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.
Monday, December 21, 2009
INVESTIGATION: Veteran's Battle for Benefits
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.......
Friday, December 18, 2009
'It's a rotten deal': Rent at veterans home to go up by as much as 37 percent
'It's a rotten deal': Rent at veterans home to go up by as much as 37 percent
DOVER - Gary Forst moved into the Veterans Home at Union Grove about four years ago. Soon after, Harold Yonker moved in too.
The two men, veterans of different wars, have been friends ever since they moved into Gates Hall, one of the assisted living facilities on the Union Grove campus.
It won't be long before Yonker, 87, moves out. At least he hopes to. That's been his plan ever since he and his fellow residents learned in November that the Department of Veterans Affairs will increase their rent by as much as 37 percent.
The rate hike takes effect Jan. 1. That's when the daily rate of $83 jumps to a little more than $114 per day, at least for Yonker. That's an increase of nearly $930 each month. The rates vary for different residents, depending on the level of care they need. Many say they can't afford the increases.
"I really figured when I moved here this would be it, I would be here the rest of my life, but they are pricing me right out of here," said Yonker, a World War II veteran. "The staff bends over backwards. I've never had a nicer bunch of people. I'm not unhappy here. It's strictly a monetary thing."
Yonker said his monthly rent of roughly $2,500 will jump to nearly $3,500. It's more than he can afford, which is why he plans to move.
Forst, 66, has no choice. He has been nearly confined to a wheelchair since he broke a hip. The Vietnam veteran needs the kind of assistance that prevents him from living independently. So the veterans' home is an ideal place to live.
Residents and their families are concerned about the hike in rates and they're disappointed by what they say is the lack of explanation as to why the increases are so steep. There have been increases annually, but not this large, they said.
"It's a rotten deal. I'm partially disabled. I can't move out of this place, no way in hell, and I sure as hell can't afford to live here. It's just unbelievable," Forst said. "I'm sure that there are veterans in the state Legislature and the VA. How can these veterans treat fellow veterans this way?"
Both Forst and Yonker have been happy with their experiences at the veterans home. They're concerned about decisions being made at the state level.
Officials say the increases are needed to meet the costs for caring for residents at the veterans' home. A spokeswoman for the department could not provide specifics, and Commandant Randy Nitschke could not be reached for comment.
Union Grove is one of two homes run by the state's Department of Veterans Affairs. There are no planned rate increases at the Veterans Home at King. The Veterans Affairs Board has been discussing the rate increases since they were first notified in November 2008. Residents weren't notified until a year later.
Richard Bayer, Racine County's Veterans Services Officer, has responded to a handful of calls from indignant veterans ever since the rent increases were announced. They're upset about the increase. They think it's outrageous, Bayer said.
"‘Who can I talk to who can do something about this?' That is the universal question," Bayer said.
There is little he can do. So he has been telling veterans who have called to contact their state legislators.
"Whoever holds the purse strings for the Department of Veterans Affairs is ultimately the Legislature. It's their constituents who are calling me," Bayer said. "It kind of puts me in the position ... the only way I can advocate for the veteran is to send them to the legislators."
Kathy Lehsten was surprised when her father, Ray Lafferty, called about a month ago saying he had to move out of the veterans home. He's happy there. He's been happy ever since he moved to the home four years ago.
Lehsten and her father agreed that it was a good place to move. Lafferty had lived at much more expensive facility in Greendale, where his daughter lives. Lehsten thought the veterans home was going to be more affordable and she and her father have made accommodations for past rent increases. The most recent increase is too much, she said, and it comes without any explanation from officials as to why it is needed.
"The whole fact that they are even doing this to the veterans is appalling. This is about the most disrespectful thing I've heard of being done," Lehsten said. "These people fought for our freedom and they're treating them like this."
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
How much money do the state legislators think veterans have to pay veterans home's fee's, even the federal governments veterans homes take the veterans social sceurity checks and gives the veterans back 150.00 a month for personal needs, there is no set dollar amount, it's based on their income. I myself would never consider moving into one of these facilities based on my income I refuse to pay the governemtn 4500 or 5000 a month in fees to live in a small one room and a bath, I will stay in my home and find someone that needs a place to live on SS or a veterans pension and in exchange for their driving and grocery shopping if it comes to that point, I like my house, hopefully I will be accompanied by my wife until I pass, but just in case I refuse to be financially raped by a state nusring home.
Ex-N.J. veterans' official pleads guilty in tax case
Posted on Tue, Dec. 1, 2009
Ex-N.J. veterans' official pleads guilty in tax case
By Barbara Boyer
Inquirer Staff Writer
Vietnam veteran William Devereaux says he has never gotten over seeing
his best friend killed during a rocket attack on the 82d Airborne
Division.
"I only found the top of his head and his boots with the feet in
them," Devereaux, 64, wrote in a statement he released yesterday
morning. "I was never the same AGAIN!"
Minutes earlier, in Superior Court in Camden, Devereaux appeared more
humble as he pleaded guilty to theft related to tax payments.
Devereaux, a former official with the New Jersey Department of
Military and Veterans Affairs, apologized for what he called
"delusional" and "paranoid" decisions, and for embellishing his
military disabilities so he could avoid paying local property taxes.
Assistant Camden County Prosecutor Leslie Dicker said Devereaux
applied for benefits related to war injuries only after he began his
job of helping other veterans apply for benefits in 2002.
Devereaux pleaded guilty to theft under an agreement with prosecutors,
who will recommend a 30-day jail sentence that he can serve under
house arrest. If the deal is accepted by Judge Irvin J. Snyder, who
set sentencing for Jan. 29, Devereaux also will serve five years'
probation.
He has surrendered his job, can never work for the state again, and
has paid $54,142 in taxes he owed to Laurel Springs for 2002 through
2008, when he improperly claimed the military exemption, said his
attorney, Dennis Wixted.
Additionally, Devereaux may not work with veterans in any capacity for
at least five years. Had he gone to trial and been convicted, he could
have faced up to five years in prison.
"I'm very, very sorry for what has happened," Devereaux told the judge
at yesterday's hearing, after arriving in a black jacket emblazoned
with the 82d Airborne emblem in red stitching. He asked for
"compassion and forgiveness."
His troubles, however, are not over. Camden County Prosecutor Warren
Faulk said federal authorities were continuing the investigation.
Devereaux was arrested a year ago, when he worked as the director of
veterans programs for the state.
Devereaux first worked for the Camden County Office of Veterans
Affairs, in 2001. In 2004, Gov. Jim McGreevey appointed him director
of veterans' programs. In that position, Devereaux helped soldiers
suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder.
It was at that time, prosecutors said, that Devereaux learned how to
work the system, applying for the tax exemptions and claiming he was
100 percent disabled from the war.
Devereaux, in attending numerous military functions, wore a decorated
uniform that included high military honors, including a Purple Heart,
a Soldier's Medal, and a Bronze Star. He also received $34,000 in
military benefits federal authorities are reviewing, officials said.
He claimed he was injured as a paratrooper and artilleryman in Vietnam
and later used incorrect military records to qualify for property-tax
exemptions in Laurel Springs.
"It's outrageous that someone who worked for the Veterans
Administration would be engaged in this type of behavior," said Faulk.
Devereaux never received any of the medals he claimed, officials said.
Devereaux agreed, calling his behavior "despicable," but said he never
faked being in combat or his war-related disabilities when he served
with the 82d Airborne.
"Our unit arrived in Vietnam on Feb. 13, 1968, at Chu Clai," Devereaux
wrote in his statement. "Within three hours of landing, we took
incoming 122mm rockets and were attacked by Viet Cong from the
southeast and were pressed into fire fights. I had been
administratively trained and was completely unready to face this type
of action, however I did then and for the next five months."
During this time, he wrote, his best friend was killed 50 feet from
the spot where Devereaux took cover during the rocket attack.
Authorities said it was possible Devereaux had seen combat; according
to military records, he joined the Army in May 1967 and was honorably
discharged in May 1970. The records show he was assigned as a payroll-
distribution specialist to Vietnam for four months in 1968.
Devereaux's lies make it difficult to believe any of his story,
officials said.
Initially, Devereaux said, he never told anyone about war-related
problems. He said he started treatment for post-traumatic stress
disorder in 1989 and was diagnosed with prostate cancer in 2000, which
he said was related to Agent Orange.
Although the military never gave him a 100 percent permanent
disability, which entitles him to additional benefits, Devereaux said
he had applied for one and still was waiting for a determination.
He knew, he said, it was wrong to apply for the tax exemptions and
claim medals he never received.
"I hated how the VA was treating me and the thousands of other Vietnam
vets in like situations," Devereaux wrote, adding, "I apologize
profusely for my irrational and despicable behavior in this case.
However, I can assure you that it was not done with a clear heart or
mind."
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
The saddest part of this is the man had "honorable service" in the Army during war, he distorted that to make himself into a "hero" without that he would have been the same as the hundreds of thousands of other war veterans, his stressor of seeing his friend killed should have been a legitimate sressor for a PTSD claim, his falsely claimed medals, his claim for property tax exemptions that he is not entititled to, this is what makes him a dispicable veteran and hurts the image of honrable veterans with PTSD......I hope he is ashamed of his behavior but his wearing of the 82nd Jacket indicates he isn't, why else shame the 82nd while in court for sentencing? His claim that the VA wasn't treating him properly is bull otherwise how does he explain the compensation checks he is receiving? Has the VA failed VietnamWar veterans, yes, just like they have other war veterans, veterans of classified experimental programs involving nuclear materials, chemical weapons and drugs from WW2 - 1975, biological experiments at Fort Detrick, SHAD/112, Dugway Proving Grounds, Utah, Fort Greeley, Alaska, toxic substances at every military base in the nation, after closure all of them have ended up on the EPA Superfund clean up sites, yet when veterans file claims related to the exposures the government claims that nothing was dangerous enough to harm the veterans at these bases. It baffles the mind that toxic substances can require superfund clean up yet the contaminated water wells are declared "safe" by the VA and DOD.
Kucinich Wins $8 Million Dollars for Gulf War Illnesses Research
Kucinich Wins $8 Million Dollars for Gulf War Illnesses Research
Washington, Dec 17 -
Efforts by Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) to continue to help ailing veterans of the first Gulf War paid off yesterday when he won the inclusion of $8,000,000 for Gulf War Veterans Illnesses (GWVI) in H.R. 3326, the Defense Appropriations spending bill.
“One in four veterans of the first Gulf War suffers from Gulf War Veterans Illnesses. We absolutely cannot allow the research to be stopped. That is even more true recently as research has advanced dramatically in the last few years,” said Kucinich
Congressman Kucinich has consistently led the bipartisan Congressional effort to maintain this critical research. His most recent letter was signed by 26 Members of Congress including the bipartisan leadership of the Veterans’ Affairs Committee and Health Subcommittee as well as members of the Appropriations Committee and Armed Services Committee.
“We have a responsibility to find treatments for the soldiers who continue to pay a heavy price for their service over 15 years later. We cannot leave them behind,” added Kucinich
Last year, the 454-page report by the Congressionally-mandated Research Advisory Committee on Gulf War Veterans Illnesses concluded that the extensive scientific evidence now available yields three conclusions: Gulf War illness is real, was caused by toxic exposures during the war, and there are no currently effective treatments.
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
This does NOT indicate where the money will bespent and what research it will focus on, so is this a relevant victory or another "we are doing something" show? After almost 20 years and the bogus March 2003 Sarin report and the failure to even look at low level mustard agent exposures, DOD limited the IOM's research on the Sarin study to a very narrow margin and it ingored a 1994 NIH report on low level exposures to Sarin which indicated far more health issues than the IOM concluded, the main purpose of the DOD funded research is to limit the governments liabilities to veterans of the Gulf War, if they have to ignore the 75% disabled or deceased Edgewood Arsenal (test group) in order to achieve this they will, most of the 7120 Edgewood veterans (those knowingly exposed to chemical weapons and drugs. by the Army between 1955 - 1975) will this 8 million do any good?
Military: Burn pits could cause long-term damage to troops
Military: Burn pits could cause long-term damage to troops
By Adam Levine, CNN Pentagon Producer
December 18, 2009 8:36 a.m. EST
Washington (CNN) -- The military is backing off its previous position and acknowledging that some troops exposed to the burning of refuse on military bases could be susceptible to long-term health effects.
Since the issue first arose two years ago, Pentagon health officials have insisted that, based on its analysis, troops who were near burn pits at Joint Base Balad in Iraq -- the largest base in that country -- faced no long-term health hazards. That covered most of the troops who passed through the base.
The Department of Defense found that the burn pits, which are used instead of incinerators on some bases and outposts in Iraq and Afghanistan, could cause effects in the short term -- including irritated eyes and upper respiratory system problems -- that can lead to persistent coughing. But the department said "it is less clear what other longer-term health effects [there] may be."
But one of the top military health officials, Dr. Craig Postlewaite, signaled in a recent interview with the Salt Lake Tribune that certain troops, who have other medical conditions, may be at risk for long-term effects.
"Over time, we have come to recognize that certain individuals may be more susceptible to the effects of burn-pit smoke than others because of genetics and pre-existing health conditions and that some of these personnel may be at risk of more serious health effects following prolonged smoke exposure, and possibility to other inhalational exposures, such as tobacco smoke and possibly high levels of air borne particulate matter," Postlewaite said this week in a statement provided to CNN.
Certain individuals may be more susceptible ... because of genetics and pre-existing health conditions.
--Dr. Craig Postlewaite, military health official
RELATED TOPICS
U.S. Department of Defense
Iraq
U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs
The military now suspects that exposure to burn-pit smoke combined with other factors -- such as smoking, proximity to the pit, certain genetic factors or pre-existing conditions -- could lead to longer-term effects.
After an outcry from veterans concerned that burn-pit exposure was not being acknowledged by the Department of Defense and Veterans Affairs, both agencies have begun a larger study of troops to determine what other health effects there could be.
Service members have complained of symptoms ranging from chronic bronchitis, asthma, sleep apnea, chronic coughs and allergy-like symptoms to more severe issues including heart problems, lymphoma and leukemia.
A senior master sergeant with the Air Force, who did not want his name used because he is still in service, said that he now has a growth on his lungs and that his doctors think the burn pits were a contributing cause.
He deployed to Iraq in October 2004 and worked there for six months as a contract supervisor for the Army. His daily routine included driving past the burn pits at Balad as he ferried Iraqi contractors around the massive base.
As he drove by, the master sergeant could see the refuse being burned, from trash to concrete to sides of tin buildings and sheet metal.
"You just held your breath, because if you breathed, it would burn," he told CNN in a phone interview.
He slept about a mile from the pit, but, depending on the winds, the burning could create a "fog" over his compound.
"You could tell when the trash was burning," he said. "You could smell if it was really heavy and feel it burning in your nostrils and lungs."
The master sergeant was in good health before he left for Iraq. Earlier in his military career, he had worked with hazardous materials, but a predeployment scan in 2004 showed his lungs were in fine shape.
In 2006, after finding he would get easily winded and feel discomfort in his chest, the sergeant underwent testing, and a military doctor discovered a nodule on his lungs. A biopsy showed it was benign, but he needs to be tested every year. His doctors are concerned that his family history of cancer makes him more susceptible to further problems.
But his case illustrates just how difficult it is to link symptoms to cause.
As he said, he had worked with hazardous materials before he deployed. After Iraq, he was stationed in Naples, Italy, where the base also had trash disposal problems. Still, he knows that his lungs were clear before he was in Balad and that within a year of returning, he had the growth.
The Disabled American Veterans organization has been keeping a database of troops who report problems related to the pit. In one year, nearly 500 service members or their families have come forward, said the DAV's John Wilson.
That registry is "very narrow," Wilson said, because it relies on self-reporting. Rep. Tim Bishop, D-New York, has proposed legislation to have the Defense Department and Veterans Affairs create a registry of all service members exposed in Iraq and Afghanistan. Congress already passed legislation, which the president signed, to prohibit the use of burn pits for hazardous waste unless there is no alternative.
A study that compared Iraq veterans with those who served stateside found that those who were in Iraq were diagnosed with new-onset adult asthma at twice the rate of stateside troops.
The head of the allergy section of the Veterans Affairs Medical Center in North Port, New York, told Congress that since 2004, he has clearly seen an effect on previously healthy and athletic service members.
"Now these individuals suffer from a variety of respiratory illness, including asthma and difficulty breathing during exertion," Dr. Anthony Szema told a policy hearing in November.
That's what happened to Reservist Michelle Franco, who was a nurse at Balad from September 2006 through January 2007.
"What I saw was the smoke. What I felt was the smoke. What I smelled was the smoke," Franco said of her time at Balad. After she left, she started having breathing problems.
"When I came back, I couldn't climb stairs without problems breathing," she said. Tests by pulmonologists found asthma-like conditions, but her condition wasn't asthma. A private doctor and a military one told her it probably was caused by exposure to contaminants in Iraq.
Getting that diagnosis was a struggle for her. When she returned, burn pit exposure was not a recognized issue. She was told to lose weight, which she did, and it didn't help. She also exercised regularly and said she took all types of medicine, but medications didn't help, either.
As a nurse, Franco knew that she didn't just have asthma. But she said others may not realize they have greater problems.
"Because nobody knows, it seems to me the military member needs to be given the benefit of the doubt. I feel badly for the young men who don't understand this isn't asthma," Franco said.
Franco has had to prove to the military that her service caused her illness.
The military is trying to help that by better recording where people served, according to a Pentagon spokeswoman. Before 2006, at best, the records showed what country people served in. Now they can be tracked to the "ZIP code," the spokeswoman said.
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
There are just to many cases of cancer and other problems involving exposures coming back from Iraq and Afghanistan there has to be a link, the burn pits are one of the main culpits, but I am not one who will believe it is the only cause, their are other causes such as the spilt chemicals that KBR knew about at the water treatment facilities that the National Guard troops were guarding. Whose responsibility was it to notify the military chain of command that the chemicals on the ground were dangerous and toxic?
Regardless of what is causing it, this nation the military and VA officials have a responsibility to keep the "PROMISE" we make to all of those who serve, if your service causes you to become ill or dead we will take care of you and or your family, nothing more and nothing less.
