as not (the VA phrasing of an opinion) that aircrews flying “heavily contaminated” C-123 airplanes between the years 1972-1982 were exposed to dioxin?”

If this were a contemporary situation, I’m sure there would be rapid and conclusive government action…no airliner would be allowed to fly with dioxin levels 800% greater than building reentry standards. No agency would permit the public to be thus exposed.

I was Stan/Eval flight examiner for my crew position, and like other Stan/Eval flight examiners the safety of the airplane and the occupants was my primary military, legal, and moral responsibility…if I had known about the dioxin contamination I’d have been guilty of a courts-marshal offense if I’d allowed it to fly. These airplanes were so toxic the Air Force had to shred and smelt them, as they were too contaminated for landfill.  Dr. Ron Porter, the Air Force toxicologist who first surveyed them testified in federal court “they are a danger to public health.”

I’m a soldier, but I’m also a member of the public and deserving, as is Master Sergeant Gadbois, of ATSDR at least commenting specifically on the contaminants I’ve been exposed to, and whether or not I’ve thus been exposed.

Respectfully,

Wesley T. Carter, Major, USAF, Retired

Http://www.c123kcancer.blogspot.com