Va. veteran guilty of false claims
A veterans group alerted authorities to a Norfolk man's false claims about his military honors.
By Mike Gangloff | The Roanoke Times
Even as he pleaded guilty to inflating his military record, Thomas James Barnhart insisted he'd received a Purple Heart.
"I was given a Purple Heart with no paperwork in Vietnam, so it was as if I had made up the award myself," Barnhart, 58, said Wednesday in U.S. District Court in Roanoke.
But Assistant U.S. Attorney Jake Jacobsen said Barnhart, who lives in the Norfolk area, didn't stop with one Purple Heart. In paperwork filed when he transferred from the Navy to the Coast Guard, then in applications for disability benefits, Barnhart claimed an increasing array of honors. Ultimately he said he'd been a Navy SEAL, earned five Purple Hearts -- each supposedly marking a combat wound -- Bronze and Silver stars for valor, and more.
Barnhart's case echoed that of Randall Moneymaker, who in March 2008 was convicted of federal fraud and theft charges linked to false claims of combat missions and wounds that gained him a job as an Army recruiter and veterans disability benefits.
Jacobsen, who had prosecuted Moneymaker, said Barnhart also improperly sought benefits. In 1991 and 2005, Barnhart told Veterans Affairs interviewers tales of combat missions and a pilot dying in his arms. He said he'd been nominated for the Medal of Honor, the highest award for valor.
All of that was bogus, Jacobsen said.
The prosecutor agreed that Barnhart was in the Navy from 1969 to 1979 and the Coast Guard until 1990.
But investigation showed only that Barnhart earned a medal for offshore duty during the Vietnam War. There was no record of combat or combat awards.
Barnhart pleaded guilty to violating federal Stolen Valor legislation by falsely claiming to have been awarded medals. He also pleaded guilty to a felony embezzlement charge tied to $13,923 in disability payments for supposed post-traumatic stress disorder.
In a short statement, Barnhart said he'd given the wrong reasons for why he suffered from PTSD, but seemed to defend the diagnosis itself.
Judge James Turk accepted Barnhart's guilty pleas and noted that his plea agreement said he would repay the disability payments along with whatever fines and prison term might be imposed. He scheduled sentencing for April 8.
After the hearing, Jacobsen, who served with the U.S. Army Reserve in Iraq, said military veterans, like fishermen, are prone to exaggeration. But falsifying service records for financial gain is "just galling," Jacobsen said.
So is claiming false honors during wartime, he added.
"You've got the real sailors, soldiers and airmen out there putting their lives on the line every day," Jacobsen said.
He said authorities were alerted to Barnhart's false claims by the veterans group AMVETS. Mary and Chuck Schantag, who run the group's ReportStolenValor.org Web site, could not be contacted Wednesday.
Doug Sterner, a Vietnam veteran from Colorado who was a leading advocate for the 2005 Stolen Valor legislation, said Barnhart's case shows the need for Congress to push the military to keep better records of medals such as Purple Hearts.
"There are literally tens of thousands of people who were given awards that never made it to paperwork," Sterner said.
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
The sad part of this entire affair is the man had an honorable military career, he then chose to dishonor it by making false claims of medals awarded that never were, of performing duties he never performed. The Navy has a problem with sailors claiming to be the ultimate Navy combat person a "Seal" the Army has the problem with soldiers claiming to be "rangers" or "special forces/green berets" soldiers that spent 20 years or more of honorable service make up "whoppers" about "rambo style adventures" and spicing up their career, but then they turn it criminal by putting these lies to paper and asking for veterans compensation for PTSD using these made up adventures, claiming lost paperwork, fallen friends (found from known names of fallen soldiers on stories posted on the internet or found in magazines) hoping or knowing that the VA will not dig deep enough into the sham story and approve compensation payments.
This is fraud and it should aand is being prosecuted as such. I find it distasteful to even have to address these issues, the words "Duty, Honor and Country" are not just words most military personnel live their lives by these words, so to find scam artists abusing our lifestyle by these type of actions, it burns to the core.
Many veterans claim that these veterans are stealing from other veterans and the money they gain by making these flase claims is depriving a veterans from getting their benefits, which is also a complete lie. I don't know which lie is worse, if a veteran makes a claim to the veterans Administration and the claim is deemed to be service connected and a percentage is set of how disabled the veteran is and the award is made. No veteran is deprived of benefits because of these "frauds" much like the Social Security Disability if an award is made the checks are mailed, if the VA funds run low then the VA secretary will go to Congress and say I need this much money to pay compensation forthie rest of this year and this is how much we are going to need next year to pay compensation benefits, the benefits have nothing to do with the VA health care side of the VA, no programs have money taken away from them to pay comp claims, veterans are not stealing from other veterans, they ARE committing fraud against all US taxpayers.
Bottom line though as galling as these stories are frauds in the VA system is still the smallest of all government programs that offer compensation, there is less than 2% fraud in the VA system overall, medicare, food stamps, unemployment programs etc all have higher fraud rates than does the VA system. Fraud is dispicable regardless of whom does it, but there is just something a little more disgusting about military veterans doing it, especially retirees who spent a career defending this nation, that they dishonor it by these wild claims of heroics. The do great damage to those who do live by "Duty, Honor and Country".
Thursday, January 7, 2010
Va. veteran guilty of false claims
Sunday, January 3, 2010
Changing Attitudes, misperceptions?
Watch CBS News Videos Online
I for one am thankful to CBS for doing these interviews, but like many attempts before them, like Bob Woodruffs attempt with Secretary James Nicholson who was one of the Secretary of the VA during President Bush's Administration, who claimed all of the new veterans were flocking to the VA medical centers for dental appointments, these interviews are just more cluelessness and attempts by chair sitters, to just get thru the interviews without addressing the sore of the problem.
A process that denies veterans and their families the benefits they deserve and have earned due to a medical condition caused by their military service. The process now entails a veteran making a compensation claim and the VA Regional Office denies it within 6 months to a year and then the veteran files an appeal to the Board of Veteran Appeals (BVA) which can then take up to four years to get the hearing and an judgement from the Judge, which then sends the claims file back to the Regional Office for the percentage to be determined and the award letter sent out with the back payment which this can take between four to six months after the Judge makes his decision.
Then if the veteran feels the award percentage is to low, they then have to file another notice of disagreement within one year and the appeal then goes back to the BVA which entails another 2-4 year wait and another hearing and the Judge will either remand it and tell the regional Office to get more information or another C&P exam from a doctor to tell the Judge exactly what the condition of the veteran now, and another few years will pass and soon the veteran has a decade involved in an attempt to get the proper award they feel they deserve.
Are all of the claims proper, no some claims are outrageous and the veteran sometimes expects percentages that are not justified, or some will ask for back pay to the 1960s or 1970s to the date of the incident that caused their PTSD, which is not justified. But no one has ever told the veteran that this can NOT happen and they can NOT be paid prior to the date when they filed a disability claim.
There are many veterans that once they retire from their civilian jobs and hear from their friends that they are getting 3,000 a month from the VA because they told the VA they have PTSD from Vietnam, some see a way to increase their retirement lifestyle by making claims for PTSD now and are filling the VA with claims of this type as they see a easy way to get some tac free money, the problem with these type of claims is that the veteran does NOT have PTSD and the VA will catch them as they go thru the claims process, it is not just file a claim and get a check.
The process to determine if a veteran does have PTSD can take months of evaluations, testing and interviews before a diagnosis is even made, then they have to be able to provide a stressor, in other words the date, location and the names of the people present when the life threatening incident took place and then the VA claims office will research it thru the military records to verify the incident did take place.
Not all veterans will be rated at 100% disabled either nor will they be entitled to the 100% disabled compensation rate, which is about 2900 a month right now.
The CBS episode states there are approximately 3 million veterans are getting compensation checks now out of the 25 million veterans that are still living. Not all veterans are getting checks for being disabled by military service, nor do they all use the VA hospital system for health care, the last numbers I have seen show about 5.5 million veterans enrolled in VA health care.
I was not impressed by Amanda Carpenters article in the Washington Times about Veterans Health care either Veterans' benefits entangled in red tape
Leading Democrats like to hold up the Veterans Benefits Administration as an example of how well government can provide health care. But veterans who deal with the complex federal bureaucracy have invented an unhappy refrain to describe the VBA: "Deny, deny until you die."
With this one paragraph she has poisoned the well so to speak, the VBA is not veterans "health care" that is handled by the VHA or the Veterans HealthCare Administration, the VBA is the claims side of the VA. The VA is actually 2 different entities one side presents all of the health care, doctors, nurses, clinics and hospitals and that is the VHA, she never addresses that issue in her article at all, she only talks about the claims side, and I have never heard any democrat or anyone else for that matter make any claims about the great job that the VBA is doing, because they don't doa good job, they do a miserable job of administering benefits to this nations veterans. They should be ashamed of them selves, paying and taking bonuses, while veterans and their families wait, wait and wait for the "PROMISE" to be kept.
This was the letter I wrote to Amanda Carpenter, in response to her article
Do facts matter? The VA is made up of two entities, the VHA is the Veterans Health Care, that includes hospitals, clinics and the doctors and nurses, and then there is the VBA which is veterans benefits administration which you have twisted together in your story rather than seperate.
Tonight CBS will be talking about the VBA which is benefits and the million claims backlog which has nothing to do with health care. The fact that the term deny deny, delay, delay until they die comes from the benefits side of VA or the VBA and not the VHA or the actual health care of the VA which as a 100% disabled veteran I have been getting care from them since 1997 when they did a triple bypass on me as a veteran working at the Post Office, I was NOT even service connected yet, bit back then any veteran could get health care and they charged my insurance company Blue Cross and Blue Shield for my care and they were paid.
Since I gave been disabled and granted service connection now the VA supplies all of my healthcare at no cost to me or my insurance companies. However when I became disabled Social Security processed my disability claim in 4 months Oct 2002 - March 2003 the VA took until June 2009 to grant my claim for coronary artery disease (CAD) and hypertension more than 6 and half years later and both agencies were working off the same medical records all provided by the VA Hospital.
I get great healthcare from the VA they just can't process claims worth a hoot, and that is a major point your article missed, was it accidental or was it done on purpose?
Will she correct her article to show the difference between benefits and health care, I doubt it, it doesn't fit the "Moonie agenda" to bash health care reform.Sphere: Related Content
Thursday, December 31, 2009
At Fort Hood, Reaching Out to Soldiers at Risk
At Fort Hood, Reaching Out to Soldiers at Risk
By JAMES DAO
Published: December 23, 2009
FORT HOOD, Tex. — The day after a gunman killed 13 people here last month, Lt. Gen. Robert W. Cone, the post’s commander, fired off an e-mail message to an unusual audience: local advocates for disaffected soldiers, deserters and war resisters. “I am told you may be able to help me understand where some of the gaps are in our system,” he wrote.
Last week, those advocates put General Cone’s offer to a test. A specialist who had deserted last year wanted to turn himself in. Would the general help the soldier, who has post-traumatic stress disorder, get care?
The general said yes.
“I’ve never seen anything like this,” said James Branum, a lawyer representing the specialist, Eric Jasinski. “It is very unusual for the commanding general to get involved.”
For years, Fort Hood has been an emblem of an overstretched military, with long deployments and combat-related stress contributing to rising numbers of suicides, divorces, spousal abuse and crime, mental health experts say.
Now, after the Nov. 5 shootings, the post is trying to show that it has another side, one that can care for its frailest and most battle-weary soldiers.
For the last month, the Pentagon has dispatched scores of psychologists, therapists and chaplains to counsel soldiers and their families, and bolster the post’s chronically understaffed mental health network. It has overseen the creation of a new system of trauma counseling. And it has pledged to speed the hiring of dozens of permanent new mental health specialists.
But the stepped-up efforts, while welcomed even by critics of the Army’s record in dealing with combat-related stress, are also seen as a test of its resolve to break with the past. Making change stick remains a challenge not just for Fort Hood, but the entire Army, as it struggles to improve care for its rising tide of deployment-strained soldiers.
Already, many of the therapists newly dispatched here have left; when all are gone, the post will need at least 40 more, General Cone said. Over all, the Army is short about 800 behavioral health specialists, Pentagon officials say.
Even more daunting will be fighting the ostracism and stigma faced by many soldiers who admit problems.
Although most of his commanders support their troubled soldiers, the general said, “Occasionally what you get is a leader who fails.”
In Specialist Jasinski’s case, one of his commanding officers told the soldier’s mother recently that he did not believe Specialist Jasinski had P.T.S.D., Mr. Branum and the mother said. Since then, doctors have checked the specialist into Fort Hood’s mental ward, concerned that he was suicidal.
Getting soldiers to use Fort Hood’s expanding array of support services — most of which opened not long before Nov. 5 — can be difficult. Many soldiers remain unaware of the family therapy and round-the-clock chaplain counseling in a “spiritual fitness center,” a chaplain said.
A three-week soldier “reset” program uses cranial massage, yoga and acupuncture to alleviate the hyper-vigilance that accompanies the stress disorder, but the program is limited to 16 soldiers at a time.
And General Cone, a West Point graduate who took command here in late September, has maintained a policy started by his predecessor that requires commanders to let their units go home by 3 p.m. on Thursdays and prohibits weekend training, unless he approves it. But complaints abound about extended hours and duties that require soldiers to bring work home.
It is too soon to say whether more soldiers are taking advantage of Fort Hood’s expanded services. But several said the programs helped them cope with the shootings.
“There are a lot of things the Army did to get us through this,” said Lt. Col. Pete Andrysiak, commander of the 20th Engineering Battalion. The battalion, which leaves for Afghanistan early next year, lost more soldiers, four, in last month’s rampage than any other unit.
Specialist Jasinski, 23, who enlisted after high school in 2005, spent 15 months in Diyala Province north of Baghdad. The experience changed him, his family said. A friend was killed; another lost a limb. While serving in an intelligence unit, he said, he collected data used in airstrikes that killed many Iraqis, perhaps including civilians.
After returning home in late 2007, he struggled with depression, excessive drinking and bouts of anger and crying. A doctor told him he had P.T.S.D. and, records show, prescribed antidepressants. Still, he thought he could make it to February 2009, when he was eligible for an honorable discharge.
But in the fall of 2008, Specialist Jasinski learned that the Army had involuntarily extended his tour, scheduling his unit to return to Iraq in 2009. And despite his having the stress disorder, the Army expected him to go.
On the day he was to return to Fort Hood from leave last December, he spent 14 hours in his parents’ living room staring out a window and muttering, “I’d rather die than go back.” His parents told him to stay.
“It’s not about Eric being a coward,” said his mother, Laura Barrett, 46, a counselor’s assistant at a high school in Jonesboro, Ark. “He’s a strong man. And he was intelligent enough to know he could not do it again. He would hurt himself. He might hurt someone else.”
This November, after he spent a year stacking inventory at a big box store, his parents urged him to return to Fort Hood, and he agreed. “The stress of being away without leave and not knowing if I was going to be picked up was an extreme mental drain, every day,” Specialist Jasinski said in a recent interview.
Officials at Fort Hood declined to discuss his case.
Dr. Adam Borah, chief of the resilience and restoration center at the post’s Carl R. Darnall Army Medical Center, said soldiers with P.T.S.D. are occasionally deployed when their illness seems under control. But some people are deployed because the disorder is not spotted.
“There are still holes in the system,” he said.
General Cone has helped other troubled soldiers, as well as Specialist Jasinski, said Chuck Luther, the founder of an advocacy group, Disposable Warriors. But the general is to deploy to Iraq in March, leaving behind his deputy to oversee Fort Hood for a year. Mr. Luther and other advocates worry that mental health programs will suffer.
General Cone insisted that would not happen. He noted that by the time he leaves, 85 percent of Fort Hood’s soldiers would be home from war, the highest percentage in years. “It happens at a good time for us because, frankly, we need that kind of positive environment,” he said.
This article has been revised to reflect the following correction:
Correction: December 25, 2009
An article on Thursday about mental health services for soldiers at Fort Hood, Tex., in the wake of killings there misstated the given name of a soldier with post-traumatic stress disorder who deserted the post last year. He is Specialist Eric Jasinski, not Chris.
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
I SALUTE LTG Cone for his leadership on getting help for his troops, and I am sure he will monitor from overseas what is happening on "his base" he may be deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan but he will remain the Commander of Fort Hood, his deputy will be in charge but he won't "command" and that is what many people do not understand, while General Cone will not be physically present on Fort Hood he is still the "Commander" of Fort Hood, the deputy in charge if he is good will do only what the Commanding General wants him to do, and if he has doubts about what the Commander wants then it would behoove him and his career to either get on the phone or computer and find out what the Commander wants, it is just that simple. The military is not that hard to figure out, if you are dealing with people that understand the "Command" is exactly that the Commander can go by the "book" if he wants to it is there for guidance, but to actually command means it is "your decision" on what happens, to many military officers confuse what the term to "command" means, and they are the ones who should never be given a command.
Command is a lonely place, it is your call on what you do at times sometimes the Commander makes the right choice and sometimes they make the wrong choice, and history remembers them that way. Custer will always be remembered for failing in such a big way, Patton will always be remembered for his command of tank divisions he was the best, it was his interactions with people that got him in trouble.
I like LTG Cone and I hope he is on the short list of those being considred for his 4th star, I would think he would make a great Chief of Staff of the Army in the next decade.
Monday, December 21, 2009
INVESTIGATION: Veteran's Battle for Benefits
INVESTIGATION: Veteran's Battle for Benefits
For seven months CBS 6 has investigated the harsh reality more than one million Veterans face everyday. Many are having the hardest of times battling for their benefits they feel their owed after they put their lives on the line for their country.
Chauncey Robinson who you met in September has been battling the Veteran's Adminstration at all levels for 17 years and continues to get no where with his case. If you recall he was an Army private during the Gulf War. An assault inside his barracks left him with a permanent heart condition. He has extensive medical documents that ties that assault to his heart condition but insists the V.A. keeps delaying his case.
In our intial report back in September both the N.Y. Regional Office of Veteran's Affairs and the U.S. Department of Veteran's Affairs only released statements to CBS 6 regarding Chauncey's case. While CBS 6 offered to drive down to New York City for a one on one interview, this time around they agreed to talk but only by phone.
Diana Rubens the V.A.'s Associate Deputy Under Secretary for Field Operations admits that there is plenty of room for improvement inside their system. She says changes have been made to the process but when CBS 6 e-mailed them later asking what those changes have been, they never responded.
Since Chauncey has been unable to get anywhere with his case, we decided to invite him in on our interview with Diana Rubens. Chauncey asked specific questions about his case in which Rubens couldn't answer and asked that he submit his questions in writing. Not getting anywhere his 17 years of frustration came out. "Why is the Regional Office not taking accountability for their administrative error. Don't sit there and tell me that this is on me! It's on that office!
CBS 6 was only granted 15 minutes for the interview. When our time was up we asked for more time for Chauncey but were declined. The Press Person Sue Hopkins stayed behind. That's when Chauncey spoke again. "How in the world can you say you're trying to help me! 17 years! How, How How! Do you know how I feel right now. You don't care about me at all. There's no compassion there maam. I'm sorry but that's the way I feel!"
Many Veterans say their call for help hasn't been answered by local leaders as well even though they answered the call for duty. So CBS 6 made a call to Senator Kirsten Gillibrands office. The Senator agreed to speak with us via satellite from her Washington D.C. office. Our first question was about Chauncey and when he might finally get an answer. "I will place calls to the VA and I will find out what the status of his case is. We'll talk to him today" says Senator Gillibrand.
Senator Gillibrand's office did call Chauncey. Her office also says they are waiting for a call back from the VA so they can walk through his case line by line with them".
Sue Frasier has been battling for her benefits for more than 34 years. We introduced you to her back in September. She too has medical records that ties PCB water and air contamination on the base she served in the 1970's to her many diseases. Since our investigation nothing has changed on her case either. "There are one million cases in the backlog, one million. It's about chronically underfunding the VA. It's always about not enough resources, caseworkers and not enough people to answer the phones" says Senator Gillibrand.
Which is why she says her colleagues in Washington are working to change that.
"One of the bills we're actually debating right now on the Senate Floor is the VA bill. There's money put in that bill to help with the backlog. Money set aside specifically for hiring people and getting the backlog reduced on a timely basis" says Senator Gillibrand. Gillibrand adds that any Veteran battling for their benefits should call her office if they need help.
Both Chauncey Robinson and Sue Frasier aren't so sure that will work but one thing they do know for sure. They're not going away and neither are the one million veterans caught up in the backlog of claims.
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
I see that Congress has given the money to the VA to hire almost 2000 new claims processors, the problem with that is it takes almost 2-3 years before they are trained to the point of being able to adjudicate the claims, the CFR 38 is huge and it takes a long time to learn what is needed to approve or deny claims according to the VA rules. Sue Frasiers claim deals with toxic exposures and Chauncey's is 17 years old I don't know if his circumstances are similar to mine where I got my PTSD service connected to a robbery and attempted murder at Fort Wainwright Alaska back in Feb 1975 and my cardiologists showed how the early onset of cardiac disease was secondary to my SC PTSD. With the VA the doctors need to play connect the dots and show exactly how the PTSD is related to the cardiac symptoms. I think that with Chauncey trying to get back pay to the Gulf War, that is one of the reasons the VARO is denying the claim, 17 years of back pay is roughly 425,000 dollars if his PTSD is 100% and he is trying to get the cardiac secondary to PTSD then that would be at a level the VA calls SMC S a difference of about 300 a month and for 17 years that would be a difference of 61,200 dollars approximately, a lot of it depends on if Chauncey is service connected for PTSD from the assault in the barracks, if not, then he has a lot of problems.
Sunday, December 20, 2009
An Officer and a Creative Man
An Officer and a Creative Man
By MARK MOYAR
Published: December 19, 2009
Quantico, Va.
Leadership Survey Responses AS President Obama and his advisers planned their new approach to the Afghan war, the quality of Afghanistan’s security forces received unprecedented scrutiny, and rightly so. Far less attention, however, has been paid to the quality of American troops there. Of course, American forces don’t demand bribes from civilians at gunpoint or go absent for days, as Afghans have often done. But they face serious issues of their own, demanding prompt action.
The American corporals and privates who traverse the Afghan countryside today are not at issue. They risk life and limb every day, with little self-pity. Despite the strains of successive combat deployments, they keep re-enlisting at high rates.
The problems lie, rather, in the leadership ranks. Although many Army and Marine officers in Afghanistan are performing well, a significant portion are not demonstrating the vital leadership attributes of creativity, flexibility and initiative. In 2008, to better pinpoint these deficits, I surveyed 131 Army and Marine officers who had served in counterinsurgency operations in Iraq or Afghanistan or both, asking them each 42 questions about leadership in their services.
The results were striking. Many respondents said that field commanders relied too much on methods that worked in another place at another time but often did not work well now. Officers at higher levels are stifling the initiative of junior officers through micromanagement and policies to reduce risk. Onerous requirements for armored vehicles on patrols, for instance, are preventing the quick action needed for effective counterinsurgency. Of the Army veterans I surveyed, only 28 percent said that their service encouraged them to take risks, while a shocking 41 percent said that the Army discouraged it.
The climate of risk aversion begins in American society at large, which puts a higher premium on minimizing casualties than on defeating the enemy. It continues with American politicians and other elites who focus on the abuses at Abu Ghraib and Haditha in Iraq, but rarely point out the far more numerous instances of American valor.
It doesn’t need to be this way in the Army. After all, the Marine Corps has succeeded in inducing its officers to operate independently. More than twice as many Marine survey respondents as Army respondents — 58 percent — said that their service encouraged risk-taking. Marine culture is different because the career Marine officers who shape it are, on average, less risk-averse than career Army officers.
Researchers have found that the leadership ranks of big organizations are dominated by either “sensing-judging” or “intuitive thinking” personality types. Those in the former category rely primarily on the five senses to tell them about the world; they prefer structure and standardization, doing things by the book and maintaining tight control.
In the late 20th century, the Army gravitated toward standardization, as peacetime militaries often do, and consequently rewarded the sensing-judging officers who are now the Army’s generals and colonels. But this personality type functions less well in activities that change frequently or demand regular risk-taking, like technological development or counterinsurgency. Organizations that thrive under such conditions are most often led by people with intuitive-thinking personalities. These people are quick to identify the need for change and to solve problems by venturing outside the box.
Today, the Army has more intuitive-thinking people among its lieutenants and captains than at the upper levels. Too many of these junior officers continue to leave the service out of disillusionment with its rigidity and risk aversion. To their credit, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and the Army chief of staff, Gen. George Casey, have been trying to fix this problem, directing promotion boards to value creativity and initiative. But more drastic treatment is required.
The military should incorporate personality test results into military personnel files, and promotion boards should be required to select higher percentages of those who fall into the intuitive-thinking group. Many highly successful businesses factor personality testing into promotion decisions; the military, with far more at stake, should be no less savvy.
More immediately, our generals should repeatedly visit the colonels who command brigades and battalions to see if they are encouraging subordinates to innovate and take risks. Commanders who refuse to stop micromanaging should be relieved. The change may be disruptive and painful, but in the long run it will save lives and shorten wars.
Mark Moyar is a professor of national security affairs at Marine Corps University and the author of “A Question of Command: Counterinsurgency From the Civil War to Iraq.”
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
I served in another era innovation was encouraged by the Army, the old ways did not work, it was especially encouraged after Vietnam. The training programs seemed to be based on tactics that were not seen as effective in the mid 70s. We wer getting new weapons and new weapon systems, we are also transforming from a draft army to an all volunteer Army. Supposedly the troops were more motivated to learn. Going outside the "box was encouraged" instead of being told how to do it step by step, we were given an objective and told to "do it" and as the junior officers and NCOs we would be held accountable for the success of the mission.
You had leeway to try new tactics, to forget the manuals, you just better be prepared to explain it, when it went wrong, and sometimes things went wrong in every which way they could, but that also was useful we learned what was not possible or feasible and what the true cost would be if reality was on the line. ( do not order 150 yards of rope to scale down cliffs in the dark when it is 200 yards to the bottom, it gets ugly quick).
Saturday, December 19, 2009
Agent Orange's lethal legacy: Defoliants more dangerous than they had to be
Agent Orange's lethal legacy: Defoliants more dangerous than they had to be
By Jason Grotto and Tim Jones
Tribune reporters
December 17, 2009
E-mail Print Text Size
Part 5 of a Tribune investigation unearths documents showing that decisions by the U.S. military and chemical companies that manufactured the defoliants used in Vietnam made the spraying more dangerous than it had to be. Complete coverage >>
As the U.S. military aggressively ratcheted up its spraying of Agent Orange over South Vietnam in 1965, the government and the chemical companies that produced the defoliant knew it posed health risks to soldiers and others who were exposed.
That year, a Dow Chemical Company memo called a contaminant in Agent Orange "one of the most toxic materials known causing not only skin lesions, but also liver damage."
Yet despite the mounting evidence of the chemical's health threat, the risks of exposure were downplayed, a Tribune review of court documents and records from the National Archives has found. The spraying campaign would continue for six more years.
Records also show that much of the controversy surrounding the herbicides might have been avoided if manufacturers had used available techniques to lessen dioxin contamination and if the military had kept better tabs on levels of the toxin in the compounds. Dow Chemical knew as early as 1957 about a technique that could eliminate dioxin from the defoliants by slowing the manufacturing process, according to documents unearthed by veterans' attorneys.
Since the Vietnam War, dioxin has been found to be a carcinogen associated with Parkinson's disease, birth defects and dozens of other health issues. Thousands of veterans as well as Vietnamese civilians were directly exposed to the herbicides used by the military.
Debilitating illnesses linked to defoliants used in South Vietnam now cost the federal government billions of dollars annually and have contributed to a dramatic increase in disability payments to veterans since 2003.
Documents show that before the herbicide program was launched in 1961, the Department of Defense had cut funding and personnel to develop defoliants for nonlethal purposes. Instead it relied heavily on the technical guidance of chemical companies, which were under pressure to increase production to meet the military's needs.
The use of defoliants led to massive class-action lawsuits brought by veterans and Vietnamese citizens against the chemical firms. The companies settled with U.S. veterans in the first of those suits in 1984 for $180 million.
Since then, the chemical companies have successfully argued they are immune from legal action under laws protecting government contractors. The courts also found that the military was aware of the dioxin contamination but used the defoliants anyway because the chemicals helped protect U.S. soldiers.
A 1990 report for the secretary of the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs found that the military knew that Agent Orange was harmful to personnel but took few precautions to limit exposure. The report quotes a 1988 letter from James Clary, a former scientist with the Chemical Weapons Branch of the Air Force Armament Development Laboratory, to then- Sen. Tom Daschle, who was pushing legislation to aid veterans with herbicide-related illnesses.
"When we initiated the herbicide program in 1960s, we were aware of the potential for damage due to dioxin contamination in the herbicides," Clary wrote. "We were even aware that the 'military' formulation had a higher dioxin concentration than the 'civilian' version due to the lower cost and speed of manufacture. However, because the material was to be used on the 'enemy,' none of us were overly concerned."
Military scientists had been experimenting with herbicides since the 1940s, but funding cuts in 1958 left few resources in place to fully evaluate the chemicals for use in Vietnam.
"I was given approximately 10 days notice to come to Vietnam to undertake 'research' in connection with the above tasks," wrote Col. James Brown of the U.S. Chemical Corps Research and Development Command in an October 1961 report to top brass just as the defoliation program was ramping up. "Thus, a large order was placed on a very poorly supported research effort."
The military launched a limited herbicide program in 1962 that involved 47 missions. At the time, relatively little was known about the health effects of dioxin, in part because cancer and other illnesses can take decades to develop and the herbicides had only been in wide use since 1947.
But documents uncovered by veterans' attorneys show the chemical companies knew that ingredients in Agent Orange and other defoliants could be harmful.
As early as 1955, records show, the German chemical company Boehringer had begun contacting Dow about chloracne and liver problems at a Boehringer plant that made 2,4,5-T, the ingredient in Agent Orange and other defoliants that was contaminated with dioxin.
Unlike U.S. chemical companies, Boehringer halted production and dismantled parts of its factory after it discovered workers were getting sick. The company studied the problem for nearly three years before resuming production of 2,4,5-T.
In doing so, the company found that dioxin was the culprit and that they could limit contamination by cooking the chemicals at lower temperatures, which would slow production.
In response to questions from the Tribune, Dow said it didn't purchase the proprietary information on the technique until 1964 and didn't start using it until 1965. Records show it did not inform other manufacturers or the government about the technique until the military began planning construction of its own chemical plant to make herbicides in 1967.
By that time, Dow also had developed a procedure to test dioxin levels in batches of 2,4,5-T. The company provided that technique to other companies in 1965 but not to the military until 1967, the company said.
Earlier in the decade, nearly two dozen military officials and chemical industry scientists met in April 1963 to issue a "general statement" about the health hazards from 2,4-D and 2,4,5-T. No one raised concerns about using the chemicals in Vietnam, according to minutes from the meeting.
Evidence focused largely on the fact that more than 300 million gallons of the compounds had been used domestically since 1947, even though the formulations for Vietnam would be far more concentrated and contain more dioxin.
"The committee concluded that no health hazard is or was involved to man or domestic animals from the amounts or manner these materials were used in aforementioned exercise," the minutes show.
Nonetheless, Dow told the Tribune it had been sharing information about health issues with the military. "In fact, the chemical manufacturers, including Dow, were in dialogue with the U.S. government regarding the potential hazards of chloracne in production workers beginning as early as 1949 and continuing through the 1960s," Dow spokesman Peter Paul van de Wijs said in a written response.
In 1965, the chemical companies involved in producing the defoliants met at Dow's headquarters in Midland, Mich., to discuss the contaminant's threat to consumers.
"This material (dioxin) is exceptionally toxic; it has a tremendous potential for producing chloracne and systemic injury," Dow's chief toxicologist, V.K. Rowe, wrote to the other companies on June 24, 1965.
But none of the companies informed the military personnel charged with overseeing the defoliation contracts of the safety concerns until late 1967, according to depositions from the lawsuits.
Internal documents from multiple companies indicate they were worried about the specter of tighter regulation.
Only after a study for the National Institutes of Health showed that 2,4,5-T caused birth defects in laboratory animals did the military stop using Agent Orange, in 1970.
Alan Oates, a Vietnam veteran who chairs the Agent Orange committee for Vietnam Veterans of America, said veterans have had little luck in their legal fight for compensation since the 1984 settlement.
Veterans have argued unsuccessfully in court that the settlement was insufficient because it came too early for thousands of people whose illnesses did not develop until after all the settlement money had run out.
One unresolved issue, Oates said, is whether chemical companies can be held liable for health costs associated with birth defects seen in the children of Vietnam veterans. "Now that it's starting to show it has an impact on future generations, what is the recourse for those folks?" Oates said.
jgrotto@tribune.com
tmjones@tribune.com
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Regardless of the "Feres Doctrine" and "government umbrella's" to protect the manufacturers of "poisons" that were sprayed on areas where American soldiers would be operating in, and the fact that the half lifes of these toxins appears to be decades, that it is now causing medical defects and cancers in children being born yet today, of American veterans and the children of Vietnam, shows that the American government should show some compassion to the affected people, this is NOT how compassionate people react, they accept responsibility for the damage they cause.
Part of the PROMISE made to America's young men and women when they enlisted or were drafted is if any thing related to your military service causes harm to you or your death, this nation will care for you and your family, financially and medically, yet for decades they have literally ignored the birth defects except spina bifida, and have spent decades fighting in court to stop from having to pay compensation for medical conditions caused by the toxins of Agent Orange, despite the admission by DOW how dangerous they knew this stuff was fifty years ago.
We can send billions of dollars to Africa to help the people there deal with AIDS yet we ignore the people of Vietnam we know we poisoned, does this make sense? What about our own veterans, General Shinseki just gave presumptive status to ischemic heart disease, and 2 other conditions that slip my mind at this moment, veterans of Vietnam have been demanding help for the high percentage of their veterans that have died from heart disease, suspecting but never able to prove the relationship due to the fact that scientists ignored heart disease in the official "Ranch Hand study" of air force crews that handled aerial spraying of agent orange. I guess if you ignore it then it never happened.......
