Jumpmaster

Agent White aka Tordon 101, Silvex 2,4,5-T, Agent Orange, TCDD, plus 25 Dioxins, , HCB, PCBs, PCP and Benzene in McClellan soil (PDF) Attached

Posted by mistake for “Benzene” reply, I was tired, sleepy, but unable to sleep at that hour. Reposting now to share with Hadit veterans suffering presumptive diseases that need exposure evidence.

I’ve asked for permission from my legal representative Kerry Baker, email KBaker@cck-law.com with the firm of Chisholm Chisholm & Kilpatrick LTD, 401-331-6300, allowing me to share credible herbicide exposure facts that (Agent Orange and his deadly cousin Agent White), plus other chemical warfare agents use, storage and spills at Fort McClellan, Alabama.

My (best friend), was treated for B-Cell Leukemia and immune disorders, at the VAMC for years and later died without service connection for that presumptive disease. He did not serve in Vietnam, but did serve along the Korean DMZ, Fort Dix, NJ and Fort McClellan, Alabama.

As the years pass us by, our memory deteriorates, but veterans must never forget that presumptive diseases diagnosis at “38 CFR 3.307 lists exposure to 2,4-D; 2,4,5-T and the contaminant TCDD; cacoddylic acid, and picloram the chemical ingredients for Agent Orange.

On August 25, 2013, AskNod posted the resource “Where the Orange Fertilizer Landed” referencing 59-Contaminated Bases. I, first read in 2011, and shared it with my friend family. That post connects an earlier posting about Fort McClellan a veteran received service connection for McClellan Agent Orange. But, it was not definitive that Agent Orange was the tactical herbicide resulting in his presumptive disease. Thanks! Berta for re-posting that claim,

I’ve pasted portions from that decision, I believe are compelling based on “38 CFR 3.307 highlights on presumptive service connection for diseases associated with exposure to 2,4-D; 2,4,5-T and the contaminant TCDD; cacoddylic acid, and picloram the chemical ingredients for Agent Orange.

Since October 2011, my herbicide research of Fort McClellan contamination kept tuning up the chemical ingredients (2,4-D; 2,4,5-T, 2,4,5-TP; 2,4-D; 2,4-DP and TCDD, and 2,3,7,8-TCDD) based on herbicide-pesticide inventory records, and soil samples reported in 1998. I do not have a chemistry background, so after analyzing the makeup of these ingredient from numerous reports. The true identities for (Agents Orange, White, Silvex and Tordon 101) emerged as the perfect match for “tactical herbicides” minus their “covert camouflage” authorized as (restricted use pesticides) on U.S. military bases.

“FINDINGS OF FACT: 1. from the above link to http://www.va.gov/ve...es1/1108696.txt The Veteran was exposed to herbicides while stationed at Fort McClellan, Alabama, in 1969.”
The full decision shows how he won his AO claim. Finally, he states that Agent Orange (as well as (Agents Blue and White) were present and being tested in the same building where he worked.

In a May 2010 response to VA inquiries, the Department of Defense (DoD) has certified that a "review of the DoD documentation does not show any use, testing or storage of tactical herbicides, such as Agent Orange, at any location in Alabama, to include Fort McClellan.

Okay hit pause, press the rewind button, Fort McClellan is on the DOD 59-Contaminated U.S Bases report, the McClellan herbicide inventory show Agent Orange’s first cousin Tordon 101 aka Agent White, blood type 2,4-D, and nephew Silvex is 2,4,5-T herbicides had been permanent assigned to Fort McClellan since 1974.

"The DOD also stated this in the veteran claim: however, those records would not reflect "small scale non-tactical herbicide applications" such as routine base maintenance activities like range management, brush clearing, or weed killing. However, the DOD certification leaves open the possibility that herbicides may have been used in the manner described by the Veteran, to clear brush and weeds around the Tiger Village. That officer, whose specific identity cannot be determined, was in a position, with commensurate duties and responsibilities, to know what chemicals or substances were being used to maintain or prepare the training area. While it cannot be definitively ascertained whether Agent Orange was in fact the substance used in 1969 at Fort McClellan, all reasonable doubt must be resolved in favor of the Veteran.

Struggling with anxiety, depression, and the memory of my (best-friend) dying without service connection. I, will say all Veterans, must band together (brothers and sisters), and gather all evidence, that wins the presumptive diseases claim inside the VARO. Why should another veteran die? When a rater drop-kicks the claim from backlog, into the appeals cycle, collect a nice fat performance bonus, fully aware the veteran may die during the appeal/remand cycle! Fort McClellan veterans, have been exposed to herbicides, and deadly chemical warfare agents, Benzene, PCBs, TCE, radiation inside the CONUS .

We must speak louder with credible facts, and maybe someday the media talking heads. The big four VSO’s, and the belt way (life-term) politicians, will listen and concede the Fort McClellan veterans faced deadly chemical agents, and dioxins, inside the United States of America. So, where is the sympathy for our fallen heroes that faced (Sarin, Mustard, and Nerve Agents) at Fort McClellan, not in Syria or another overseas tropical or frozen location.

SPECIAL NOTE: The DOD authorized Tordon 101 as regular use pesticide; which is picloram and 2,4,-D-based, also known as herbicide (Agent White) used in "small scale non-tactical herbicide applications" such as base maintenance activities like range management, brush clearing, or weed killing at the base, recreation areas, golf course, all active ranges, all training areas.

Reflecting, on that 1969 “Tiger Village” decision where all doubt was resolved in favor of the veteran. A strong argument can be made based on the 1980 herbicide-pesticide inventory records show more likely than not all rainbow herbicides were tested, covertly in a non-tactical manner at Fort McClellan and later shipped from the Port at Mobile, Alabama to defoliate Vietnam.

So ask yourself, how the DOD maintains its assertion for no tactical herbicide use, testing, at any location in Alabama, both McClellan and the Port of Mobile are located in Alabama proved by official contamination research records. (JMHO)

Citing Paul Harvey’s catch phrase: Hello Americans, and Hadit family, Stand at Ease! I’m not Mr. Harvey reincarnated. Do you know what the news is? Well in a few minutes, you will after reading the rest of this story”. (I love to mix three tablespoons of “Humor” it helps me cope with my severe anxiety/depression from my VA war). Now, pausing dramatically, as Mr. Harvey did……I believe the VA and the DOD would want all veterans to know herbicides stored and used at Fort McClellan: does qualify for VA compensation purposes, see regulations at 38 C.F.R. § 3.307 establish presumptive service connection for diseases associated with exposure to 2,4-D;
2,4,5-T and its contaminant TCDD (Agent Orange); cacodylic acid, and picloram. See 38 U.S.C. § 1116.

THE FACT-BASED EVIDENCE:

In 1974, the based used 8,000 gallons of Silvex – which is 2,4,5-T based – 18,480 gallons in 1975, and 41,460 gallons in 1976. R-289. Also, it used 7,200 gallons of 2,4-D in 1974, 6,000 in 1975, and 4,800 in 1976. Id. The base also used 1,800 gallons of 2,4,5-T in 1974 and 10,000 gallons in 1976. Id. Further, the base used 4,000 gallons of picloram in 1975, in addition to 20,300 gallons of Tordon 101, which is picloram and 2,4,-D-based, also known as Agent White. Agent White is also contaminated with hexachlorobenzene and nitrosamines, both known carcinogens.

Monsanto/Solutia Inc. contamination records appear marginal, compared to the U.S. Army’s Chemical School long history for spills, and illegal burial of chemical warfare agents. In the 1980’s all military branches, the DOD and VA, least likely than not understood contamination exposure and believed no duty existed to notify veterans, and our families, and kept the base open for active training until 1999 to measure adverse health effects for humans.

I’m grateful, for the opportunity to share research facts, crafted by my legal representatives, after listening to my emotion-charged statements, then completed the attached chemical summary, based on the official records to support my claim.

I pray that veterans worldwide can use the (PDF) spotlighting chemical exposure facts, in a nutshell, per chemical exposure-events at Fort McClellan, Alabama covering the past 50 years; and some cases, much longer. In honor of my (best friend) another Vietnam Era veterans without boots on the ground service in the Nam! Use this resource, and recharge your “warrior spirit” to prove stateside herbicide exposure at the VARO level..

I shall never surrender, regardless of any denied claims, or side effects from any VA recognized presumptive disease, during my VA war. JMHO & Motto.

Jumpmaster
CCK-Law, Ft McClellan Combined Exposure Report, 9-5-2013t.pdf

Berta: My PDF is not copyrighted and is taken from publicly available information.

Hollis sad: It just adds to my claim on AO. I was station at Ft. Mccllean back in 1968 for AIT training before beening sent to Ft Benning for K9 training. I will see if I can cut and paste this and use as evidence for my claim.

On page 11, A lay statement talk about K-9’s dying from “mysterious causes“ and another dog paws burned and eaten away by mustard gas previously buried. All former Dog Handlers should be concerned about their health long term. Another justification for a Health Registry, regardless of their Military Occupational Specialty (MOS). They served on a base that was a slow-ticking, “secret chemical bomb” known by the military branches and DOD long before the 1999 detonation/closure. JMHO.

Hollis, use the PDF it belongs to me and I am not prevented from sharing it with Hadit, nor any (brothers and sisters) of Fort McClellan, Alabama. I read in my own estimate 50,000 plus pages of damn boring public information. My attorneys understood my anxiety, depressive mood, and summarized the exposure research. That VA knew it was already there in living color before my friend died.

Hollis, you were there in 1968-- KEEP IN MIND that DOD said the stuff was never located in the State of Alabama but that is not the case and further proved in the 1980 thru 1992 Fort McClellan herbicide-pesticide inventory records available to the public..

All veterans must keep searching for inventory evidence pre-dating the 1973 closure of the Chemical School. My gut feeling tells me it does exist, the military branches, the DOD and VA know that it exist and they have challenged us to uncover what they’ve been hiding from 1951 until 1999

Remember: As the years pass us by, our memory deteriorates, but veterans must never forget that presumptive diseases diagnosis at “38 CFR 3.307 lists exposure to 2,4-D; 2,4,5-T and the contaminant TCDD; cacoddylic acid, and picloram the chemical ingredients for Agent Orange.

Hollis, when the time comes for your legal help, search through (NOVA, NVLSP) for help until you find a firm that gives you that deep down in your spirit (gut) feeling; you’ve landed in the right place. I have good reasons for non-support of the big four (VSO’s) scoring a claim TD at VARO.

Good luck my brother-- Thank you for your service and God Bless you.

''I don't see anything in the Federal Register that says "cue must have a 10% or greater value to be granted".
I can't find in the MR21 THE REGULATION on the CUE has to have a 10% or better in which to file CUE."
There are 2,866 decisions at the BVA web site, whereby the veteran claimed CUE over a zero percent rating.
This is one of them that was partially granted under CUE regarding
limitation of extension of the right knee, evaluated as zero percent disabling; and limitation of extension of the left knee, evaluated as zero disabling. "limitation of extension of the right knee, evaluated as zero percent disabling; and limitation of extension of the left knee, evaluated as zero disabling."
https://www.va.gov/vetapp18/files1/1802719.t
This is an extremely unusual CUE that Carlie posted here::
https://community.hadit.com/topic/52996-bva-calls-cue-on-prior-ro-denial-vet-never-claimed-this-cue/
Nothing is impossible. One of my CUEs ,awarded, was on a disability that was never  even listed on any rating sheet or coded at all, with no percent. It was IHD( coded and awarded under AO Nehmer)
If you do a search under CUE at the BVA web site and put Zero percent in the second part of the BVA search feature, these 2,866 CUE decisions will pop up- most of them are denials but ,in any event I read hundreds of BVA denials of CUE and awards of CUE before I filed my first two CUE claims.
If "0" Is NSC-it had to be proven as SC,
then at "0" SC, it has to be proven,legally, that VA had the medical evidence at time of that decision to award at least 10%, based on the rating schedule in affect at time of the decision being cued.
"1) 2013 they denied as having a loss but they couldn't SC
2) 2018 they denied to reopen on New and Material saying the claim was neither.
3) 2018 VA by itself decided I needed a new C&P and granted SC but dated 2018."
If this is the same disability,2013- 2018, you could have a valid case of CUE....but that depends on
the evidence they had in 2013.
 
 

." In March 2018, Dr. P.T. submitted medical opinions that opined it was at least as likely as not that the Veteran’s hypertension and tinea cruris were caused by the Veteran’s exposure to herbicides during service. The rationale provided for the hypertension was that research from the National Institute of Health indicated there was a direct connection between Dioxine exposure and hypertension. The rationale provided for the Tinea cruris was, that Dioxine exposure affects the Thymus gland in regulating immunity and a reduction in the immune system lowers the body’s ability to fight opportunistic skin."
(I think tinea crusis is the jock itch many Vietnam vets got there.)
https://www.va.gov/vetapp19/files5/19141330.txt
I could not find the NIH Report that BVA referred to, but this recent report, that Secretary Wilkie has states  this:
“Hypertension
The committee concluded that the information now assembled constitutes sufficient evidence of an association between exposure to at least one of the COIs and hypertension.”
 
Page 10 of 716 pages.
COI means “chemicals of interest”. Hericides in Vietnam (AO) are one of those chemicals of interest in this report.
This report also refers to a different  report as well , that maybe the BVA used.
This entire report was done by the NAP National  Academic Press
http://www.nationalacademies.org/
I strongly suggest that any incountry ( and Blue Water veterans ( if your ship is on the July 2019 Ships list here, or within the lat/long coordinates of your ship, regarding HR 299, shoud think about  filing a claim for IHB due to AO,particularly if the VA has deemed your HBP as “essential.”And it is rated as NSC.
And send them the first initial pages of this report as well as a copy of page 10.
You still might need an IMO but we do not know if the Sec will add any new presumptives ( this is the strongest one in my opinion on the potential list)   then again maybe we should wait to see if the Sec does add HBP……
But I sure am getting my evidence together for filing  this type of claim.
 
 
 
 
 

Make sure it’s flgged for hardship every step in the process everytime they want to remand to the RO make sure they don’t forget to flag hardship. They will forget or delay flagging it if you forget to check up on it...

At some point early on in the Appeals Process, you made a Representation Decision to go it alone. From your above post, that decision has not been validated. At this point, you saved 20% of nothing by not obtaining VA Lawyer or Claims Agent Representation.
If there isn't enough Retro to interest a VA lawyer or Claims Agent, you might consider the Vet Consortium Pro Bono Service in DC. They'll take you all the way to the CAVC if necessary, for none of your Retro, just the Awarded Legal fees if a Win or Remand is Decided.

Re: Chapter 35 aka DEA:
":A child (between ages 18 and 26, with some exceptions) of a veteran who is permanently and totally disabled due to a service-related condition; or who died in service; or who died of a service-connected disability; or who died while evaluated as having total and permanent service-connected disability; or who is listed as a POW or MIA.
The surviving spouse of a veteran who died of a service-connected disability, or died in service, or died while evaluated as having total and permanent disability resulting from a service-connected disability. Surviving spouses whose benefits stopped when they remarried can receive DEA benefits again if their remarriage ends by death or divorce, or they cease to live with the person to whom they presented themselves in public as married.
A spouse of a veteran or serviceperson who has a total and permanent disability resulting from a service-connected disability; or who is listed as a POW or MIA.
Entitlement: 45 months. (Maximum of 48 months if eligible for more than one benefit chapter.) Delimiting Date: Child: 8 years; Spouse: 10 years; Surviving Spouse: 10 years. 20 years if death while on active duty.”
This is part of the link here:
https://www.lanecc.edu/va/chapter-35-dependents-educational-assistance-dea
And you should receive the DEA pamphlet from VA which is also here:
https://www.benefits.va.gov/gibill/docs/pamphlets/ch35_pamphlet_2.pdf
This might help with your daughter’s  past tuition-
I had prior college credits from another state,  and VA asked me, when I filed out the DEA form, to give them the dates ,etc of that past college situation, but it was out of the DEA criteria then.
So when my eligibility date ran out ( it is 10 years for surviving spouses) and after VA did pay ,up to that point for my tuition at AMU, I paid for the rest of my AMU college tuition myself.
I was on DEA solely due to a 100% P & T SC posthumous award I got in 1997, regarding my deceased husband. ( dead under Section 1151/FTCA)
The same time I enrolled into American Military University, my daughter ,in service by then,(USAF) insisted I reopen for a direct AO death. I was so burned out by VA I kept putting it off but finally listened to her-
VA awarded me direct SC death in 2009, with a new Chapter 35 date (I had already graduated from AMU by then) and I asked VA Edu to refund to me the tuition I had paid myself, because of the new favorable EED for my DEA.
I already had a VA counselor at AMU, and my student payment records were certainly still on line.
The VA counselor tied in with AMU financial aid office and sent to VA  Educational Department the proof of my paid tuition.
It was either about 6 thousand or eight thousand in retro payment.
So, as long as your daughter attends a VA approved college, they will have a VA counselor and they surely will be familiar with DEA in their Financial aid office.
The DEA payments are not exactly the actual tuition-the pamphlet explains how that goes.
My reimbursements changed when I took accelerated courses, too, and it took me a long time to graduate because I had so many credits already, I had to wait for semesters with the specific warfare courses I wanted.
I also received a Certificate in Military Studies along with my degree. I don’t know if VA paid for that- I think it was just part of the tactical warfare courses…..
Books- the Marine Corps gave me a grant for all of my books but I hope your daughter has sought many other ways to obtain course books, in her college bookstore or maybe a grant- because they are EXPENSIVE.
They (AMU) paid for my subscription to Marine Corps Gazette but I think I had 
to pay for Leatherneck- myself as these were required course materials for the course program I took.
She might even be eligible for some state financial aid with your new rating.
That info would be found in your state’s web site.
 
 
 
 

You can scan and attach VA decisions here. Cover your name and C file # prior to scanning it.
The Choose file button is below.
Make sure we can see the date of any decision. I am totally confused already by your situation.
We cannot file a NOD if the VA has not made a formal decision yet.
The proper NOD form is here :
 
https://www.vba.va.gov/pubs/forms/VBA-21-0958-ARE.pdf
 
 
 

This is a beauty:
ORDER Service connection for bladder cancer is granted. Service connection for kidney cancer is granted. Service connection for prostate cancer is granted. https://www.va.gov/vetapp17/files7/1740920.txt
Granted due to AO exposure and many strong IMO/IME opinions.
I get angry when I have to suggest IMO/IMEs (which I know can be quite expensive)but I know that is often the only way to succeed.
This vet would have been denied again and again ,without those independent medical opinions.
If Bladder cancer does become a presumptive, he might even  get a better EED if there is a new Footnote  One to a new Nehmer court order.

V, meant to ask, you're a Nam "BOTG" (Boots on the Ground) Vet with no current VA SC conditions? You're either one Lucky Dude or you qualify for the Nam Vet Procrastinators Club, which is it?

The B's pretty much covered about everything you need to know regarding  AO Claims based on the Current/Future Presumptives.   Keep in mind, even if your DX'd Disability doesn't make it to the AO Presumptive List, you can still file an AO Associated Direct SC Condition for a DX.   Much more difficult, but it has been done.          Review BVA/CAVC Decisions regarding AO Direct SC for "Chronic Neuropathy," which for years only Acute PN was an AO Presumptive.         Before Chronic PN finally made it to the AO Presumptive list (2013?), some Vets got the Award on a Direct Basis or on Appeal.

Summarized: Panama Agent Orange, PCB, DDT, Chlordane, Chemical, Mustard Gas, U.S. Records Classified Exposure Data Panama Canal Commission Source

Panama

US Chemical Weapons in Panama: A Dangerous Legacy

An edited version of the report, "Test Tube Republic: Chemical Weapons Tests in Panama and U.S. Responsibility," authored by John Lindsay-Poland of the Fellowship of Reconciliation, with the active collaboration of the Chemical Weapons Working Group, Earthjustice Legal Defense Fund, Greenpeace, Panamanian Center for Research and Social Action (CEASPA) and Center for Latin American Studies (CELA). On August 30, the Panamanian people voted down the referendum of President Pérez Balladares to run for reelection. With "El Toro" out of the race, no one knows who will receive the Panama Canal from the United States on December 31, 1999. Much more important, no one yet knows if the territories that Panama will receive will be clean and safe.
In Panama, the United States had an active chemical weapons program from at least 1930 until 1968. From 1930 to 1946, this program focused on canal defense. From 1943 until 1968, the program aimed to test chemical munitions under tropical conditions. Dozens of tons of mustard gas and phosgene were stockpiled at a number of sites in Panama, particularly from the 1930s to the 1950s. Unused and dud chemical munitions were also abandoned in Panama.

The San José Project

In searching for a jungle testing ground for chemical weapons, the Chemical Warfare Service sought a jungle site with "lack of human habitation, safety distances to nearby islands, tropical jungle, good water, absence of disease and poisonous snakes," and accessibility to nearby airfields controlled by the US military. In October 1943, Colonel Robert McLeod searched up and down the coasts of Costa Rica, Nicaragua, Peru, Panama and the Galapagos Islands of Ecuador. Discarding, among others, Panama's penal colony on Coiba Island because the presence of prisoners might have "complicated our problems," McLeod settled on San José Island, the second largest island of the Perlas group in Panama Bay.

Chemical Weapons Tests Continue in the 1950s

the Tropical Test Team, a Chemical Corps unit that included 20 personnel, conducted tests of distilled mustard gas every three months in Panama. The tests included pressure tests of one-ton containers of mustard, as well as freezing of the distilled mustard. The team conducted most tests of toxic materials in Curundu, as well as some on a knoll on the Chiva-Chiva Trail. Toxic materials were stored in a large open building in Cerro Tigre. In 1961, the US Army Chemical Corps participated in a transport exercise called Swamp Fox I, which took place primarily in the Darién region of Panama, not far from Colombia. The US Army Tropic Test Center used a site on Empire Range to test tear gas grenades in 1965, according to an assessment of the active ranges.

Nerve Agent Tests

Documents show at least four tests in Panama with live chemical munitions from 1964 to 1968 (VX gas-filled M-23 mines, rockets and projectiles, and sarin rockets). The tests were part of a range of tests under Arctic, desert and tropical conditions to which chemical munitions were usually subjected. Twenty-four M23 mines were shipped to each site in late 1963 or early 1964. Each mine contained 10.5 pounds of VX agent. Since ten milligrams of VX agent constitutes a lethal dose, each one had enough nerve agent for nearly half a million lethal doses.

Post-1968 Activity

On November 19, 1969, the US Congress passed Public Law 91-121, which prohibited deployment, storage or disposal of lethal chemical or biological agents outside the United States unless the host country was first notified. For overseas locations under US jurisdiction, the law required prior notice to Congress. We have found no documentation of the storage or testing of live lethal chemical agents in Panama since 1968.

One exception to this is that the US military has acknowledged "limited, controlled laboratory testing of some tear gas agents" in Panama since 1979. At chemical test sites, In 1987, the Army's 193d Infantry Brigade conducted a training exercise in Panama called "NBC Stakes," designed to prepare soldiers for potential chemical combat. ("NBC" stands for nuclear, biological and chemical.) Soldiers had to pass through simulated contamination by chemical agents and nuclear radiation while keeping their gas masks and other protective gear on.

The Tropic Test Center (TTC) continues in the 1990s to test equipment designed to detect and defend against chemical agents under tropical conditions. "There has been a significant increase over the past two years in the testing of this type of equipment," the TTC wrote in July 1997. The TTC emphasized that "testing this type of equipment involves no use of actual agents," but uses simulants instead.

Tons of Gases Stored in Panama

The United States had 84 tons of mustard gas, 10 tons of phosgene, 800 phosgene shells, 900 Livens projectors, 647 chemical cylinders, and 2,377 4.2-inch mustard-charged mortar rounds on hand. in the Canal Zone. The space included chemical munitions storage magazines in seven bases: Camp Paraíso, Fort Clayton, Corozal Post, Albrook Field, Howard Field, Río Hato, France Field and Fort Gulick. Most chemical munitions before the San José Project was established, however, were stored at Cerro Tigre, where a monorail hoist had been installed to move munitions In the 1950s chemical munitions continued to be stored at Cerro Tigre. Nerve agents tested from approximately 1964 to 1968 were also stored at Cerro Tigre and Chemical munition flown into San Jose Island were stored at Rio Hato.

Chemical Weapons Tests

The first chemical weapons test using live agents test using live agent known to be carried out in Panama occurred on Fort Clayton before the United States' entry into World War II.

From available documents, the numbers of munitions tested are known for 18 of the 130 tests conducted on San José Island. In these tests 4,397 chemical munitions were fired, for an average of 244 in each test. Most of the munitions fired—3,816—were 4.2" mortars charged with Cyanogen Chloride, mustard or phosgene, but the chemical munitions also included bombs from 100 pounds to 1,000 pounds in weight and 105mm Howitzer shells

Reports on four tests of nerve agent-filled warheads were obtained for this study. The US Army Tropic Test Center (TTC) conducted the tests between 1964 and 1968 "to determine the effects of environment on the storage"—and, in two of them, on the operation—of the warheads. Three of the tests were for VX agent weapons. The fourth test concerned 29 sarin 115-millimeter rockets. The weapons were to be stored for approximately two years, "outdoors on pallets under ventilated cover," and periodically tested for leaks, pressure, visual defects and integrity of the agent. The three tests of M-55 rockets and VX rockets and projectiles were accompanied by 120 simulant-filled weapons for each test series.

The nerve agent tests were most likely conducted somewhere within the canal area, since from 1964 to 1968 the only site outside the canal area controlled by the US military was Río Hato. The TTC used 54 other sites as well, all within the canal area. A summary of the San José Project written by the military for the Carter White House in 1979 said that "known munitions were destroyed and detoxified" when the island was evacuated. But the reported added: "In some tests, complete functioning of munitions could not be verified because of the jungle and marsh environment." In other words, the United States was aware in the 1970s that chemical munitions remained on the land at San José Island.

Chemical munitions that the military still hoped to use were moved into the Canal Zone. Two of the project's officers wrote: "The materiel owned by San José was stored wherever space could be found. Some of it was placed in the basements of barracks, more in an abandoned motor pool, and a toxic yard was established at the mouth of the Chagres River on the Fort Sherman Reservation." They did not elaborate on this alarming declaration. The toxic materials at Fort Sherman were stored there for "rehabilitation," according to a later account, which may have meant leaks from munitions in need of repair. We have found no records documenting what the United States did with chemical bombs stored at Río Hato.

A version of this statement was featured on the front page of a Panamanian newspaper on April 13, 1998. In an implicit admission of it, a spokesman for the US Department of Defense, whose identity was not disclosed, was reported in an official document to have told officials of Panama's Interoceanic Region Authority (ARI) that "there is no danger of contamination by toxic gases in France Field, since the materials buried there by US troops in World War II have already dissipated."

According to the report, the US Defense Department evaluated the need to remove the airstrip of the then-existing airport to remove the material buried there before the transfer of the area in 1979, when the Panama Canal Treaties entered into force. The Defense Department experts concluded that the effort was not justified, since the gases in question did not represent then or now any risk, considering that their useful life is less than ten years

The Army has also implicitly recognized that there are chemical burial sites in Panama by refusing to release part of a document listing "suspected overseas burial sites" produced by the US Army Chemical and Biological Command in 1993. If there were no burial sites of chemical agent or munitions in Panama, the Command presumably would have said so in declining to release the document. However, even without the list of burial sites, souvenir seekers, erosion and development may eventually uncover their locations. As noted earlier, Chiva Chiva Trail was a demolition and disposal site for toxic munitions from 1952 to 1956

Potential Long-Term Dangers//A "Short Shelf Life"?

DOD treaty implementation director Richard McSeveney made a striking claim about chemical munitions—"they have a short shelf life." His statement echoes the other military officer's reported statement to Panamanian officials that chemical agent or munition in burial sites has "dissipated." However, neither official offered any substantiating data or precedent for their assertions.

Chemical agent that has been sprayed or exploded does dissipate, but agent that is stored or abandoned in canisters or drums can survive for decades. "Where nerve and other [chemical warfare] agents hydrolyze quite readily," writes John Hart, an expert on abandoned chemical weapons, "mustard does so only very slowly. Instead a hardened, protective gel forms around its exterior. The mustard in the interior can remain active for decades." This is why fishermen in the Baltic Sea are still sometimes injured by chemical weapons, dumped there more than 50 years ago, which they catch in their nets.

Our experience indicates that chemical warfare agents remaining in storage containers or munitions, or otherwise retained in bulk quantities, can retain essentially all of their toxic agent properties for many years. Even unexploded munitions recovered from the World War One era are often found to contain chemical warfare materiel whose toxic effects have been but little degraded by the passage of time. For this reason, recovered suspect chemical warfare munitions and containers must be treated with extreme care, and handled and disposed of only by properly trained authorities. Moreover, when chemical warfare agents degrade, they often turn into compounds that are also very toxic to humans, particularly if exposed to drinking water.

The US Record: "Classified"

The complete transfer of canal-area lands under the Panama Canal Treaties by December 31, 1999 creates a key historical moment. Panamanians will soon have full sovereignty over and responsibility for these properties. Because the lands have been under US control for over 90 years, most Panamanians have little or no idea of their history of use, especially of military activities, which have typically been kept secret. A responsible reversion of these lands must include the transfer by the United States government to Panama of all historical documents related to activities that have had impacts on canal area lands. The record of information transfers to date falls considerably short of that goal.

According to Panamanian officials and records, the Government of Panama has repeatedly and formally requested documents from the United States on chemical weapons tests in Panama. On January 28, 1997, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs requested a series of documents including one on "Detection Chemical Agent, Nerve Vapor." On August 1, 1997, the Ministry broadened its request for information to documents on chemical weapons tests generally. The Ministry also requested relevant portions of a list of "suspected overseas burial sites." But, according to Foreign Ministry officials, the United States had not given Panama a single document on chemical weapons programs conducted in Panama—until June 1998, as this report was in preparation. At that time, the United States released to Panama copies of the four nerve agent test reports cited above. In all other cases, US military officials have responded with brief letters describing chemical warfare activities in general terms.

In June 1997, the Fellowship of Reconciliation also requested portions of the 1993 annex listing suspected overseas chemical munitions burial sites. The request, made for the section of the document that dealt with suspected sites in Panama, was denied. The denial was appealed in July 1997, and the appeal was denied in May 1998. The reasons given for denying the annex are instructive. The Army General Counsel's Office stated that the document is correctly classified "because the requested material contains information concerning weapons systems and information of a foreign government, and the information could assist in the development or use of weapons of mass destruction." In other words, the Army may be conceding that the chemical agents abandoned in Panama have not simply "dissipated" into a harmless state or even into a militarily useless condition.

The Department of Defense's problems with disclosing historical information about its activities are systemic. Dugway Proving Ground, located in Utah, was the controlling agency for chemical weapons programs in Panama in the 1950s. During the course of this study, a "key-word search" of documents referring to Panama, Tropic Test and several other words or phrases done by its technical library came up with 2,252 documents. The base commander subsequently denied a request by the Fellowship of Reconciliation to visit the Dugway library, even though Dugway's legal and intelligence offices had approved it. A former project manager of the Tropic Test Center, contracted by the Defense Department to research TTC's projects in Panama, had a similar experience when he requested to use the technical library and historical office of the Aberdeen Proving Ground in Maryland, which served as headquarters for US chemical warfare programs for many years.

Biological Warfare Programs

The Army authorized MARU to test a live-attenuated vaccine on horses in the field, and Peters describes such tests on Costa Rica's Pacific coast. VEE has persisted for long periods in Panama. Troops training at Fort Sherman in 1981 contracted it, an exposure that was linked to VEE in 1970, when the military was actively experimenting with VEE.

The Walter Reed Army Institute of Research reported "An outbreak of Venezuelan Equine Encephalitis (VEE) occurred in a unit of military personnel who had gone to Panama for jungle training in 1981. Exposure was linked to training in October in an area of Fort Sherman that was previously implicated over ten years ago. An intensive serological survey identified five cases presenting fever, chills and headaches. VEE remains a threat to US forces deployed to specific areas of Central America."

We also have not found documents indicating the testing or use of Agent Orange or other defoliants in Panama, though we do not discount the possibility that defoliants may have been tested there. The United States also appears to be in violation of international legal requirements that regulate particular types of environmental problems, such as hazardous wastes, and activities that endanger biological diversity. The United States has also disregarded the substantial body of international law relating to protection of human rights and the environment, which lays out the rights of the Panamanian people and government, as well as obligations of the US government.

According to retired U.S. military personnel and other Canal Zone residents, the United States also dumped cancer-causing PCBs, chemical weapons and other toxic waste and used the herbicide Agent Orange, also a suspected carcinogen, to clear the jungle

The full report is available on the Worldwide Web atTop of the Document http://www.nonviolence.org/for/panama
For further information contact:

Fellowship of Reconciliation Task Force on Latin America and the Caribbean/Panama Campaign
995 Market St., Ste. 1414
San Francisco, CA 94103
(415) 495 6334
(415) 495 5628 (fax)
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


Additional Research Agent Orange Herbicide, DDT, Chlordane Exposure Statements

David Jewell, a Lockheed-Martin spokesman, declined to specify the types of wastes being received at the company's warehouses at the Corozal Army base outside Panama City but described them as "normal and industrial," including what he called "hazardous materials."

Capt. Larry Winchell, a spokesman for the U.S. Army command that wasbased in Panama until September, said that the wastes include paints,oils, chemicals and some pesticides but that he was unable to be more specific.

Alfredo Smith, a former supervisor for Lockheed-Martin at the Corozal warehouse, said he handled a wide range of toxic materials. "We were handling cyanides, asbestos, poisons, known carcinogens, herbicides, pesticides. Some of this stuff had labels going back to the 1950s. . All of the stuff from the cleanup sites were coming in to us," he said.

Lockheed-Martin provided employees with a list of substances that Mr. Smith and other workers were instructed to be wary of. The list included 2,4-D and 2,4,5-T, the potentially dioxin-tainted chemical compounds that became nicknamed Agent Orange during the Vietnam era.

Mr. Smith said he handled several barrels marked 2,4-D but did not recall any marked with 2,4,5-T. He said he regularly handled PCBs, and oil-like coolant used in transformers, which also has been linked to cancer.

Mr. Smith said one Panamanian employee under his supervision began coughing up blood one day on the job after handling an unmarked barrel filled with a chemical powder. Mr. Smith, who says he suffers constant skin rashes, breathing problems, headaches, stomach problems and sexual dysfunction, is suing Lockheed-Martin for compensation for what he says were lax safety procedures at the Corozal facility.

Mr. Jewell said Lockheed-Martin has an exemplary environmental safety program and complies with all Occupational, Safety and Health Administration requirements. He said he could not discuss Mr. Smith's allegations because the matter is in litigation.

It was only when he read a Dallas Morning News report about Agent Orange testing in Panama that Mr. Youngs said he realized there might be a link: He had served in the 8th Special Forces in Panama in 1970 and 1971 and had regularly parachuted into an area he called the "drop zone." He said it was well known at the time that the area had been defoliated with the same chemical being used in Vietnam, although the defoliant was not known at the time as Agent Orange. Mr. Youngs said he never served in Vietnam.

Although the U.S. government says it cannot confirm any use of Agent Orange in Panama, Charles M. Bartlett, the operational commander of the military's defoliant-testing program in the 1960s and early '70s, testified in 1997 that several hundred barrels of Agent Orange had been shipped to Panama for testing. "Whether the government admits it or not, I now know for a fact that Agent Orange was delivered there," Ms. Patton said. "I want to know the answers. Are we going to die of something we were exposed to 30 years ago?"

Jerome Steiner, a former Panama Canal employee, said he regularly sprayed Agent Orange in the early 1970s to control vegetation that threatened to clog a crucial river
outlet feeding the canal. He and others said the herbicide was not known at the time to be dangerous.

An official for the Panama Canal Commission, the U.S. government agency that operates the canal, said the commission did not keep any paperwork before 1973 regarding Agent Orange and could neither confirm nor deny its use.

Berta

I posted an earlier reply to Samy104 reference additional BVA remands for Agent Orange, Pesticides Use Exposure for Soldiers that trained or were permanent party personnel at Canal Zone Bases. I know there must be others on Hadit that may know more and because they've not been diagnosed with any presumptive disease are not speaking out.

File #1 10 pages excerpts from Original document for AO use/unexploded ordinance related to chemical weapons testing Fort Sherman and Pina Range area on the Atlantic side also others may know about Empire Firing & Training Range on the Pacific Fort Kobbe, Clayton, Howard AFB, Rodman Marine Corps Barracks area. When veterans research as one cohesive unit together we may uncover vital pieces of evidence that VA, DOD & Service Branches hide and will never acknowledge that evidence exists. Jumpmaster.


Agent Orange Was Used In Panama-Veterans Have Sole Responsibility For Developing The Facts Proving Their Claim Because VA, DOD & Service Branches Do Not Obey Duty To Assist You Proving Chemical Exposure.pdf
SLPA_FIN_Panama_Caribbean_treasure (Agent Orange Used Fort Sherman, Gulick, Pina Range.pdf

Hello Again neferaM, the earlier research information came from Dr. David Anaise who is a Physician and Lawyer website you will find some great information there.


http://www.danaise.com/index.php/veteran-disability/11-veteran-disability/34-obstructive-sleep-apnea

Berta thank you for sharing this information once again. It's such knowledge at this that opens the door for me to hop into my phase 2 appeals assault.

I'm about to post a strange topic in a few minutes....have you ever heard of Clothing Allowance CUE is there such a thing.

Jumpmaster

Bronco, I agree strongly with all repliers....frustration is mental torture you've been through other battles and won in years past.  Hey buddy you're at a point where you need to take a few days of tactical R&R go through the RD with a fine tooth comb.  You've inspired a lot of people at this site over the years...I am one who can say that even where all the evidence is there to prove your claim most raters will never connect the dots.
It happened to me and when I reached my final point of frustration and clearly saw all pieces of my evidence puzzle were in place I hire my attorney and stepped back to take care of my health and that was one of the smartest decision I made during my VA war.  Never give up until the last breath leaves your nostrils.   We are here to encourage each other no matter how long the battle takes.  God bless you and your family.   Jumpmaster.
 

DFAS AUDIT POST UPDATED
On July 31, 2015 retiree account statement message section online states base on information received from the VA your CRDP amount is XXXXX dollars.
The nice DFAS customer friendly lady advised there's no completion date, your RD award letter is  in file but nothing has been done,  because it had not been entered by VA folks and gave me the call Peggy at 1-800-827-1000 when I started to laugh, she cracked up in laughter and said it takes 30-60 days to complete after VA INITIATES the audit. but I don't see any date from VA..
I called Peggy and advised DFAS stated nothing should have been withheld for verified 20 yrs or more service.   Peggy said duhhhhh I don't know sir but I'll send a message they have  10 days to reply.  Being persistent and turning up the heat on ineffectiveness may result in someone at VA to moving forward on important matters such as payout of your CRDP retro.
The DFAS audit completed August 13, 2015 and direct deposit of withheld retro hit my account on August 25, 205.  If there are other retirees still in waiting more than 30-60 days try calling DFAS at 1-800-321-1080 to verify audit status.  You can also fax your rating decision to kick start action at DFAS  but  remember the initiator that starts the Audit remain at the VARO.  Wouldn't it be nice if the major VSO's inside the RO could start a project that eliminated the military retiree audit process.  I think the VA should pay out verified retiree retro in one lump sum after you win your claim.  A check box for raters should work well within the VA's new technology improvements. 
I'm shocked that Houston RO acted faster than expected so I'm giving them a positive shout out and thank them for their service delivery of benefits for my family.  God bless everyone at Hadit retirees become proactive and unclog your retro withheld for CRDP audit.  JMHO.
 
 

Bronco, I agree strongly with all repliers....frustration is mental torture you've been through other battles and won in years past.  Hey buddy you're at a point where you need to take a few days of tactical R&R go through the RD with a fine tooth comb.  You've inspired a lot of people at this site over the years...I am one who can say that even where all the evidence is there to prove your claim most raters will never connect the dots.
It happened to me and when I reached my final point of frustration and clearly saw all pieces of my evidence puzzle were in place I hire my attorney and stepped back to take care of my health and that was one of the smartest decision I made during my VA war.  Never give up until the last breath leaves your nostrils.   We are here to encourage each other no matter how long the battle takes.  God bless you and your family.   Jumpmaster.
 

This is why I suggest listing with a date and brief description ,right on the 5103 form, ALL of the evidence that you have sent to them and./or enclosed with the 5103 form.
Based on what you told us here Broncovet, I feel this is CUE under 38 CFR 4.6 as well as within this article:
 

"BVA rendering its own medical opinions, Colvin v. Derwinski, No. 90-196
Colvin is one of the most cited decisions when the BVA attempts to use its own medical opinion, rather than independent medical opinions
https://veteranclaimsresearchcases.wordpress.com/2009/04/07/bva-rendering-its-own-medical-opinions-colvin-v-derwinski-no-90-196/
Under # 5 it states:
“The Court points out that VA cannot reject opinions of physicians without citing medical testimony or treatises to the contrary. VBA Circular 21-91-18, Principles of Adjudication, paragraph 5e covers this issue. When the circular is incorporated into M21-1, it is recommended that Part VI, Chapter 2 be revised to more clearly explain determinations of probative value of both opinions.
APPROVED
J. Gary Hickman, Director
Compensation and Pension Service”
Also their are other court cases that raise this important issue.
VA tried to do this to me for my DMII AO death claim I filed in 2003.
The BVA was the only VA entity to see all of my IMOs in the file, sennt multiple times, yet completely ignored by the VARO.
I never thought of the GO  CUE yourself tactics, within the appeal period in those days and since using it successfully with my Nehmer AO IHD claim, I use it every single  chance I get now....
If I had Not used it for the initial denial of my AO IHD claim in Dec 2011, resulting in an award on January 6th 2012, and on my more recent 1151 HBP claim I mentioned, I might still be at the BVA on the IHD AO claim and would ber set for the hamster wheel with the 1151 HBP claim.
CUEs must be aggressively pursued.  I felt I was being patient with my RO due to the backlog for the almost 3 years the claim collected dust at my VARO, because they told me it was with a 'specialist'....specialist my butt...
they still have not read my evidence and promised me they would last week. If I dont get a proper reply soon I w8ill raise more hell with them.
 
Ther man who called me last week (after another note from MS Hickey in an Iris reply) did seem to want to help figure it all out and he said he would study the regs I sent to him and I also0 suggested contacted the GC in DC to see what they mean.
I told him I know I am a big  pain in the ass but only by being that type of aggressive claimant did I resolve all of my past issues, and my C file reveals that fact......
I stated very clearly (we went over the email he had from my IRIS complaint) exactly what VA owes me ,and why, less the amount they paid me under Nehmer CUE award,  and I will take the issue as far as I can.
It is up to you but if this were me, regarding what you posted, I would be on them like a fly on s-
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
.
.

We all need to start listing our medical evidence and other evidence in our submissions  with numbered page's with our claim number  and highlighted in neon bright colors & maybe send double copies and specifically state there's double copies of my evidence sent and state the CFR's 38 4.6  back to them.
and make copies for our own selfs.
Broncovet request another rater to read your evidence  that' its obvious the last rater never consider your evidence to support your claim and you feel this is an injustice on the part of making a denial decision and again state the 38 CFR 4.6 back to them.
you been waiting 13 long hard years for this claim and would like to get it right & you feel an award is warranted and not a denial.
 
Excuse me but
its time for you to stop xxxxx footing around with them assholes.
 
jmo
...................Buck
 

DFAS AUDIT POST UPDATED
On July 31, 2015 retiree account statement message section online states base on information received from the VA your CRDP amount is XXXXX dollars.
The nice DFAS customer friendly lady advised there's no completion date, your RD award letter is  in file but nothing has been done,  because it had not been entered by VA folks and gave me the call Peggy at 1-800-827-1000 when I started to laugh, she cracked up in laughter and said it takes 30-60 days to complete after VA INITIATES the audit. but I don't see any date from VA..
I called Peggy and advised DFAS stated nothing should have been withheld for verified 20 yrs or more service.   Peggy said duhhhhh I don't know sir but I'll send a message they have  10 days to reply.  Being persistent and turning up the heat on ineffectiveness may result in someone at VA to moving forward on important matters such as payout of your CRDP retro.
The DFAS audit completed August 13, 2015 and direct deposit of withheld retro hit my account on August 25, 205.  If there are other retirees still in waiting more than 30-60 days try calling DFAS at 1-800-321-1080 to verify audit status.  You can also fax your rating decision to kick start action at DFAS  but  remember the initiator that starts the Audit remain at the VARO.  Wouldn't it be nice if the major VSO's inside the RO could start a project that eliminated the military retiree audit process.  I think the VA should pay out verified retiree retro in one lump sum after you win your claim.  A check box for raters should work well within the VA's new technology improvements. 
I'm shocked that Houston RO acted faster than expected so I'm giving them a positive shout out and thank them for their service delivery of benefits for my family.  God bless everyone at Hadit retirees become proactive and unclog your retro withheld for CRDP audit.  JMHO.
 
 

Bronco, I agree strongly with all repliers....frustration is mental torture you've been through other battles and won in years past.  Hey buddy you're at a point where you need to take a few days of tactical R&R go through the RD with a fine tooth comb.  You've inspired a lot of people at this site over the years...I am one who can say that even where all the evidence is there to prove your claim most raters will never connect the dots.
It happened to me and when I reached my final point of frustration and clearly saw all pieces of my evidence puzzle were in place I hire my attorney and stepped back to take care of my health and that was one of the smartest decision I made during my VA war.  Never give up until the last breath leaves your nostrils.   We are here to encourage each other no matter how long the battle takes.  God bless you and your family.   Jumpmaster.
 

It was a SSOC, so it was, basically a DRO.  No it was not FDC.
I was pretty upset about it, I had wanted to give my son a nice wedding gift in January, but that does not look possible now.  I guess that is what made me maddest.  I am sure they will have to award it eventually.  

In desperation, I ended up doing the email bob bit several months ago, over the same problem. It was worth it for the amount of retro involved, if nothing else! An additional benefit was that it made the VARO that had been just sitting on things to get off it's duff (After several years) and start things moving again. Now, I'm waiting to see what the BVA decides. I believe the SMRs and my VA files have enough information to award, but you never know! Nothing like calling CUE on the VARO for multiple errors.
 
 

broncovet
I know its frustrating  but you can't give up and let them win
What was there reasons & bases of there decision?
if they did not read your evidence and you can prove it  go after them with a CUE
If all your evidence  shows to be favorable, resend it with another NOD.
or what ever you have to do, they eventually will read your evidence.
 
sorry to hear your troubles  but never give up!
 
...............Buck