Award Letter

[Berta]

hours ago I irised VARO Buffalo to remind them I won 6 claims issues under Nehmer-I wanted to do this hopefully before the award letter came .

I just got the award letter in the mail-

They awarded me SC death but forgot to mention the money!!!!!

And they skillfully completely ignored that this is now a death directly due to AO.

I am calling up NVLSP- I am livid -

They also said they enclosed a pamphlet as to additional benefits I am entitled to but the pamphlet wasnt in the envelope.

And then they sent a separate statement that my CUEs are still on appeal-

but my award should render them moot and they still have to decide SMC.

They cannot do a single thing right- the BVA decision clearly states I an entitled to offset FTCA refund as well as other ancillary benefits- what a bunch of DOPES!

I will re send my Iris as a complaint and then maybe I will get respond from someone there who is literate

[deltaj]

I do believe they can be that dumb on purpose.

§ 3.54 Marriage dates. states:

A surviving spouse may qualify for pension, compensation, or dependency and indemnity compensation if the marriage to the veteran occurred before or during his or her service or, if married to him or her after his or her separation from service, before the applicable date stated in his section.

© Dependency and indemnity compensation. Dependency and indemnity compensation payable under 38 U.S.C. 1310(a) may be paid to the surviving spouse of a veteran who died on or after January 1, 1957, who was married to the veteran:

(1) Before the expiration of 15 years after the termination of the period of service in which the injury or disease causing the death of the veteran was incurred or aggravated, or

(2) For 1 year or more, or

(3) For any period of time if a child was born of the marriage, or was born to them before the marriage.

(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 1304)

My husband retired from the Air Force in October 1998. (Served from 1970 - 1998) We were married April 2, 2006. That is CLEARLY within 15 years of his termination from the period of service in which the injury or disease was incurred.

My latest letter from the VA denies benefits because the law states you have to be married to the veteran for a year or more.

§ 3.54 is very clear. It is not hard to read. There are only 3 categories. Actually, being married within 15 years of the termination of service is the FIRST category. If you do NOT fall into THAT category, THEN you are only eligible if you are married for more than a year or have child with the veteran.

However, the VA was able to be "dumb on purpose" enough to IGNORE the FIRST category of entitlement for a widow, and make a determination that focused on the SECOND one.

This is not a matter of not looking hard enough to discover if I am eligible. They had to skip over the first category to read the second one.

And though I know they are often pressed for time, it seems like it would have taken LESS time to actually read all THREE sentences in § 3.54 (or even the FIRST sentence) than it took them to write a bogus denial letter based on bogus interpretations of the law.

Taking it one step further, the letter was actually a denial of the claim for HELPLESS CHILD benefits.

Though my son is is developmentally disabled, was disabled prior to the age of 18, and was LEGALLY ADOPTED by my husband - the VA determined he can not be entitled to helpless child benefits because *I* was not married to my husband for over a year before he died.

Yes, they can be that dumb on PURPOSE.

"....and for his widow, and his orphan"

Free

I agree with you on the wording of the regulation that the word or is significant. I've got a few ideas for you. Look to the bottom of the regulation in Code of Federal Regulations and see if it lists the authority found in Title 38 U.S.C. Perhaps V.A. is interpreting this regulation contrary to the law it was enacted under the authority of. Next go to the website of the U.S. Court of Veterans Appeals and search cases under 3.54 to see if there are any similar cases that can help you craft your notice of disagreement with V.A.'s decision.

[gdsnide]

John they regularly do stuff like that to me so the answer is YES they can and do things like this DUMB all the time even after it seems like they know they have been caught and it's time to quit playing, yet the games continue so it has to be on purpose who is going to hold them accountable?

T.....I have to say what the VA is doing is far from dumb.

As I have stated on here before ....I read some where that only about 8% of Vets ever file a NOD so the VA is coming out way on the high side.

Also, if one doesn't know of a site like this one, they have no idea what the ultimate goal of the VA is & my opinion ( Not very smart but I can have an Opinion HA) is that the VA does all this to frustrate the VET & they will just give up or miss a due date of which the VA has none.

Or maybe just maybe the Vet will die & no one will have any idea they could still pursue the case.

The best thing the US (VA) could do is stop being in so damn many wars & then there wouldn't be so many Vets messed up by the incompetance that runs amuck in the VA/& or military.

I also read the Military was using Agent Orange at 600 times it's stated amount to get the result they desired

As all of these stupid things that are done come to light I would say the majority of Veterans are not even aware they are eligible for an award or figure it was so ong ago it wouldn't do any good any way to apply.

What the VA ought to do is send a shredder to each Vet that applies & tell him/her to put their claim in there & that is the new way claims are being handled. HA

Also, I believe these Raters figure they have a GS Rating so they are not worried about being fired & the person who runs these RO's don't want to lose their job by approving to many claims.

Thank U for reading my thoughts

GARY

[broncovet]

I agree with Berta but add they always do those dumb things in their favor but rarely in the Veterans favor.

CBS News, several years ago, did a report on stores scanning errors. The store argued that it was impossible to keep track of hundreds of thousands of items, and that a small percentage of errors was expected and permissible.

However, they kept track of how often the scanning errors were less than the actual price and how often they were more, because, statistically, the scanned error should be less half the time and more half the time, as you are just as likely to enter a lower price than a higher price.

They found out the overpriced scans outnumbered the under priced scans by 95%. In other words, only 5% of the scanner errors were lower, 95% of the time the customer was overcharged.

Some groups are considering class action lawsuits over this..

In a similar way, the VA makes errors, of course, but the vast majority of the errors go against the Veteran, leading us to believe the errors, at least part of the time, were deliberate.

[free_spirit_etc]

I agree with you on the wording of the regulation that the word or is significant. I've got a few ideas for you. Look to the bottom of the regulation in Code of Federal Regulations and see if it lists the authority found in Title 38 U.S.C. Perhaps V.A. is interpreting this regulation contrary to the law it was enacted under the authority of. Next go to the website of the U.S. Court of Veterans Appeals and search cases under 3.54 to see if there are any similar cases that can help you craft your notice of disagreement with V.A.'s decision.

The US Code Reads the same:

§ 1304. Special provisions relating to surviving spouses

No dependency and indemnity compensation shall be paid to the surviving spouse of a veteran dying after December 31, 1956, unless such surviving spouse was married to such veteran—

(1) before the expiration of fifteen years after the termination of the period of service in which the injury or disease causing the death of the veteran was incurred or aggravated; or

(2) for one year or more; or

(3) for any period of time if a child was born of the marriage, or was born to them before the marriage.

Good idea on looking up Court of Veteran Appeals cases. I haven't done that yet. But - I don't think this is about actually interpreting the law. It is about leaving the part of the law that makes me eligible out of the decision.

There is not much to interpret. The law is clear. Was I married to the veteran within 15 years of the termination of the period of service in which he incurred the disability? Yes.

There is a difference between misinterpreting the law, and ignoring it.

That is why I say the VA is often "dumb on purpose."

They know better than to take the law and try to misinterpret it in this case. The law is too clear. So they just IGNORE that part of the law. They fail to mention it. They remain silent on that part of the law.

SSA did the same thing with my son's claim for Survivor Benefits. He was my husband's legally adopted child. Being his legally adopted child, he was eligible for benefits on my husband's record. Did they misintepret the law and state why he wasn't eligible as a legally adopted child? No. They merely informed him of all the reasons he was not eligible under the OTHER categories - and didn't mention the legal adoption.

Even wehn we specifically asked them to make an initial decision in regard to my son's eligibility as a legally adopted child - they failed to. We had to take it to the Hearing level. The decision was easy. He is the number holder's legally adopted child. He is eligible.

But until the Hearing level, SSA remained "dumb on purpose." They knew he was eligible as a legally adopted child, so they just left that part out. I think this is different than interpretation of the law. It is ignoring specific parts in order to deny benefits.

Pay close attention to the issues and the parts of the law they continually side-step. They intentionally side-step those to be "dumb on purpose."

Free