Attachment 6-B (LOGO) Office of The Administrator of Veterans Affairs Dec 2, 1952 DNA1.942031.005 Herbert B. Loper, Major General, USA Chief, Armed Forces Special Weapons Project P. O. Box 2610 Washington, D. C. Dear General Loper: This is in reply to your letter of 8 August 1952. The matter has been given special consideration in an attempt to arrive at reasonable and practical recommendations. There is a firm requirement for a policy such as the Armed Forces now pursue in connection with exposure in isotope laboratories, atomic tests, and in such situations as are similar to those encountered in peace time where personnel of the Armed Forces might possibly be exposed to ionizing radiations. The value of such records as were kept in the Manhattan Engineer District and in the atomic tests have proved vital in the evaluation of alleged service-connected disabilities by veterans. It is therefore noted with satisfaction that it is not intended to change this policy as regards health protection of personnel of the Armed Forces in such situations. The maintenance of detailed statistical records of radiological exposures received by personnel serving within the Armed Forces, when it involves exposures received in any manner other than that described in the preceding paragraph, admittedly poses a heavy burden upon the various services. On the other hand, in evaluating the claims of the individual veteran who may have been exposed, the value of such information may be of vital significance. Unless suitable records are available, it is difficult to see how it will be possible to evaluate claims to the best advantage of either the veteran or the Government. It is the present policy of the Administrator of Veterans Affairs to urge that no change in present policies and practices within the Armed Forces be made. In recognition of the heavy burden placed upon the Armed Forces, particularly in case of enemy employment of weapons that may result in injury to personnel as a result of ionizing radiation, Herbert B. Loper, Major General, USA it is proposed that a careful study of this matter be undertaken within the coming year in order to arrive at a policy which will be consistent with practical accomplishments. In this study the cooperation of the Armed Forces Special Weapons Project and the Veterans Administration would be indicated and they should consult with the Division of Medicine and Biology of the Atomic Energy Commission, and of the Joint Panel on the Medical Aspects of Atomic Warfare, Research and Development Board. Sincerely yours, CARL R. GRAY, Jr. Administrator SWPDF-0 9 December 1952 MEMORANDUM FOR: Chief, Medical Branch, Weapons Defense Branch SUBJECT: Letter of 2 Dec 52 from Veterans Administration Concerning Armed Forces Policy on Records of Radiological Exposures 1. With reference to our discussion of yesterday afternoon, upon re-reading the subject letter again this morning, I find that I am more uncertain than ever as to what is really meant by the last paragraph. Please try to find out by telephone from Dr. Lyon: a. When the Veterans Administration urges "that no change in present policies and practices within the Armed Forces be made", does this mean that, for the time being, the VA does feel that all the Armed Services should continue to maintain detailed statistical records of radiological exposures, under wartime as well as peacetime conditions? b. Is the wording of the second page of Mr. Gray's letter intended to be a polite request for AFSWP to take the initiative in bringing these various parties together, or does the VA intend to do so? 2. In connection with the above questions, you will note that our letter of 8 August 1952 did not say that the Army had eliminated this procedure; it merely stated that the Army Field Forces "is proposing" to eliminate the requirement. I understand that final promulgation of this elimination has not yet been made by the Army. If the VA letter means that they would view this with considerable alarm, are we not obligated to bring this to the attention of the Army at once, and thus avoid possible later confusion or complaint on this point? This might even affect the Army's final decision in this matter. I assume that this would merely mean holding off final Army action until the "careful study of this matter" proposed by the VA could be made. R. A. HINNERS CAPT., USN Chief, Weapons Defense Division Declassified by DNA, Chief, ISTS Security Information 4. It is my impression that the Army Field Forces have stated, with the concurrence of the Surgeon General, that they do not require detailed statistical records of radiological exposures for Army personnel under combat conditions. This represents policy at variance with information contained in paragraph 5e of Department of the Army Training Circular 33, dated 5 November 1952, but it is representative of current AFF doctrine. G. M. McDONNEL Lieutenant Colonel, MC Chief, Medical Branch GMM/mlj 2 OFFICE MEMORANDUM UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT TO: (1) Capt. Dawson (2) Adm. Parker DATE: l2 Dec 52 FROM: Capt. Hinners SUBJECT: 1. In answer to Admiral Parker's query on the routing slip, attached hereto are: (a) Copy of AFSWP's original letter of 8 Aug 52. (b) My memo of 9 Dec 52 to Chief, Medical Branch asking for a clarification of the last paragraph of the VA letter. (c) Colonel McDonnel's reply of 10 Dec 52 which covers these points and recommends that further action be deferred until after discussion at two Panel meetings scheduled for 7-9 Jan 53. 2. In the meantime, we have informally advised our Army 0- 3 contact in this matter (Col. Scott) of the preliminary stand taken by the VA to guard against any premature unilateral action on the part of the Army. R.A. HINNERS Capt. USN Chief, Weapons Defense Division Attachments As stated above AFSWP ROUTING AND CONTROL SHEET NOTE: This Routing and Control Sheet will remain to this communication until all action required is completed. After action has been completed it will be filed in the Adjutant General's Office. For Reference see (8bb02.gif)