2349 Nut Tree Lane
McMinnville Oregon 97128
February 27 2012
The Honorable Eric K. Shinseki
Secretary of Veterans Affairs
810 Vermont Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20420
Dear Secretary Shinseki:
I chair our small group of veterans who flew and maintained the Fairchild C-123K “Provider” for ten years following the Vietnam War. These aircraft remained poisoned from the war, with dioxin intense enough to be labeled by Air Force scientists as “heavily contaminated” and “a danger to public health.”
When we asked the Air Force and VA to investigate, we were instead given two press releases explaining that, while the aircraft “may” have been contaminated, there wasn’t enough TCDD left to likely cause long-term health problems for our veterans.
VA’s position was quickly challenged, in particular by the Toxicology Department of Oregon Health Sciences University and the School of Public Health at Columbia. Further, on 26 January 2011, the deputy director of the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry stated that our veterans were most likely exposed, and over a long time, and at a level about 200 times more likely to cause cancer. He also said our exposure was probably even more intense in the decade we flew, which was as much as 22 years before that first scientific testing.
General, any observer would conclude that the VA’s threshold of probably has been well-met in our case. Our aircrews, maintenance personnel, flight nurses and medics have been exposed to dioxin, our parent service has confirmed this contamination and its danger, and the federal agency responsible for reaching the definitive conclusion about that has voiced their finding quite clearly. Any benefit of the doubt must rest in our favor, but there is little doubt about this issue.
We must ask that the Department withdraw its statements concerning the lack of TCDD contamination and the unlikelihood of personnel exposure. Outside scientists have called the VA’s preparation of their C-123 position “unscientific.” Some of the authors cited have specifically asked that their works have no relation to aircrew exposure. Several of the authors cited insist aircrews have been exposed, and yet the inference of the VA reports is that the sum of evidence available speaks against a reasonable possibility of aircrew exposure.
That simply is not so. Yet, these statements discourage veterans from considering Agent Orange claims. The statements discourage VSOs from working on our claims, regardless of our proven legitimate eligibility for claiming TCDD exposure.
Benefit of the doubt is supposed to fall on the veteran’s side. We have exceeded the threshold of any reasonable benefit of the doubt, and indeed quite the opposite – there is very little doubt that we weren’t exposed.
As we understand it, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs can designate our aircraft (since destroyed by the USAF because of their contamination) as Agent Orange exposure sites. Please do so. If instead, some other action on your part leads to our veterans receiving medical care for their Agent Orange-presumptive illnesses, please bring us relief via that path instead.
As volunteer aircrews we willingly flew these older airplanes and accepted the extra hazards of flight inherent in them. The Army really needed these aircraft and their unique short-field capabilities, as we proved in several REFORGER exercises. Nobody knew about the contamination during the years we flew but certainly everyone knows now! Our duty was to fly, and now the VA’s duty is to address our medical concerns resulting from exposure to dioxin.
We’d be grateful for an opportunity to discuss this with you or a representative, but we’d be better served by your executive action in designating our old airplanes as Agent Orange hotspots so that we can proceed with fair evaluation of our claims.
And our claim, sir, is “Boots on the Airplane.”
Sincerely,
For the C-123 Veterans:
Wesley T. Carter, Major, USAF Retired
Chair
—
Wes Carter
Truth is the FIRST casualty of war
(Orig Aeschylus “In war, truth is the first casualty.”)
Yeah Tip I am familiar with the quote, was trying to make a play on it but it did not come out that way. The Truth is that Truth is sent packin” during War.
March 8 Meeting with VA Officials & Sen. Hart’s staff:—more from notes about Thursday’s meeting in Washington—
But first, unending thanks to Dr. Jeanne Stellman who joined us for the meeting in Washington DC. A powerful voice from a gracious lady and esteemed supporter of veterans’ issues, bringing wisdom and 30 years of expertise to the discussion!
We had our meeting with VA’s Health Benefits Administration in the Hart Senate Office Building, hosted by Sen. Burr’s staff, with the following results:
1. the C-123 aircrew/maintainers dioxin exposure issue will be referred to the Institute of Medicine for a special report, hopefully ready by the end of 2012. VA will prepare a Statement of Work (SOW) without outside input, but IOM will conduct public meetings soliciting comment
2. VA reassured C-123 veterans our decade-long military herbicide exposure poses no risk to health, even those these specific agents are now prohibited by the Geneva Convention
3. VA stated no medical care will be allowed even on a presumptive eligibility basis for AO-presumtive illnesses (unless the veteran is otherwise eligible)
4. benefits claims now in for C-123 aircrews and maintainers will most likely be denied
5. VA dismisses Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry letter of 26 Jan 2012, saying it has no relevance to benefits eligibility of veterans as it was provided outside the realm of the VA itself; apparently, “its the VA’s ball” – no other government agency’s finding about contamination or exposure will be considered
6. VA defends their apparent “not enough dioxin to harm” newly created threshold, never before established by any US government agency
7. VA didn’t realize only about 1500 aircrew and maintenance personnel are involved in this issue, expecting the numbers to be higher
8. VA defended their earlier challenges to and dismissal of the 1979 Conway survey of Patches and the 1994 Weisman/Porter survey of Patches, saying use of standard swipe protocol resulted in inaccurate findings and thus no veterans were affected by either inhalation, ingestion or dermal routes of exposure
9. other than the suggested IOM referral, not a single suggestion was made by the VA, whose duty it is to assist veterans in presenting their claims, to help us present our claims; we were struck by the fact not a single note was taken by them of points we felt important to bring to the discussion
10. one VA official likened our exposure during 1972-1982 to her traveling as a 1976 passenger in Army trucks which may have been used earlier in Vietnam
11. VA agreed it will be appropriate for IOM to form a retrospective view of Patches prior to the 1979 Conway report, as dioxin contamination levels are likely to be higher in the earlier years
12. VA likened the requirement for employees at Davis-Monthan AFB to wear HAZMAT protection around the quarantined C-123K fleet to the “hysteria” of recent civilian water contamination
13. the expected USAF School of Aerospace Medicine report wasn’t presented, and apparently isn’t quite ready for either discussion or presentation – aircrews certainly hope that USAFSAM will take a hard stand confirming our exposure, and that at the very least since they cannot direct VA to provide care, USAF should declare that the aircraft were unsafe to fly during the years we had them, and would certainly be awarded an unsafe to fly designation today
In an outside, casual conversation, our veterans’ suggestion that benefits applications are being stalled to prevent appeals progressing to the more public forum offered by BVA and other courts was not challenged… the VA official simply smiled. The oldest claim we can identify among our veterans is one year old, other than those denied years earlier by BVA due to veterans’ inability to identify specific tail numbers of AO-spray aircraft and inability to prove lingering contamination. Note: both such proofs released by the USAF via FOIA in May 2011, but not available to the veterans before their claims were denied in 2007.
It is to be expected that claims henceforth will continue to be denied, but with newer reasons created to cite as justification as the old ones are now invalid.
Our thanks to leadership of the American Legion, which hosted us on Wednesday in preparation for the VA meeting. American Legion is solidly behind us and we hope will submit a resolution to their Spring conference. Also, thanks to Dr. Jeanne Stellman of Columbia University’s Mailman School of Public Health, and Dr. Fred Berman of Oregon Health Sciences University who presented expert support during Thursday’s conference. Both experts generously contributed their time and expertise to supporting our presentation.