From: To: Cc: Subject: Date:

Murphy, Thomas (SES), VBAVACO Sampsel, James, VBAVACO Flohr, Brad (SES EQV), VBAVACO; Flynn, Mary A. (SES), VBAVACO; Bilosz, Mark, (SES), VBAVACO; Black, Paul, VBAVACO RE: VASec Wants to Know How We Granted SC for AO Exposure for a Vet Who Did NOT Serve in VE Monday, August 26, 2013 10:03:05 AM

Thanks All. -----Original Message----From: Sampsel, James, VBAVACO Sent: Monday, August 26, 2013 9:29 AM To: Murphy, Thomas (SES), VBAVACO Cc: Flohr, Brad (SES EQV), VBAVACO; Flynn, Mary A. (SES), VBAVACO; Bilosz, Mark, (SES), VBAVACO; Black, Paul, VBAVACO Subject: FW: VASec Wants to Know How We Granted SC for AO Exposure for a Vet Who Did NOT Serve in VE Tom, As I have stated before, the problem here is that there is some evidence, in addition to lay statements, from "scientific" sources supporting the claimed post-Vietnam C-123 AO exposure. However, the overwhelming preponderance of the evidence is against such exposure, including a VHA website specifically stating that such exposure could not have occurred . The only evidence supporting the post-Vietnam C-123 Veterans comes from a 1996 wipe sample of one C-123 ("Patches") in the US Air Force Museum, showing a percentage of TCDD. This was obtained with extensive rubbing and use of a strong solvent. VHA and independent scientists have stated that this solidified TCDD could not be absorbed by the human body and could not cause long term health effects. The supporters of the C-123 Veterans claim that the presence of this TCDD is sufficient to cause potential "exposure" and trigger service connection. Comp Svc has never had a policy of supporting such "remote" or "secondary" AO exposure. The real problem is that Senator Burr and others have claimed that VA is denying these claims in a "blanket" fashion and not following our stated "case-by-case" policy. I wrote a letter to Burr based on this accusation and Mr. Spinelli modified it, for Sec Shinseki's signature, to state that we do follow a case-by-case policy. If there is any benefit in this DRO decision, it is that it shows we do not have a blanket denial policy. However, what evolves from this in the advocates mind is: why are you not granting all these claims and how is this different? I am scheduled to discuss this with HVAC (Justin Brown) sometime this week. Regarding this specific case, although the DRO did not mention it in the rating narrative, the RO white paper states that this Veteran was aboard Patches for 2 days in 1976. And, this is now the "justification" for the grant. I do not think it is realistic to call a CUE on this grant. However, I can try to work on some guidance for the field on this issue that will walk a line between preponderance of the evidence and case-by-case evaluations.

-----Original Message----From: Black, Paul, VBAVACO Sent: Monday, August 26, 2013 8:50 AM To: Flohr, Brad (SES EQV), VBAVACO; Murphy, Thomas (SES), VBAVACO; Bilosz, Mark, (SES), VBAVACO Cc: Flynn, Mary A. (SES), VBAVACO; Sampsel, James, VBAVACO Subject: RE: VASec Wants to Know How We Granted SC for AO Exposure for a Vet Who Did NOT Serve in VE The attached white paper gives the reasons the DRO granted SC based on exposure. This was exposure based on a facts-found determination of exposure and not a presumption of exposure. As far as I know the aircraft in this case is the only aircraft where we have evidence of contamination. -----Original Message----From: Flohr, Brad (SES EQV), VBAVACO Sent: Monday, August 26, 2013 8:40 AM To: Murphy, Thomas (SES), VBAVACO; Bilosz, Mark, (SES), VBAVACO; Black, Paul, VBAVACO

Cc: Flynn, Mary A. (SES), VBAVACO; Sampsel, James, VBAVACO Subject: RE: VASec Wants to Know How We Granted SC for AO Exposure for a Vet Who Did NOT Serve in VE We would have to find clear and unmistakable evidence before we could change the decision. Unfortunately, there is evidence from credible sources, including ATSDR, noting the presence of Agent Orange in the C123 aircraft, so it would be difficult to sever service connection, not to mention politically unpopular. I agree with Mark that we can, and do, grant SC for disabilities associated with AO exposure where we can determine that exposure occurred outside of Vietnam or the Korean DMZ. We have advised Wes Carter and Sen. Burr, and others, that there is no presumption that an individual was exposed to AO by having been in a C123 aircraft, but we will consider claims based on the evidence of record in that claim. This does, however, present a problem for us as, although there is no precedent set by the RO decision, it is public knowledge and others may file claims citing it. Brad -----Original Message----From: Murphy, Thomas (SES), VBAVACO Sent: Monday, August 26, 2013 8:08 AM To: Bilosz, Mark, (SES), VBAVACO; Flohr, Brad (SES EQV), VBAVACO; Black, Paul, VBAVACO Cc: Flynn, Mary A. (SES), VBAVACO Subject: RE: VASec Wants to Know How We Granted SC for AO Exposure for a Vet Who Did NOT Serve in VE Per discussions with Jim Sampsel, the evidence the DRO relied on was lay statement and NOT sufficient to grant SC. The question is, do we go back and change the DRO decision based on the evidence and call it an error? -----Original Message----From: Bilosz, Mark, (SES), VBAVACO Sent: Monday, August 26, 2013 8:06 AM To: Flohr, Brad (SES EQV), VBAVACO; Black, Paul, VBAVACO Cc: Flynn, Mary A. (SES), VBAVACO; Murphy, Thomas (SES), VBAVACO Subject: FW: VASec Wants to Know How We Granted SC for AO Exposure for a Vet Who Did NOT Serve in VE TomI believe that we can grant SC for disabilities related to AO exposure if the exposure is verified based on the facts found in each individual case. Therefore, SC may have been warranted in this case. However, without reviewing the c-file, we can't be sure in this specific instance. Brad/Paul- Do you concur with my assessment? -Mark -----Original Message----From: Clark, Willie (SES), VBAPHNX Sent: Friday, August 23, 2013 1:53 PM To: Murphy, Thomas (SES), VBAVACO; Rubens, Diana (SES), VBAVACO; Bilosz, Mark, (SES), VBAVACO; McCoy, Beth, VBAVACO Cc: Swantz, Adam, VBAVACO; Morris, Christina, VBAPHNX Subject: VASec Wants to Know How We Granted SC for AO Exposure for a Vet Who Did NOT Serve in VE Tom, Heads- up. A senate staffer thanked the Sec for the granting of a case where a C123 pilot was granted SC for