HILL AIR FORCE BASE — A retired Air Force major has renewed a complaint that alleges Hill Air Force Base withheld critical information about the destruction of aircraft that were used to spray Agent Orange during the Vietnam War.

Wes Carter, 68, is a resident of Fort Collins, Colo. and serves with the C-123 Veterans Association — a group that has long advocated for veterans' benefits due to Agent Orange exposure from working on and around C-123 aircraft after the Vietnam War. 

C-123s were used to spray Agent Orange and other toxic defoliants from 1961 to 1971 as part of the U.S. military’s herbicidal warfare program in Vietnam, commonly known as Operation Ranch Hand. But the planes were actively used by the Air Force after the war ended.

On Feb. 1, Carter renewed a complaint with the Air Force Public Affairs Agency, based in San Antonio, which was originally filed more than three years ago.

The complaint centers around a 2010 press release that was drafted by Hill’s 75th Air Base Wing, but never distributed. The release provided information about an April 2010 program where the Air Force began recycling 18 Vietnam War-era UC-123K (a variant of the C-123) aircraft that were stored at the service’s Aerospace Maintenance and Regeneration Group at Davis-Monthan Air Force Base in Arizona.

Of those 18 aircraft, 13 were confirmed to have sprayed Agent Orange and other defoliants during the Vietnam War. Those aircraft were to be chopped up and shredded, with the subsequent metals and other material then sent on to a smelter for reclamation.

Even though the planes were not destroyed in Utah, Hill was involved in the project’s public affairs campaign and signed off on the program because the base’s 505th Aircraft Sustainment Squadron was responsible for program management support for the UC-123K.

The withheld press release, which has been obtained by the Standard-Examiner, says tests conducted by the Air Force determined the recycling process could be accomplished without harming the environment or the health of the workers involved in the process — something Carter does not dispute.

The retired major’s complaint alleges that the information was suppressed because the Air Force was worried that resulting media coverage of the program could alert Air Force reservists who flew the planes in the 1970s and early ’80s that serious illnesses like cancer, heart disease, acute peripheral neuropathy and ALS could be attributed to their time with the aircraft.

Carter also says that if media ever did catch wind of the project and inquire about it, words like “dioxin,” “contamination,” and “Agent Orange” which were included in previous drafts of the press release, were clipped from the final version and replaced with words less likely to alarm the media and the public.

Carter provided to the Standard-Examiner a document that appears to be a draft of the press release, which confirms those words were taken out of the final draft. That document, along with the final press release and Carter’s official complaints, can be viewed at www.standard.net

“The final version of the UC-123’s story was approved by the necessary authorities at (Hill’s) 75th Air Base Wing,” Carter’s complaint says. “This was a further element of the effort to minimize public awareness. No lies were told, (but) mistruths were constructed to build a story which really had nothing to do with the real news of the event — dioxin contaminated aircraft.”

According to Carter, his original complaint has remained unresolved.

Carter says the aim of his complaint, its renewal and his decision to alert the media about it, is not to harm the Air Force, but to simply shed light on a matter that is forever a part of his history. 

“I’m not here to hurt the Air Force, I’m here to get the truth out,” he said. “The truth might be uncomfortable, but it shouldn’t hurt in the long run — it should heal.”

After the C-123’s work in Vietnam in 1971, the plane was re-purposed and transferred to tactical airlift units of the Air Force Reserve and the Air National Guard and used for routine cargo and medical evacuation missions. That work lasted for 10 years.

During that decade, Carter served as an Air Force medical service officer on UC-123s. In 2011, he was diagnosed with potentially fatal prostate cancer that a VA urological oncologist said could likely be attributed to Agent Orange exposure. Carter says many of his former UC-123 crew members have already died of diseases commonly linked to Agent Orange exposure. 

“They wore the uniform,” Carter said. “Someone needs to answer for them.”

The Veterans Administration has long held the position that although Agent Orange could indeed be detected on C-123s years after they were used in Vietnam, scientific studies had shown that the levels of Agent Orange residue left on the planes was unlikely to cause negative health impacts.

But a study released earlier this year, which was commissioned by the VA, runs contrary to the VA’s stance, saying that reservists who worked in the planes after Vietnam could in fact face an increased risk for Agent Orange related diseases.

A January Institute of Medicine report titled “Post-Vietnam Dioxin Exposure in Agent Orange–Contaminated C-123 Aircraft” found “with confidence” that at least some of the estimated 2,100 personnel who served on C-123s were exposed to dangerous levels of dioxin.

“It is plausible that, at least in some cases (which cannot be associated with specific individuals), the reservists’ exposure exceeded health guidelines for workers in enclosed settings,” the report says. “Thus, some reservists quite likely experienced non-trivial increases in their risks of adverse health outcomes.”

The VA paid IOM $500,000 to conduct the study, but has not responded to its findings yet.

“(The) VA appreciates IOM's extensive review,” says a statement on the VA’s public health website. “We have assembled a group of clinical and other subject matter experts to review and respond to the report.”

Carter said the findings of the study, which prompted the renewal of his initial Air Force public affairs complaint, are already having an impact.

Earlier this month, a bipartisan group of senators led by Sen. Richard Burr, R-North Carolina, and Sen. Jeff Merkley, D-Oregon, sent a letter to VA Secretary Robert McDonald asking him to ensure that veterans who have been denied care for Agent Orange exposure receive timely and proper medical benefits and compensation. 

The group said the letter was sent in direct response to the IOM report.

But Carter says he and other service members who served aboard C-123s after Vietnam still deserve some answers regarding the Air Force’s failure to release information on the 2010 incident.

The retired major says detailing the reclamation effort publicly could have helped shed light on the issue of post-Vietnam contact with C-123s and subsequently furthered the cause of providing adequate VA medical benefits to those impacted. 

Hill Air Force Base officials say the 2010 effort followed Air Force policy.

"As a matter of standard practice, officials at AMARG do not issue a press release announcement when a particular model or group of aircraft are destroyed and/or recycled,“ says an Air Force statement released to the Standard-Examiner by Hill. ”The destruction of aircraft at AMARG is a routine process, carried out on a regular basis and does not warrant public announcement.“

“If asked, officials routinely acknowledge details of aircraft that have been recycled,” the statement says. “A response to query statement is a typical, often-used method for releasing information to interested parties who formally request information."

But Carter said the history and controversy surrounding the particular aircraft that were recycled in 2010 is an undoubtedly different matter.

“Do they release information on a fire only when the smoke is visible?” Carter said. “This was something the public should have known about.”

Contact reporter Mitch Shaw at 801-625-4233 or mishaw@standard.net. Follow him on Twitter at @mitchshaw23.

(7) comments

anonymous

Ah!...gotcha - kinship I feel.A friend of mine flys #2 with those guys.

anonymous

I'm one of these C-123 vets. I was an NCO and officer in the military for 26 years, and anybody could trust me. Nobody is looking over a pilot's shoulder at 3AM at 45,000' to make sure he/she does the right job...that's unnecessary because he/she just will. The same with a flight nurse caring for patients for long hours in the sky, or our mechanics, or the loadmaster dropping humanitarian supplies. You could, and should, trust us. My commission says the nation places special trust in me. My oath says I will maintain that trust.I felt we were part of the government...a very good part, especially in flying aeromedical evacuation.That's why so much of this mess is unbelievable...people trained in our own sense of values and pledging their honor making these terrible decisions.

newuniqueusername1

It sounds like they have a compelling case and from my understanding the US Navy is now paying benefits to people who served aboard their ships in Vietnam and may be paying people who served on these ships after Vietnam. They believe crews aboard these ships came into contact with Agent Orange as a result of airplanes that were spraying Agent Orange or airplanes exposed to Agent Orange landing on their ships. It's very possible Hill had aircraft that exposed people to Agent Orange.

anonymous

Trust government for everything......at your peril....

anonymous

It is not you to whom I refer, Mr. Carter. It is to the politicians. It is you and your cadre whom I salute and admire.

anonymous

Yes, sir, I understand and took no offense.I was saying you have the right to expect honor from everyone taking an oath of public service. THAT'S WHY I'M TICKED OFF at what happened when folks forgot that duty. What they expected from us is not what they gave back to us in their own service.Love those T-6s (or SNJ-5?) Anyway, the "Harvard."

anonymous

Thanks to Mr. Shaw for this story and his skillful writing! From the veterans' perspective, our concern is more precisely that an AF consultant repeatedly issued memos to leaders at Hill stating that the objective of the C-123 was indeed the destruction of toxic airplanes but, importantly, with minimal publicity because exposed veterans – 2100 men and women, aircrews, maintenance and aeromedical evacuation – would seek VA medical care if they knew they were at risk.Here are the source documents:https://drive.google.com/file/...Clearly, this oft-stated objective of minimal or no publicity because the exposed veterans would turn to the Department of Veterans Affairs for treatment of Agent Orange illnesses is improper...a cover up. Indeed, years later when we learned that these airplanes of ours had been confirmed in AF tests as "heavily contaminated" and "a danger to public health," many of us did turn to the VA for medical care for our cancers and other ailments.Exactly, right, because that's the law providing for vets who've been exposed.But for years we never even knew we were exposed, the information coming to us from other channels only in 2011. Knowing of our exposures was delayed for years because all the information about these former spray airplanes was ordered "official channels only" by the USAF Office of Environmental Law. That was their stated objective. That was why a press release about a massive destruction of eighteen transports, but no mention made of the Agent Orange. No mention made of the $3.4 billion EPA fine the AF sought to avoid. No mention made of facts which would have properly been in a press release. And here, a press release held back in hope that nobody would ask for a copy...that nobody in the press would bring the issue into public knowledge.When one has been exposed to a toxin, even aboard the airplanes we were ordered to fly, there is an obvious right and need to know, yet Public Affairs took specific steps, shown in the editing and then withholding their press release to keep us from knowing.Air Force regulations and DOD operating instructions are quite clear, and the role of Public Affairs in the military is vital – keep the public informed and do so honestly with awareness as to national security and personal privacy. Public Affairs could have helped inform us and instead took careful, deliberate steps not to. Keeping to proper standards and ethics could have alerted 2100 men and women of our C-123 toxic exposures years earlier than was the case.That early alert might have helped some of us. We could have taken some measures like more careful PSA checks and physicals.Public Affairs at Hill should have done the right thing and properly informed the veterans via an honest press release. But Public Affairs chose not to. Indeed, records released under the Freedom of Information Act don't even show such concerns came up.Why? It is an obvious point that aircrews had already been exposed...that was the consultant's point. Hill's response to Mr. Shaw's inquiry for this article shows complete indifference to our concerns about their press release, in which they permitted the consultant to edit out words that would more properly inform us (Agent Orange, toxin, poison, etc.)This press release which was never released was a principal tool in the deliberate withholding of toxic threat to our health. It is, in large part, why it took four more years for the Institute of Medicine to finally convince the VA to permit C-123 veterans vital medical care, something the VA is only now scrambling to accomplish.Air Force Public Affairs could have played their proper role in helping us. Instead, their only objective was "minimizing public awareness" and cooperating with the consultant in the stated objective, repeated by AF officials, of keeping facts of their exposures from the aircrews and maintainers. Don't these folks wear the same uniforms we do?If this had been city hall or Target, failing to notify exposed employees and patrons and taking steps to prevent their knowing would be part of a crime.Certainly we veterans who volunteered to fly these C-123s label it "wrong." Last month's coverage of our post-Vietnam C-123 exposures was covered in the New York Times, LA Times, Scientific American, Washington Post, Reuters, Gannett...newsworthy because the VA finally was confronted with the science of their own reports, and is moving to do the right thing.The part Public Affairs played in keeping this mess secret for years must face scrutiny from the military, and from the journalism profession prevented from fulfilling its First Amendment rights and responsibilities..https://drive.google.com/open?...

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.