USAF C-123 Report: We're going to set the record straight in 2018

Nearly five years ago the US Air Force School of Aerospace Medicine (USAFSAM) at Wright-Patterson AFB released their study of the post-Vietnam C-123 transports previously used for spraying Agent Orange. The planes were used for a decade after the

Vietnam War and had never been decontaminated of the military herbicides they dispersed. The study was ordered by the Air Force when C-123 veterans complained of likely Agent Orange exposure.

The study was flawed, and tainted with command interference obvious when compared to the 38-page draft report the scientists themselves submitted. The study seemed torn between political and scientific goals, rather than science alone as would be proper. Veterans were concerned about their health but the report assured them the planes were unlikely to have been contaminated enough to cause medical issues typically associated with Agent Orange exposure.

The Air Force declined to inform aircrews of the twice-proven C-123 contamination, insisting it "would only cause undue distress and provide limited benefit." Message: we'd already been poisoned, and knowing about the poison wouldn't help us very much.

This blog began on March 14, 2011, a year before the USAFSAM report was released, and we've earned a seven-year track record of honesty and accurate interpretations of USAF and VA source data. Seven years ago, we said the Air Force and the VA were both wrong about our exposures.

By January 2015, we were proven right and they were proven wrong when the definitive Institute of Medicine report "Post-Vietnam Dioxin Exposure in Agent Orange-Contam-inated C-123 Aircraft" was submitted to the Secretary of Veterans Affairs. They were wrong, but only the veterans involved paid any penalty for errors because for six years, VA refused these vets all medical care and other benefits.

Two of those six years, 2012 to 2014, are tied to the tainted USAFSAM report and how the VA misused it. For these years VA refused all medical care, compensation, family assistance...everything needed by disabled veterans, citing the USAFSAM report as justification for VA locking its hospital doors to C-123 veterans.

Today, we begin our challenge of the USAFSAM report, together with an exposure of the damage done when VA relied on the report to cancel their own 2012 promise for referral of the C-123 question to the Institute of Medicine.

The goal now is to have the Air Force either withdraw their C-123 report ("UC-123 Agent Orange Exposure Assessment, Post-Vietnam [972-1982]) or, more probable, annotate it in some way to describe its errors and shortfalls. It should not be allowed to stand, as it has for five years, as the official Air Force conclusion about C-123 veterans and our exposures. It fouls the scientific record and offends the veterans it mistreated.

Now a clarification as we move forward. We will deal with three reports:
1. The 2012 USAFSAM C-123 Report (done)
2. The 2012 VA-promised referral to the Institute of Medicine (promised, cancelled)
3. The 2015 Institute of Medicine report, ordered by the VA (done)

Air Force Dumps C-123 Veterans in VA's Lap – Refuses ALL Assistance. Says We're VA's Problem Now.

C-123 Agent Orange – the new Catch 22.

 We asked the Air Force to consider conducting line of duty determinations to establish our exposure injuries back in the timeframe when we were flying the toxic former Agent Orange spray C-123s.

Throught Senator Burr's office, the Air Force has refused, telling us to turn to the VA for any help. The VA has already said without an Air Force line of duty determination, it will not provide us full compensation for our exposure injuries.

Catch 22: You can't fly combat because you're so scared you're
crazy, that means you're sane and so you have to fly combat 
because you're not crazy because you are crazy. 
But if you were crazy, you wouldn't have to fly combat.

Did these two organizations get together to work out this clever anti-veteran game plan ahead of time? Each points to the other, and each already knows the other will refuse us further help.

Okay, we get the idea. We're dumped.

Lesson learned?
1. Respectfully, you cannot fully accept what general officers tell you about your safety. If they are wrong and later proven incorrect, it will be the airmen abandoned and not the Air Force offering any help.
2. Do not accept what Air Force scientific organizations such as the Armstrong Labs or the USAF School of Aerospace Medicine tell you about your safety. If they're wrong and later proven incorrect, it will be the airman abandoned and not the Air Force offering any help.
3. If the authorities are wrong, it will be the airmen left to pay the price in physical suffering and financial loss, not the military.
4. Even if they put their mistaken assurances of safety in print, it means nothing in the final analysis. The Air Force will tell the airmen to get help from the VA, and the VA will say they can do nothing without an Air Force line of duty determination. Nobody does nothing. For us, it is Catch 22. A great movie but not the right way to care for real-world military aircrews.

Believe me, this has all been thought out by the VA and AF. We did our duty. We trusted our leaders. They're now proved wrong but we're left swinging in the wind.

For some leaders, "no" is just easier to say than doing what's right.

A little C-123 Agent Orange history:

• October 2011: teleconference with VA where they insist no possibility of C-123 veteran Agent Orange exposure

• January 2012: following request from C-123 veterans, CDC Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry informs VA and USAF C-123 veterans experienced a 182-times higher exposure to dioxin than standards, and experienced a 200-fold greater cancer risk; VA dismisses everything

• May 2012: USAF School of Aerospace Medicine completes report demanded by C-123 veterans, finds no evidence of Agent Orange exposure or harm; "command interference" suggested by scientists associated with the study

• December 2012: USAF Surgeon General DECLINES request to notify C-123 veterans of potential exposures, stating, "Given the absence of a clear finding of potential harm, we believe it unnecessary to relay such individual findings to persons whom had entered or worked on C-123s between 1972 and 1982, and whom may be unaware of this assessment."

• January 9 2015: National Academy of Sciences Institute of Medicine reports C-123 veterans were exposed to harmful amounts of Agent Orange, repeating the CDC report that C-123 aircraft were unsafe in American airspace and should have been grounded, and the aircrews should have been flying them in full HAZMAT protection, not simple NOMEX flight suits. IOM also concludes the May 2012 USAFSAM C-123 report was scientifically flawed

• After four and a half years of foot-dragging VA begins awarding C-123 veterans Agent Orange exposure benefits, having denied them all medical care and other benefits prior to June 18 2015, and forbidding any retroactive compensation

C-123 Exposure & Health Studies Withheld by USAF in Defiance of Freedom of Information Act

Subject: August Release of Freedom of Information Act materials by the USAF Surgeon General's Office – USAF Defied the Law But Accidentally Let Vital Information Leak*

The C-123 Veterans Association had requested information about the May 2012 USAF C-123 Consultative Letter and how its conclusions were reached, and details about the scientific studies performed. Nothing secret, nothing personal. Stuff we're entitled to!

Instead, the USAF released two sets (Release One and Release Two) of documents last Friday, each a duplicate of the other, and each redacted past the point of honesty and respect for the law. The only information not redacted was an irrelevant EPA document on radiation assessment....nothing was revealed about the C-123 study of post-Vietnam exposures.

What the heck? President Obama assured the American people on his first public act that a citizen's right to access to information is "a fundamental element of American democracy." The Air Force, perhaps, missed that press release, and also the one where the President ordered Federal agencies to be as open as possible.

Here, in their response to my 2012 FOIA request, and to my October lawsuit filed in the US District Court of Washington DC, the Air Force sent me blank pages, devoid of meaning. Remember – these are publicly-funded studies by the USAF Surgeon General's Office and the USAF School of Aerospace Medicine, about whether or not 2100 veterans were exposed to Agent Orange. Further, the Air Force study is the foundation of the VA refusal to permit a single C-123 veteran's Agent Orange claim to be considered. So...VA refused to permit us to have our cancers treated because of a secret Air Force study...not classified in any way, but still hidden from public view, and denied us as we seek VA benefits, by the USAF Surgeon General.


What arrogance and abuse of discretion. This "Freedom" of Information Act response was anything but freedom! Virtually every line of every page released was redacted, denying C-123 veterans access to USAF School of Aerospace Medicine in May 2012.
the studies completed about our Agent Orange exposure by the Air Force after they agreed to look into our concerns with scientific integrity. That study, however, failed to meet the true definition of scientific integrity, with command interference, unnecessary JAG interventions, and close cooperation with the VA but not with CDC/ATSDR nor NIH.

The AF C-123 study meekly concluded that individual exposure assessments were impossible, but then illogically also concluded that because of that impossibility, the C-123 veterans were probably not exposed to harmful amounts of Agent Orange. What an amazing twist of logic!

* But there was a single paragraph, truly golden hidden among the pages of white, a paragraph that they missed redacting and which perfectly explains our eligibility for Agent Orange exposure care:

"USAFSAM concludes that there is not enough data to evaluate or model individual exposures and performing an epidemiological investigation would not be possible.   They then looked at the results that were available from a general population and occupational perspective and conclude that although dried residuals of dioxins were present, the exposures to anyone encountering the Aircraft either occupationally or from the general public should be within the exposures experienced by the Ranch Hand personnel that were exposed in Vietnam.   The Air Force conducted an extensive epidemiological study of the Ranch Hand personnel (referred to as the Air Force Health Study) and to date the results do not provide evidence of disease in the Ranch Hand veterans caused by elevated levels of exposure to Herbicide Orange."

Read the paragraph's middle carefully, especially the fact that USAFSAM considered post-Vietnam C-123 exposures

"within the exposures experienced by the Ranch Hand personnel that were exposed in Vietnam." That confirms our exposure which is the only issue under the law to be eligible for Agent Orange illness care and benefits. The exposures were not hypothetical, not imaginary, not remotely possible...but "within the exposures experienced by Ranch Hand." There was no conclusion that we were not exposed, only that harm had yet to be proven by the exposures.

The USAFSAM study illogically concluded that because the Ranch Hand spray veterans have not evidence elevated illnesses, then the C-123 veterans must not be harmed either.

The logic failure is in failing to note that post-Vietnam C-123 vets were never tested, as was the Ranch Hand population. Further, our exposures were long term/low dose exposures, and over a ten year period versus a Ranch Hand eleven month tour in Vietnam. We were older, with more women, and during the decade we flew our sick crew members were removed from service when they presented developing Agent Orange illnesses, such as cancers, diabetes, and IHD.

Both groups of aircrews remain distinct from the "general population" in that we had flight physicals, everyone was a high school graduate (or more) if enlisted and a college graduate if commissioned. We had enlistment or commissioning physicals, which separated many who were already ill, used illicit drugs, had significant arrest records, or who did not meet education, physical or mental requirements. We had excellent medical and dental care, constant drug testing, weight control, excellent prospects of post-military graduate education and employment, and in so many ways were healthier and fortunately likely to stay healthier than the general population, Agent Orange issues not withstanding.

Conclusion: both Ranch Hand and post-Vietnam aircrews should be in better health than their contemporaries, and it seems they are. But, the overall group of Vietnam veterans, a large enough population for meaningful epidemiological studies, continues to show the ravages of Agent Orange-releated diseases.

VA even prohibits the kind of testing on us for the presence of dioxin which the Ranch Hand vets have had for decades. Ranch Hand remains the only studied population, one made up of under 2,000 veterans, similar in size to the post-Vietnam C-123 group of about 2,100. Both, too small for meaningful examination. Which is why Congress, in frustration with VA foot-dragging, simply directed with the 1991 Agent Orange Act that all Vietnam veterans, and those veterans able to prove their exposure to Agent Orange, will be treated for recognized illnesses.

Three times the VA "more clearly" explained the agency's policy toward non-Vietnam Agent Orange exposures in the Federal Register. VA stated that exposed veterans would receive the same presumptive service connection for recognized Agent Orange illnesses, providing exposure itself was established. We've done that.

As can be read above, the Air Force established our exposure. ATSDR confirmed the exposure, as did the NIH/National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences and the US Public Health Service. There is a pro-veteran requirement in the VA claims process....we'd like to see some!

USAF and VA: A great partnership in denying responsibility along with denying medical care for the harm done.

By the way, below is an example of the Air Force perspective on what they feel veterans are permitted to see in military studies about us, paid for by the public, requested by the veterans. It is the first page of what AF sent out last week following two years of our actions to compel release of material which should be in the public domain:

AF May 2012 C-123 Exposures Report Differs from 1978 Draft of AFHS re: Aircrew Exposure: Command Interference?

Found in a 1982 report (covering Oct 78-Dec 82) of  USAF School of Aerospace Medicine report on Epidemiological Investigation of Health Effects in Air Force Personnel Following Exposure to Herbicides." The report is available in full at the USDA A.L. Young Collection, Item # 01570. Ranch Hand issues, to include comments on C-123 Ranch Hand veterans and non-Ranch Hand veterans, "

No. 01570, pages 21-22

The important observations to make are:

1. The C-123 non-Ranch Hand aircrews are acknowledged as "may have been exposed to significant Herbicide Orange residue in these aircraft. Therefore, this group may not have been truly unexposed to herbicides..."

2. No distinction is made as to routes of exposure

3. The May 2012 USAFSAM C-123 exposure report concluded the AF was unable to determine the amount of exposure post-Vietnam veterans had, and illogically then concluded there was too little exposure to consider them exposed. In VA-speak, this is equipoise, or "as likely to as not."

4. The Ranch Hand study addressed only Ranch Hand personnel. Only RH veterans had serum levels tested, at $1000 per test. As a small population, studies such as have but little epidemiological, especially for want of a proper control group.  The only real cohort to study is the larger body of Vietnam veterans of all services.

5. The Air Force Chief Medical Research Officer, Dr. Richard Albanese*, testified under oath that about 10% of his reports were modified by his supervisors and that about 10% of all reports he was aware of, such as the Ranch Hand Study of which he was principal investigator, also had command interference for policy objectives.

6. Ranch Hand and post-Vietnam C-123 crews are similar only in flying the same toxic airplanes and being exposed to the same military herbicide. They differ in amounts of exposure, duration of exposure, short vs. long term exposure, ages, years flying the toxic airplanes, gender (post-Vietnam crews began including many more female medical technicians and flight nurses, and some maintenance workers.) But again...both cohorts were exposed to the same military herbicide, Agent Orange, although VA policy prohibits testing the post-Vietnam veterans. 

Conclusion: USAFSAM is shown in their 1982 report to have opined that C-123 crews may have been exposed but changes it mind even in the face of additional exposure evidence in their 2012 report, and contradicts itself for reasons of command interference.
* Dr. Albanese later detailed the multitude of failures in the USAF Ranch Hand study.  He went into specifics regarding the interference by a  White House science committee (White House Working Group "WSWG") made up of military and VA representatives...and they don't seem to have changed anything in the last 22 years!
Additional Conclusion: USAFSAM again proved susceptible to command interference with their 2012 C-123 report. "Look

again" was the order from above when preliminary conclusions favored the possibility of aircrew exposures. "Drop it" was the order when one analysis supported the veterans' assertions. This called for an IG complaint to the 75th Air Wing Inspector General. I filed it in person in early 2013, but without any action or response...they dropped it.

No wonder the Air Force has refused to release the 2012 USAFSAM C-123 report materials, despite two years of FOIA requests and our suit in the US District Court of Washington. At least, AF has promised to allow "some" documents to flow by the end of September. 

Like VA, the AF is keeping source documents locked up until after the Institute of Medicine completes its study and report to the Secretary. Neither agency wants any materials likely to help support the veterans' claims to be made available.

C-123 Exposure Claims - The Effort Makes No Sense Any Longer

One thousand three hundred days.

That's the VA's wait between their blanket policy-driven illegal and automatic denial of every C-123 Agent Orange exposure claim and the hoped-for resolution finally offered by the Board of Veterans Appeals.

That means we're looking at over two years (720 days) for our claims' automatic denial, just for the privilege of then waiting nearly three years for a BVA to set things right at last...over five years wasted (2,080 days, or more.) After seven or so years there'll be a catch-up check, but that doesn't make up for seven years of denied VA medical care, no pharmacy, no rehab, no prosthetics, no dental or eye, nothing. Nothing. A catch-up check won't make up for seven years of denied life-saving medical care for a veteran, or for the financial ruin brought on a family waiting so long. So terribly long.

I don't know about the rest of you but this is crushing...so profoundly depressing I would need to look for the right, dark, hopeless words but they don't exist anyway.

We're in our mid-to-late '60s, so submitting an Agent Orange exposure claim now means in five to six years, thus we're past the average man's life expectancy, and perhaps eventually there may be a big brown envelope announcing a VA disability decision for the widow to open.

Six years is an impossibly long time for a sick vet to wait to get in front of a VA doctor. Thats a long time to wait for help with prescription expenses. That's terribly long time to suffer the financial impact of severe illness, denied all state and federal benefits due disabled veterans. Frankly, those years are years better spent focused on health and family issues. It is a very long time, and that's a skillfully managed part of the VA claims process. The Vietnam War vets call it "waiting for an army to die." Good point. Right on.

Should we give it up? I wish I had, two years ago. I had other stuff to do with my family.

Let's face it. The USAFSAM and HQ/AFMC people at Wright-Pat knew what they were doing in restricting all C-123K herbicide contamination information in their "official use only"(per the USAF Office of Environmental Law) secret file cabinet back in 1996. We never knew what we'd gone through flying the C-123Ks for a decade.

Then, in 2011, the VA beat us to the punch with their staff in VBA and VHA sneaking in that Society of Toxicology poster on "exposure," showing them ready to redefine law, medicine, science and ethics in their determination, ready to get rid of us.

As VBA Compensation and Pension Service told us, "Go somewhere else." As VHA (Dr Michael Peterson, Chief Consultant, Post-Deployment Health) told us, "We all die." VBA even ordered claims denied writing "TCDD has not been shown to cause harm." Amazing...Agent Orange is "harmless", so claims are denied. And besides, claims denied "because (non-existent) VA regulations do not permit" C-123 claims, so VA's Deputy Director Post Deployment Health orders C-123 vets barred even from Agent Orange Registry exams! (telecon w/Major W. Carter)

We innocently thought we'd show them truth in facts and figures, offer scientific and medical support from other federal agencies and our physicians, fill out their forms and sit back for good VA government staffers to do the right thing. Wrong.

We didn't understand the wall of prejudice we were to face...of VA executives willing to write deceptive answers to congressional leaders, of Air Force executives willing to deceive senators asking about aircraft contamination by answering that the aircraft were "safe in their present configuration," – which was smelted aluminum ingots, the fleet of C-123Ks having been destroyed as toxic waste two years earlier.

Little did we know the automatic reaction at 810 Vermont was not only "NO" but "HELL NO. No Way. Never. Not on my watch! Go elsewhere. Cannot permit!" Whatever their motivation is with denying Freedom of Information of requests and otherwise  obstructing our rights under the law isn't an issue.

The issue is that their instructions to the regional offices to deny all claims dooms us just as completely as if we'd never applied in the first place. Believe me, they wish we'd gone away years ago - their C-123 "final solution." Through our United States Senators, Secretary Shinseki promises us careful, individual evaluations, but then VA provides their rating officials boilerplate language to deny each and every claim, stating "Regulations do not permit us to concede exposure." And there are no such regulations, of course...just words VA enjoys typing to deny claims.

Deny, deny until they die. And die we do. Paul, Bob, General Mike, Doc Warner, Gabby, Jim, Mayleen, Lou, and all the others.

A veteran couldn't meet a better nurse or doctor than at the VA medical center. Praise God for each and every one of them, and tell the President the nation should be proud of these dedicated health professionals.

The rest of the VA bunch, those whose job it is to prevent veterans' claims, are not worth writing about. The hell with it. Let's just drop the misery of it.

Preventing claims is VBA's profession, Job One! They do it so very, very expertly, for all but the claims forced on them by law. Any wiggle room, any judgement call, any interpretation required means a denied claim and another VA victory. If laws and Title 38 can be ignored to deny claims...victory. If requirements spelled out in the Federal Register can be ignored to deny claims...victory, sweet victory for VA. And even worse for veterans, VA will ignore their own staff physicians, even if internationally recognized as Agent Orange researchers and professors of medicine as well as VA senior staff.

"Mission accomplished" to VBA means claim denied or a vet passing on while waiting for word. We can't win...they'll just keep obstructing and delaying until the last of us is dead. This is why VA employees draw their paychecks, and how their accomplishments are measured for performance bonuses.

VBA knows the longer they keep us from medical care the faster our demise due to lack of medical care. From their perspective, the sooner the better.

To VBA, a live veteran is a waste of space.

I'll say it again. The 1991 Agent Orange Act and Title 38 spell out that military herbicide exposed veterans will be granted service connection for Agent Orange-presumptive illnesses. The Federal Register of 8 May 2001 page 23166 details it further...exposed veterans will be treated the same as Vietnam War veterans. Exposure to military herbicides...the only proof a veteran need provide besides his medical diagnosis.

That's why VA pretends there is no exposure, and in doing so defies official conclusions that C-123 veterans have indeed been exposed...proofs from the NIH, CDC, EPA, US Public Health Service, USAF and others. VA does this by their own, in-house redefinition of "exposure," a definition adding the word "bioavailability" and an act challenged by the National Institutes of Health/National Toxicology Program's Dr. Linda Birnbaum and also by the CDC/Agency For Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.

These proofs from other agencies will spell success for C-123 claims once at the Board of Veterans Appeals...for the veterans who survive their cancers and heart conditions those extra three to five years!

Air Force 2012 C-123 Agent Orange Report Revisited –policy driven deceptions!

The Air Force botched it! In May 2012 the USAF School of Aerospace Medicine released its year-long study of C-123 contamination and potential aircrew exposure...and they blew it! Deliberately, it now seems. Because the report was not written to be science, but to be dismissive of decades of USAF tests which proved the contamination of our warplanes.

While supposedly prepared in response to inquires from The C-123 Veterans Association, which in 2011 was invited to Wright-Patterson AFB and the 711th Human Performance Wing review its extensive document collection at the beginning of the USAFSAM study, the only folks included in the distribution were Veterans Affairs staffers.

Conclusion: the report was written, not for the veterans, but for two anti-veteran purposes:
1. For VA disproving veterans' Agent Orange exposure claims
2. To explain why the AF failed to notify dioxin-exposed aircrews of the risks to their health
3. UPDATE: Much of the AF report challenged by the Environmental Research article, "Post-Vietnam Military Herbicide Exposures in UC-123 Agent Orange Spray Aircraft."

We note first the striking absence of the report's investigator's signatures. Typically in such military and government research, the scientists and physicians doing the grunt work are noted and their signatures attached. Not here.

Instead, perhaps because none of them would sully their reputations or honor with their signatures, only the name and signature of the USAFSAM commander, Colonel Christian Benjamin was on the report...and he was not a participant in the research, only an administrator

Oh, and by the way, the report was not "juried"...it was not submitted to outside professional or scientific societies for critical review. There, errors in science and twisted, policy-driven conclusions would have been immediately challenged. In fact, this report still cries out for a critical review, sure to shame the otherwise outstanding reputation of Air Force science.

Petition to US Senate: VA Must Care for C-123 Veterans

Click to Sign C-123 Petition to Senate

Please CLICK TO READ OUR PETITION - Sign if you wish.

Taking advantage of wonderful social media such as Google's Blogger and YouTube has helped get our message out to over 80,000 visitors. Today we add another useful tool, the petition services of CHANGE.ORG. We created a brief petition to the Senate Veterans Affairs committee, asking that they direct VA to treat C-123 veterans in accordance with the benefits we have earned under the law.

Please consider signing it, and please consider forwarding it to others for their support as well.

USAF CHEATS on C-123 Freedom of Information Act Request

Today a CD with about 500 mg of test reports and other materials was received in response

to our 1 August 2012 FOIA submitted to the USAF Surgeon General and the USAF School of Aerospace Medicine, part of the Air Force Material Command, Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio. The basic subject was the 2012 USAF Consultatative Letter dealing with post-Vietnam C-123 contamination and veteran exposure.

Requested those ten and a half months ago were public documents, already gathered in one place as per the orders given the AFMC earlier, so finding everything shouldn't have proved difficult.

(Click for Video on this Subject) What does seem to be difficult was letting go of the information, despite the force of law in the FOIA. Over six weeks were required for the AFMC Judge Advocate General attorneys to select what few items they'd approve for release. A single sheet of paper was all that C-123 veterans were permitted to get, and that was simply a note from one office at Wright-Pat to a JAG at Davis-Monthan asking for some copies of old records.

What did the AF keep from the public? They failed to release the following items listed in the FOIA, which itself was earlier approved without exception, other than for irrelevant personal information such as telephone numbers and names of junior personnel:

-marginal notations ==kept secret

-interim and final reports==kept secret

-emails===kept secret

-tapes or other recordings===kept secret

-correspondence==kept secret except for a single page letter===kept secret

-other official documents, many of which we first provided USAFSAM===kept secret

The FOIA response didn't even include the report itself, nor the instructions to the team, nor their work product...nothing at all. The materials were vital to help us challenge the various mistakes the AF made in concluding that our decade flying the toxic, Agent Orange-contaminated C-123 left us somehow unexposed. We veterans believe, especially considering the expert input we've received from other federal agencies confirming our dioxin exposure, that USAFSAM must have had command interference to reach any alternate position.The AF Consultative Letter is cited by the VA in their over-eager rejection of all C-123 veterans claims, and we needed this to better challenge the mistakes in it. But... KEPT SECRET for reasons that must be VERY important at WPAFB and the USAF Surgeon General!

This reeks! What in the heck is going on, with the VA responding in a similar manner stating that, although the VA had conducted a "thorough scientific review" no materials existed within VA regarding that thorough scientific review of the C-123 -- yet the VA has enough materials somewhere to permit them to deny veterans benefits! And now the AF doing much the same, releasing only older papers which generally address Agent Orange issues from the beginning of the Vietnam War until around the late 1990's. Absolutely nothing except a single page addressing the Consultative Letter and how it came to be so anti-veteran! 

Truly, this reeks! Something very unusual is going on to force otherwise responsible Air Force civilians and military personnel to disregard laws like the FOIA! 

HEY, VA and USAF: We veterans have a RIGHT, claimed here under the FOIA regardless of your preference to such hide such things (FOIA be damned, right?? Ain't no stinkin' law gonna bother you, right??) and thus to know the foundation of your schemes to turn us away from the doors of our VA hospitals as we seek Agent Orange medical care!

Anybody remember in some high school civics class long, long ago when we were fed the line about the people being sovereign, not the government? Anybody remember "support and defend the Constitution" in our oaths?

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?

Nine Months - USAF Still Ignores Freedom of Information Act

It has been nine months now, since the C-123 Veterans Association submitted a Freedom of Information Act request to officials at Wright-Patterson AFB which was approved September 16, 2012. Nine months, plenty of time for officials to meet their legal requirement to provide the unclassified materials we need and which the law says we're entitled to have. Nine months that the officials in Dayton have failed to meet their responsibilities.

1947 Husdon - same vintage as Fairchild C-123 "Provider"

Requested: everything used by the Air Force School of Aerospace Medicine to complete their May 2012 Consultative Letter addressing C-123 Agent Orange contamination and veteran exposure. Consider carefully...the C-123 first flew in 1947. We're not talking about some exotic, classified, need-to-know black ops project...HEY...this airplane is 65 years old! What could they be worried about with something the same age as the '47 Hudson?

Nine months. Months in which our aircrews, maintenance and aerial port veterans have submitted disability claims to the Department of Veterans Affairs, yet nine months without the ability we need to challenge (or use) materials the Air Force gathered focusing on the C-123 Agent Orange contamination fiasco.

Nine months. Plenty of time for the Air Force to gather materials and release them, especially because

one of the objectives of the USAF Consultative Letter was to place in one location all relevant materials addressing C-123 Agent Orange issues. So everything was unusually easy to gather, the Air Force report having been released in May 2012.

The last word we got when visiting the base FOIA shop was that the base JAG officials were considering how much they'd be able to withhold from release. "Withhold?" Hold back anything related to this 65 year-old airplane, retired into the Davis-Monthan AFB boneyard thirty years ago!

So what could make otherwise good FOIA officers and base officials opt to disregard the law in such a fashion. We can only speculate. Possibilities/wild guesses:
1. obvious errors in the May 2012 Consultative Letter which the USAF wants to cover up
2. improper command influence in the assessment of Agent Orange issues
3. concerns about revelation of errors in judgement once C-123 contamination was made known in 1994 and the Air Force failure to notify affected veterans
4. unknown issues which could be addressed in the documents being requested
5. lack of consensus among report staff
6. something else?

Hard to know what's going on with such an amazingly inept handling of a minor FOIA request, but something's going on at Wright-Pat!  Something is going on, as they try to hide something about this old airplane, which went aloft for its maiden flight in 1947...look at that 1947 Hudson photo above to realize how ridiculous the military is over this issue!

USAF General Deceives US Senate & AF Veterans about Agent Orange Exposure!

In August 2012 the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee sought information from the Secretary of the Air Force about C-123 transport Agent Orange contamination and how the AF had responded to challenges about important details of an official, formal investigation of the issue which resulted in the May 2012 C-123 Post Vietnam Consultative Letter. The USAF responded to the Senate (Senator Burr, Ranking Member) in November 2012 with misleading and deceptive answers in their defense of the Consultative Letter. They implied aircraft were safe in "their present configuration" while in fact, the airplanes were safe only because they'd already been destroyed as toxic waste in 2010 by the AF and their "present configuration" was as aluminum ingots!

USAF was also asked about how its conclusion about C-123 veterans being unexposed differed from other federal agencies which concluded the opposite...that the veterans had been heavily exposed. In their response to Burr, the USAF called the AF views 'consistent" with CDC, an obvious falsehood. "Were exposed" (ATSDR) is not consistent with "exposure unlikely" (USAF). It doesn't take an English major to see the differences!

Finally, AF tests in 1994 labeled the C-123 fleet "heavily contaminated" and "a danger to public health" but the AF C-123 Consultative Letter, released in May 2012, erroneously dismissed that toxic description and in response to the Senate's inquiry, the AF wrote that the cautions and the requirement for HAZMAT protection was meant only for USAF Museum restoration workers - in fact, the toxicologist who completed the C-123 survey in 1994 himself confirmed in 2011 that the HAZMAT protection was for everyone as the interior of the C-123 was, as he first wrote, heavily contaminated. The veterans' point - they flew for a decade without HAZMAT protection and became exposed! If HAZMAT protection was essential for personnel inside them for brief periods in 1994 it was even more essential for crews flying these airplanes for a full decade!

For the third major issue raised by the Committee, the USAF again mislead the Senate with false or misleading answers. Clever wordsmithing is no substitute for honest, clear correspondence between general officers acting on behalf of the Secretary of the Air Force and legislative authorities. 

Other misleading answers to the United States Senate from the Air Force were equally obvious, and unworthy of the two-star officer who signed this report on behalf of the Secretary of the Air Force.

Also harmful was the fact that Veterans Affairs now cites the Air Force Consultative Letter, which the USAF response to Senator Burr defended, in denying veterans benefits for Agent Orange exposure.

An update on our Freedom of Information Act Requests: our FOIA to the VA for information on their position against C-123 veterans' exposure has

been denied effective 11 March 2013. After two years, VA now pretends no information exists in their files regarding C-123 Agent Orange exposure issues. 

Our request to the Air Force School of Aerospace Medicine for information on the 2012 C-123 Agent Orange Consultative Letter hasn't done any better. While approved, and approved without fees, the Air Force has sat on this request at Wright-Patterson AFB for over eight months. Last word was the response was routed to their JAG officers to see how much the AF could keep secret.

The public sends its treasure and its children to the Armed Forces in defense of the Nation. The public demands honest accounting for how that treasure is spent, and how the blood of their children is shed - and cannot abide the military deception in these areas.

Thank You, Vietnam Veterans of America!

Happy Easter, dear friends.

Thanks are offered to the Vietnam Veterans of America, and their president John Rowan, as well as other national leaders in this outstanding veterans organization. I am the son and cousin of long-time members of VVA, and while a new member myself, it doesn't take long to realize how much this dedicated team has done for America's veterans of all conflicts.

VVA - my thanks, for reason which will be specified later. Please know vets of all generations recognize the burden you've accepted of "No veteran left behind" which is exactly how you've embraced our people of the C-123 Veterans Association. All veterans realize it will be our responsibility to carry forward that spirit of service and dedication to our brothers and sisters in arms following us in later years and in later conflicts.

Trip Report: I had the unexpected opportunity to make a trip to Wright-Patterson AFB again, and was there Thursday through Saturday. Patches looked great, with some work being done by skilled restoration volunteers on the right wing flaps. A recent inspection indicated the interior looked as good as when it flew out of Hagerstown decades ago, however there still was a powerful stench which scientists have attributed to Agent Orange, smelling like the garden weed killer Roundup. While there has been controversy over whether Agent Orange smells at all, a professional having first-hand familiarity with Agent Orange insists the odors are the same...he even compared the smell experienced inside Patches with a container of Roundup and confirmed the similarity. He also reminded me that Roundup has much of the same chemistry as Agent Orange!

There were very interesting videos being shown of Ranch Hand operations on the monitor portion of the Patches exhibit, but I was unable to visit the museum's archives to get copies as they don't permit researchers to access materials without an appointment in advance. Kinda hard to have done that as I didn't know I was going to Dayton until the day before I got there. Anyway, I'll try to recover from the museum as well as Air Force Historical Research Center which has been so helpful in the past.

USAF Internal Memo re: C-123 Agent Orange Study

 

Today I received from the excellent USAF Historical Research Agency their meager collection of C-123 Agent Orange documents. We had more USAF documents than did they! However, new to us is the cover memo which went out from the Assistant Surgeon General of the USAF in which he summarizes both the assignment given USAFSAM (USAF School of Aerospace Medicine) and the conclusions reached by his office.

The USAFSAM principal assignment: determine whether exposed veterans would benefit from notification. Notice...not determine whether we'd been exposed, just whether any good would come of notification. Well, duh. Three decades after we retired the C-123 fleet, it would be hard to imagine any benefit, however we could have benefitted back 1994, with strong warnings to reduce fat intake, watch PSAs, etc.

Important: USAFSAM in no way denies that veterans were exposed. Instead, describing any absence of data to determine how much exposure, they guessed  (in order to reach accord with the VA) that the exposure was somehow insufficient to cause harm. This conjecture of "insufficient" exposure is disputed head-on by other federal agencies such as the EPA, NIH and CDC, as well as leading scientists and physicians in the field, all of whom conclude veterans were exposed to significant amounts of dioxin, estimated at some amount between the Ranch Hand veterans and troops on the ground in Vietnam.

Further, the USAF states no conclusion could be reached about personal exposures, and then somehow also concludes that whatever exposure was, somehow, minor. How the heck was that conclusion reached? 

Then the zinger: "Given the absence of a clear finding of potential harm, we believe it unnecessary to relay such individual findings to persons whom had entered or worked on C-123s between 1972 and 1982, and whom may be unaware of this assessment."  I guess the USAF Surgeon General feels patient ignorance is always best, but in any civilian setting the failure to notify a toxin-exposed population of such a likely hazard would be criminal. The Surgeon General instead wants to help us avoid "undue distress!" Imagine a civilian employer deciding not to notify exposed employees to help them avoid undue distress...and perhaps, criminal charges and litegation. This kind of garbage screams out for Feres to be overturned!

Should we read the Assistant Surgeon General's memo as saying he wants to avoid distress to the VA which would have resulted from a more accurate USAFSAM report? Is it somehow helpful to veterans to avoid undue distress by leaving us helpless before the VA's refusal to permit our access to medical care for Agent Orange presumptive illnesses? He says there would not be a helpful recommended action...how about check one's PSA numbers, get into the Agent Orange Registry, and file claims with the VA. Instead, this USAFSAM report itself became the VA's cited authority for denying C-123 veterans' claims!

So...somehow this memo describes "an absence of a clear finding of potential harm" even though:

1. "heavily contaminated on all surfaces" - USAF C-123 test results, conducted by qualified toxicologists

2. "a danger to public health" per sworn testimony of USAF toxicologists

3. aircraft all destroyed as toxic waste

4. a decision not to notify that is somehow based on USAFSAM "inability to determine how much exposure" and avoidance of distress

5. AF officials ordered all aircraft destroyed to prevent veterans learning of the contamination

6. USAF Surgeon General in 2000 ordered HAZMAT protection for civilian workers, but not USAF aircrews

7. CDC/ATSDR determination veterans were exposed to TCDD

8. NIH determination C-123 veterans were exposed to TCDD

9. EPA determination C-123 veterans were exposed to TCDD

10. scientists and physicians determination veterans were exposed to TCDD

11. key IOM experts (Birnbaum, Stellman, Schecter) determination veterans were exposed to TCDD

I doubt the Navy could have any torpedoes left, because the USAFSAM shot them all into us and torpedoed any chance our veterans had to get VA medical care!

Excuse me..I'm going to rest on the living room sofa, contemplate my cancer, heart disease, diabetes, hypertension, peripheral neuropathy, avascular necrosis and other dieases, and luxuriate in the Assistant Surgeon General's decision to help me "avoid distress." 

Their motto: Trusted Care Anywhere. I don't think so.

---USAF Assistant Surgeon General Internal Memo re: C-123 Study---

(p.2)

1982, and whom may be unaware of this assessment. Such a notification could cause undue distress and would provide a limited benefit, as there would not be a recommended action.
Please direct any questions concerning this matter to my action officers, Col James Bennion (MD, MPH) and Col Richard Ashworth (PhD) at 703-588-6435.

/signed/

Attachments:
1. Distribution List
2. USAFSAM Consultative Letter 

Help Needed to Refute VA Dismissal of C-123 Dioxin Exposure as "Secondary"

Under Secretary Allison Hickey

The C-123 veterans need help addressing a couple of the positions VA has taken in order that they might deny our Agent Orange exposure claims.

General Hickey, in her 1 October 2012 letter to me, stated “Currently, there is no equivalent legal basis for acknowledging "secondary" or "remote" Agent Orange exposure, such as that from contact with material or equipment previously used in Vietnam.” She, and the Director Compensation and Pension (C&P) have used that language to deny claims like mine.

This language is very similar, and perhaps even taken from Fast Letter 09-20. Issued by then-Director of Compensation Services Bradley Mayes, it addressed Thailand and other exposure situations outside the “boots on the ground’ population, and stated the VA allowed “no presumption of ‘secondary exposure’ based on being near or working on aircraft that flew over Vietnam or handling equipment once used in Vietnam…no studies that we are aware of showing harmful health effects for any such secondary or remote herbicide contact that may have occurred in Vietnam.

 

In their zeal to prevent claim approvals, Compensation Services clearly misstates the situation involving C-123 aircraft, proven contaminated by multiple Air Force tests. The C-123 veterans’ exposure was primary…not secondary. Secondary exposure a completely different situation in toxicology than that which applies to C-123 veterans. The C-123 crews, maintenance and aerial port personnel had long-term, intense, direct contact and thereby exposure to aircraft “heavily contaminated” with military herbicides, including Agent Orange and its toxic TCDD. It is scientifically incorrect for the VA to label exposure aboard C-123 aircraft to be merely “secondary.” It is therefore improper to dismiss C-123 veterans’ claims on the unscientific basis, erroneously presented, of mere secondary exposure when the instead these veterans endured primary (also known as initial) exposure, via dermal and inhalation routes, and perhaps ingestion as well.

Scientifically, and logically, “secondary exposure” is extremely simple – to touch that thing which first touched the contaminant. The hand touching the toxin, then touching the airplane, results in secondary exposure to the next hand touching the airplane. The VA should recognize that ours is the initial hand and not the secondary hand. Follow? The first hand has primary exposure, the second hand secondary expsoure.

C-123 veterans take no position on whether, as General Hickey states, there is or is not any legal basis for acknowledging secondary Agent Orange exposure, or remote Agent Orange exposure. That is not our situation, and that is not our mechanism for having been exposed to Agent Orange and other military herbicides, because our exposure was primary.

Kindly solicit the opinion of qualified experts from the CDC/ATSDR or NIH/NIESH, or any beginning toxicology graduate student, or even Google the definitions of “secondary exposure” and “remote exposure” to resolve any lingering question regarding the inappropriate, and apparently highly selective, application of these terms employed to deny eligible C-123 veterans’ claims. These claims are well-founded, clearly have merit, are substantiated by appropriate federal government agencies, reputable universities (Columbia, University of Texas, Oregon Health Sciences University, others) and independent toxicologists (and whose opinions are perfectly acceptable to the Institute of Medicine which routinely seeks out their counsel [Dr. Stellman, Dr. Birnbaum, Dr. Schecter], and clearly are not “inherently incredible”, to use the language of FL 09-20 and other VA documents. The critical observer will see these names cited through the IOM reports and elsewhere in peer-reviewed publications. The critical observer will not a similar presence for authors of the VA’s position.

Dr. Tom Sinks, Deputy Director of the CDC/Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, reviewed the situation and in his finding repeated the VA position “(the) VA has concluded the potential for long-term adverse health effects from Agent Orange residues in these planes is minimal. Even if crew exposure did occur, it is unlikely that sufficient amounts of dried Agent Orange residue could have entered the body to have caused harm.” He then disputes the VA website information and language used in denying several veterans’ claims with his conclusion “I believe that aircrew operating in this, and similar, environments were exposed to TCDD.” Dr. Sinks did not find our exposure to be secondary. He did not find it to be insufficient to cause harm. He found it quite harmful, and also noted our cancer risk was 200-times greater than the screening value.

Can a reasonable rating officer review the C-123 veterans’ claims and dismiss them as inherently incredible, lacking merit, without scientific foundation, deceptive? That doesn’t seem to be the case, especially given the support of these claims by the EPA, NIH and CDC.

If a rating officer requires a C-123 veteran to submit evidence elevating a disability claim to the threshold of “as likely to or not” or deserving of the “benefit of the doubt,” adequate evidence has been submitted to satisfy that requirement. If a rating officer properly insists the veteran meet the law’s requirement of proving contamination and exposure, those proofs have been submitted and the veteran need only substantiate having an Agent Orange-presumptive illness for a claim’s approval.

The law requires veterans claiming benefits but who do not have Vietnam boots on the ground service to submit evidence of exposure to military herbicides to be considered for disability compensation. The C.F.R.s fine-tuned this with the VA’s stated obligation of treating veterans in this category the same as boots on the ground veterans.

The EPA defines exposure as “contact between a person and a hazard.” Another EPA definition is “contact between a chemical or biological agent and the outer boundary of an organism.” Therefore, our veterans’ skin coming into contact with the military herbicides throughout the interior of a contaminated C-123 resulted in primary exposure. The law does not state how much contamination. The law does not state how much exposure or what kind. The law does not specific what color, what flavor, what brand, what anything regarding the toxin other than it be “military herbicide” which, in our case, is Agent Orange.

Clearly the Department of Veterans Affairs has categorized C-123 veterans’ exposure as “secondary” merely to provide some basis, however shaky, for dismissing perfectly legitimate disability claims. These veterans had primary exposure, that exposure was to dioxin present on a wide variety of surfaces inside the warplanes (dust, ceramics, glues, wood, paper, cardboard, glass, composites, bare aircraft grade aluminum, paint on metal and other surfaces, fiberglass, glass, leather, nylon, dunnage of all types, and other surfaces) and that exposure was via dermal, inhalation and perhaps ingestion routes.

We're calling for any expert to weigh in on this. We need especially those experts in the federal government to comment. The Army's Public Health Command is looking into the issue, and considering especially the VA's dismissal of wipe tests used to determine the C-123 contamination and potential for exposure. Can you help? Can you provide a scientific or a legal opinion to help us?