bobbyq

First Class Petty Officer
  • Content count

    168
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

17 Good

About bobbyq

  • Rank
    E-5 Petty Officer 2nd Class
  • Birthday

Previous Fields

  • Service Connected Disability
    100%
  • Branch of Service
    AZ ARMY NATIONAL GUARD/AIR FORCE
  • Hobby
    READING AND RESEARCH TO HELP THE VET

Contact Methods

  • MSN
    bobbyq-ree66
  • Website URL
    http://
  • ICQ
    0

Profile Information

  • Location
    AVONDALE, AZ
  • Interests
    EXPIERENCED SERVICE OFFICER FOR MARINE CORPS LEAGUE & VFW

Recent Profile Visitors

306 profile views
  1. FYI VA has also acknowledged that Agent Orange was, in some instances, used in the Kingdom of Thailand and has developed specific procedures to determine whether a veteran was exposed to herbicides in locations other than the Republic of Vietnam or along the DMZ in Korea. See VA's Adjudication Procedure Manual, M21-1MR, Part IV, Subpart ii, Chapter 1, Section H, para. 5-7. Additionally, effective June 19, 2015, VA amended its regulation governing individuals presumed to have been exposed to certain herbicides by expanding the regulation to include an additional group consisting of individuals who performed service in the Air Force or Air Force Reserve under circumstances in which they had regular and repeated contact with C-123 aircraft known to have been used to spray an herbicide agent during the Vietnam era. Specifically, the new regulation states that an individual who performed service in the Air Force or Air Force Reserve under circumstances in which the individual concerned regularly and repeatedly operated, maintained, or served onboard C-123 aircraft known to have been used to spray an herbicide agent during the Vietnam era shall be presumed to have been exposed during such service to an herbicide agent. For purposes of this section, "regularly and repeatedly operated, maintained or served onboard C-123 aircraft" means that the individual was assigned to an Air Force or Air Force Reserve squadron when the squadron was permanently assigned one of the affected aircraft and the individual had an Air Force Specialty Code indicating duties as a flight, ground maintenance, or medical crew member of such aircraft. 38 C.F.R. § 3.307(a)(6)(v). Despite the foregoing, the United Stated Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that when a veteran is found not to be entitled to a regulatory presumption of service connection for a given disability the claim must nevertheless be reviewed to determine whether service connection can be established on a direct basis. Combee v. Brown, 34 F.3d 1039, 1043-1044 (Fed.Cir.1994), rev'g in part Combee v. Principi, 4 Vet. App. 78 ( Comes from the Board of Veteran Appeals
  2. Hey guy do not pay for nada. There is an Air Force book Air Defense in the Republic of Vietnam and if you go to the internet you can find it by Roger P Fox and it has all the air bases and how many rockets and mortars they took and how much damage there was. Binh Hoa is there and so is Saigon. If you are looking for stressors this is an excellent publication I have used it over and over for various claims. It is dated 1961-1973. I can not tell you how important of a document this is. Q
  3. Hey depending on your request it take three to six months. I have some reports from Tan San Nhut AB 1968 TET. Also have some after actions reports for the Corps. Be willing to share if it is helpful
  4. iN AZ IF YOU AND YOUR FAMILY LIVE IN A WHEEL BARROW YOU DO NOT QUALIFY.........YOU ARE TOO RICH
  5. Do you remember going to the VA and seeing ALL those old timers there? I am going to be 70 next week and realize that "all of a sudden" I am the old timer.
  6. Berta, sorry about the confusion but on that spouse that was taken off as a dependent.  The vet and her lived together and I got letters from neighbors and clergy that they were living as man and wife (in sin?) So then they decide to make it legal and the vet dies within six months and the VA jerks her dependent status cause they were married less than on year (legally) and that is correct by VA law.  But if they were together prior as man and wife and the VA originally recorgnized it then they should not penalize her now.  I did find this:

    VA propaganda"

    Date 06-17-91

    Citation VAOPGCPREC 58-91 VET. AFF. OPO GEN COUNS PREC 58-91

    MEANING OF "LEGAL IMPEDIMENT" for Purposes of Deemed-Valid Marriage under 38 USC &103a Comon Law Marriage

     

    Presented that to the vA and I got nothing back still denied.  Hope we are a clear state of mind on this and I really value you and the other members opinions. Thanks   Q

  7. This is what the reply was from the VA the VA wording on the decision they sent her.........we denied your claim for Dependecncy and Indeminity Compensation, Death Benefits and Accured Benefits. On October 2015 we wrote and asked you to send us completed marital history on VA Form 21-686 because we did not receive it we are denying your claim. This is where the 686 came into play. The SHARE screen clip shows she is ALREADY a dependent PRIOR to the vets death. They accepted her substitute so do I need a 21-4138 to the VA and say, why do we need a 21-686 when prior to the VETS death you had a Share program that showed her as a dependent and you also accepted her as a substitute for the Appeal.
  8. Here is what is in the VA veterans "C" file that shows a dependent. Hope that clarifies it.
  9. Ok the Hep C case. That is under appeal and the wife HAS been accepted as the substitute BUT when she filed for the Death benefits, DIC, etc. they now want a 686. I do not believe she would get DIC any how because he was only 40% but they should pay for the funeral and accompanying bills right? And no these folks were married for over five years. I went and asked the VA, do you have a 686 on file. They said no, but the have in the C file VA "SNIPPING TOOL" ??? document from the vets claim when he was alive and it shows her relationship as spouse, SS#, and DOB. As I said she was listed as a dependent PRIOR to the VETS death but NOW they want the 686 and have denied her benefits (burial etc.) Question is IF she was a dependent during the VETS claim when he was receiving benefits why is she not a dependent now? And as you mentioned why did they accept her as a substitute. Sorry about the confusion I will keep the other claim out of the conversation. I apologize for muddying the waters, it is just that I am soooooo stressed out with these folks at the VA. Q
  10. WHOA WHOA, TWO DIFFERENT CASES GUYS SORRY FOR THE CONFUSTION. The marriage one was from Alaska then AZ and had nothing to do with the Hep C case which is the one who was requesting the 686 for the DIC, Death benefits, etc. that were and are being denied and this case is under appeal with her as a substitute.
  11. the VA wording.........we denied your claim for Dependecncy and Indeminity Compensation, Death Benefits and Accured Benefits. On October 2015 we wrote and asked you to send us completed marital history on VA Form 21-686 because we did not receive it we are denying your claim. But I have a VA "SNIPPING TOOL" ??? document from the vets claim when he was alive and it shows her relationship as spouse, SS#, and DOB. On the HEP C I have a VA Fast Letter 04-13 Relationship between immunization with Jet Injectors and Hep C infection as it relates to service connection. I have a decision from Appeals entitlement to s/c for hep C Citation Nr: 1410959 in which the Vet got Jet Injectors shots and the BVA ordered entitlement to s/c for hep C. All this went to the VA but they did not look at it and it is NOT on the evidence of the SOC. Appreciate the help as I said I am fed up with the VA. Not to add to the woes, listen to this a vet 100% has his spouse as a dependent and she has an ID Commissary card. Into the years they get married by clergy and tell the VA. The vet dies six months into the marriage so the VA rescinds her dependency because they were only married six months. The other years did not count because it was common law and they did not know it was illegal since she was awarded dependency. Fight that one also. Goes on forever. VETS DO NOT STAND A CHANCE, YOU NEED TO PUNCH SOMEONE IN THE FACE!!!
  12. The 686 I do not understand I got a print out from the VA computer that shows her as a dependant has her name, social, and names her as a beneficiary when the vet was getting 40% but now that she files for death benefits they want the 686?
  13. hey Buck I am looking for  Alex Graham how do I find him.  I am lost, thanks

    bobbyq-ree66@msn.com

    Marine Corps VSO

    1. Buck52

      Buck52

      I would think the same way you found me, just post a question and refer it to Alex   aka  Asknod... A hadit elder member.

      .................Buck

    2. Buck52

      Buck52

      bobbyq

      I'll let Alex know you need him.

      ..................Buck

  14. The last letter of denial 9-14 says "the evidence from Dr ??? is not new and material evidence because it does not establish a fact necessary to substantiate the claim and does not raise a reasonable possibility of substantiating the claim. The medical opinion we received from the VA Medical Center was more persuasive than your private physician's opinion because it was based on a thorough review of your relevant military and/or personal history and contained a more convincing rationale. #1 The letter from Dr. ?? is new!! Dr. ?? is a D.O., FACG and the Assistant Chief of Gastroenterology, at the VA Medical Center his not PRIVATE!! The doctor ?? wrote "since the veteran has been under my care since 2-2009 he was diagnosed with chronic hepaptis B and C induced cirrhosis.His military service while on the Saratoga may have played an even greater role. It is more likely than not that the veteran's condition is linked to his military service experience. I cannot seem to locate his death certificate right now but I believe his cause of death was hepatocellular carcinoma and he was NOT a candidate for a liver transfer. Like I said he has SMR that mention the Hep C and we have the deck logs where the ship was quarantined he did get the air gun innoculations.
  15. the VA on the denial hepatitis (also claimed as cirrhosis) The evidence from Dr. Blah Blka Blah is not new and material evidence because it does not establish a fact necessary to substantiate the claim and does not raise a reasonable possibility of substantiating the claim. The medical opinion we receieved from the VA Medical Center was more persuasive than your private physician's opinion because it was based on a thorough review of your relevant military and /or personal history and contained a more convincing rationale.