KBR, a major defense contractor, exposed thousands of U.S. service members to toxic burn pits while operating under Department of Defense contracts in Iraq and Afghanistan. In January 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court’s denial of KBR’s final appeal effectively settled the matter, and the company agreed to pay $85 million to compensate more than 2,000 veterans and potentially up to 100,000 others who suffered health consequences from the exposure. This settlement, reached after years of litigation in the case Jobes v.
KBR, represents one of the most significant acknowledgments of burn pit harm in military contracting history. The burn pit operations at military bases across Iraq and Afghanistan became a widespread health crisis that affected millions. A 2025 NIH study examining 440,000 veterans who served in these regions between 2001 and 2011 documented elevated rates of respiratory illness, mental health disorders, and neurological damage. The Department of Defense estimates that 3.5 million service members were exposed to burn pits during their deployments—far exceeding the number who have filed claims or sought compensation.
Table of Contents
- What Exactly Did KBR Burn at Military Bases in Iraq and Afghanistan?
- Why Did KBR Get Away With This for So Long?
- What Health Problems Did Veterans Develop From Burn Pit Exposure?
- Who Qualifies for the KBR Settlement and How Do Veterans Access It?
- Can Veterans Get VA Benefits for Burn Pit Illness Even if They Missed the KBR Settlement Deadline?
- What Has Changed in Military Waste Management Since the Burn Pit Era?
- What This Settlement Means for Future Military Contractor Accountability
What Exactly Did KBR Burn at Military Bases in Iraq and Afghanistan?
KBR operated waste disposal for U.S. military facilities in Iraq and Afghanistan, but the company burned unsorted waste in open-air pits rather than using proper incineration or disposal methods. The waste burned included hazardous materials, medical waste, human waste, and other refuse that released toxic smoke and particulates into the air where service members lived and worked. Veterans described breathing acrid smoke for days or weeks at a time, with some military personnel stationed near the pits reporting respiratory irritation within hours of exposure.
The scale of these operations was enormous. In some locations, massive open pits burned continuously, with military personnel estimating tens of thousands of pounds of material burned daily. The practice was particularly prevalent at Forward Operating Bases where waste management options were limited, but it became routine at even well-established facilities. For comparison, the U.S. military has since moved away from open-air burn pits and implemented waste management protocols specifically because of the documented health risks—a clear indication that the practice was known to be problematic even while KBR continued it during the Iraq and Afghanistan deployments.
Why Did KBR Get Away With This for So Long?
KBR’s primary legal defense throughout the lawsuit was that the company was operating under military direction and supervision, which meant, the company argued, that it should have immunity from civilian liability. The contractor maintained that it was following orders from Department of Defense personnel and that the military, not the contractor, made decisions about waste disposal methods. This “following orders” defense was compelling to some courts initially—the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in KBR’s favor on exactly these grounds, finding that the military was directing the contractor’s actions.
However, the settlement indicates that KBR accepted financial responsibility even though the courts had sided with them. The Supreme Court’s January 2019 denial of KBR’s final appeal removed the company’s ability to overturn lower court decisions, and facing continuing exposure and litigation costs, KBR agreed to the $85 million settlement. The case’s significance lies in the fact that 250 named plaintiffs and their legal representatives were able to overcome the contractor immunity defense enough to force a settlement, even after losing in the appellate court. This outcome set a precedent that contractors cannot hide behind military direction when the health consequences of their operations become undeniable.
What Health Problems Did Veterans Develop From Burn Pit Exposure?
The NIH study released in 2025, conducted in collaboration with the Department of Defense and Veterans Administration, documented the health toll on the 440,000 veterans who served in Iraq and Afghanistan between 2001 and 2011. Veterans exposed to burn pits showed significantly higher rates of mood disorders, mental health diagnoses, intracranial injuries, and traumatic brain injury compared to their peers without documented exposure. Beyond the neurological and psychiatric effects, respiratory problems became one of the most common complaints—asthma, sinusitis, and rhinitis among the most frequently diagnosed conditions.
The specific illnesses include both immediate and long-term consequences. Some veterans experienced respiratory symptoms that began during deployment and never fully resolved; others developed breathing problems years after returning home, when their health declined gradually or suddenly. Mental health impacts included depression, anxiety, and PTSD-related conditions at rates higher than the general veteran population. The lack of clear causation between exposure and every illness created ongoing disputes about eligibility for VA benefits, but the epidemiological evidence from the 2025 study provided the strongest scientific confirmation to date that burn pit exposure caused measurable health harm across multiple systems.
Who Qualifies for the KBR Settlement and How Do Veterans Access It?
The original class action (Jobes v. KBR) included 250 named plaintiffs representing a potential group of up to 100,000 claimants, though the actual number of people who submitted claims was smaller. To qualify, a veteran needed to have served at a military facility where KBR operated burn pits and experienced documented health effects. The settlement process required veterans to file claim forms with documentation showing their service location, dates of deployment, and medical evidence of injury.
Many veterans worked with law firms specializing in burn pit litigation to gather the necessary paperwork and medical records. The settlement fund was distributed based on severity of illness, with higher compensation paid for more serious or multiple conditions. Because the settlement was completed in 2019 and most claims were processed by 2020, newer veterans seeking compensation should check with the Defense Base Act (for contractors) or file through the VA if they were service members. The key distinction: the KBR settlement was a one-time settlement from 2019, not an ongoing claims process. Veterans who did not file during the settlement window cannot retroactively claim against KBR; however, they may be eligible for VA benefits related to burn pit exposure, which has a much broader eligibility window and is managed through the VA directly.
Can Veterans Get VA Benefits for Burn Pit Illness Even if They Missed the KBR Settlement Deadline?
Yes—and this is a critical distinction that many veterans don’t understand. The VA has recognized burn pit exposure as a presumptive condition for veterans who served in Iraq and Afghanistan, meaning veterans don’t have to prove causation as rigorously as they would in a civil lawsuit. The VA has granted approximately 73% of burn pit claims filed for conditions including asthma, sinusitis, and rhinitis. Veterans can file a burn pit claim with the VA at any time, regardless of whether they participated in the KBR settlement. However, there are important limitations.
First, the VA’s presumptive list is specific to certain conditions—not every illness a veteran attributes to burn pit exposure qualifies. Veterans whose conditions are not on the presumptive list must provide medical evidence linking their illness to burn pit exposure, which is more difficult and time-consuming. Second, the timeline matters for establishing presumptive eligibility: the VA presumes exposure only for veterans who served in Iraq, Afghanistan, or other specified locations during the deployment era. A veteran who served in 2003 vs. 2010 may have different presumptive windows depending on when the condition developed and was diagnosed. Third, even approved VA benefits typically provide disability rating and medical care, not lump-sum cash settlements like the KBR settlement did—the compensation structure is entirely different.
What Has Changed in Military Waste Management Since the Burn Pit Era?
The U.S. military has substantially overhauled waste disposal practices since the widespread burn pit operations of the Iraq and Afghanistan era. Modern military policy prioritizes waste recycling, segregation, and proper disposal or incineration in enclosed systems rather than open-pit burning. This shift wasn’t primarily driven by regulatory mandate from civilian authorities—it was driven by the documented health crisis and the settlements and litigation that followed. Forward Operating Bases established in recent years have waste management protocols that prohibit open-pit burning except in genuine emergency situations.
Defense contractors operating overseas today face stricter oversight and contractual requirements around environmental and health practices. The KBR case demonstrated that even large contractors can face significant liability and reputational damage for practices that once seemed routine. Current military construction and logistics contracts include explicit waste management specifications and monitoring. However, in developing countries and in contracted military support operations outside formal U.S. military installations, waste management practices remain variable and less regulated—a lingering gap that veterans advocates and medical professionals continue to flag.
What This Settlement Means for Future Military Contractor Accountability
The KBR settlement established that major defense contractors can be held financially liable for health consequences of their operations, even when those operations occurred under military direction. Prior to this case, many contractors argued that military immunity extended to them as well—that following orders absolved them of responsibility for harmful practices. The $85 million settlement, while not an admission of wrongdoing, acknowledged enough culpability that KBR accepted financial responsibility rather than continue the fight through the courts. This precedent has influenced how current military contractors approach health and environmental practices.
The broader implication extends to other military health issues and contractor practices. If similar evidence of widespread harm emerges from other military contractor operations, the KBR precedent suggests that class action lawsuits and settlements are viable paths to compensation for affected service members. Veterans advocacy groups have cited the burn pit case when advocating for investigation into other military exposures and contractor practices. The 2025 NIH study provided the kind of epidemiological evidence that strengthens future claims—it wasn’t available during the original KBR litigation, but it validates what veterans and their attorneys argued all along.