My personal take on this is that Congress (again) did the "minimum" and veterans are supposed to feel good about the whole thing, ie, we are still stuck with mediocre VSOs that for a great deal, have no credential-type training or certification and continue to allow the VA to abuse the "substantiation" of the initial claim filing.     Isn't it great what a bunch of (high-priced) attorneys (in Congress) can do when they put their minds to it:   (1) in committee and than (2) as a total body?

    Because, believe me, when I speak of wanting to retain the services of a professional attorney, I am not talking about this group, but in fact, the U.S. taxpayer ends up suffering from this same group once they convert their "golden parachute" retirement package to lobbying the United State Government.     Now, you will understand the government expression of a "watered-down" bill...

    Let me give you a personal illustration to emphasize Jim's remarks.     (1)   I file my claim with the assistance of a VSO.     My VSO indicates he has been doing this for 15 years, and drum roll, retired from the Navy (an E-6) after 20 more years.     Okay .. First (1st) Notice for Reply indicates things missing, okay .. Second (2nd) Notice that the evidence for Vietnam Service was lacking, okay .. submit pay voucher, CZ tax exempt, six months later; 3rd or 4th Notice (whose counting..) and now, they inquire to my other period(s) of active duty service DD214s (two, to be exact) and VAMC/Long Beach medical records "required."

    One -- the law states that if the claim response does not substantiate the claim, ie, evidence/foundation, then the agency (that's the VA) is supposed to "notify" the claimant to rectify the situation, promptly.     I'm pissed off, and fire off two (2) 10+ page (typed) letters asking "why?"; certified mail to the local Las Vegas office and the RO in Reno, Nevada .. okay .. never got a reply, a phone call, nada.     Now, here I am, a professional systems analyst thinking ".. [shouldn't] they have (official) copies of all my DD214s?     And, why would they want to verify that I do too .. ummh .. could it be because of the 'inclusion of VSM' recorded and the current Haas case proceeding?     No."

    Read, and become familiar with § 5103A, "Duty to assist claimants" law, which states specific instructions as to obtaining records and evidence and in corresponding § 5103, "Notice to claimants of required information and evidence," which details the agency (VA) notice requirements, including instructions as to a claim not sufficient to substantiate (the claim.)     Now, all this is quite clear to a (licensed) attorney, practicing law, not sitting on his you-know-what in Congress, and how VA staffers/adjudicators -- whatever they want to call themselves, DON'T DO!

    In fact, in my initial denial and in my "review," the army pay voucher with "CZ" was not specifically referenced nor any rational for the "denial reasoning."     I thought the whole matter would be cleared up in the one-on-one review where my VSO, experienced, sat down with the VA Reviewer only to never responded in kind to and when I asked "why not?" my VSO could not give me an explanation.     Do you see why it is important that trained attorneys be involved?     Do you see why the blame could be placed on the incompetency of the agency staffers and/or the VSO-system of representation?

    And, the last amusing part, is that the VA #800 phone help staffer indicated that, he too, had retired from the military (as if that is supposed to give him some sort of credit for years experience) and that understanding (knowing) the law statues was not important in getting your (initial) claim filed and approved.     Wrong.     Two years later, this coming April, 2007, I am waiting for the backlogged VBA because the adjudicator can not read, is incompetent, doesn't understand the regulations (and law) and therefore, passes off the claim to a bottle-neck.

    There is nothing amusing about "Technical Support Staffing," see official survey that indicated, at best, 50% of all information given on this #800 phone no. is bogus, inaccurate and cause for the party, widow, etc. to end any pursuit of benefits.     From 1985 to 1992, I had a consultant's desk in the Office Automation Dept. at American Honda Motor where I answered technical questions, made suggestions for improving support for Honda employees and wrote business software solutions for the company.     I know what it takes to competently perform such duties and the VA comes up so short, it is pathetic.

    People have submitted driver's licensed "stamped" in DaNang, huh, flu shot immunization record "stamped" in a Saigon clinic, and in general, lesser forms of evidence (that btw, could easily be forged with a souvenir stamper from Vietnam,) and the adjudicator approves the claim???     See my desertation on such evidence.     In my claim, in supporting my claim, I list a dozen pay stub legal precedences, several intransit legal precedences, and what the the VA Reviewer say:   "[we] don't consider such [legal] precedences; only the VBA."     You see, bottle-neck, incompetence inherent in the system that any professional systems analyst would recognize, ie, not "rocket science."

    And, someone (Congress) doesn't want veterans filing their initial claim to be properly represented where any other judicial proceedings, other than Small Claims Court, the Court (the Judge) would consider a plaintiff (claimant) less than properly/legally represented.     Call your congressman.

    As a veterans' advocate, I hope to speak in front of the appropriate congressional committee in Washington, D.C. someday, at hopefully, the request of my local House of Representative congresswoman.     Even though some may consider me a "quick study" or "learner," I have a lot more to do, to make note of, to provide a full picture (detail-wise) of the extent of the incompetency in local ROs across the nation.

Sec. Nicholson:
    "Who are you???"

Moi:   .. yah'worse nightmare, mate.

    Consider my attitude an "attack dog," tenacious and up to the task at hand.     When the RO/Reno decided to play games with this vet, they made a grave mistake.     If I have my way, they will all be working at Burger Kings in the very near future.

    You see, the VA does not need more judges, see article.     They need competent staffing of the ROs across the nation.     It has nothing to do with being a military retiree.     In fact, that may be a hindrance to their duties and promote personal prejudices.     Technically speaking, the adjudicators should be required to pass examinations that examine their proficiency -- first, in the law and second, the federal regulations that they are supposed to have knowledge of and the agency manuals that have been incorporated to encompass both aspects of law and regs.

    Ideally, these tecnicians would be interns of law, ie, paralegals; familiar with legal terms and conditions and their supervisors actual attorneys.     Instead, the duties are left to a bunch of the most incompetent people that I have ever had the displeasure of knowing.     An infrastructure where the senior management levels have no ideas where the solution to the VBA bottleneck is and feel that everything is just peachy, under the circumstances...

FAQ       See 110th Congress may over-turn; repeal.

1)   Can I hire an attorney to file my initial claim?   No, not at this time.
2)   At what point in the process, can I hire an attorney?   To file a NOD (Notice of Disagreement.)
3)   Why can't an attorney do all the paper work for me?   The VSOs protested and won.
4)   All VSOs, or which were on record in the protest?   DAV and VFW.
5)   Why?   Obviously, mediocre representation and fear of loss of job security.
6)   Is there anything one can do?   Write a protest letter to your congress representatives.
See also Selecting a VSO for more tips.

See affected statutes in Title 38:

§ 5904     Recognition of agents and attorneys generally     See Amendments

§ 5905     Penalty for certain acts (AGENTS AND ATTORNEYS)

VA Ambush

    Evidently, the VA is seeking to shorten the response time that a veteran has from 60 days to 30 days regarding a Supplemental Statement of the Case (SSOC.)   The VA states the reason for this action is to improve the efficiency of the appeal process while hindering the veteran's options.

    The difficulty for a veteran receiving an SSOC is that the veteran may not know whether the various issues of the SSOC are being adjudicated for the first time or not.     The VA is clever and devious in the use of SSOC’s to lull the veteran into a belief that a previously filed Form VA9 (Appeal to the Board of veterans Appeals - BVA) is sufficient to appeal all issues to the BVA.     That belief may not be true.     The proposed change will further confuse veterans.

    See complete story by Larry Scott @ VA Watchdog dot-org.

RAO Bulletin Update 1 Dec 07:   VA CLAIM REPRESENTATION UPDATE

    The recent gathering at Sidley Austin, a firm with 1,700 lawyers around the globe, is part of a growing effort to provide free legal help to thousands of veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan who are trying to win disability benefits from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). At the meeting which was covered by video to beam the meeting to other big law firms from Boston to Seattle lawyers were getting a tutorial in the arcane vagaries of veteran's law. "There are 100,000 veterans seeking benefits, and too many of them are waiting too long to get them," says Ron Abrams, who, with Bart Stichman, directs the National Veterans Legal Services Program, a non-profit group in Washington spearheading the effort. "These lawyers are going to treat these veterans the way they would treat their corporate clients." The approach marks the first time since the Civil War that attorneys have been recruited in large numbers to represent veterans. The lawyers hope their legal expertise will speed consideration of claims and result in better benefits for veterans, Stichman says. More than 50 of the largest law firms in the USA and more than 400 attorneys have signed up. Stichman and Abrams hope to start assigning veterans to the attorneys early next month.

    Amanda Smith, an attorney with the Philadelphia-based firm Morgan Lewis, says many of the participating lawyers are Vietnam veterans and "are appalled at the circumstances that they find veterans in today." Besides the push by big law firms, law schools in states such as the Carolinas, Virginia, Delaware, Michigan and Illinois also are offering free services to veterans. Craig Kabatchnick, who worked as a VA appellate attorney from 1990 until 1995, launched a clinic last January for veterans at North Carolina Central University's law school, where he now teaches. "We had all kinds of veterans who were very disabled, litigating against trained attorneys like myself who were defending the VA," Kabatchnick says. The VA would "win" if the claim was denied, Kabatchnick says. "Did we litigate to win? Absolutely. In cases where the veteran was representing himself, the VA win ratio was very high." Paul Hutter, the VA's general counsel, says its attorneys have an ethical obligation to fairly and justly review claims and settle meritorious cases quickly. "Our job is to ensure that veterans get the benefits allowed them by law," he says in an e-mail. Disability claims have increased from 578,773 in fiscal 2000 to 838,141 this year, according to VA figures. There are about 407,000 pending. The average processing time is 177 days, the VA says. Traditionally, veterans have represented themselves or sought assistance from a service organization, such as the American Legion or the Veterans of Foreign Wars. But many of the caseworkers in those groups are overloaded with cases, Stichman says, and sometimes one volunteer oversees 1,000 veterans' claims.

    The approach has not led to quick compensation for veterans. Evidence supporting a veteran's claim - medical records or letters from colleagues - is not always submitted with the original claim. When that evidence is added later, it can lead to reversals or requests for reconsideration. That can add more than a year to the appeals process, the VA says. The Board of Veterans' Appeals either reverses or orders reconsideration of decisions made by VA regional offices 56% of the time, according to an analysis of VA figures by Stichman's group. Congress has long kept attorneys at arm's length from the veterans' disability process. Until last June, when federal law changed, paid attorneys could not work on cases until after a final decision by the Board of Veterans' Appeals. The VA is now considering regulations that would require all attorneys to pass a test in order to qualify to handle veterans' claims, according to Phil Budahn, a department spokesman. Service organizations, including the Disabled American Veterans and Veterans of Foreign Wars, vigorously fought the change in law. They are now pushing to repeal the law and support requiring a test, arguing that lawyers could turn what is supposed to be a non-adversarial process into a litigious one. "The fear was lawyers will dominate, and they'll ruin everything," says Thomas Reed, a law professor at Widener University in Wilmington, Del., who began offering free legal services to veterans in 1997. Joe Violante, national legislative director of the Disabled American Veterans, which represents 1.3 million veterans, says trained volunteers from the service organizations are far more experienced at representing veterans' claims than the newly recruited lawyers. "If the veteran is under the impression that an attorney is going to get their claim through faster, there's no proof of that," he says. Ron Flagg, a Sidley attorney involved in the pro bono veterans' project, says there are so many claims that the system is overwhelmed. "Lawyers are not the cure to all ills," he says. "But this is a problem where lawyers can be helpful."

[Source: USA TODAY Laura Parker article 27 Nov 07 ++]

Editorial

    The VA when their backs are to the wall, will plead with the VBA (the Court) to remand a case claim.     That is a quite clear conclusion to make once you have researched dozens of claim rulings and basically for "not being prepared" or what the average citizen would say "[not] doing their homework."

    Now, I look at the hearing date, and knowing the law and say "How did that happen?!"     The applicable laws regarding (a) notifications and (b) due process should over-rule such a motion.     In other words, you have a judiciary body, the VBA, with plaintiff (the claimant) and defendant (of their denial position, the VA agency,) and the various procedural rules of law are not being followed???

    Discounting that the claimant (the plaintiff) has waited, on average, two years (minimum,) for this hearing and the VA asks the case to be remanded???     Come on, now!     Ambushing the claimant with limiting time periods for (legal) responses and now, because of their error(s), a remand.     It's a damn disgrace that any Court, let alone one set up for the exclusive purpose of veterans' claims.

"Student Review"     § 5103A & § 5103

"Upon receipt of a complete or substantially complete application, the Secretary shall notify the claimant .. [of] any information, and any medical or lay evidence, not previously provided to the Secretary that is necessary to substantiate the claim." -   § 5103

"[As] part of that notice, the Secretary shall indicate which portion of that information and evidence, if any, is to be provided by the claimant" -   § 5103

"The Secretary shall make reasonable efforts to assist a claimant in obtaining evidence necessary to substantiate the claimant's claim for a benefit under a law administered by the Secretary." -   § 5103A

"(b) Assistance in Obtaining Records. - (1) [assistance' provided under subsection (a), the Secretary shall make reasonable efforts to obtain relevant records .. [claimant] adequately identifies" -   § 5103A

"(2) Whenever the Secretary, after making such reasonable efforts, is unable to obtain all of the relevant records sought, the Secretary shall notify the claimant that the Secretary is unable to obtain records with respect to the claim." -   § 5103A

"[Such] a notification shall -

(A) identify the records the Secretary is unable to obtain;

(B) briefly explain the efforts [and]

(C) describe any further action to be taken by the Secretary with respect to the claim.

-   § 5103A

Part (c) -   § 5103A

"[the] efforts to obtain those records shall continue until the records are obtained unless it is reasonably certain that such records do not exist or that further efforts to obtain those records would be futile."

KEYWORD:   "FUTILE"

    Did you receive such a notice from the VA stating "[any] further efforts would be futile"???     YOU ARE IN LUCK!     The Agency has given up .. pleads to remand based upon that (legal) issue should be thrown out at your objection and presenting such document!

2nd Paragraph of Notice to me

"Please be advised, we are unable to take any further action to obtain Federal evidence from the service department or any other sources once we have received a definitive negative reply.     Any future attempts to obtain this information would be futile since it appears records are currently not available."

    Here is an example of a remanded case before the VBA, Citation No. 0501504

"However, the available evidence of record is not clear as to whether the appellant has verifiable service in the Republic of Vietnam."

    Do not let that happen to you; make an objection before the hearing and have notices and communication received from the VARO to back up your objection!

re:   Citation No. 0509339

"[to] determine that further efforts to locate such records would be futile."

re:   Citation No. 0630800

"As the service personnel records are Federal government records, VA is obligated to try and obtain the records until such time as it is reasonably certain that such records do not exist or that further efforts to obtain those records would be futile. 38 U.S.C.A. § 5103A(b)(3) (2006). In that regard, the Board finds that the two records requests and the corresponding replies do not demonstrate that the service personnel records no longer exist or further attempts to obtain them would be futile. Accordingly, additional follow-up is warranted."

re:   Citation No. 0628316

"VA may end its efforts to obtain such records only if VA concludes that the records sought do not exist or that further efforts to obtain the records would be futile, for example, when VA is advised that the records do not exist or that the custodian does not have them."

re:   Citation No. 0115876

"While some records that were apparently in the possession of the National Personnel Records Center (NPRC) were provided in June 1999, and the regional office (RO) has made numerous efforts to otherwise obtain all of the veteran's Army Reserve records from agencies such as the Army Personnel Records Center (ARPERCEN), the record does not sufficiently demonstrate why any additional efforts to obtain such records would be futile. Unfortunately, while the Board certainly understands why the RO would assume that it had exhausted all of the possible sources for these records, the recently enacted Veterans Claims Assistance Act of 2000, Pub. L. No. 106-475, 114 Stat. 2096 (2000) (hereafter VCAA), specifically requires that whenever the Secretary makes an effort to obtain records from a Federal department or agency, the efforts to obtain those records shall continue until the records are obtained unless it is reasonably certain that such records do not exist or that further efforts to obtain those records would be futile (38 U.S.C.A. § 5103A(b)(3))."     See Part 3 above.

re:   Citation No. 0113539

"Under the VCAA, continued and repeated efforts to secure government records are required until such efforts are shown to be futile."

re:   Citation No. 0324012

"VA will end its efforts to obtain records from a Federal department or agency only if VA concludes that the records sought do not exist or that further efforts to obtain those records would be futile.   38 C.F.R. § 1.3359(c)(2). If, after continued efforts to obtain Federal records, the VA concludes that it is reasonably certain such records do not exist or further efforts to obtain such records would be futile, VA will provide the claimant with oral or written notice of that fact. VA will make a record of any oral notice conveyed to the claimant. The notice must contain: 1) the identity of the records that could not be obtained; 2) an explanation of the efforts made to obtain such records; 3) a description of any further action that VA will take regarding the claim, including, but not limited to notice that VA will decide the claim based on the evidence of record unless the claimant submits the records VA was unable to obtain, and; 4) a notice that the claimant is ultimately responsible for providing the evidence.     38 C.F.R. § 3.159(e) (2002)."

    These two sections of Title 38 coupled with rules guiding (hearing) proceedings should protect you from an Agency that "hits below the belt" and does everything to "stack the deck against" the veteran.

    And, of course, it wouldn't be fair if the claimant was well represented with legal counsel .. [like] the VA is.     For more on this important topic, see "Evidence of Service in Vietnam."

Disability Ratings - beware!     VA Rewrites Rulebook

    "The VA is obligated to choose the diagnostic code that will yield the highest disability rating. In fact, the VA is doing the opposite. They're finding ways to give the lowest rating possible."

    As a result, not only could veterans be denied money to which they’re entitled, they also could be pushed farther back in line for VA-supplied health care.     That’s because disability ratings determine eligibility and priority for many treatments.

    "The VA takes the liberty to deny rating increases on the grounds that the vet has not taken medicine for his condition or hasn’t been hospitalized recently for his disabilities," Kabatchnick said.     "These criteria aren’t part of the rating schedule."

    See complete story by Lex Alexander @ VA Watchdog dot-org.

 

"Soldiers of Justice"

    Talk about injustice: No group has done more to protect American values and preserve democracy than the more than 25 million living veterans of the U.S. armed services. Yet as recently as a decade ago, military vets and their families were routinely shut out of the justice system when disagreements arose over the benefits to which they’re entitled.

    Congress created the U.S. Court of Veterans Appeals in 1989 to develop a reliable process of judicial review for decisions made by the Department of Veteran Affairs (VA). The majority of appeals heard by the Court involve compensation for mental and physical disabilities, pension issues, education benefits, and life insurance claims.

    “There was no real availability of judicial review for veterans prior to the creation of our court,” says Kenneth Kramer, a former Colorado Congressman who serves as Chief Judge of the Court of Veterans Appeals. “The district courts can take veteran cases, but those are infrequent and far between.”

    The Court was an important first step, but its creation alone could not solve the problems of most veterans appearing before it. As with any court of law, litigants’ success hinges on their ability to secure adequate counsel to press their cases. But service members relying on disability checks and pensions for sustenance could hardly be expected to pay for legal representation, leaving these onetime defenders of justice facing the prospect of no justice at all.

    “In the beginning, three quarters of the appellants did not have lawyers and did not know how to present a claim,” recalls David Isbell, a Korean War veteran and chair of the program’s executive board since its inception. “The Court was wasting a lot of time, and the appellants were not getting the benefits they would have received if they had adequate legal representation.”

    Unlike traditional legal services offices—which require clients to affirmatively seek out help—the Veterans Consortium takes a proactive approach. Vets meeting income eligibility guidelines are sought out if they remain unrepresented 30 days after filing an official notice of appeal with the Court.

    “For many veterans, this is their first time dealing with an attorney,” says Brian Robertson, a career Navy officer who serves as the group’s director of Case Evaluation and Placement. “Many are pleasantly surprised that attorneys are willing to put in as much time as they do.”

    Since its inception, the program has trained more than 1,500 private attorneys to handle veteran appeals. “We have more volunteer attorneys than we do cases,” Isbell says. “This is a good thing.”

    The Consortium uses law firm donations and an annual grant administered by the Legal Services Corporation ($895,000 in 2001) to conduct national outreach, making presentations to interested attorneys and conducting in-depth training sessions. When a volunteer lawyer accepts a case, he or she is provided with a detailed memo outlining the key issues and is then referred to a mentor attorney, who offers advice and reviews draft filings. Throughout the entire process, Consortium leaders “monitor each case to make sure volunteer attorneys aren’t dropping the ball,” Isbell says. “The program takes these matters very seriously.”

    The Consortium, which handles an average of 50 cases at any given time, has referred out more than 2,000 over the past decade. The program has proven to be extremely popular with Congress. Each year, Judge Kramer goes to Capitol Hill to submit the Court’s budget and update lawmakers on the Consortium’s needs. He is greeted warmly by legislators, who appreciate the role the court and pro bono program play in ensuring access to justice for U.S. veterans.

    In 1997, Bob Dole and George Mitchell – both former U.S. Senate Majority Leaders – teamed together to help commemorate the program’s 1,000th case. U.S. Army veteran James E. Gaddis, a Bronze Star recipient, suffered from multiple sclerosis and was seeking government help for his care, and Dole and Mitchell successfully persuaded the Veterans Court to remand the case to the VA for reconsideration.

    That result, Isbell says, is typical of the Consortium’s success. “It would be hard for the court to exist without the work of our group,” he says.

    Judge Kramer agrees: “Increased accessibility gives the outside world—and most importantly, the litigants themselves—the perception that justice is available. We owe it to our veterans to ensure they receive an opportunity to have their day in court.”

Conclusions

    The above are only a few examples to illustrate the adversarial nature of the claim process and why an attorney should be made available to a claimaint right from the start.     The VA crys due process inefficiencies, but continues to maintain a position of no attorney representation for a veteran.

    In the meanwhile, the VA continues to operate at a high level of incompetency with far longer claim processing averages than published and to make errors in every facit of a claim from adjudication to rating and paying benefits.     Imagine, having to retain an attorney to inquire as to pay problems.     More on such life and death healthcare issues with this story from VAMC/Spokane, Washington.     No budget cuts affecting healthcare system?     See this (eye-opening) report.

    The VA is doing nothing about the future demands on healthcare services due to new veterans and conflicts in the world and older veterans left behind.     The GOP Administration of President Bush and his Secretary of the VA Nicholson are in complete denial as to funding and staffing.     And, then you have a Secretary that says "show your pride and wear your medals."     You don't believe it?     Here is more reports on agency denial.     Records denial.     It is a disgrace.

    The VA at the management level don't seem to understand that claimants are dying before their claims are processed, years later.     The law is written to protect the agency from civil legal liabilities and class action lawsuits.     There is no presumption in favor of a veteran by this agency.     Case after case is remanded by the VBA at the expense of the veteran because of incompetent processing by the agency right up to and including the Haas decision because the "agency did not take into consideration secondary conditions."     Butt-covering interview with Newsweek Magazine by the Secretary blowing smoke in a public relations disaster with non-answers hi-lighting the exchange.

VA CLAIMS ASSISTANCE UPDATE 03:     A recent study by the Institute for Defense Analysis shows that wounded veterans who approach the V.A. without professional assistance receive on average about one-third of the compensation that those who are represented by a lawyer or service organization like the Disabled American Veterans (DAV) get. DAV representative Eric McGinnis said, "That's not surprising at all. If you know the proper vernacular, a few simple phrases, it makes things a lot easier. But you'd be hard-pressed to find a vet who knows exactly the right things to say and do." McGinnis' experience in that arena is both professional and personal. The Army veteran came to work for the DAV after the organization helped him obtain compensation after the VA initially told him he'd get none. "It's a common story," he said. Complicating matters further, is a compensation process that requires veterans to approach the VA, openly advertising their own physical and psychological wounds in order to receive benefits. "These aren't always people who are comfortable advocating for themselves," said McGinnis. Utah State Department of Veterans Affairs Director Terry Schow said it would be nice if the system weren't so adversarial and complex that veterans needed help from outside groups to obtain just compensation for their wounds. "The process is so involved and complicated, that I think it's just wise to do that. And so we encourage everyone to get assistance from a service organization."

    DAV is an organization of disabled veterans who are focused on building better lives for disabled veterans and their families. They accomplish this by providing assistance to veterans, their families, their widowed spouses and their orphans in obtaining benefits and services earned through their military service. The organization is fully funded through its 1.2 million membership dues and public contributions. It is not a government agency and receives no government funds. However, it is the foremost representative of the interests of disabled veterans and before federal, state, and local governments. In 88 offices, 260 National Service Officers (NSOs) and 26 Transition Service Officers (TSOs) directly represent veterans with claims for benefits from the Department of Veterans Affairs and the Department of Defense. NSO/TSO personnel assist in filing claims for VA disability compensation, rehabilitation and education programs, pensions, death benefits, employment and training programs, and many other programs. This service is available to all veterans at no charge. DAV's Voluntary Service Program consists of a transportation network which provides veterans with rides to and from VA medical facilities for treatment, and a program which facilitates volunteers at VA hospitals, clinics, and nursing homes.

    NSO representation covers development and prosecution veterans' claims through in-depth reviews of medical histories in conjunction with sound application of current law and regulations. In representing veterans and their families, NSOs assist in the thorough preparation of claims and written briefs, which includes helping to assemble evidence in support of those claims. They also review rating board decisions and inform veterans and their families of the appeals process and their appellate rights. DAV National Appeal Officers represent the largest percentage of claimants in cases decided by the Board of Veterans Appeals (BVA). They also provide representation before the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims through which veterans have the right to independent judicial review of appeals denied by the BVA. Veterans seeking assistance can refer to www.dav.org/veterans/service_office.html to locate an office accessible to them.

[Source:   The Salt Lake Tribune Mathew LaPlante article 13 Aug 07 ++]

Do-Nothing Congress

The "Do-Nothing" 109th (GOP) Congress is living up to their name.     They're packing their bags and slinking out of town leaving the VA without a 2007 budget. Now, the VA must operate at last year's funding level until...

The Congress did take care of their own personal pay raises, shelved any federal minimum wage legislation overdue the past decade as well as critical healthcare programs for veterans and medicare issues.

And, quoting the slogan-like statement of VA Watchdog dot-org:

    VA is proposing an "accreditation" test for attorneys that would represent veteran claimants.     Sounds like the (inapt) VA managers didn't know that attorneys in order to practice law must successfully pass (in their state) the most difficult exam referred to as the "State Bar Exam."

    In fact, the only reason that the VA wants to introduce a layer of difficulty is to keep attorneys as far away from veterans as possible; they are afraid of lawyers, transacting on an equal playing field, just hate it when they are confronted with someone that not only can read thru the promulgation of the federal regulations, but understands the underlying law!

Contact your U.S. Senator   or   Congress Representative and let them know
what you think about the VA attempt to deny you proper legal counsel!

Veterans' Attorneys Facing Test

    Under a proposal, lawyers would have to pass an exam
to serve veterans.     Will that discourage taking on cases?

By Steve Goldstein
Inquirer Washington Bureau
Vets cartoon credit:   Tony Auth archives | tauth@phillynews.com

    WASHINGTON - From the federal Department of Unintended Consequences: When Congress finally changes a law dating from the Civil War to aid the nation's veterans but it leads to a regulation that might have the opposite effect, who's to blame?

    The U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs has issued a proposed rule that would require lawyers to take a test before representing veterans. The rule has been attacked by law firms that often provide such services for free. They say a written exam is unnecessary and would deter lawyers from participating.