Sec. Nicholson:
    "Who are you???"
Moi:   .. yah'worse nightmare, mate.

Attention to VBA Decision!

August 21, 2006
.. a little .. 40 years too late.

NBC News reported that

Court expands relief for Agent Orange victims
Ruling: Veterans who served on ships off Vietnam coast are eligible
Click here for the Review.     Other News Articles.
RE-OPEN YOUR CLAIM TODAY!

VSM Legal Precedence   (16 Aug 06)     Or the Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal (AFEM) that preceded the VSM This landmark decision sets aside the definition of "service in 'Nam" Over-turns any attempt by the VA to limit benefits to Vietnam-era Veterans NOTICE   (15 Sep 06 Update) .. take the above link to learn more about this landmark decision.

Things (I'll bet) you didn't know ..
Military that served in Thailand, Laos & Cambodia are now covered!
(If they did not "step foot" in Vietnam, kiss off.)
Why?     Cover-up.     Liability $$$$
Many served in the Secret War that began de-classification in the early 90's
KIA in Laos, a mountain in the north, guided aerial bombing mission on Hanoi
Discharged from the Air Force and accepted Federal Contractor Assignment (cover.)
How do you think their families were treated as discharged servicemen?
Air Force Bombers and Fighter Pilots stationed in Thailand,
never set foot in 'Nam, kiss off.     "The Ravens"
Army Engineers cutting thru the jungles of Thailand,
not exposed to agent orange?     K.M.A.
Scandals in Thailand re: agent orange?   Yes.
"Damn, girly-men.."
But, offshore ships are now covered...
.. smell a rat   .. a dead rat?
Counterinsurgency Ops never happened .. in Thailand
.. until de-classified, of course.
But, of course, they didn't spray that bad shit
See Cover-Up Reports for more details.

Camp USARTHAI
Camp #44
Korat, Thailand
1965-69

"Hey -- don't get that shit on your boots!"

It will eat right thru the leather!

"Hey -- where's your mask?!"

.. breath that shit in and it may be harmful to your health
And, I sure hope you had your gloves on (handiling that shit)

712th (Preventive Medicine) Story

More?     Read the link below @ Thailand
 

Thailand Vietnam Veterans for Equal Treatment (TVVET) Exposure to AO while serving in Thailand     Photo Evidence The service medal, without a country.. (Read just about any VBA denial referencing VSM) This is by no means an official VA website. You get honesty and things you can use here.

Franco Brand Bull If you do not see the Superman logo, you can not be sure whether you have genuine (Franco) bull.

See "DIC" - Dependency and Indemnity Compensation Claim
Appellant/Widow/Dependent Benefits     See VA Site   and U.S.C. law
See the Amendments (2004)   re:   (A) 10/year or (B) 5/year requirement
Congress, in 2004, has closed the DIC benefit for new disabled claim
for the dependent of the veteran (claimant.)     Good sheet - Military.com
  Table of Contents    
Toxin Contamination
(Subject to change without notice.)

  About "Claims Fixers"
Preparing for Congressional Hearing
  Landmark Ruling @ All Vietnam-era Vets in S.E.A.
  Forum Bulletin Board      
    Diabetes & Anemia   Medicine   Your Benefit Column   More Links
1)   Terminology      
    United States Code   Code of Fed Regs   Service Connection
Claim Supporting Documents *
National Archives for Military Records
Notice     Archive Fax-on-Demand System
For Vet/Next of Kin -   eVetRecs
Correcting Records
2)   Case Studies      
Search Cases   Citings    
      Legal Precedence   Definition   Plausible   "Well-Grounded"   Evidence
3)   CFR Reference    
ADJUDICATION   RATING
      Key CFRs   Secondary Conditions   Unemployability
4)   United States Code (USC)      
      VA Evidence Responsibility   Presumption Law

2007 Compensation Rate Table
See Part 4 - Schedule of Rating Disabilities

Thailand Vets   Filing your Disability Claim,   First Stop

Court Case Docket Search - click here
Search for a Lawyer/Practitioner in your state
USCAVC     Note Time Limit from Board of Veterans Appeal (BVA)
625 Indiana Avenue, NW, Suite 900, Washington, D.C.   20004-2950
Case related matters only     Phone:   (202) 501-5970     Fax:   (202) 501-5848
Court Opinions & Orders

UDM Project SALUTE
University of Detroit Mercy Law School
Pro-bono Legal Services available anywhere


National Organization of Veterans Advocates
PO Box 42334
Washington DC   20015
(800) 810-VETS


VETS' ATTORNEYS OFFER FIXES
FOR VA'S CLAIMS BACKLOG
CRISIS -- National Organization of Veterans' Advocates
to present Congress with viable solutions to end
claims backlog. Will anyone listen?

    Why does the VA have a disability claims backlog
of over 600,000 cases?

    What can be done about it, realistically?

    Below you will find the answers.

    Richard Cohen, Executive Director of the National Organization of Veterans' Advocates (NOVA) will outline the problems and present viable solutions to Congress on February 14, 2008. Cohen will appear before the House Committee on Veterans' Affair's Subcommittee on Disability Assistance and Memorial Affairs.

    This testimony is so straightforward and meaningful that a logical person would expect immediate Congressional action on the recommendations to solve the VA's claims backlog situation.

    But, we're not talking about logic...we're talking about Congress. Will they listen?

Testimony below:
-------------------------

STATEMENT OF RICHARD PAUL COHEN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
NATIONAL ORGANIZATION OF VETERANS’ ADVOCATES, INC.
BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON DISABILITY ASSISTANCE AND MEMORIAL AFFAIRS

VETERANS’ AFFAIRS COMMITTEE, UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

FEBRUARY 14, 2008

MR. CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE:

    Thank you for the opportunity to present the views of the National Organization of Veterans Advocates’, Inc. (“NOVA”) on the issues surrounding the VA’s disability claims process at the Regional Office level, including what measures can be taken to improve its effectiveness in lessening the 600,000 plus claims backlog, and solutions for improving the VA claims process system in general. NOVA is a not-for-profit § 501(c)(6) educational organization incorporated in 1993.

    Its primary purpose and mission is dedicated to train and assist attorneys and non-attorney practitioners who represent veterans, surviving spouses, and dependents before the Department of Veterans Affairs (“VA”), the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (“CAVC”), the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“Federal Circuit”), and on remand before the VA. NOVA has written many amicus briefs on behalf of claimants before the CAVC and the Federal Circuit.

    The CAVC recognized NOVA’s work on behalf of veterans when it awarded the Hart T. Mankin Distinguished Service Award to NOVA in 2000. The positions stated in this testimony have been approved by NOVA’s Board of Directors and represent the shared experiences of NOVA’s members as well as my own fifteen-year experience representing claimants at all stages of the veteran’s benefits system from the VA Regional Offices to the Board of Veterans Appeals to the CAVC as well as before the Federal Circuit.

OBSERVATIONS

    Throughout 2007, top VA officials such as former Secretary James Nicholson and Daniel Cooper, VA’s Veterans Benefits Administration Director, informed Congress about the backlog and excessive delays veterans are facing when filing a claim for VA benefits. Unfortunately, it is NOVA’s conclusion that 2008 has brought little to no change in the following six major problem areas causing or contributing to the VA’s inability to process a veteran’s claim in a timely fashion. All of these problems require immediate attention and action in order for our nation’s veterans to see any real improvement in a system upon which they rely for benefits and assistance.

(1) Backlog

    In 2006, the backlog of claims for VA benefits, has skyrocketed to over 654,000 claims. See, Report Veterans Disability Benefits Commission, October 2007, p. 305. At the same time, the VA received some 800,000 new claims in 2006, making it nearly impossible for VA staff to effectively address the 654,000 backlogged claims waiting to be processed and decided.

(2) Processing Time

    When a veteran submits a new claim for VA benefits, he or she must currently wait an average of 177 days-almost six months- before getting the first decision. This six-month processing time consists primarily of the VA obtaining evidence, usually with the veteran’s assistance. And, not surprisingly, when the VA does finally issue a decision, it is not always favorable. When a veteran appeals an adverse decision, the processing time for a claim on appeal is astronomical. On average, the time from receipt of the notice of disagreement, which begins the appeal, until the issuance of a Board of Veterans’ Appeals (“BVA”) decision is 971 days. Office of the Secretary, Department of Veterans Affairs, “Strategic Plan for Employees”, July 2007, P 14; Reports of the Chairman of the Board of Veterans’ Appeals, Fiscal Year 2006, p.16. Simply stated, because of the problems identified herein, a veteran must wait more than three years (177 days for the initial processing of a new client plus 971 days for appeal to be ultimately adjudicated) to finally get a favorable decision from the BVA granting him or her VA benefits and compensation. Those veterans whose claims are not granted by the BVA must wait 2 more years for a decision by the CAVC.

    Compounding the processing time even more is the well-intentioned Veterans Claims Assistance Act of 2000. The VCAA’s intended purpose was to better inform the veteran about the information and evidence needed to support his or her claim. However, the reality is that the veteran now receives a multipage form letter, which results in a deluge of confusing correspondence between the VA and the veteran.

(3) Insufficient Staffing

    As of April 30, 2007, the VBA had 12,684 employees processing veteran’s claims. Department of Veterans Affairs, “Fact Sheet” July 2007, P. 6. In September 2007, former VA Secretary Nicholson reported that 1,100 new staff had been hired in an effort to reduce the 177 days it takes the VA to issue the first decision on a new claim. Even with these new hires, the staffing at local VA regional offices is woefully inadequate as the numbers make clear: some 13,784 VBA employees are being tasked with processing and deciding over 1.4 million new and backlogged claims.

(4) Insufficient Training

    In 2006, the VA’s Office of Inspector General conducted a survey of Rating Veterans Service Representatives (“raters”) and Decision Review Officers (“DROs”). The results of the survey, revealed that within the last year they had received 10 hours or less of formal classroom instruction on rating policies and procedures. Department of Veterans Affairs Office of Inspector General, “Review of State Variances in VA Disability Compensation Payments”, May 19, 2005, p.58. Given that the VA is the second largest government agency with 57 regional offices and over 12,000 staff throughout the country, 10 hours of training cannot possibly suffice to keep all of the VA’s local offices and staff in step with all the policies and procedures directly affecting veterans’ claims.

(5) Inappropriate Production Standards

    Raters and DROs are held to production standards of completing decisions in 3 to 5 cases per day which are tied to awards and bonuses, and which adversely affect the quality of their work and the accuracy of their decisions. Nearly half (47%) of those surveyed said it was difficult or very difficult to meet their daily production standards. Forty-nine percent stated that they had difficulty meeting their production standards without sacrificing quality. And 57% stated they have difficulty meeting their production standards if they ensure that they have sufficient evidence for each rating and thoroughly review the evidence. Department of Veterans Affairs Office of Inspector General, “Review of State Variances in VA Disability Compensation Payments”, May 19, 2005, pp.60, 61. These adjudicators are supposed to make decisions based on the evidence in the veteran’s claims folder, which can be anywhere from a couple of hundred to several thousand pages of records. But, by forcing VA adjudicators to make three to five decisions per day, the decision maker is forced to make rush decisions, oftentimes without genuinely reviewing the veteran’s entire claims file.

(6) Inaccurate and Inconsistent Decision Making

    Calculations derived from the Reports of the Chairman of the Board of Veterans’ Appeals reveal an accuracy rate in disability benefit decisions by the VA of less than 20%, rather than the 88% accuracy rate reported by the VA in 2006. See, Institute of Medicine “A 21st-century System for Evaluating Veterans for Disability Benefits” Pp. 180,181; Reports of the Chairman of the Board of Veterans’ Appeals, Fiscal Year 2006, p.19. http://www.va.gov/Vetapp/ChairRpt/BVA2006AR.pdf. Inaccurate rating decisions result in inappropriate denials and lower awards than are warranted, and also in more appeals.

    Providing support for anecdotal complaints that veterans regularly have to appeal partially favorable Regional Office decisions ( usually due to a lower rating being assigned than the veteran’s disability warrants) the VA’s Office of the Inspector General’s 2006 survey, revealed that 52.4% of Regional Office raters believed it was somewhat likely or very likely that two or more different ratings ( one resulting in more compensation for the veteran) for the same medical condition could be supported. Department of Veterans Affairs Office of Inspector General, “Review of State Variances in VA Disability Compensation Payments”, May 19, 2005, p.59. In addition, veterans’ advocates are now reporting incidents of VA rating officers and examiners ignoring the diagnostic criteria contained in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, published by the American Psychiatric Association. Giving more weight to their personal biases than the diagnostic criteria, VA raters and examiners are denying PTSD claims submitted by combat veterans, falsely concluding that the veteran’s combat stressor was insufficient for a diagnosis of PTSD.

RECOMMENDATIONS

(I) Staffing

    Quite simply, all VA regional offices need more staff to process and decide the new and backlogged claims. NOVA recommends that increased funding be provided to the Veterans Benefits Administration, specifically targeted toward hiring more staff, raters and DROs. Only by increasing the number of VA employees who have the responsibility for processing claims can the speed of claims processing be increased without sacrificing the accuracy of the decisions.

(II) Training

    In addition to hiring more staff, the staff must be regularly and effectively trained. NOVA therefore recommends that increased funding be specifically directed toward providing semiannual training in VA law and medicine to VA raters, DRO’s, Regional Office staff and to clinicians who conduct psychological evaluations and compensation and pension exams. This training should provide emphasis on the significance of the duty to assist and notify veterans, the VA’s regulations regarding the benefit of the doubt, and how to rate difficult medical conditions such as psychological impairments, TBI, pain, impairments caused by Agent Orange exposure, and Gulf War Illness. It should be noted that the Veterans’ Disability Benefits Commission recommended increasing VA staff and adequate education and training in order “to achieve a manageable claims backlog”. Veterans’ Disability Benefits Commission, “Honoring the Call to Duty: Veterans Disability Benefits in the 21st Century”, October 2007, pp.394,395, recommendations 9.1,9.3,9.5. Similarly, the VA’s Office of Inspector General recognized the need for ongoing training and reevaluation of human resources to “ensure that the VBA field organization is adequately staffed and equipped to meet mission requirements”. Department of Veterans Affairs Office of Inspector General, “Review of State Variances in VA Disability Compensation Payments”, May 19, 2005, xi, recommendation 6.

    Finally, this training needs to include some meaningful way for VA adjudicators to review precedential opinions from the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims and apply them where relevant. Given the current caseload of claims to decide, VA adjudicators cannot be expected, on their own, to keep up with the Court’s jurisprudence. There should be a system in place for key Court cases to be disseminated among VA adjudicators so they can start following and applying Veterans Court precedent in a timely and efficient manner. Consistent training sessions would help VA adjudicators better understand the implications and meaning behind important Veterans Court decisions, and help them implement the Court’s case law in their own rating decisions.

(III) Concentrate on Accuracy Not Just Speed When Deciding VA Claims

    Although every claimant wants a speedy decision, and the old saw reminds us that “justice delayed is justice denied”, an overly hasty and erroneous decision is not beneficial to the veteran or to the VA, which will have to deal with the eventual appeal. In the long run, the time spent to provide an accurate and just rating will most certainly reduce the VA’s backlog by eliminating “hamster wheel” repeated reviews of the same claim, which occurs when a veteran is forced to appeal a hastily made erroneous decision. By encouraging VA adjudicators to make quality decisions (as opposed to meeting a quota of decisions per day), they will take the time to review the veteran’s entire claims folder and apply relevant VA law, regulations and case law.

(IV) Require the VA to Maintain Statistics on the Regional Office Denial Rate

    Without statistics on the VARO’s denial rate it is impossible to determine how many veterans and other claimants abandon their claims rather than proceeding with an appeal. Denial rates broken down by type of claim would also provide an insight into the examiner’s and rater’s experiences in dealing with different claims.

(V) Enact Legislation to Enhance the VCAA

    Currently, the VA has interpreted the VCAA in such a manner as to deprive veterans and other claimants of meaningful and helpful claims specific information. Instead, the VA provides generic information which is not helpful because it fails to inform the veteran of what evidence is necessary to prove entitlement to benefits. The result is that is not until many years later, following multiple decisions and multiple remands, does the veteran finally understand the VA’s perception of the shortcomings in the evidentiary development of the claim. The propensity of the VA to withhold claims specific information contributes to “hamster wheel” litigation and to the VA’s increased caseload.


RICHARD PAUL COHEN
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
NATIONAL ORGANIZATION OF VETERANS’ ADVOCATES, INC.
1425 K STREET, N.W., SUITE 350
WASHINGTON, D.C. 2005
877 483 8238     Email

    Since 1992, Mr. Cohen has been representing veterans before the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) and the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA). In that time, he has successfully represented veterans in Court and before the Department of Veterans Affairs. In addition, Mr. Cohen has represented veterans before the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. From November 2006 until December 2008, Mr. Cohen was elected to serve as the President of the National Organization of Veterans’ Advocates, Inc. ("NOVA"). As of January 1, 2008 he began serving as the Executive Director of the National Organization of Veterans’ Advocates, Inc and he continues to serve in that capacity. Mr. Cohen has presented at the CAVC Judicial Conferences and is a member of the CAVC Bar Association. Education: B.M.E., June 1968, the City University of New York, School of Engineering; J.D.June 1973, Fordham University School of Law.
Court Admissions
NY 1974
WV 1979
Supreme Court of United States of America 1977
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 1994
United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims 1993
United States Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit 1974
United States Court of Appeals for the 4nd Circuit 1985
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York 1974
United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia 1979
United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia 1979
Associations and Organizations
American Bar Association
CAVC Bar Association
West Virginia State Bar
National Organization of Social Security Claimants Representatives
National Organization of Veterans Advocates-Board Member since 2005, President from November 2006 until December 2007, Executive Director since January 2008

    Neither Mr. Cohen nor NOVA have received any federal grant money or contract work in the last two years related to this testimony.

UDM Project SALUTE
University of Detroit Mercy Law School
Pro-bono Legal Services available anywhere

Try a search on keywords "Pro Bono Lawyer" [region] where you substitute your specific geographic area for [region]. Illustration: Pro Bono Lawyer Dallas

Soldiers of Justice
Stars'n Stripes Advocacy Article
Find Law Directory,   About the Consortium
Legal Links,   California Bar,   Florida Bar
Law Firm of Saul Ewing,   Drinker Biddle,   Patton Boggs LLP,   Venable LLP;   NVLSP
Public Counsel,   Spriggs & Hollingsworth,   Pro Bono Resource Center - Maryland
Brinks, Hofer, Gilson & Lione,   Lieberman & Mark,   Nutter (Massachusetts)
Heller Ehrman LLP,   Wiley Rein LLP,   Fulbright & Jaworski LLP
Baker Hostetler,   Morrison & Foerster,   Marcia E Goodman
University of South Carolina - School of Law
Pennsylvania Bar Association
Harvard Law School,   Houston Volunteer Lawyers Program
Law Moose,   ProJustice (Minnesota),   Lawyers for One America
New York Pro Bono Program,   South Brooklyn Legal Services

A veteran of in-the-trenches pro bono work 1-800-545-4950 Local - (630) 255-2090 Naperville, Illinois Claim Denied - Contact us @ Appeal No charge to veteran Rating Adjudication Concentrated Area of Expertise - U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims * Washington, D.C. * [After] Denial at Veterans Board of Appeal P.O. Box 894   Naperville, IL 60566-0894   2212 River Woods Dr   Naperville

Military.com
   

PTSD Reference Manual


Our wounded ..

[those] wounded in battle
and
those sick because of service-connection ..


Soldier's Creed -   "No one is left behind"
And, we expect DOD/VA to do likewise ..
See "The Wall of Shame".
 

Bottom-line     The V.A. has always been posturing; attempting to deflect liability to service-connected claimants.     Using both medical and legal teams in an adversarial capacity against the veteran; unlawful methods, ie, suggesting a "pre-existing medical condition" while the law clearly states that that must be a documented (evidence) exception to the presumption of entering service of sound body.     Ignoring the law .. notifications .. and doctrine of "benefit of the doubt" where there is insufficient evidence to the contrary.     Tactics that would be considered highly illegal in any other judicial system where a court makes a ruling of law and the appellee, the V.A./agency, both disregards same and makes their own stay of action (see Haas v. Nicholson   for an illustration of this arrogant position and if that is not sufficient, the follow-up ruling in Ribaudo v. Nicholson where the judge ordered the V.A. to rescind the unlawful stay Memorandum to the Regional Offices throughout the adjucation system.)     The VBA (Veterans Board of Appeal) has consistently allowed the V.A. to remand case after case with frivolous (from a legal standpoint) defenses.     An excellent example of that is the cited case of Haas: "The Secretary has conceded that a remand is warranted because the Board failed to evaluate the appellant's claim under direct service connection principles.     Given the evidence of diabetes mellitus symptomatology during service and within one year after service, as outlined supra, the Court agrees." "And, finally, we hold (6) that if service connection for diabete mellitus is granted upon remand, secondary service connection must be considered for the veteran's claims of peripheral neuropathy, nephropathy, and retinopathy. For these reasons, the Court will reverse the Board's determination that the appellant was not entitled to the presumption of exposure to herbicides amd remand the matter for readjudication consistent with this decision."     Citing "Finally, the Secretary concedes that a remand is necessary for the Board to consider entitlement to service connection for diabetes mellitus on a direct service-connection basis."     Citing     As I stated as a prelude to these three remand quotes, in any other court of law, the judge would not allow it on the grounds of "due process" to the appellant and/or require specific sanctions against the appellee, the agency.     Judges and lawyers both know it, the V.A. should know it and like the Walter Reed scandal, there is absolutely no excuse, legal (foundation) or otherwise.     In the VBA, though, the claimant is abused in such incidences; Haas hearing was 10 January of 2006 and the final order given some eight (8) months later, 16 August of 2006.     The Secretary of the V.A., in conjunction with the Board of the V.A., created a limbo situation, unlawful to the bone, and to this publishing date, March 11, 2007, to the detriment of all claimants in the backlog, and those that will be reversed and recalled, estimated at hundreds of thousands, are left in limbo without justice. Stop use of Intimidation     Stop telling a claimant that their primary or secondary (medical) conditions is a result of the claimant "not taking care of themselves."     Here I am, diagnosed for years with kidney disorder, last blood tests indicate 65% function and then the very next blood tests, some 2-3 months later, that that has dropped to 15-17% function, ie, technically: kidney failure.     In defense, I immediately sought a medical opinion from my primary care physician at the V.A.; expecting the V.A. to say that:   (a) the kidney failure was not due to my diabetes and (b) that I, too, brought it upon myself.     Stop making medical diagnosis without foundation, legal or otherwise.     The otherwise would be that exception regarding entering military service and documented evidence of same condition.     Can you imagine, the V.A. used to deny claimants of their diabetic condition; stating that they were not Type II (Onset,) but Type I (pancreas defect at birth.)     Why?     Because at the time of the medical examination, the patient's diabetes had progressed to a dependency on insulin to control his glucose.     This, of course, is ludicrous, but the truth, fact.     Did this (incompetent) agency administrators go back and recall for proper entitlement their compensation, or did many of those claimants simply die off?     These tactics would be amusing, if they weren't factual.     Imagine, in a reverse of a medical stance, the V.A. says "[that] they do not have the qualifications to make same."     It's true.     When it is in their favor, they will go one direction, make unfounded allegations and when they are confronted with a legal stance, disavow any wrong-doing.     Today, in learning the abuse of our wounded combat soldiers from Iraq and Afghanistan returning, stop the bureacratic red tape and allow "due process" asap for transition from immediate rehabilitation to civilian status and disability compensation package commisserate with their injuries and no more low ball ratings!     This President, GOP administration, and Congress wants to show compassion for illegal aliens, ie, undocumented residents, provide many medical and educational benefits to same at taxpayers' expense, but we can not provide (a) proper healthcare and (b) compensation for those that serve our country in uniform.     Freedom is not a free commodity.     It comes at a significant cost to everyone that serves in uniform and it is a disgrace with a President (and Congress) that has made it about as difficult for most American citizens to make a decent living.     Now, do you see why every veteran claimant deserves legal counsel of a licensed attorney and not just some military-type VSO that (half) has his mind into your filing and (half) just wants to rubber stamp it through and not "make waves" with "the hand that feeds them?"     That's spelled "conflict of interest."     See Walter Reed Scandal comments by Senator Bob Dole, R-KS, and veteran.

 

DFAS Info       See Pay Stub Debacle, Pay Stub Citings, Claim Supporting Documents;   DA 1239   (Army)     "The veteran stated that on that trip in March 1966, his plane landed in Vietnam prior to arriving in Thailand.     He said that when he filed his travel voucher for that trip, he was told not to indicate that he landed in Vietnam.     He believed because of problems regarding combat pay."     re:   Citation Nr: 0432164 Another Veteran       (Note that Franco was an E-6 Finance Clerk w/Hawaii Army Natl Guard)     I will leave the vet's name annonymous because his pay records had an error.     The veteran stated that his plane landed in Vietnam, received "CZ" for tax exemption that pay period, but the finance clerk that prepared his pay voucher statement made a simple error stating, to the affect, that he "flew over" Vietnam versus landed there.     This is a simple discrepancy that you should dispute because you and you alone know what happened to you on your transient trip. FAX DFAS for your LES/army pay vouchers with "CZ" ...     The DFAS will do a search to find your pay vouchers that is a form of evidence, actually "well-grounded" basis versus "benefit of the doubt" doctrine, and you should submit any such pay voucher along with your claim in support of and to substantiate a basis of "set foot in Vietnam" provision (which at the publishing is obsolete by the landmark ruling on 16 Aug 06, Haas v. Nicholson.)     INCLUDE IN YOUR FAX 1.     Supply your NAME, SSAN and the period of time that you are looking for. 2.     Mailing address     (any c/o name, etc.) 3.     Telephone number(s)     (Day, work, residence, best time to call) DFAS FAX PHONE NO. is   (317)   510 - 1120/2128     VOICE: 510 - 5352/5349 Form   Word Doc (< 50K)     Email:   Irene Lewis DFAS-INDIANAPOLIS CENTER ATTN: DFAS-JBDM/ININ (COL 219R) 8899 East 56th Street Indianapolis, IN   46249-6540 Latest Phone Nos. & Address Credit:   Norma & Roy Capps (Tennessee)   Some more contact names: Cliffor McMillian (317( 510-5352 James McGuire (317) 510=5349 Dale Wentling (317) 510-2102 And, no relation to the Denver address below: Defense Finance and Accounting Service DFAS-DE/ PMJOA 6760 E Irvington PL. Denver CO 80279-3000 Source Credit:   Wayne T. Boyd, US Army (Retired, 1SG)

Legal Counsel for your VA Claim
Congressional Legislation Watch
Key Links     How to File a Claim     Larry Scott's Tips
Jim Strickland Articles   Help us help you..   More Tips

CapWiz
Contact your U.S. Senator   or   Congress Representative.
Congress shame..
VA Problems?     Write your Congressman
Other Veterans News   7 Nov 06

Other News Articles - GOVT COVER-UP

More on Government Cover-Ups.

Veterans' Resources Links    

The Disability Site     California Disability Law Firm

Other Source:   History     SEA Casualty Chart     By Branch


Help us identify "piss poor" VSO officers..

Selecting a VSO
.. more tips
Who is Franco ..


To insure "Fair'n Balanced" Crap *
* a republican trademark™
.. from Vietnam Veterans Against the War Blog
(To be updated regularly, otherwise see www.vvaw.org/blog)

First Article:   "VA help lines found to regularly provide wrong information"
Translation:   "VA Hires Morons .. that don't know shit"
Source Story:   Knight Ridder (Washington Bureau) 12-30-05
See V.A. Morons for excerpt, for posterity (may be suitable for latrine duty)

5)   Providing Independent Medical Evaluations
38 U.S.C. § 5109   Independent medical opinions
C.F.R. 38 § 3.326   (Physical) Examinations       V.A. Reviewer

Topic: Independent Medical Review????
Conf: Claims/Research, Msg: 31336
From: Deleted User
Date: 8/14/2002 06:25 AM

I need an independent medical review of relevant medical records that appear clear and convincing on their face. I live in a small State where many doctors are or have been affiliated with the VA, so they are out. My personal physician and others I have spoken to say their efforts are dedicated to patient care not medical review of ancient records. Also, there seems fear of a continueing involvement or litigation. I have tried personal injury lawyers without success and there is no doctor referral service in the State that refers doctors who do independent medical reviews although there must be some. Does any one know the name of a doctor who will do an independent medical review or have ideas how to solve this problem. I know doctors names are confidential so if anyone knows of such a person can you E-Mail me? Thanks, Tom (Vermont) Topic: VA doctors Conf: Claims/Research, Msg: 30974 From: Tom Abraham (abe1@jdweb.com) Date: 8/12/2002 10:18 PM Talked to a veteran today and he stated that if a vet needs additional evidence in support of a VA claim, the vets primary care doctor or specialist at a VAMC is required by law to help in this endeavor. Has anyone heard of this and can show me where the regs. are on this? Tom 6)   U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims
 
7)   Unemployability Factor Memo   Unemployability

VA Regional Office (VARO)   Locations

Veterans Online Application (VONAPP)   21-526     (800) 827-1000

38 CFR Part 3 Adjudication       General       Schedule for Rating Disabilities

Veterans Benefits Administration Manual M21-1 on Adjudication Procedures

Official VA Forms       M21-1 Manual Rewrite       Duty to Assist Veterans

        Version Updated 8/19/05 !     Chapter 1 - Duty To Assist

Chapter 2 - Due Process     Chapter 4 - Hearings     Chapter 5 - Appeals TOC

Sec A - General Information     Sec B - Notice of Disagreement (NOD)

Sec C - Decision Review Office (DRO) Review Process

Sec D - Statement of the Case (SOC)
and Supplement Statement of the Case (SSOC)

SecE - Filing a Substantive Appeal

List of diseases and conditions covered,   click here.

Photo:   Private E-1 Picchione, Ft Dix, NJ (Basic Training/16 Nov 66)    

Effective July 9, 2001, Diabetes Type II (Mellitus) aka Adult Onset is added to CFR Reg 3.309,   "Disease subject to presumptive service connection."

For the text of the amendment, click here.     "under the authority granted by 38 U.S.C. 1116"     "presumptive service connection for certain diseases for which there is no record during service."     "there is a positive association between exposure to herbicides used"     "and the subsequent development of Type 2 diabetes."     "this amendment is to establish presumptive service connection"

These Sections of the VA Guide are always under construction, perpetual.

    If it was stagnate and did not keep pace with the times, changes in VA policy, it would become worthless to you.     For instance, in the past, claims were denied and denied on appeal for diabetics that were identified as Type I, juvenile diabetes versus Type II, adult onset form.

    That was bull shit, excuse my military roots.     Whether it was ignorance of the Board members or VA physicians that did not understand the severity of diabetes, there is no way a claim for disability on the grounds of being a Type II diabetic could be confused with a juvenile case of Type I diabetes.     Absolutely impossible.

    The VA acknowledges diabetes, Type II, in cases for service-connected disability and not diabetes, Type I, which the individual would be born with.     If you were not born with it (diabetes) and dependent on insulin to take the place of your pancreas organ, then you developed the disease over time and have what is termed "onset" as your pancreas begins to fail and not provide enough natural insulin.     There are also several insulin types from fast acting to slow and actually a Type III form of diabetes that pregnant women may (temporarily) have.

    Clouding this issue today is the fact that many juveniles are developing onset diabetes (Type II) at very early ages, eg, 12 years old, due to poor diets of junk food (too much sugar.)     Now, I'm not a medical physician (M.D.) either and am not dispensing medical advice either, but just attempting to set the record straight on terminology and correctness.

    For that matter, not all medical physicians (or surgeons) understand or are educated on the area of diabetes, eg, orthopedic surgeon.     When I had my first "wake up" call and was lying in the hospital at VAMC/Long Beach where I almost lost my big toe or left foot .. yeah amputation .. I began reading and learning all I could about diabetes and its complications.     Bi-weekly visits to the Ortho Clinic and the fine staff of surgeons, I would ask him questions about the disease .. without response(s).     One day the nurse quietly said to me:   ".. he knows bones .. not diabetes."     I left it at that, appreciating the care I was receiving.

Conclusion

    If you become a Type II diabetic, onset, and do not have regular (annual) medical care, you may learn that you are a diabetic at a stage of the disease progress that neither diet management or oral medications (pills) suffice and go right to insulin supplement.

    And some (really) ignorant s.o.b.'s in responsible positions of the V.A. were denying claims and veterans with the balls appealed to again be denied.     I certainly hope in this day and age that all of those claim cases have since been overturned and orders awarding them compensation, even after decease for retro compensation.

Topic: Diabetes mellitus
Conf: Claims/Research, Msg: 31507
From: Casper * (casper@army.net)
Date: 8/14/2002 07:24 PM

I believe that someone just recently asked about the S/C % 
for diabetes.

[Code of Federal Regulations]
[Title 38, Volume 1]
[Revised as of July 1, 2001]
From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access
[CITE: 38CFR4]

[Page 350-436]

TITLE 38--PENSIONS, BONUSES, AND VETERANS' RELIEF

CHAPTER I--DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS

PART 4--SCHEDULE FOR RATING DISABILITIES--Table of Contents

Subpart B--Disability Ratings

7913 Diabetes mellitus
Requiring more than one daily injection of insulin, restricted diet, 
and regulation of activities (avoidance of strenuous occupational and 
recreational activities) with episodes of ketoacidosis or hypoglycemic 
reactions requiring at least three hospitalizations per year or weekly 
visits to a diabetic care provider, plus either progressive loss of 
weight and strength or complications that would be compensable if 
separately evaluated.......................... 100

Requiring insulin, restricted diet, and regulation of activities with 
episodes of ketoacidosis or hypoglycemic reactions requiring one or 
two hospitalizations per year or twice a month visits to a diabetic 
care provider, plus complications that would not be compensable if 
separately evaluated........................... 60 

Requiring insulin, restricted diet, and regulation of 
activities.......................... 40

Requiring insulin and restricted diet, or; oral hypoglycemic agent 
and restricted diet.......20

Manageable by restricted diet only.........10

Note (1): Evaluate compensable complications of diabetes
separately unless they are part of the criteria used to
support a 100 percent evaluation. Noncompensable
complications are considered part of the diabetic process
under diagnostic code 7913.
Note (2): When diabetes mellitus has been conclusively
diagnosed, do not request a glucose tolerance test solely for 
rating purposes.




"Remember those forgotten by the nation, Our Heros
...The POWS/MIAS from ALL wars"

Casper 1956 US Army 1976 
100% S/C P&T
Home Page URL: http://www.casper11.bravepages.com/




Topic: 60% for Diabetes Mellitus II
Conf: Claims/Research, Msg: 66388
From: Michael Harris (mekong152@charter.net)
Date: 11/20/2002 04:34 PM

Anonymous asked about the criteria the VA used to grant my buddy 60% 
for Diabetes Mellitus II (DM II). The Portland Oregon VARO used some 
interesting language when relating this veteran's Peripheral 
Neuropathy (PN) to his DM II.

Here's what the rating letter says:

DECISION:

1. Evaulation of diabetes mellitus type II with bilateral peripheral 
neuropathy, which is currently 40 percent disabling, is increased to 
60 percent...

REASONS AND BASES:

1. An evaluation of 60 percent is granted if insulin restricted diet, 
and regulation of activities are required with episodes of ketoacidosis 
and hypoglycemic reactions requiring one or two hospitalizations per 
year or twice a month visits to a diabetic care provider, plus 
complications that would not be compensable if separately evaluated.  
A higher evaluation of 100 percent is not warranted unless the record 
shows that more than one daily injection of insulin, restricted diet 
and regulation of activities (avoidance of strenuous occupational and 
recreational activities) are required with episodes of ketoacidosis or 
hypoglycemic reactions requiring at least three hospitalizations per 
year or weekly visits to a diabetic care provider, plus either 
progressive loss of weight and strength or complications hat would be 
compensable is separately evaluated.

Your evaluation was increased to 60 percent disabling even though you 
do not meet all of the criteria for the increased evaluation. There was 
no evidence of episodes of ketoacidosis or hypoglycemic reactions 
requiring one or two hospitalizations per year or twice a month visits 
to a diabetic care provider. However, your symptoms more accurately 
reflected the criteria for 60 percent evaluation and were granted under 
the provisions of 38 CFR 4.7, higher of two evaluations. Where there is 
a question as to which of two evaluations shall be applied, the higher 
evaluation will be assigned if the disability picture more nearly 
approximates the criteria required for that rating.

VA examination indicated the presence of bilateral lower extremity 
peripheral neuropathy which was not severe enough to grant a compens-
able evaluation.  Your bilateral peripheral neuropathy disability was 
used to support the 60 percent evaluation."

*****

This veteran was just granted the new diabetes "Pump" by the VA. He 
says there is some fine tuning, but he's really appreciating it. 
Instead of several shots a day he's not only sticking himself every 
3 days when he relocates the pump.

Hope this helps all who are suffering from DM II...

Mike

Mobile Riverine Force
RVN 7/68 - 7/69
http://www.riverinesailor.com



Topic: Veterans Affairs (VA) Rating Reduction Procedures
Conf: Claims/Research, Msg: 66398
From: Gee Eye (rlbfaith@tampabay.rr.com)
Date: 11/20/2002 05:02 PM


2. Protections against Reductions after Ten and Twenty Years of 
Continuous Benefits or Rating at a Particular Level


2.1.1. If a rating level or benefit has been continuously in 
effect for a certain length of time, 
it may be protected by law from reduction or severance. For example, 
after ten years of the veterans continuous receipt of service-
connected disability or death benefits, the V. A. (Veterans Affairs) 
cannot sever the benefits (that is, terminate service-connected 
status) unless there was fraud involved in obtaining the rating or 
the V. A. (Veterans Affairs) discovers that the veteran did not have 
the required length or character of service.2  

Similarly, if a disability has been continuously rated at or above a 
particular rating level for twenty or more years, the V. A. (Veterans 
Affairs) cannot reduce the rating below that level unless it discovers 
that the rating was based on fraud.3 For example, if a veteran is 
granted compensation based upon an original rating of 30 percent and 
for the next twenty years the rating varies between 30 percent and 
100 percent, the rating cannot thereafter be reduced below 30 percent 
in the absence of fraud.  The twenty-year protection rule applies even 
to rating levels that are assigned retroactively because a previous 
final decision is revised based on a finding of clear and unmistakable 
error (CUE). That is, if a rating is "retroactively increased [based 
on a finding of CUE] and the effective date of such increase is more 
than twenty years in the past, the revised disability percentage is 
protected" by the twenty-year protection rule.4 

Visit the Hadit.Com library to see all 8 Rules: 

http://www.hadit.com/library/law
        /VAProceedingsReductionofrating.htm#_Toc5060779

Hadit Leads The Way!   Source:  'Had It' Forum

 
"The Ravens"
.. they flew
  out of CIA bases in Laos
.. trained in Thailand

Ravens (smashed) 2000 Reunion (Pensacola)
I bet you can not pick the #1 (living) Ace
Clue: he started flyin missions @ 19
Flew over 4,000 missions
-- call sign is "Spooky-13"
His buddy, #1 Ace, was killed..

The Ravens had some (bitchin) call signs!

Give up?     He's the short one in the middle, grey shirt.     More on the Secret War in Laos.
Kham Phiou is a Raven.     Kham Phiou is my friend.     "Thumbs up"     My (autographed) Ravens.
Colonel Bounsoth was a mentor to Kham Phiou and came to my second wife, first Lao, wedding.
"Tragic Mountain" a story about the Hmong, Lao Tribe and our abandonment of (yet) another allie.
Royal Lao Air Force, our allie, another we dumped.     We've got a bad habit of not following thru on any commitments to soldiers and veterans.     I sure hope it isn't contagious -- you could never run a business like the government, and get away with it!     44th & Logistics in Thailand, of course.

Oh yeah, the Ravens were a bunch of ex-jocks (military-types) and Lao patriots such as Kham Piou
So, all this CIA-shit, well, it's off the books.     "You get screwed .. you get screwed."     Air America