[2] CIA Information Report, Subject: CW Requirements Response, March 1991 and NBC Operations Summary, Appendix 2, VII Corps, ARCENT, March 2-3, 1991, respectively. Note that these coordinates are approximately 10 miles apart; however, the UTM coordinates cited in the NBC Operations Summary were reported with only 6-digit precision (of a possible 9-digits), and it is possible that the discrepancy is due to mismatched precision.
[3] COL M.A. Dunn's Information Paper dated March 5, 1991 has been posted on GulfLINK.
[4] A transcript of COL Dunn's testimony has been posted on GulfLINK. COL Dunn discussed these events in a 1992 interview, and also referred to the incident in the article: Wade, Lt Col John V., Gum, Maj Robert M., Dunn, Col Michael A., "Medical Chemical Defense in Operations Desert Shield and Storm." The Journal of the US Army Medical Department PB 8-92-1/2, (January/February 1992): 34-36.
[5] Interviews with PFC Fisher are documented in Lead Sheet 585, dated March 6, 1996 and Callback Results, CMAT No. 1997149-0000056, dated May 29, 1997.
[6] The IAD is contacting the crews of the Fox reconnaissance vehicles involved in this incident. One crew member was contacted through electronic mail and provided a synopsis of these events as he remembers them. Electronic Message from [Fox reconnaissance vehicle crew member], June 5, 1997, CMAT Control # 1997157-0000-037 .
[7] Two such reports are documented in Callback Results, CMAT No. 1996334-004, dated February 28, 1997; and Callback Results, CMAT No. 1997111-0000024, dated April 28, 1997.
[8] CIA Information Report, Subject: CW Requirements Response, March 1991.
[9] Although COL Dunn locates the exposure in northwestern Kuwait in his original paper, he later corrected the location to be southeastern Iraq, in concert with the CIA Information Report, NBC Operations Summary, and Fox crew member's account (quoted below).
[10] COL M. A. Dunn's Information Paper, GulfLINK.
[11] Lead Sheet 585 dated March 6, 1996.
[12] "Stand-to" occurs approximately a half hour before daybreak in which soldiers man their defensive positions. This defensive procedure is also used as an accountability formation.
[13] COL M. A. Dunn's Information Paper, GulfLINK.
[14] Incident Report 6330-009 dated November 25, 1996. See also Callback Results, CMAT No. 1996330-009, dated February 10, 1997.
[15] Copies of the photographs examined by the IAD are of poor quality and have not been included in this package.
[16] COL M. A. Dunn's Information Paper has been posted on GulfLINK.
[17] Treatment of Chemical Agent Casualties and Conventional Military Chemical Injuries, US Army Field Manual 8-285, December 22, 1995.
[18] Lead Sheet 585 dated March 6, 1996; Callback Results; CMAT No. 1997149-0000056, dated May 29, 1997.
[19] A description of the Fox and the detection capabilities of its mass spectrometry chemical detection system is found in Fox Reconnaissance Vehicles, Office of the Special Assistant for Gulf War Illnesses, July 1997.
[20] For a description of lewisite, see Treatment of Chemical Agent Casualties and Conventional Military Chemical Injuries, US Army Field Manual 8-285, February 28, 1990.
[21] For a description of phosgene oxime, see Treatment of Chemical Agent Casualties and Conventional Military Chemical Injuries, US Army Field Manual 8-285, December 22, 1995.
[22] In a July 1993 Reliability and Maintainability (RAM) test of Fox reconnaissance vehicle chemical detection, false positive readings for lewisite were displayed. These readings were found to be due to the presence of silicone polymer and/or silicone grease substance in the sampling wheels. A new sampling wheel has been introduced into the Fox vehicle system to correct the problem. Memorandum, Results of the Combat Systems Test Activity (CSTA) MM1 Excursion Test, July 14, 1993.
[23] COL M. A. Dunn's Information Paper previously posted on GulfLINK.
[24] The copy of the Fox spectra printout transcribed in Tab E. Tab E corresponds to this reading. This tape printout was examined by a subject matter expert at CBDCOM, as discussed below.
[25] Note that COL Dunn reported only that urine samples were taken. It is likely that no blood samples were taken, and that the Fox crew member was mistaken. ARCENT Chemical results of an urinalysis were reported, as discussed below.
[26] Lewisite is not a component of HQ, although both are blister agents.
[27] This videotape was examined by a subject matter expert at CBDCOM, as discussed below.
[28] Electronic Message from [Fox reconnaissance vehicle crew member], June 5, 1997, CMAT Control # 1997157-0000-037. Please note that PFC Fisher's name is misspelled throughout this quotation as "Fischer."
[29] ARCENT Message, Subject: Chemical Casualty Update, p.2. This document also summarizes the events of PFC Fisher's exposure.
[30] COL Dunn reported these results in his testimony before the Presidential Advisory Committee. A transcript of COL Dunn's testimony has been posted on GulfLINK. COL Dunn also discussed the negative result in an 1992 interview in which he stated, "I had my doubts at the time that I took the urine sample that it would come up positive because the level of exposure the soldier had as I say was pretty mild, just four very small blisters."
[31] Memorandum for Record, Subject: Analysis/Evaluation of Clothing and Gauze Samples, US Army Chemical Research, Development and Engineering Center, March 1991.
[32] Electronic message from Richard A. Vigus, US Army Chemical and Biological Defense Command, December 7, 1993. A copy of the Fox spectra printout for clothes was transcribed and is discussed in Tab E.
[33] COL Dunn was the commander of the US Army Medical Research Institute of Chemical Defense at Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD, from April 1987 to July 1991.
[34] COL M. A. Dunn's Information Paper previously posted on GulfLINK. Vehicles PFC Fisher encountered are listed above, as quoted from COL Dunn's Information Paper.
[35] Electronic message from Richard A. Vigus, US Army Chemical and Biological Defense Command, December 7, 1993.
[36] A transcript of COL Dunn's testimony has been posted on GulfLINK.
[37] "Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling, and Use of Chemical Weapons and on Their Destruction," April 29, 1997. This Chemical Weapons Convention was opened for signature in Paris, France, on January 13, 1993. It has been signed by 165 States and ratified by 93 States (as of June 1997). It was signed by the U.S. on Jan 13, 1993 and ratified on April 25, 1997. Part XI of the Convention, "Investigations in Cases of Alleged Use of Chemical Weapons," details some of the procedures. [http://www.unog.ch/frames/disarm/distreat/chemical.htm]
| First Page | Prev Page | Next Page |