Recipients:

President of the United States Donald Trump
Honorable Secretary of Veterans Affairs Doug Collins

Honorable Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth
Honorable Under Secretary of Veterans Affairs for Health Dr. Shereef Elnahal
Honorable Under Secretary of Veterans Affairs for Benefits Joshua Jacobs
Honorable Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment Steven J. Morani
Government Accountability Office Director J. Alfred Gomez
National Academies of Sciences Engineering and Medicine (NASEM) President Marcia McNutt
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) Director Dr. Aaron Bernstein

Members of U.S. House and Senate Committees on Veterans' Affairs

​

March 12, 2025

 

To Whom It May Concern,

​

On behalf of a large coalition of Veterans, civilians, and families who were sickened by DoD herbicide contamination, including the use of Agent Orange at the former Fort Ord, U.S. Army, we are respectfully requesting your immediate assistance in amending the process for determining presumption of service connection for exposure to herbicides under 38 CFR § 3.307.1 We want to thank VA for the recent proposed rule expanding locations and dates where Veterans are presumed to have been exposed to Agent Orange (AO) and other herbicides in the U.S., Canada, and India.

​

In recent years, we have become aware of extensive stateside use of herbicide mixtures, including the active toxicants in Agent Orange, 2,4,5-T and 2,4-D at the former Fort Ord. We are attaching a detailed evidentiary packet to this letter. In our advocacy for those impacted by the herbicide use at Fort Ord, including many Veterans with conditions recognized as presumptive related to AO exposure, we came across troubling changes to the process for listing locations where herbicides are recognized to have been used, tested or stored by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) working in concert with the Department of Defense (DoD). 

​

Specifically, we are alarmed at the decision by VA to assign authority to the Department of Defense’s Armed Forces Pest Management Board (AFPMB) to independently review DoD herbicide use with the expectation that they voluntarily submit updated locations where herbicides were used for the purposes of determining Veterans benefits. In essence, this updated policy grants DoD the authority as a determiner of Veterans benefits related to herbicide exposures.1 

​

Our intent in writing is not to contest the decision that DoD can and should regularly review their herbicide use and provide that list to the VA based on their internal documentation of where herbicides were tested, used, and stored and be transparent about same. Rather, our intent is to convey our alarm at the implementation of changes and the decision by the VA as they non-concurred with the Government Accountability Office's (GAO) recommendation that the Department take the lead on the criteria and review process for listing where AO was stored, tested, or used.2

 

It is not readily clear that the VA’s environmental health experts were actively engaged in the non-concurrence. We feel strongly that the VA’s Presumption Decision Process (PDP) for benefits determination should be transparent, evidence-based, and Veteran-centric; the VA following DoD’s lead without direct oversight by the authority on Veterans care and benefits does not meet those standards. Rather, DoD should be providing evidence in response to requests by environmental health experts at the VA as needed to substantiate Veterans’ or VA PDP leaders’ concerns.

​

Further, we object to the VA’s decision to direct Veterans concerned about herbicide usage to contact the DoD AFPMB with their concerns.3 In response to the updated herbicide rule change, the VA Public Health page even directs Veterans that they should not be contacting the VA about locations where herbicides were used, rather they should email or mail their concerns to DoD’s AFPMB.3 We believe Veterans should always have a voice through the VA and that any and all concerns about toxic exposures, including to herbicides should freely be raised to the VA without the possibility of being filtered or censored by DoD officials. 

​

A recent written response letter from the Armed Forces Pest Management Board to those concerned about the Fort Ord herbicide use confirms that DoD is classifying usage of herbicides and consideration of their listing of locations per an arbitrary definition of “tactical” use of the carcinogenic chemicals.4,5 The letter clarifies that uses of commercial pesticides for vegetation management are exempt so long as the person directing use was “properly qualified.”4,5 The updated herbicide rule has extended the herbicide listing authority to DoD without clarifying: 
•    when these reviews of herbicides will take place,
•    who is participating, and
•    how/when Veterans’ herbicide concerns will be reviewed and transmitted to the VA. 
There is little transparency to herbicide-related reviews or activities by the AFPMB on their website and no mention is made of these reviews in the available recent meeting agendas.5

​

It is the VA’s mission and obligation to provide a transparent, evidence-based, and Veteran-centric process for benefits determination. But by forcing Veterans to apply and interact with DoD on this matter, the VA subverts both their trusted responsibility and the rights of Veterans, many of whom experience significant long-term effects of herbicide exposure. This is particularly concerning given Congress’s stance on the issue as well as the review of the National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM) of the VA’s PDP.5

 

We agree with what NASEM described as the central and core principles needed in the VA’s PDP that it be, “scientifically based, fair, consistent, transparent, timely, and veteran-centric.” In order to adhere to these principles, we ask for the following changes to the current policy for review of additional locations where herbicides were used or stored under the updated VA rule 38 U.S.C. § 3.307:

•    Remove the authority assigned to DoD’s AFPMB and instead expect this body to respond timely and transparently to any and all requests for evidence of herbicide use by the VA’s PDP leadership.

•    Create a process whereby any and all reviews by AFPMB for the purposes of Veterans benefits determinations are conducted with oversight by outside individuals with environmental health expertise from the VA.
•    Remove the arbitrary classification on “tactical” uses of herbicides and the exemption for listing locations where the carcinogenic chemicals were “used for installation vegetation management by trained pesticide applicators.”4,5
•    Follow through on all recommendations made by NASEM to improve the scientific validity, transparency, and Veteran-centric nature of the PDP.
•    Create a transparent process, including a point of contact, for Veteran Service Organizations (VSOs) to raise their concerns for exposures that they believe meet the threshold for review for presumption of benefits for herbicides and other exposures.
•    Convene regular, publicized meetings where VSOs can review those concerns raised by their fellow Veterans that they believe merit an assessment for presumption to ensure that there is transparency and consistency in how exposures are being filtered and entered into the PDP review.
•    Add Veteran toxic exposure advocate members to the core committees in the PDP review process.

 

We look forward to a future where the VA’s benefits determinations for toxic exposures are consistent and scientifically based in a process that is fair, consistent, transparent, timely, and veteran-centric. In that vein, we look forward to the above changes in the current policy for review of locations where herbicides were used in the near future.

Thank you,

L. Kyle Horton, MD, MBA
Founder and CEO of On Your Side Action
Your Name or Organization Here