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

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


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


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


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


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


Best,


   Wes Carter

Office of Secretary of Defense Consultant Comments on Air Force Reservists' Heart Disease and Cancer

In an email exchanged with one of his correspondants today, Dr. Alvin Young, Agent Orange Consultant to the Office of Secretary of Defense and retired AF colonel, offered his views about Air Force Reservists who flew dioxin-contaminated C-123K/UC-123K Providers between 1972-1982. His words:

"A sad commentary for blaming me. The Air Force did the right thing for the right reason in destroying those aircraft. It would have been a benefit to the tax payer to have sold those aircraft, but we all knew in time that the Air Reservists would seek presumptive compensation, and those aircraft would become the center of a social (not scientific) controversy, and never be used.  The link just about says it all. The only reason these men prepared such a story is that they are hoping they can cash in on " tax free money" for health issues that originate from life styles and aging. There was no exposure to Agent Orange or the dioxin, but that does not stop them from concocting exposure stories about Agent Orange hoping that some Congressional member will feel sorry for them and encourage DVA to pay them off. I can respect the men who flew those aircraft in combat and who made the sacrifices, many losing their lives, and almost all of them receiving Purple Hearts, but these men who subsequently flew them as "trash haulers", I have no respect for such free loaders. If not freeloading, what is their motive?"

I'm not sure this sounds like the gentleman we want advising senior Cabinet officials regarding Agent Orange exposure experienced by Air Force Reservists (the "trash haulers" and "free loaders" he refers to). No wonder he's alarmed that after being exposed to a decade of Agent Orange-contaminated aircraft which Air Force tests proved to be "heavily contaminated, extremely dangerous, extremely hazardous, extremely contaminated" and a danger to the public, the unworthy men mentioned above "will cash in on tax free money." Does it sound like a Reservist would get a fair shake here?


Not in a million years.

US

Proper Interpretation of C-123K Dioxin Testing Results

ALL of the multiple Air Force tests agree that the C-123 fleet was in some degree contaminated with dioxin remaining from the Vietnam War Agent Orange spray operations. We agree with that as well. In 1996 AMARC had the stored fleet tested for dioxin...all aircraft were reported contaminated! The Air Force's official conclusion is that most of the fleet was contaminated, and the service also concludes officially that confusion about the C-123s which apparently were not spray aircraft but which might have been forced the final conclusion that the entire fleet must be viewed as dioxin contaminated. It doesn't matter which tail numbers we flew...the Air Force in 2010 decided they all have to be considered dioxin contaminated!

What we need to bring to everyone's attention is the natural degrading over time of dioxin...its half-life. In the human body dioxin tends to accumulate in body fat and doesn't want to leave...half-life in humans is 6.7 to 132 years. That means testing for our own body fat accumulation of dioxin, to which we were exposed between 1972-1982, must take that degrading into consideration. A modest indication of dioxin contamination in a test today is a fraction of what that test would have revealed decades ago!


Another perspective: the half-life of dioxin in the environment on surfaces can be nine to fifteen years. All the Air Force tests reflect contemporary levels of toxicity in their lab reports of swipe tests done on the stored C-123K/UC-123K airplanes. Some reports cite the "very low" to "sub-detectable" results. But the first of these tests (that we've found) dates from 1993, 21 years after the last spray missions and twelve years after we last flew the aircraft before the fleet was retired to the Boneyard. Tests done by AFMC of the 18 remaining aircraft in some cases indicate presence of dioxin but note that the levels were low enough to allow limited worker exposure during the final shredding and smelting process...but we aircrews were exposed to at least double and perhaps triple the toxicity during our years on the Provider! 


This means we cannot accept as-is the testing results from 1993 or any other year as indicative of sub-hazardous levels of dioxin contamination because, first, any level of dioxin contamination is unsafe and second, the levels would have been between 200% and 300% higher if done during the years of our flying. For those tests to be relative to us, they must include adjustment for the half-life of dioxin plus the atmospheric exposure aircrews underwent. While dioxin is not an aerosol, it can be inhaled when carried on dust-born particles. And do you remember how dirty our planes got, especially during deployments??

Air Force Sells Agent Orange Poison Airplanes to Disney for Movies!

In an inadvertent and quickly-regretted 1994 business move, the General Services Administration and the Air Force sold two surplus C-123K/UC-123K cargo aircraft to Walt Disney Films! Contaminated with dioxin from Agent Orange residue remaining from their Vietnam War years, the aircraft were released to an intermediate buyer, and the films made included Operation Dumbo Drop.

Stored aircraft before 2010 Destruction

Another problem: the surplus C-123K/UC-123K aircraft were so contaminated with Agent Orange that the entire fleet at the Davis-Monthan AFB "Boneyard" had to be stored in an out-of-sight, fenced in security area marked "Hazardous Material". Base workers were allowed near the airplanes only with hazmat suits, respirators and goggles, followed by decontamination. So why are three of these dioxon-contaminated aircraft still in museum display with the public allowed in close contact? The museums which received the contaminated aircraft include Pima Air Museum in Tucson (Tail #567 and 659), Kenosha Military Museum in Kenosha, WI, and the Minnesota Air National Guard Museum in St. Paul, MN. Further, there is a contaminated C-123K at the Robins AFB Museum of Aviation in Warner-Robins, GA.

Workers in required HAZMAT protection

The Air Force Museum received just such an aircraft when the C-123K/UC-123K were retired in 1982. Most were flown to Davis-Montan for surplus storage, but the famous "Patches"(which the author of this blog and his associates ourselves flew between 1972-1982) went to the Air Force Museum. Tests showed the aircraft, typical of all the spray aircraft from Vietnam, was "heavily contaminated" with dioxin. Special preparations costing $57,000 were completed before the aircraft was allowed inside the museum, and still only very limited public access is permitted. The aircraft is roped off to prevent the public from approaching, and when, on occasion, folks are allowed to walk through, it is a very quick walk through to limit exposure!


From our perspective as aircrews who flew these airplanes between 1972-1982, we had no hazmat protection. Nobody knew the dioxin was present in the aircraft although we knew Agent Orange residue remained and we couldn't clean it all out. But why, once Air Force tests completed in 1993 and later began to show the toxicity of the airplanes, why couldn't the Air Force let us know we'd been exposed? Why did (and still does) the Department of Veterans Affairs deny claims for Agent Orange exposure for veterans such as the late Aaron Olmstead, ruling in his appeal before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (C 28 107 548, dated 23 Aug 07) that he has no proof of flying Agent Orange-contaminated airplanes nor that the planes were actually the aircraft used for spraying Agent Orange. We now have the tail numbers, we have the Air Force tests, we have the Air Force official historical data, and we have expert testimony by the aircraft commanders, flight instructors, Stan/Eval flight examiners, maintenance officers, maintenance supervisors and other experts that eleven of our C-123K/UC-123K aircraft still had Agent Orange residue and stank of the lousy stuff!  
Judge Stephen Cohn of the Board of Veterans's Appeals should demand an explanation from the Government about why this evidence was deliberately withheld from Olmstead and his family. Aren't there any standards of ethical legal behavior in his jurisdiction?


What's it take to get a veteran with "boots in the airplane" to get his/her documented exposure to Agent Orange toxins recognized by the VA so that our cancers and other illnesses can be treated?

C-123K Aircrews: Agent Orange Exposure 1972-1982!

USAF IG complaint filed 5/06/11: AF didn't inform aircrews about Agent Orange Exposure! Complaint dismissed 6/9/11 - referred to VA and AF Historical Office?  R-U-Serious?

READ DOWN - entries are in order of date published

There is a community of us who loved, flew and maintained the C-123K Provider in the years following the return of the aircraft from Vietnam until its retirement in 1982. Some of us are Vietnam vets, most served also in Desert Storm, many in Iraqi/Enduring Freedom. Some of us flew as primary aircrew and career trash haulers, aeromedical evacuation crew or ACMs, but the point is...many of us have cancer!

Patches, Wright-Patterson AFB

Turns out the Air Force concluded in 1993 (perhaps even earlier) that many of the Providers were too contaminated for resale as surplus, even after extensive cleaning and replacement of interior components, and the passing of nearly a quarter century!


On 28 Apr 2011 I  located this fact in a decision by a board of the General Services Administration (GSBCA14165, Sept 2000) dealing with a lawsuit involving resale of the Providers for commercial use, wherein the GSA happened to include reports from Air Force toxicologists that many of the aircraft stored at the boneyard at Davis-Monthan AFB remained contaminated with dioxin and other toxins! There's no conspiracy here (except perhaps by the Director of the Office of Environmental Law for the Air Force..click for their memo)...its just that nobody got around to having the thought that we'd like to know we'd been exposed. A "minor" oversight? Really? Somehow, the question about our exposure never seems to have been raised. Hard to believe these reports were written by people calling themselves our comrades-in-arms, scientists, physicians, attorneys, officers and leaders!


In particular, Patches (Tail #362) at Wright-Pat has received special attention, with a very detailed study prepared by the Air Force Medical Service in 1994. Identified as AL-OE-BR-CL-1994-0203, the study concludes (and backed up by the May 2011 Oregon Health Sciences University analysis of the Air Force data) that Patches is "heavily contaminated", "extremely hazardous/dangerous" and recommended that museum personnel not work around or enter the aircraft without Tyvek protective clothing and HEPA masks, followed by decontamination. Funny thing...I recall wearing a thin Nomex flight suit as I soared the lofty heavens, "where never lark nor even eagle flew", in Patches and our other 123s between 1973-1980...does anybody else suffer this memory lapse? Download and read this report carefully...it details the specific levels of dioxin contamination by position outside the aircraft, within the aircraft and by itself, proves the point of our having been exposed so long as we can show we flew her. John Harris of the 731st was an aircraft commander, flying over 200 hours in Patches. During these missions, he flew with the windows open in the summer to reduce the stink of Agent Orange...in the winter, he flew with the heat off to keep the smell down. The plane was drenched! The plane was deadly! We cycled a total of 26 C-123K/UC-123K aircraft through the 731st TAS over the years...records now available indicate at least eleven had been used for spraying Agent Orange! (note: FOIA info received 1 July 2011 shows $53,000 was spent to "mostly" decontaminate Patches so that at least limited access is permitted, through the plane is still kept away from public access.)


Even if you're not a Vietnam veteran, law exists (although ignored by the VA) to protect those exposed to Agent Orange:
"any other veteran who may have been exposed to dioxin or other toxic substance in an herbicide or defoliant during their military service must provide proof of exposure to enroll and obtain an AO Registry exam. For an incomplete list of locations and dates where dioxin (Agent Orange and other agents) was used, consult the VA information available online at http://www.publichealth.va.gov/exposures/agentorange/" Just remember that it seems to be VA policy to automatically deny a claim the first couple times it is submitted and in every instance to deny a claim on AO exposure except for Vietnam veterans. Still, eventually justice might prevail for one of us. 


In early May as I learned I have heart disease and prostate cancer, I began a phone survey of a few Air Force friends who flew with me, and instantly found five in our squadron with prostate cancer. The sixth I tried to call had died. Then I learned our squadron commanders also had AO-illnesses. As did the wing commander vice commander, hospital commander (our flight surgeon), and our first sergeant. And our aircraft commanders! There must (unfortunately) be others, and all of us need to submit claims to the Department of Veterans Affairs if we wish to get service connection due to Agent Orange exposure. Nearly two months into this project, it seems I have trouble finding crewmembers who don't have AO-illnesses!


As is our right, I have pumped out a bunch of Freedom of Information Act Requests to the GSA, Air Force Museum, Department of the Air Force and other agencies to seek documentation about post-Vietnam use of the aircraft and what might be known about its contamination.


So here's what we have so far (click & download whole presentation)
1. the GSA report citing Air Force studies establishing toxins remaining in the C-123K surplus fleet
2. Davis-Monthan spent $123,000 to put all their surplus Providers in a fenced, inaccessible area "out of sight"; workers are not allowed into the aircraft without protective equipment (we've since learned the planes were all destroyed 4/2010)
3. museum and display aircraft (Robins, Air Force Museum, etc) are sealed and no access or very limited access permitted; Robins allows contact with their plane
4. lots of us are getting cancer & other AO-presumptive illnesses, and dying
5. Two contaminated aircraft had been sold to Disney for movies! One is still available to the public, with physical contact allowed to the contaminated outside surfaces of the UC-123K.
7. Contaminated aircraft had been sold to foreign governments, with JAG officers and general officers more concerned about the "political implications" than the safety of those allied aircrews
8. the VA's web site claims that if a vet proves exposure to Agent Purple, Agent Orange and other toxins, the VA may consider award of service connection (their term for an illness being caused by military service) and that opens the door for compensation and medical treatment, as well as perhaps benefits for survivors. We also know that unofficially at least, the VA universally denies every single claim of illness related to Agent Orange exposure, no matter how verified and even if on their list of presumed illnesses, unless a veteran was exposed at one of their published list of exposure sites. You can show them videos of being forced to eat, breathe, and bathe in Agent Orange, and your claim will be automatically denied. Most Veterans Service Officers won't even encourage you to file, but everyone should get on the AO Registry!

Davis-Monthan Workers Filed IG Complaint re: C-123 Agent Orange Exposure

Back in 1998, a group of civilian Boneyard workers realized they'd been working with stored C-123K/UC-123K aircraft which increasingly were drawing attention due to the aircraft's Agent Orange background...the planes had been used to spray Agent Orange and remained contaminated with poison dioxin. Workers noted the new requirements to wear hazmat protective clothing and respirators, and saw that the entire collection of aircraft had been moved to an area out of public sight, then fenced in with HAZARDOUS MATERIAL - DO NOT ENTER signs posted on the fences.

Naturally, they wondered about the many years they'd worked on the aircraft since C-123s first began arriving at Davis-Monthan for storage. Had they been exposed before the hazmat protection rules went into place? Asking their supervisor, they were directed to write a formal letter to the 359th Aerospace Medicine Squadron bioenvironmental engineer before he'd agree to meet with them. They did so, and the engineer summed up the situation for them stating that tests showed extremely low levels of dioxin did exist and health impact on workers was considered low based on potential doses, especially as the workers were now required to wear protective clothing and respirators. HEY, came the answer, what about the first eighteen years without the hazmat and respirator protection? Rightfully, employees such as Edward Margosian responded loudly that the real truth is emplyees assigned to work on C-123 aircraft over an 18 year period were NEVER told of the potential health risks associated with these aircraft until a date somewhat before their complaint was filed.


Welcome to the club, guys. We Air Force types flew those same planes for a decade, living in them more intimately than you could ever imagine, and we were never told. Not told then, not told EVER. Never told that the Air Force tests showed them "extremely dangerous, extremely hazardous"...not at the time we flew them which was before Agent Orange worries surfaced, but the Air Force never told us after we'd parked the last planes there at Davis-Monthan for you, and like them, went off to our own retirements.


The employees filed an IG complaint, which I received in only partial form from Hill AFB, although for some nasty reason Hill left the employee Social Security numbers on it...I'll delete before posting here, and I'll contact Hill for a more complete accounting of the IG action and its resolution. A fax cover/routing sheet from Office of the Air Force Surgeon General dated 9 Feb 98 shows it reached the desk of Mrs Judy Knight, Medical Inquiries Officer...I'll follow up with her or her replacement. Nasty. 


I hope our Tucson folks might track down some of these workers, or the base civilian employee management office, to ask if there are any corporate memories about this incident.


Sorry for the copy attached...part is handwritten and copied poorly, and the response itself is missing pages of the event summary and the decisions reached.m

FOIA Disks Received from Hill AFB re: C-123s

I received several disks from Hill AFB in response to my FOIA and there's simply too much evasion discovered in these official documents to believe. The Air Force has worried for years about how to resolve the dioxin contamination of the remaining C-123K/UC-123K aircraft stored at Davis-Monthan. The issue was to be addressed by the folks at Hill AFB Utah who managed the fleet. The aircraft were already positive for dioxin, and couldn't be sold, couldn't be buried, couldn't be simply kept stored because even that was an environmental, inter-governmental - and legal - problem.

A chief decision maker in this MAJCOM-wide fiasco was the Consultant on Agent Orange to the Office of Secretary of Defense. A retired Air Force colonel (not a flyer himself), he has a well-developed sensitivity to the public concern about Agent Orange. Memo after memo from him showed exquisite sensitivity to unnecessary public awareness...what he calls "misinformation" about Agent Orange. Best to keep things mum, from his perspective, and he even wrote the terms the Public Affairs office should use to minimize public attention...and avoid use of the words Agent Orange, dioxin, poison, contamination, hazardous and all the rest. (see last para of his letter)

Therefore, as Air Force leadership decisions (including by general officers) were made about what to do with the Agent Orange-contaminated C-123K/UC-123K aircraft remaining in the Air Force inventory, the OSD consultant was there to help craft things so as to make the event a non-event! (read last paragraph)  His memos were cited everywhere as justification...indeed, as requirement, to keep the issue quiet and low-key so as to avoid unnecessary media attention. In justifying their attempts to downplay the destruction of 18 aircraft, many other AF officials cite his 27 July 09 letter explaining "the aircraft should be disposed of as soon as possible to avoid further risk from publicity, litigation, and liability for presumptive connection." 

Did I miss anything...did he even mention safety, aircrew health, Air Force families, Air Force values, soapy stuff like that? The Hill PA shop drafted memos to be ready, just in case the media asked what was going on, memos carefully crafted to prevent unnecessary public alarm about dioxin, poison, contamination, hazardous materials, Agent Orange and a whole host of words John Q. Public just wouldn't understand. But OSD sure did!

 Smelting C-123 metal. Note that metal smelting is one of the major sources of dioxin contamination of the environment. What an irony...dioxin to dioxin!

In the same memorandum, he incorrectly states that the Ranch Hand aircraft were "essentially cleaned" after Vietnam. Nobody associated the return of the aircraft to CONUS recalls anything other than removal of the tanks, spray gear, and simple scrub-down of the airplane before returning home. Nobody in the Reserve squadrons did anything special about cleaning them other than follow DOD instructions to scrape away residue and scrub surfaces with Dawn detergent...not quite the $53,000 professional decontamination job that Patches required at the Air Force museum before it was safe to bring indoors! The OSD consultant cites efforts to clean and decontaminate the aircraft before their retirement to the Boneyard...didn't happen except for the Rickenbacker insecticide aircraft.

Hill AFB (AFMC) managed the destruction of the remaining C-123K/UC-123K aircraft stored at Davis-Monthan, with much of the Air Force leadership concerned about the Agent Orange contaminated status of the fleet and, quite reasonably, wanting the issue resolved quickly, correctly, completely...and oh so quietly.

Forming scrap ingots from C-123K aluminum after smelting

Using an existing but completely unrelated US Navy disposal contract so as to shred the aircraft, they were able to meet state & federal guidelines for avoiding declaring the aircraft "contaminated hazardous waste" because shredded metal falls outside that EPA classification. AF then paid Navy $1000 per aircraft to melt them into scrap ingots..."for the automobile industry." I guess that means your next Jeep is an Agent Orange Jeep, although, of course, the dioxin would not survive the smelting process, however metal smelting is one of the major sources of dioxin in the environment! Still, just for old time's sake, can we hope for a "Jeep Dioxin LX" model?

Hill AFB officials made it sound perfectly normal, but the Air Force had never destroyed aircraft like this before, and the only reason this method was selected was because of...that old devil, your friend and mine, tasty dioxin! And to avoid the $3,000,000,000 in fines that )if other agencies learned about this) might have to be paid.

In his amazing 24 February 2009 memo, the OSD Consultant on Agent Orange to the Office of Secretary of Defense referred to an article by Mr Ben Quick in Orion Magazine, wherein Ben  wrote of his visit to Davis-Monthan AFB: His public affairs host described the fenced-in C-123/UC-123K aircraft as "toxic." The consultant's memos pressed the need to keep the April 2010 destruction of the aircraft a non-event, low-key, and for everyone involved to be sensitive to the possibility of media exposure...or as he would have it, "misinformation."

Misinformation, I have come to understand, is anything not released in a DOD press release. Thus, OSD told Hill officials to have Public Affairs carefully word the announcement of dioxin-contaminated aircraft which had sickened hundreds of flyers (that's us, folks), "the media specialists at both Hill AFB and Davis-Monthan. Then, friends, OSD takes careful aim and shoots us straight through the heart (see first para, "Issue") with is recommendation with the authority of the Office of Secretary of Defense:

  "Although the Orion Magazine story received little media coverage, any new publicity on the aircraft may trigger a “storm” of articles that will eventually involve the health effects of previous aircrews and mechanics. The Department of Veteran Affairs (DVA) now provides “presumptive compensation” for exposure to Agent Orange and other tactical herbicides used in Vietnam. This “presumptive compensation” is no longer focused only on Vietnam veterans, but veterans who can claim exposure in other situations, e.g., testing of the herbicides or aircraft spray systems involving the tactical herbicides in CONUS and OCONUS locations. What this means is that a whole new class of veterans may claim that their exposure was due to the fact they were members of aircrews or mechanics associated with the contaminated aircraft that returned from Vietnam and are now located at Davis-Monthan AFB. The DVA provides presumptive compensation for such common conditions (in older men) of diabetes and prostate cancer, regardless of cause and effect." Dr. Al Young

 His advice was well-received. Major General Andrew Busch wrote him a gushing letter of appreciation for his hard work, saying "your commitment to excellence is a model example of character and leadership, as well as reflects greatly (sic) on the USAF and Department of Defense. Again, please accept my appreciation for a job well done--you are truly one of "America's Best."

Gosh, I guess it takes America's Best to keep the sensitive information about us flying dioxin-contaminated aircraft kinda quiet. I guess it takes one of America's Best to remind the Air Force that media coverage about the contaminated aircraft might mean a whole new class of veterans (duh, that's us, folks!) who might claim that their exposure was due to the the fact they were members of aircrews" etc. Gee, OSD loves aircrews?? Really cares about alerting us to our exposure. Really cares about our families. Really cares about how much cancer and heart disease hurt. Really takes America's Best to care about COVERING IT ALL UP! 

It took American's finest to in print, tell Hill AFB/AFMC to get rid of the aircraft and be alert to publicity which might tell aircrews who've already been exposed about our exposure!

Throughout the various Air Force reports, we find little references to State of Arizona law, EPA regulations, etc...and now and then, worries about a possible $3,000,000,000 EPA fine if the right words and right actions aren't taken to make this dioxin problem go quietly away before the wrong folks heard about it!

LET ME MAKE THIS CLEAR: It is without dispute that the Air Force had dioxin-contaminated Providers which we flew between 1972-1982 unless they faked their own tests for some reason. Not in dispute: The planes were flown to Davis-Monthan for retirement storage and the dioxin contamination became a worry with Air Force studies surfacing around 1993, concerned with Patches at the AF Museum and, eventually, the Davis-Monthan surplus fleet. The AF had to get the issue of the dioxin contamination resolved because they couldn't keep storing the planes without it being obvious DM was storing contaminated substances and shouldn't have been. Shredding and melting, sneaking elimination of the C-123s into an unrelated Navy scrap metal disposal contract was the undercover option selected for both political and efficiency reasons. The Agent Orange Consultant to the Secretary of Defense weighed in with his suggestions, and reminded everyone involved that the Orion article about the C-123K toxicity might resurface in new media attention...and in those nasty, greedy undeserving war veterans (duh, that's us, folks!) claiming exposure. He was more concerned about AO-exposed veterans coming forward than he was about US veterans needing to be told WE might have been exposed.

And for this service to fellow veterans (who, unlike him, wore Nomex and went aloft to our duty to the country, flying aging aircraft which added to our already-hazardous profession of flying), he gets a lovely thank-you note from a Major General of the United States Air Force. The OSD consultant expressly stressed the need to manage the public affairs issues to prevent flyers and maintainers (again, that's us, folks!) learning about the dioxin situation and coming forward to the VA with our legitimate claims, thus the General worded an even more grateful note. Vietnam veterans have their "boots on the ground" rule for Agent Orange exposure, and we should have a "boots in the airplane" rule for our own eligibility for VA care.

But...aircrews get the shaft when we turn to the VA for an automatic denial of our Agent Orange claims. I can't believe any honorable official with the Secretary of the Air Force SAF/IG knew about the mess in Ogden when they dismissed my recent IG complaint. 

Perhaps a warrior's sacred HONOR is defined differently for Air Force guys in flight suits than it is for Air Force guys elsewhere. SAF/IG should remember that is upon the honor of guys and gals in flight suits that the security of the country rests...our honor compels us to do our duty, sometimes alone, high in the sky or far out at sea. Nobody over our shoulder to supervise. We simply did our duty...in a dioxin-contaminated C-123K/UC-123K.

Wherever we are, however far from home, however cold or hot, however miserable or scared, however lousy the pay or the food or stupid the boss (no, I don't mean you, Big John!), honor means people in flight suits and maintainers on the ground must do our duty or die trying, to protect our nation. Why can't we then count on the honor of others in our beloved service to protect us?

Why can't we count on others in our beloved service to, as in Lincoln's Second Inaugural Address, "care for him who has borne the battle, and for his widow, and his orphan"?

731st TAS Class Photo

VA Turned Down Agent Orange Claim by C-123K Flyer - IN ERROR

The late Lieutenant Colonel Tim Olmstead submitted a clam 
(C 28 107 548, dated 23 Aug 07) to the VA for service connection for diabetes, an Agent Orange-presumptive illness, based on his service flying with the 731st TAS at Westover and our C-123K/UC-123K aircraft which he stated were used for spraying Agent Orange in Vietnam and which had AO residue left on them.


The VA denied his claim. Citing the fact that he didn't serve in Vietnam, theVA's Board of Veterans' Appeals turned Tim down because he failed to provide evidence that the aircraft were contaminated. The finding reads 

"while these planes may be of the type that were used in Vietnam to dispense Agent Orange from 192 to 1971, there is no evidence that any of the airplanes on which the veteran flew dispensed Agent Orange in Vietnam or that there was any residual Agent Orange on the aircraft the veteran served on. Further, the veteran has not submitted any evidence substantiating his contention that there was any Agent Orange material on the aircraft he served on. His assertion, standing along, is not sufficient to show he had actual exposure to Agent Orange years after it was used in Vietnam."

Gosh, that's reasonable enough. No wonder Tim's claim and appeal were denied. He couldn't prove he was exposed to Agent Orange. But why not?


Easy. Because the VA and the Air Force stacked the deck against Tim, keeping from him the precise information cited above which he needed to prove his case.  Back in 1996 a JAG officer in the Air Force Office of Environmental Law, considering the dioxin information that "Patches" at the Air Force Museum and other aircraft then stored as surplus at Davis-Monthan AFB's Boneyard, "should be kept in official channels only"...and that means keeping the information from reaching veterans like Tim to have the evidence needed to claim well-earned VA benefits. With the Air Force itself taking an active testing role in determining that there was indeed Agent Orange residue and toxicity in the C-123K fleet, including the eleven spray aircraft from the 731st and then keeping that information "in official channels only", Tim and other veterans like him faced an impossible challenge. The Air Force had the proof. The Air Force kept that proof from Tim, and denied him his well-earned veteran's benefits. It wasn't a simple matter of Tim not finding proof available somewhere, or that proof actually not existing. It was hidden.
Here, the Air Force took active measures to hide information from veterans like Tim so they wouldn't know the details of their exposure. Active measures to hide the information to protect veterans' health. Active measures to hide information to qualify for receiving medical care from the VA. These bad acts on the part of the misguided personnel who tried to hide the C-123K dioxin toxicity mean that the VA should, at every possible occasion, grant the benefit of the doubt to each C-123 crewmember, ACM, aerial porter, maintainer and air evac veteran seeking service connection. 


From this writer's perspective, Tim is obviously due a reconsideration of his case due to the Government's misconduct in  restricting availability of essential medical information, and Tim's award should be backdated not just to the date of his claim submission, but to the date his disease is likely to have been diagnosed under Nehmer. Further, Stephen I. Cohn, Veterans Law Judge, Board of Veterans Appeals and James Terry who is Chair of the VA Board of Appeals, should inquire as to why the Air Force via their misconduct and unethical behavior, did not notify aircrews of their exposure once it was officially known. They should ask why the Air Force allowed its veterans to struggle to put together VA claims but withheld the evidence veterans needed receive the benefits the very tests  Air Force proved them eligible for! Amazing! 


What say you, Judge Cohn. What say you, Judge James Terry? What evidence do you allow the government (although not the honorable gentleman representing the VA before you that day...I'm certain he was not at fault)  to withhold at the expense of veterans who come before you seeking justice?

SECOND OPEN LETTER to Agent Orange Committee, Institute on Medicine

To: Doctor Richard Fenske, Chair and (in turn) Dr Erin Bell, Dr Scott Burchiel, Dr Janice Chambers, Dr Naihua Duan, Dr Peter Gann, Dr Mark Goldberg, Dr Nancy Kerkvliet, Dr Stephen Kritchevsky, Dr Michele Marcus, Dr Linda McCauley, Dr Alvaro Puga, Dr Jeremy Shefner and Dr Hollie Swanson

Dear Members of the Committee,

Please forgive me for submitting another such public letter so soon after first appealing to the Committee for special assistance. The facts of my first appeal remain as I submitted them, but this week I have learned of two additional issues which mean we can turn only to your Committee to respond on our behalf, or to Congress for a time-wasting multi-year effort for new law.

Yesterday I received responses from the Air Force for two Freedom of Information Act requests submitted earlier to the Air Force Material Command. Attached here is another copy of the Air Force Office of Environmental Law memo wherein the Judge Advocate General attorney representing the Air Force Material Command recommended keeping the information about C-123K dioxin toxicity “within official channels”, following multiple Air Force tests establishing that contamination.

What is here newly brought to your attention is correspondence from the Air Force Material Command prepared by the OSD Consultant on Agent Orange to the Office of Secretary of Defense. In discussing with AFMC officials the disposal of the toxic C-123K/UC-123K aircraft we flew back in 1972-1982, this retired colonel stressed the need for speed of the planes’ destruction because of media attention which might come like a “storm” and which might also inspire more veterans, this time, he specifies, the very veterans who flew the airplanes, to submit claims to the VA for Agent Orange exposure. That’s us.

The consultant, a senior executive in the Federal service with the highest possible impact on Agent Orange issues in the Department of Defense, wanted steps taken to prevent veterans’ awareness through the media which might attend to the shredding and smelting of the airplanes…a unique, once-ever step taken to prevent the impact of EPA regulations and various fines attending to the dioxin remaining on the aircraft. The consultant even helped craft the press release about the destruction of the airplanes by making sure words like “Agent Orange, dioxin, poison, toxin, contamination” were removed to help reduce the possibility of critical media attention. And prevent veterans learning about us having flown contaminated aircraft between 1972-1982.

Consider: How can we have both our rights and our health protected with this kind of active effort to keep us in the dark, away from sources of information concerning our health and our rights as veterans? I suggest…this can be made right only by special attention brought to officials by your Committee.

Can we ask your Committee to make the obvious conclusion that the Air Force and the Department of Defense have taken active measures to prevent our small group of aviators and maintenance folks from discovering we’d been exposed to dioxin?

Finally, in this second appeal to your Committee, I submit the copy of the late Lieutenant Colonel Aaron Olmstead’s 2007 decision from the Board of Veterans Appeals wherein his claim for service connection for diabetes was refused. Refused because Aaron was unable to provide essential, conclusive proof that he’d flown the contaminated C-123K/UC-123K aircraft in our squadron for which we now have the documents from the Air Force, released only via FOIA pressure many years after their creation. Aaron’s claim for diabetes (and now his widow’s concerns about that claim) was an appeal to protect his rights by having his case reconsidered by the Board of Veterans’ Appeals. Judge Stephen Cohn, hearing the case, rejected Aaron’s appeal specifically citing:

"while these planes may be of the type that were used in Vietnam to dispense Agent Orange from 192 to 1971, there is no evidence that any of the airplanes on which the veteran flew dispensed Agent Orange in Vietnam or that there was any residual Agent Orange on the aircraft the veteran served on. Further, the veteran has not submitted any evidence substantiating his contention that there was any Agent Orange material on the aircraft he served on. His assertion, standing along, is not sufficient to show he had actual exposure to Agent Orange years after it was used in Vietnam."

Aaron’s assertion could not be made effectively because the Air Force and DOD effectively prevented him and his Veterans Service Officer from the Disabled American Veterans of America from knowing about the evidence he needed. It should be obvious what Judge Cohn would decide if Arron had had the hidden information to submit in support of his claim!

I respectfully submit that the Committee should consider special action on your part, outside the scope of your established procedures, due to the consistent and completely effective efforts on the part of the Air Force and the Department of Defense (or at least, efforts by certain officials within those organizations) in taking active measures to prevent veterans from having the proofs and materials to establish Agent Orange exposure claims.

Please. Write both the Secretary of Veterans Affairs and the Secretary of Defense to draw their attention to this injustice done Lieutenant Colonel Olmstead and our other crewmates. Thank you.

Respectfully,

Wesley T. Carter, Major, USAF Retired
Chair, C-123K/UC123K Cancer Veterans

Attachments:

1. AFMC JAG Letter recommending restricting aircraft dioxin reside “to official channels only"

2. Case C28 197 548, VA Board of Veterans’ Appeals, denial of claim made by veteran Aaron Olmstead

3. Memorandum from Dr Alvin Young, Agent Orange Consultant to Secretary of Defense, recommending actions and in part, expressing concern that media attention may result in exposed veterans submitting claims