Download Available: C-123 Files Collection (49MB)

 Here's a 49MB file, a disorganized collection of press releases, clippings, essays and other materials. Not included are AF and VA source documents dealing with C-123 Agent Orange, a file I'll post soon. I call this "disorganized" because materials are just what I came across with more mentions of my own name than anyone else wants to read.

Just scan with any QR code reader:

VETERANS BENEFITS FOR USAF RESERVISTS & ANG WITH TINNITUS AND HEARING LOSS

Are you ineligible for VA benefits because you're a "traditional reservist?"

If hearing injuries resulting from flight or aircraft maintenance duties might qualify you for VA compensation and other benefits. Here's how.

Traditional reservists aren't eligible for most VA benefits because our "active duty for training" doesn't count towards true veteran status. Regardless of how long one's initial active duty for basic and technical school might be, the law doesn't recognize that as "active service." VA recognizes completion of an active duty enlistment, or active duty during wartime to qualify a servicemember for benefits, but UTAs, annual tour, active duty for basic and other training are grouped into ineligible "active duty for training." No bennies.

BUT – there'a a big exception to that for any disabling injury or disease you might experience.

Tinnitus is just one such injury. That ringing in the ears, or wind noise or low hum is caused by loud noises. Noises like a C-123 or C-130 makes. Noises like an M-16 makes at 154dB.

Flyers, tank crews, infantry, artillery and others around loud noises in a military setting often suffer tinnitus, and VA recognizes that as a frequent disability - in fact, it is the most common disability veterans have.

And if you have tinnitus you might be entitled to VA care and compensation for that disability, and if you are, that makes you a veteran with all the benefits that wartime veterans receive.

I got into this recently to help an army reservist who had tinnitus from his time in basic training when he fired the M-14 rifle and did not have any ear protection. Noises of 85 dB and above can cause permanent hearing loss and tinnitus, and our aircraft are far noisier than that: The cockpit is steady at over 112 dB. The noise is worse in the rear!

After my altitude chamber ride at Edwards AFB I started flying in 1974. I recall that by 1975 or so we received the yellow foam earplugs and they provided some protection from noise hazards. But there was still significant noise reaching the inner ear to cause damage. This kind of damage is permanent and cumulative and can evidence itself in tinnitus and/or hearing loss even years later.

Here is my point in the VA's own words: “When a claim for service connection is based on a period of active duty for training, there must be evidence that the individual concerned became disabled as a result of a disease or injury incurred or aggravated in the line of duty during the period of active duty for training.“

That is per 38 U.S.C. § 1131 (see also 38 U.S.C. § 1110; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a). See CAVC Hensley v. Brown – “claimant may establish direct service connection for a hearing disability initially manifest several years after separation from service on the basis of evidence showing that the current hearing loss is causally related to injury or disease suffered in service.”( 5 Vet. App. 155, 164 (1993).” Also see VA Training Letter 10-02 at 15 (rescinded re: incorporation into VBA Adjudication Procedures Manual (M21-1), pt. III, subpt. iv, ch. 4, § D.1-3)

VA compensation for a tinnitus disability is a modest $144 per month, but the real importance here is that a hearing injury establishes legal veteran status with all the benefits that attach to being a wartime veteran (we've been in a period of war ever since Desert Storm.) Sometimes there are secondary issues to hearing loss like depression or hypertension. Rarely, there have been vets getting up to 50% disability ($995/month) based on hearing loss and complications.

You might not need them now, but benefits include pension rights, medical and pharmacy (perhaps with modest co-payments,) rehab, hearing aids, VA home loan, e

LIFE SUPPORT SPECIALISTS COVERED FOR C-123 AGENT ORANGE EXPOSURE

If you were a Life Support tech at a base with C-123 aircraft after Vietnam, you are probably entitled to Agent Orange benefits if you have one of the recognized illnesses.

Too many never got the word, and we worked hard back when VA was asking for our input and made sure Life Support AFSCs were included!

Spread the word. Questions?

 Call VA at St. Paul,1-800-749-8387.

Our C-123 Agent Orange Freedom of Information Act Lawsuits: $120,000 spent in legal fees

This month I had three questions from other veterans about why our effort to get documents released from the VA and USAF managed to cost over $120,000. Easy answer – because that's all I had to spend; if we'd had more money and more time we would've spent it to get more documents uncovered.

I began filing Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests in early 2011. I soon asked Paul Bailey to file some as well to see if the responses produced different results. Initially, these went to Davis-Mothan Air Force Base and Hill Air Force Base where responses were timely and quite revealing. Several CDs were released and on them we found the first test reports showing dioxin contamination, destruction of the aircraft as toxic waste, internal memos from the Air Force consultant in many other documents that focused the next four years of our effort.

We had to study thousands of documents

Eventually we identified two major areas for further investigation. The first was the general manner in which VA initially developed its response to our exposure claims and then the finer details of that VA opposition. There were several damning "gotcha" discoveries revealing the VA deception, such as the VA claim to have an "overwhelming preponderance of evidence" against our claims being mere policy statement, not fact or science. (#1: VA Lawsuit)

The second was the Air Force 2012 C-123 Consultative Letter in which the US Air Force School of Aerospace Medicine examined the aircraft contamination. That report generally concluded the aircraft was contaminated and aircrew exposure possible yet, illogically, somehow unlikely to be harmful. This letter was seized upon by the VA as part of their justification for denying our claims and thus was very important to us. A confidential Air Force source had told us the report was tainted by command interference and was scientifically flawed. (#2: USAF Lawsuit)

These FOIA requests to VA and USAF were submitted properly, acknowledged by the government but never fulfilled. The Air Force initially indicated its cooperation, although two years past and it became clear no substantive response was forthcoming. The VA first refused to waive research fees and then, to stall us, demanded thousands of dollars for only a partial response. Then, that response failed to materialize even though we successfully appealed the estimated fee requirement.

At this point citizens can contact FOIA ombudsman in these departments but there we were also stonewalled. The only option left was federal court action compel the agencies involved to obey the law and meet their requirements. This is where most citizens find themselves helpless because the agencies involved have free legal support from their own staffs and the Department of Justice but a citizen must retain private counsel to go to court.

And that's where $120,000 of legal fees were needed.

We filed FOIA lawsuits in the US District Court of Washington DC and spent nearly three years and all that money to get the documents we required and which we are entitled to at the outset. A few papers were withheld for personal privacy or under the government's concept of "Deliberative Process" which is used to prevent discovery of how they came to conclusions (new FOIA rules enacted this year help correct this.) Interestingly, a part of the USAF FOIA was to the Air Force Surgeon General – that response was about 300 pages what's only 20 pages or so with text, all the rest redacted for one reason or another. We had ask – what the heck did the Air Force want to keep secret about our health and this 60-year-old airplane? We never found out.

Lesson learned #1: Federal agency compliance with FOIA requirements is very poor
throughout the government, but especially the VA and the military departments. Without
hundreds of thousands of dollars to pursue one's rights under the FOIA law there simply is
no way to proceed and our rights are trampled. Both VA and USAF agreed in court we
were right and they were wrong – we'd been entitled by law to the requested materials and
should have been given them years earlier when first sought in our FOIAs. .

Lessons learned #2: The 2014 Institute of Medicine C-123 Committee was provided all these documents and from them, and from other inputs, convinced the VA we'd been exposed and VA soon agreed. An especially alarming and disappointing IOM observation was offered from their review of documents we discovered:

Reports "from those in the military or associated with the VA tend to minimize the possibility of an increased risk of exposure and adverse health outcomes."

It is by such improper manipulation and deception that the VA denies veterans our legally required benefit of the doubt, subjecting veterans to a standard of absolute proof rather than mere equipoise. It was by this manipulation and deception that VA ignored confirmation of our exposures given at years earlier by the CDC and other authorities.

US sets new record for denying, censoring government files

I am a veteran serving other veterans, and both the Department of Defense and the Department of Veterans Affairs have abused my rights, and the rights of the veterans I serve.

Both VA and USAF have routinely ignored our Freedom of Information Act requests for unclassified materials, much of it dealing with our own health and the government's treatment of our exposure claims.

Unsuccessfully, we have sought materials as individual citizens, as a veterans association, and as journalists (per the blog, web site and C-123 Agent Orange book.)

Not addressed in the article below from today's Associated Press is the tremendous cost citizens must bear for legal expenses to assert our rights under the FOIA. Not addressed is the solution, which is to permit citizens to recover expenses and damages if they are forced to seek relief through litigation. Right now, the government can ignore or abuse FOIA requests with abandon (which AP's article suggests is the case) without consequences.

The C-123 Veterans Association has requests for information going back to 2012 which the USAF ignored. After ignoring, USAF said it had no materials. Then it said the materials would cost over $4,000 to provide. Then it stopped dealing with the request altogether, until we filed suit in the US District Court.

Even that did little to help – both the VA and the USAF are still only slowly releasing bits and pieces, each month telling our attorneys they need more time, with much of what they do release heavily redacted.

Can you just imagine how the IRS or DOJ would tolerate us as individual citizens ignoring their demands for our records? They have tools to compel our response...but we have none to compel any department's respect for our rights under the FOIA.

US sets new record for denying, censoring government filesBy TED BRIDIS
Mar. 18, 2015 3:27 AM EDT 

WASHINGTON (AP) — For the second consecutive year, the Obama administration more often than ever censored government files or outright denied access to them under the U.S. Freedom of Information Act, according to a new analysis of federal data by The Associated Press. 

The government took longer to turn over files when it provided any, said more regularly that it couldn't find documents, and refused a record number of times to turn over files quickly that might be especially newsworthy. 

It also acknowledged in nearly 1 in 3 cases that its initial decisions to withhold or censor records were improper under the law — but only when it was challenged.
Its backlog of unanswered requests at year's end grew remarkably by 55 percent to more than 200,000.

USAF Conceals All C-123 Agent Orange Exposure Information

Yesterday, in response to our suit in the US District Court of Washington DC, the Surgeon General of the Air Force determined which materials relating to C-123 Agent Orange exposures are to be publicly released.

Nothing.

Certainly, a loud echo of the 1996 memo from JAG attorneys in the USAF Office of Environmental Law which directed all C-123 Agent Orange information "be kept in official channels only."

General Travis withheld everything except their disputed 2012 report, and copies of some of my own letters to the AF.

In an action very unusual for involving a lieutenant general, he insisted AF would not release anything explaining his decision. VA recently did the same, releasing blank pages and withholding virtually everything.

You see our conundrum: The VA and the USAF say, without any basis, that C-123 vets were not exposed. Neither will explain anything about their research, references, correspondence, emails, staff contributors, reviews, approvals, reports, manuals, orders, regulations, notes, recordings, conclusions – all restricted from us, other than VA providing a contractor's selected monographs. 

The Air Force will not release any of its correspondence with VA, NIH, or CDC/ATSDR. ATSDR, like the others, continues to insist we were exposed and were harmed aboard our C-123s. Yet the Air Force has told Senator Burr its report was somehow "consistent" with ATSDR.

Exposed (CDC/ATSDR) is "consistent" with not exposed? (USAF)

What is the justification for any secrecy involving a 60-year old airplane, and our duties aboard it three to four decades ago? Since VA has decided in advance to refuse us care for our Agent Orange exposures, don't we have the right to insist they reveal completely their justification?

It seems neither agency is in tune with the President's executive order on transparency in government! The 2009 memo instructed federal officials "to make discretionary FOIA releases of documents that might be technically exempt from release (especially with respect to the "deliberative" b(5) exemption), to proactively post records of interest to the public, and to remove "unnecessary bureaucratic hurdles." General Travis somehow concluded the President did not include the military in his FOIA rule, and on his authority redacted virtually everything that might be relevant.

It is clear that DOD or VA place veterans ahead of whatever policy or hidden agenda they have regarding this problem of C-123 aircrew exposure.

VA & USAF Defy FOIA – VA & AF Hide Data & Threaten IOM Study

An Institute of Medicine investigation of C-123 Agent Orange issues will begin June 16 – but with essential, unclassified VA and USAF data withheld. Although directly relevant to the assignment given IOM by the Department of Veterans Affairs, the committee will not have vital information for their studies. Without all available C-123 information made available to the IOM, their committee report will be fatally flawed, and the affected veterans harmed.

Both VA and AF have relevant, unclassified information about this 60-year old airplane and its Agent Orange history. This information has been improperly refused release to the public in defiance of Freedom of Information Act. Complete and valid requests go back over a year in each case, but they have been ignored.

In stark defiance of the Freedom of Information Act, it is clear that both Departments prefer at least some documents demanded by the veterans not to be released and available to the IOM. Although relief has been sought through the US District Court of Washington D.C. to force release of the materials, there is no possibility of court action before the June 16 workshop. 

This leaves the IOM C-123 committee tackling their VA assignment but with VA withholding information, years of its own investigations, all specifically relevant to the issue at hand. 

The June 18 IOM C-123 project is only the third such study on a unique population since the Vietnam War. Veterans who flew these airplanes which the AF tested as "heavily contaminated" claim their exposure to Agent Orange residues. Since becoming aware of the C-123 toxicity, and also responding to the C-123 veterans' inquiries, both AF and VA have completed studies, exchanged correspondence and conducted meetings and conferences. 

This extensive background of materials has been demanded under their rights expressed in the Freedom of Information Act. The materials are particularly relevant to the IOM investigation because VA has used it for years as justification for denying all C-123 veterans' exposure claims.

Both VA and AF have refused compliance with their own regulations requiring prompt release of non-sensitive materials such as the veterans' seek. The President of the United States has described FOIA as a fundamental American right, as have the courts. But neither VA nor the USAF seem to have been impressed.

According to the USAF FOIA web page:

"The principles of government openness and accountability underlying the FOIA are inherent in the democratic ideal: "The basic purpose of the FOIA is to ensure an informed citizenry, vital to the functioning of a democratic society, needed to check against corruption and to hold the governors accountable to the governed."

The Air Force, and the Department of Veterans Affairs, have determined that the democratic ideal can be best realized by their disregard of the FOIA and the rights of veteran citizens.

Can't IOM or other interested parties contact AF and VA for prompt release of the FOIA materials without any unnecessary court action? 

IOM, Irvine, CA   (16 Jan 2013)

If such vital information is withheld from the veterans and the IOM with the resultant incomplete report so vital to the veterans' health, it must be known to senior leadership of both Departments as well as the public.  

It should be made known that from a legal basis, budgeting for the IOM C-123 Agent Orange review is potentially wasted money. Not only is there no component of the IOM charge involving the complete legal qualification of the C-123 veterans seeking Agent Orange exposure benefits (detailed in the Yale Law report,) but VA and AF are withholding large amounts of data relevant to the committee's investigation. 

IOM's final report will be flawed by being incomplete, by design...by the calculated defiance of the FOIA, as VA prevents essential documentation from being evaluated by the Institute of Medicine.

Fund Raising for C-123 Veterans' Exposure Efforts

John Riley, Joe Curley and  Andy Lown and are the pointy ends of a fantastically disorganized effort to better fund our C-123 advocacy efforts. My thanks. And my wife's thanks. And my thanks for getting my wife off my back!

Our objective is to spread the $$ pain a bit beyond our house in Fort Collins and share the joy with

others. The funds will be accounted for in a memo to those three august gentlemen, but what is not raised I'll continue to cover myself. It will feel nice to have your help.

What does the money cover? Travel is the single largest bill. One foundation paid for one trip to DC, and the Vietnam Veterans of America paid for another special, last-minute trip which was important, and the rest I covered with the generous help of John, Harris, Arch, Legere, Clancy, Butler and other gentlemen...and a sweet lady from the Rickenbacker outfit. This year will have at least four trips: the Society of Toxicology in Phoenix last week, and three to Washington DC.

The DC trips are a big deal for us. Two will be to meet with the Agent Orange Committee of the Institute of Medicine. Although promised us two years ago at another meeting, this IOM project is underway with formal invitations out to the committee, and their work will be finished by the end of September. I meet with them early on in their deliberations, and again at the very end. The third known meeting is one organized by several senators' staffers who want the VA Compensation and Pension in the same room as the scientists who have been telling them we're exposed and should be treated.

And asking VA serious scientific and legal questions they've been dodging for three years!

Our immediate objective is to at least gain VA concession to approve valid claims between now and the release of the IOM report and the Secretary's reaction, probably around November. Too many of our men and women are in need of VA care now, need their VA disability compensation now, and eight more months waiting is eight more months in greater misery than can be permitted. C&P has to be stopped in their tracks for sending out boilerplate denials, dooming perfectly valid claims.

We also spend bucks on postage, printing, lots of ink and paper, small office equipment like label makers and paper binders...if something logical comes up I spend and if there are no group funds, I'm okay covering the gap. Fact of the matter is: I had my family's partnership in time, attention and money but they signed on for a year or two, but it is now a couple months into the fourth year. I want this wrapped up, you want it wrapped up, and the VA wants us to go away.

With a few bucks in the till, the C-123 veterans won't go quietly into the sunset!

BTW...we need a new chair for The C-123 Veterans Association. Maybe somebody from the flight deck or CAM, and maybe an NCO this time!! The officers aren't used to hard work and we really need a strong back and great mind leading us for a change!

El Jefe's Chores include:
1. creativity...how to move Congress and the VA by pretending to be the mouse that roared, even with fifty cents left in our pockets. For instance, gaining pro bono legal representation for last week's FOIA lawsuits against VA & USAF, and continuing my own claim as our poster child, hoping to get more than just Paul Bailey's to cite as awards short of BVA action. Getting a claim worked before the Court of Claims for Veterans Appeals will be foundational and that help has been offered us by a wonderful group of attorneys!
2. budget...pretending there is some money to do something useful
3. writing...maintain a blog and web presence, plus print items as needed such as speeches, white papers. Keep updating our C-123 iPad book
4. alliance building...we have the VVA, VFW and American Legion behind us, with less formal support from The Reserve Officer Association. Those folks have lobbyists, tacticians, attorneys, experience, we need to tap
5. support gathering...throw a net to get federal and state agencies to issue findings and opinions supporting us, as well as experts from universities; work with researchers
8. work with Senate and House staffs as they pressure VA and USAF for us. Big point...we need more veterans to urge more action from their senators as presently only six gentlemen are carrying our battle in the US Senate and they've asked why others aren't helping, especially from NH, CT and MA where most of our vets retired.

We need somebody besides an AME rep to lead us. Think about it...can you trust this project to an MSC officer, somebody who sleeps the entire mission?  Horrors!

Don't you want to lead our motley crew to victory in this exciting guerilla advocacy program? Someday, this will make very exciting reading in the Washington Post, right Josh?

Man up, somebody, and volunteer to take the helm.

Dr. Linda Birnbaum, Director Nat'l Institute of Environmental Health Sciences Recognized by C-123 Veterans

Members of the C-123 Veterans Association had the opportunity this weekend to recognize Dr. Linda Birnbaum and her staff for the dedication shown over the years by NIEHS and the National Toxicology Program, as they helped meet the needs of military families. Indeed...our profound thanks!

Unfortunately, having met this dynamic leader, I can't imagine there being a space left on her office walls for our plaque, but it certainly felt wonderful to express our appreciation and respect to this lady!

USAF Refuses to Designate C-123s as "Agent Orange Exposure Sites"

"Not our job," can be the summation of the USAF response to veterans' request to designate the toxic C-123 aircraft as "Agent Orange Exposure Sites." Go try the VA, was the decision by DCS/Logistics, Installations and Mission Support and Lieutenant General Judith Fedder.

Although all C-123s were destroyed back in June 2010 in special operations due to their confirmed dioxin contamination, veterans flew and were exposed aboard these warplanes for a decade after the Vietnam War. Concerned, and rebuffed by the VA which refused them medical care, the veterans asked the VA to consider in retrospect designating the known spray planes as exposure sites to permit claims to progress. Thus, veterans proving duty aboard these C-123s might progress in their claims for VA medical care for Agent Orange-associated illnesses.

Predictably, VA refused, referring the problem to the Air Force. So the veterans eventually identified the AF office with responsibility, and has recently also been refused their help. "Not our job," claim both AF and VA. Her letter is below, and our letter requesting reconsideration hasn't been answered.

Because of their known history of spraying Agent Orange, and because of the decades of AF-confirmed tests establishing their dioxin contamination, these aircraft are clearly covered by the language of both agencies' dealings with Agent Orange Exposure Sites. Because the CDC/Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry and the National Institutes of Health/National Toxicology Program concur both with the contamination and the veterans' exposure, it begs the question what leads the AF to disagree?

We have absolutely no doubt that LtGen Fedder and her troops would storm the barricades to protect any active duty troop from potential harm. Like the School of Aerospace Medicine, that's their mission and their dedication can be assumed and relied upon. 

What we find disappointing is the failure of DCS/Logistics, Installations and Mission Support to consider any reasonable, merely administrative retroactive steps to make right earlier mistakes...mistakes such as AFMC and the AF Surgeon deciding not to notify already-exposed C-123 veterans that we'd had a decade of service aboard toxic airplanes!

"Diamond Jim" Jimmy Maynard passes - God Rest this Merry Gentleman!

James R. Maynard Jr.

ORLAND - James R. Maynard Jr., 74, took his final flight Friday, May 3, 2013, surrounded by family as he succumbed to a long illness."Diamond Jim" or "Big Jim" is survived by wife, Kathleen; four children, three grandchildren, a sister and extended family.Jim worked for the U.S. government for 49 years, including 29 years in the U.S. Air Force and 20 years in the Department of Defense. Jimmy had years of service with the C-123 Provider at Westover AFB, MA. and will be missed by all members of the C-123 Veterans Association.A celebration of life will be held 1-4 p.m. Sunday, May 19, at Elks Club Lodge, Enfield, Conn. Being a Vietnam veteran, he requested in lieu of flowers, donations be made to Wounded Warrior Project, www.woundedwarriorproject.org or Disabled American Veteran Organization,www.dav.org. Published in BDN Maine on May 6, 2013

USAF C-123 Exposure Cover-up? How Could That Be? Impossible !!!

(sarcastic, but it is certainly meant to be!)

C-123 Agent Orange and Veterans’ Exposure – A Coverup? NEVER!

How Could You Think Such a Thing?

Let the word go forth…there could be NO cover-up of the Agent Orange exposure allegedly experienced by those cranky old C-123 veterans. Nothing could be farther from the truth, and veterans need to appreciate the honest, straight-forward treatment of this issue by Air Force civilian and military leaders dedicated to truth, justice and the American way. Honor means everything to today’s Air Force leadership. 

How could the C-123 veterans, guys who flew C-123s, know anything? Even if they variously flew A-37s, F-105s, T-38s, C-124s, KC-135s, C-141s, F4s, B-52s, F5s, C-130s, C-17s and C-5s, in addition to every type civilian jetliner, what could C-123 guys know about flying? What could these guys with basic and frequently, advanced degrees in law, engineering, public health, nursing, physics, history, journalism, theology, fine arts, music, chemistry, criminology, international relations, business administration, accounting, education, aeronautics, public administration, education…what could the C-123 vets possibly know or understand about cover-ups? About aviation? About military issues? Even though their combat experiences range between Vietnam, Grenada, Panama, Gulf One, Somalia and later, what could they possibly understand of warfare?

Let’s make those veterans dispense with foolish thoughts of cover-up right away. Even mentioning cover-up is certain to cause eyes to glaze over, ears to stop hearing, and minds to stop thinking. No, no! No C-123 cover-up ever and here’s the story. Actually, a “non-story” because officially there’s no cover-up, right?

VA Resists C-123 Veterans' FOIA for Agent Orange Data

Early last year, LtCol Paul Bailey submitted our formal FOIA (Freedom of Information Act request) to the Veterans Administration, seeking information about how VA officials managed their participation in two meetings with C-123 veterans hosted by Senator Burr's staff in Washington DC. Our request to the Air Force for their materials had been granted earlier. It is our fear that the VA participants approached the question of C-123 dioxin contamination with a mindset of denial, rather than even-handed scientific concern. In went our FOIA as we hoped to learn about how we were treated at the meetings.

Result? $5000 in pushback from the VA as they denied the perfectly valid appeal! To prevent us getting information about ourselves. $5000 to make sure we'd never get it! $5000 to make sure veterans would never learn that VA officials approached our concerns about Agent Orange exposure with a determination not to uncover the truth, but instead to construct any argument necessary to prevent our access to VA medical care and benefits. Our concerns for this FOIA focused on uncovering all the information located by the VA, how they interpreted it, what instructions they gave their officials and whether those instructions were neutral or whether those instructions were to

Government agencies usually can't bury information like this without running up against the FOIA itself, but obviously there are times when the requested information might cause bureaucrats discomfort. This seem to be one of those instances. Solution? Delay. Delay. Delay. Delays then followed by charging prohibitive fees for the information requested! That's the VA solution to keep embarrassing information out of the hands of C-123 veterans.

But we have rights and options, and one was to appeal the VA's pricing and refusal to provide an expedited response. Paul submitted that appeal in May and the GSA took until late November to get around to refusing it..again! They claimed the FOIA law required VA to charge us because only journalistic, educational, and not-for-profit requests can be free. Another free category - information requested is in the public interest and informs the public of how the government operates. VA's Assistant General Counsel Deborah McCallum wrote Paul about her refusal to grant his appeal even though we were fully justified, but she was also required to tell us of a final route for an appeal before going to court: The Office of Government Information Services (OGIS) acts as a final arbiter of our rights to this information - and so we submitted our appeal on behalf of The C-123 Veterans Association on December 24, 2012.

In this last out-of-court appeal, we explained our journalistic presence in the form of blogs, web sites and newsletters, We explained that the public is intensely interested in both Agent Orange and veterans health care. We explained that we have no commercial interest in the requested materials, and that the Air Force honored an identical request, using the same FOIA law and regulations, and that the information is, after all, about US!

 In it, we explained the justification for our FOIA and the reasons its denial were improper. Now...we are waiting once again. The impact: we won't have the data in time for the 15 Jan 2013 briefing we are scheduled to give the Institute of Medicine's Agent Orange committee, but we will have both the VA and the Air Force extensive collections of materials ready to give Congress early in 2013 as we continue our struggle.

So...more waiting, more hoping. Keep the faith!

Then...and Now. Before & After Pictures of C-123 Agent Orange

BEFORE they told us about dioxin contamination

AFTER they told us about dioxin contamination

Sadly, our "after" squadron reunion pictures show so very, very many of our dear friends gone already.

Gone from diabetes, prostate cancer, ALS, heart disease and all the other "joys"of dioxin exposure aboard the C-123 which VA promises us was so very safe.

Debunking VA View of USAF C-123 Agent Orange Report

from the VA's page on C-123 Agent Orange - the VA's interpretation of the USAF School of Aerospace Medicine C-123 Exposure Report (May 2012)

Testing for Agent Orange Residue on C-123 Aircraft Used in Vietnam

1. The U.S. Air Force (USAF) collected and analyzed numerous samples from C-123 aircraft to test for Agent Orange. USAF's recent risk assessment report (April 27, 2012) (2.3 MB, PDF) found that potential exposures to Agent Orange in C-123 planes used after the Vietnam War were unlikely to have put aircrew or passengers at risk for future health problems. The report’s three conclusions:



VA Claims Denial Excuse Expert

• First: There was not enough information and data to conclude how much individual persons would have been exposed to Agent Orange 

• Second: It is expected that exposure to Agent Orange in these aircraft after the Vietnam War was lower than exposure during the spraying missions in Vietnam.  

• Third: Potential Agent Orange exposures were unlikely to have exceeded standards set by regulators or to have put people at risk for future health problems. (bold emphasis in the original)

Bogus! phony voodoo "science", carefully selecting some materials (and ignoring others)  from over three decades constructing a money-saving argument to prevent veterans seeking medical care for Agent Orange illnesses. No wonder that the Air Force report, once drafted by the research team, was actually rewritten by the JAG at Wright-Patterson AFB to insure it met leadership's predetermined objective of denying exposure. Now, let's look into these three points used by the Air Force and cited by the VA in this slap-down of war veterans.

First, "not enough information re: individual persons". Who cares if the data can be brought down to an individual's exposure rather than that of an entire group? The entire fault rests with the Air Force...the contamination was known in 1994 and AFMC and the School of Aerospace Medicine did NOTHING to care for aircrews and maintenance personnel once the contamination data was in-hand. Rather, AFMC's Environmental Law Office recommended the damning reports be "kept in official channels only." So decades pass by, with more tests confirming the C-123 toxicity but no tests made on individuals or even our entire small group of veterans...so in May of 2012 the Air Force and VA suddently conclude we were not individually exposed because they can't find the data to evaluate? Amazing that they are blaming us for their error, punishing for their delay in informing us of our exposure, punishing us with their decision forbidding access to medical care because the USAF kept the information confidential.

Second, "exposure after Vietnam was lower than exposure during wartime spray missions." Who cares? A little poison leading to Agent Orange illnesses is just as bad as more poison leading to the same Agent Orange illnesses. Stupid conclusion but seemingly logical on its face because obviously, Ranch Hand veterans were indeed much more exposed than those of us after the war. The AF fails to note, however, the fact that the CDC's Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry concluded our aircrews and maintenance personnel were exposed to a 200-fold greater cancer risk than the standard Army screening value...that the Air Force own tests of our aircraft showed our aircrews were exposed to 182 times the Army's safety standards for dioxin exposure. ATSDR concluded aircrews operating the C-123 were indeed exposed to TCDD! Additionally, many CDC and other government agencies' reports detail that long-term exposure to low density dioxin is perhaps even more dangerous than short-term exposure to high density! And Dr. Jeanne Stellman, who has conducted more research into military herbicides than any other scientist, concluded our aircrews were exposed to more military herbicides than most ground troops during the Vietnam War.

A major mistake of the VA and USAF is reliance on the 1994 and later studies of C-123 contamination. Their conclusions were guided by these studies but were reached totally without consideration of the fact that dioxin has a half-life of about seven years. The tests were not done until over 23 years has passed since the last Agent Orange spray missions and decades into the deterioration of the dioxin! ? They said we were not "exposed" but to keep us from medical care they used contamination data far, far lower than we actually had in the airplane 1972-1982.

Third, they say "exposures were unlikely to have exceeded standards." Here is the most artful deception. Obviously all the Air Force's own reports detail the "heavily contaminated C-123s, and USAF toxicologists have testified under oath that the aircraft were "a danger to public health." Just as obviously, the Army, CDC/ATSDR, Columbia University, Oregon Health Sciences University and so many others have officially stated that our aircraft were indeed contaminated. So...the VA and USAF took the position that the tests which were done establishing the airplanes' toxicity were themselves accurate regarding the contamination but were not appropriate to determine exposure. Here, for the first time, a government agency separates the issues of contamination from the issues of exposure! Here, the VA invented without foundation a position that the industry standard tests performed which determined C-123 contamination were unable to measure the dioxin to which veterans were exposed. And remember, they used 1994 tests of contamination to mislead about our 1972 exposure, when the dioxin was far more intense!

Do you see what they did? Do you see the lies, half-truths and outright vicious twisting of decades of C-123 tests to prevent aircrews from turning to the VA for our cancers, diabetes, heart disease, and other Agent Orange diseases?

These clumsy deceptions required the invention, new to toxicology, of a concept of "dry dioxin transfer" whereby the VA asserts all the dioxin remaining in the post-Vietnam airplanes was dry, and that somehow dry dioxin couldn't expose anyone. The ignored gold standard toxicology protocol that holds dermal exposure has no standard measurement.
-They also had to invent the pretense that the dioxin wasn't released by rain water which penetrated the C-123 both on the ground and aloft. 
-They had to invent the pretense that the dioxin wasn't released when we kicked up contaminated dust and inhaled it.
-They had to invent the pretense that the dioxin wasn't ingested when contaminated water and dust settled on our flight lunches, or when we had constant skin contact with the leather, canvas, wood, plastic, glass and painted metal of the C-123.
- They had to invent the pretense that we were not exposed because they were rabidly dedicated to save the VA the cost of treating our Agent Orange illnesses and the expense of burying the friends we've lost over the years since the C-123 fleet was retired. 
-They had to invent a false argument denying our exposure in order to counter established government findings that NO LEVEL OF DIOXIN POISON is considered "safe' - decisions reached by the National Institute of Environment Health Sciences as well as the US EPA! Following this logic, one would expect the VA and USAF to argue that any industrial situation where the dust had settled after an event (such as the first World Trade Center bombing or the State University of New York fire), somehow magically no further exposure to dioxin is possible. Science, logic, justice, law - all disagree with this deception!

It is clear that the present mission statement of the Department of Veterans Affairs requires an amendment...to it must be added "to prevent eligible veterans from receiving medical care".

Remember, comrades: the findings of the VA were political, not scientific. There was adequate evidence from the multitude of Air Force scientific studies and their interpretation in the light of TG312 and other standards, adequate evidence which greatly exceeded the VA's "more likely to than not" threshold for medical benefits. Forgotten in their stumbling effort to twist conclusions their way, AF and VA authorities seem to have ignored the fact that the EPA considers "excess" deaths risk to be above 1 per 100,000 and the point at which regulations must be triggered for most environmental toxins!

Forgotten in their efforts to keep us from receiving VA medical care was their moral obligation of honesty, of honor.

New Agent Orange Exposure Studies Requested

In addition to the request filed with the US Army's Directorate for Risk Assessment , similar applications have been filed for investigations by the National Industrial Occupational Health Administration (part of the CDC) and an independent scientific agency, the Toxicology Excellence for Risk Assessment (TERA). TERA has been asked to evaluate the USAF report on C-123 contamination and its relevance to aircrew exposure to Agent Orange. Our veterans can only hope that TERA accepts this challenging responsibility!

The Army Directorate for Risk Assessment earlier published the famous TG312, the technical guide to assessment of worker contaminants exposure. TG312 has been cited by the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry in their letter confirming the likely exposure of aircrews and maintenance personnel assigned to the C-123 to dioxin remaining from the aircraft's Vietnam War missions. Further, TG312 was cited by each of the university-based experts who weighed in to support the veterans' claims of having been exposed to the deadly herbicide. Such experts have further claimed that C-123 aircrews (1970 to 1980) were even more severely exposed than nearly all Vietnam War veterans!

Davis-Monthan DAF Employees in Required C-123 HAZMAT Protection

The VA and USAF have disagreed. Faced with the alternative of admitting that they'd sold these dioxin-contaminated aircraft to Walt Disney for movies, and to Thailand and South Vietnam for their militaries, the USAF took a middle-of-the-road approach in their evaluation of the C-123 risks, opining that they could not confirm or deny exposure, but then somehow concluded that aircrew exposure was "unlikely." Of course, having destroyed all the contaminated aircraft in 2010, they've made their limpid position difficult to challenge. All the aircraft were very quietly destroyed on order of the Air Force Material Command and approved by the Air Staff...that is, all were destroyed except for the souvenirs kept by the inspectors themselves (who certified the complete destruction of the airplanes...so destruction complete except for their private, personal and improperly kept souvenirs?)

The VA, faced with the costs of providing medical care for the exposed veterans, quickly prepared their opinion denying veterans' exposure, and did so in the face of toxicology tests completed by the Air Force's Armstrong Labs in which the airplanes were tested as "heavily contaminated" and about which the USAF scientists testified were "a danger to public health." The VA even challenged the industry-standard method by which the Air Force tests were conducted, and concluded the aircraft were not contaminated "enough" to affect veterans' health. This position staggered professional toxicologists - was the VA suggesting a threshold of dioxin exposure, or describing a situation where workers could perform their duties in a dioxin-contaminated aircraft and somehow not be exposed?? Is VA unaware of decisions that NO LEVEL OF DIOXIN is considered "safe" - decisions reached by the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) as well as the US Environmental Protection Agency?

Any such "ignorance" seems highly unlikely since these agencies' documents were cited by both the AF and the VA! Any attempt to now claim that the C-123 didn't have enough dioxin to potentially cause harm to aircrews is clearly an equivocation - an attempt to worm their way out of having to care for our veterans' Agent Orange-caused illnesses!

Why can't we get Senator Gillibrand to stand up for us as has Senator Burr?

New VA Update Denies C-123 Dioxin Exposure

In their most recent Internet posting, the VA jumps onboard with the Air Force in reasserting the claims they've made that flying contaminated airplanes did not result in our exposure to the dioxin inside those airplanes!

Folks, this is not new science or new research. Instead, both the VA and the AF have merely reviewed earlier documents which themselves confirmed the "heavily contaminated" dioxin-laden C-123 fleet. Caving to political and financial pressure, the report writers labored hard to wordsmith away veterans' ability to claim Agent Orange exposure. However, every university that has investigated the situation confirms our exposure to Agent Orange. The deputy director of the CDC's Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry also confirms our exposure, opining that we flew aircraft which were 200-times more toxic than safe standards!

1. I believe the Air Force is sensitive to the fact that they failed to protect aircrews, and failed inform veterans who'd flown the C-123 once the danger was known.
2. I believe the Air Force and State Department are sensitive to the fact that the AF sold dioxin-contaminated aircraft to Thailand and South Korea before the range was known.
3. I believe the AF is sensitive to the fact that several aircraft were sold as surplus, including some to Walt Disney films, which were contaminated with dioxin.
4. I believe the VA and USAF are sensitive to the potential cost of medical care for Agent Orange-exposed aircrew and maintenance veterans.
5. I believe the AF report is flawed in many ways, including its failure to properly assess exposure via dioxin-laden dust, failure to properly assess the level of contamination and crew exposure in the years before the first tests were conducted,  and is flawed in their obvious effort to downplay the possibility of veterans' exposure below the "as likely to as not" VA threshold. This report, not even signed by the researchers, tries to whitewash the damning description made by earlier AF scientists who themselves conducted the original dioxin test on the aircraft, and under oath described the C-123 "a danger to public health."

Having trouble viewing this email? View it as a Web page. Veterans Health Administration Update: AGENT ORANGE

Agent Orange residue on C-123 planes post-Vietnam The U.S. Air Force’s recent risk assessment report (April 27, 2012) found that potential exposures to Agent Orange in C-123 airplanes used after the Vietnam War were unlikely to have put aircrew or passengers at risk for future health problems. Download the report for the full findings. (PDF) VA’s Office of Public Health also concluded in its review of all related scientific information, including the Air Force report, that the risk of herbicide exposure was very low and therefore, the risk of health problems is minimal. We will review any new scientific information that becomes available.

Oregon Director of Veterans Affairs - Avoids Helping Veterans??

In a letter from the Administrator of Oregon's Department of Veterans Affairs, Director Jim Willis reports that scientific proofs of C-123 Agent Orange exposure somehow have not moved him to add his voice to our support. I guess the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, Columbia University, Oregon's own Oregon Health Sciences University and others lack the veracity he seeks to be swayed.

He refers us to others such as the VA itself which obviously cuts us off from his otherwise very effective assistance in bringing the issue before Congress, the Department of Defense, and Secretary Shinseki.

I don't know about other C-123 veterans, but I'm weary of political or administrative wonks sloughing us off to the next useless, bored and disinterested wonk. His not getting involved in our support certainly saves Director Willis (himself a Vietnam veteran) several precious minutes writing a letter or phoning someone on our behalf - I guess those minutes are more important to him than our health and welfare, but as an Oregon veteran I thought it was part of his job! I better read his department's mission statement once more.
   Wes Carter

Mission Statement

Where EVERY DAY Is Veterans Day! The Oregon Department of Veterans’ Affairs (ODVA), with the support of our citizens, recognizes and honors Oregon’s veterans and their families by providing the highest quality programs, service and benefits. "We take great pride in our role as advocates for Oregon’s veterans, their families and survivors. Oregon has a long and well-established history of respect for those who have served our state and nation with courage, dedication and honor." --Director Jim Willis