Chuck75

To Papa You can always write a letter to the VA, stating that you want them to decide the claim with the evidence they have. (The usual certified receipt required mail, etc., or deliver it in person, and get a date stamped copy.)

I'd first try to get something in writing showing that they would not/did not pay whatever it is that they didn't and why, then go from there.

You should file with SSA for both an early (62) pension, and SSDI. As others have said, and I experienced, getting SSDI approved may take some time. The SS early pension had a delay as well, but it was fairly short as things go. As to an earlier effective date, It can only be backed up to the last time you worked, since that is or will be fairly recent. If your cardiologist chooses to do so, pulmonary hypertension, etc. may be connectible to IHD and it's related conditions, such as coronary arterial disease and blockages. For SSA purposes, as well as VA claims, It's obviously better to have SSA say that you are totally disabled by conditions that are either service connected already, or have a good chance of being service connected, based upon the cardiologist's opinion and medical records. My SSDI EDD was backed up because I filed when I was 62, but the actual disability based upon last day of work and medical records, fell within a period that the VA can, according to their rules, back up to. They did not do it automatically. If I hadn't gotten exact advice on how to do things from the senior SSA clerk, the junior clerks would have screwed things up, and likely caused serious problems with obtaining an earlier date for SSDI. There are two ways of doing what I was able to do. One uses an SSA appeal form, the other a simple letter. The junior clerks only understood the form, which basically asks for a lot of information that is already contained in the original application, and is kind of like filing an NOD with the VA. The letter basically states that you are asking for an earlier effective date, based upon (appropriate information) which in my case was dated medical records showing disabling conditions existed. When preparing such a letter, it's best to have a copy of your SSA file, and the determination records in the file to refer to, and then reference in the letter. As I see it, this invokes a review process, rather than immediately starting the formal SSA adjudication process. My medical records (copies in the SSA determination file, yet!) showed that the SSA doctor's review setting an EDD date was much later than that justified/shown by the medical records. The doctor chose to use the latest records, rather than earlier records, which the latest records totally agreed with. A key piece of the records had to do with such things as "IHD" "LVEF", and the LVEF %, which can be used directly to determine the VA "schedular" %, as well as the SSA's "totally disabled, unable to work" requirement for SSDI. What was also interesting was that a Nehmer review board earlier this year used the SSA disability date when it reversed earlier IHD related denials. This was, I suppose, because the SSDI award records were in the VA's possession when they originally got around to denying the IHD claim. VA treatment records went back even further, and had I been "smart enough" would have been the basis for a much earlier (several years) VA claim date if I had just filed one.

The VA has often ignored buddy letters, and if pressed as to why, come up with a plethora of reasons, among them "Not Notarized". Anyway, the VA is still fighting about Da Nang. The Blue Water website has some documents that should be of great interest, among them - - http://www.bluewaternavy.org/directexposure.htm The old Da Nang USAFB was and is is contaminated with A/O, The river running through Da Nang also had runoff from A/O spraying. I was on ships that tied up to the De Longhe? pier, beached at the LST ramp next to the bridge, and actually personally in the river near the bridge. The ships I served on did not keep permanent records concerning who came and went in the normal course of events. There was a daily sheet, but it was not kept or placed in the formal records. The Deck log was a separate document. Even the Quarterdeck log was not preserved. Even with statements from the ship's captains, stating that all the crewmen went ashore as the opportunity presented, the VA still denied presumptive A/O cases for the most part, at least until the recent "Brown Water" list was published. If you really want to start something, look at the Treasure Island Navy Base Firefighting School. It is/was a "Superfund Site" and contaminated with Dioxin. Since thousands of sailors sent to the far east were "outfitted" and retrained at TI NB, and most went through fire fighting "refresher" training, it looks like many were exposed to dioxin before they even left the US.

If you are a Vietnam Veteran, this likely refers to the Review required by the Nehmer court order. Extended review times are easily possible when large amounts of retro may be due. Quite a few Navy ships have been added to presumptive list in the past few months, many with "Brown Water" service.

Sen. Tom Coburn's amendment is a true "poison pill" in thin disguise. Remember that the Army recently pitched a large number of war zone medical records, with the excuse that they were too expensive to ship back to the US. Those effected will have a difficult time "proving a claim" under the existing VA practices and law, and would likely find it impossible if Coburn's amendment were to pass. As to A/O, and other HAZMAT related situations, the government is still vigorously fighting cases that have arisen as a result of base contamination stateside. In addition, veteran's exposed to dioxin, the most harmful part of A/O, at stateside bases have had an almost impossible task to obtain benefits. The closed Treasure Island Navy Base HAZMAT site at the Fire Fighting School is an example of "more likely than not" exposure for those who were sent to the school during and after the Vietnam war. Historically, a significant number of politician's have opposed veteran's compensation, simply because it reduces the amount of funds available for other things - - "pork barrel projects" among the most sacred. The VA willingly spends a large amount of administrative time and money in efforts to evade and avoid laws intent when the proper application of the law results in compensation. Just look at the error rates on initial claims decisions and the reversals on appeal. The VA still comes out ahead, since not all denied claims are appealed, and even when successful, an appeal usually takes years to go through the process. Assuming a 3-1/2 percent inflation rate, the government stands to have use of the award money for up to years, and eventually pays in inflated dollars, with no interest accrued or paid.

I have mixed feelings about H.R. 2634. I don't believe that the majority of people hurt by agent orange residuals are at any fault. However, the "winning side" was and is, since they caused chaos and the war in Vietnam. Since we pulled out of Vietnam, for mainly political reasons, and the winning side is was not us,are we in any way obligated? Perhaps some on the moral side. Given that the government and the VA are still shortchanging our own veterans that were exposed, why should we even consider citizens of Vietnam any more worthy? Politics? World opinion? Combating China? What exactly?

It's sort of a pity that the VA Nehmer "Training Guide" is an "administrative" document. As a result, even though the VA may have violated it's "thou shalts" in a particular claim or claims, it's hard to hold them accountable. "Ya flips the coin, and takes Ya chance!" seems to be the result. This has to do with the review of other/implied claims mentioned in the document. (My feeling only, specifically NOT legal advice!) I still think its funny that the VA seems to be somewhat confused about "vessels", "boats", and "ships" The way the list reads, it's possible to be on a ship that is not listed, yet the ship carries "vessels" (boats) that are on the list. (Now what?) Because of this list and it's earlier versions - - I go from just "feet on ground" to Presumptive according to Feet On Ground River Rats (Mobile Riverine Force) service LST service LSMR service And, as an added "plus", no less, newer "presumptives" were previously denied, thus Nehmer kicked in. Naturally, this makes no difference in how the VA decides how likely a given set of conditions associated medically are if they are not directly spelled out on the presumptive list. A key combination/condition is "Metabolic Disorder", which is suspected and possibly (these days) diagnosed when multiple conditions on and off the presumptive list are present.

Without all the details, etc. It might be that lack of a C&P can be used as denial of due process, and a possible resultant CUE. It would be lawyer time to say the least, but some sort of NOD needs to be involved to get a lawyer into the case. I suppose you might actually file an NOD, claiming lack of due process, just to make getting a lawyer involved "legal". I would also say that filing an NOD before any pending decisions are made can give the VA an excuse to really slow things down.

Only when the VA owes a veteran money. When the VA thinks the veteran owes them, the speed of light is the limit! "Remember the VA moves more like the tortoise than the hare!!"

I saw someone doing this in front of the Decatur GA VARO some years back. The city police arrested the person for not having a permit, etc.. The sidewalk involved was on the street right of way. That aside, getting congress to do something is about the only way to change the VA Bureaucrats seriously resist change until it's forced on them, and the change enforced by sanction.

"will they more likely than not schedule a C&P as well??" A potential problem is that the PCP is an NP. It would be better to have had a doctor sign the form. That aside, if you can get a copy of the email from the social worker showing the "have to be bedridden" do so. (That's the "old" VA thinking.) There may be enough evidence to obtain an earlier date for A&A payments. A treating doctor's opinion can be useful as well. The NP has a supervising doctor that might be willing to write something useful. The last C&P I was given was by an NP, not a doctor.

The VA may or may not schedule a C&P in a year or so. It may be longer, at the VA's convenience. Anyway, given the two 50%ers, either or both together or separately may be the subject of the C&P's. You should get a letter, or possibly a phone call ahead of the C&P date(s). Generally, C&P's are scheduled by the VA in the hopes of reducing a rating, although it's also possible to increase the ratings as a result of the C&P's. You will likely want to get a copy of the results from the VA to find out if you need to apply for an increased rating. In theory, the VA can increase the rating by administrative action as a result of a C&P, but don't bet on it. I was able to get the local VA Clinic to print out the last one I was given. (last year, printed results earlier this year.) I had to laugh, as a Nehmer claim review used evidence from medical records and doctors (treating board certified specialists) instead of the examiners "essential" HBP opinion. As a result HBP was also service connected, as were various other conditions previously denied. The conditions SC'd are medically related to A/O presumptive conditions, even though the VA likes to say that they are not. The medical records and statements by the specialists prevailed. Knowing that I had legal representation likely helped, as the SOC from the review was far more thorough than any previous ones that were related to denials.

The VA can "review" an award, suggest that it be reduced, etc. and pull a veteran in for a new C&P, etc. To Quote Berta, "VA can order a review of a disability any time they want." "permanent 100% disability evaluation" P&T = permanent and total. 100% is total. 'No further exams" is also usually stated somewhere in the award letter. You should get various other related docs as well with or following the award letter, or by calling the VA and asking for them. Life Insurance Application and CHAMPUS Application for spouse, dependents, etc. are just two of the forms. CHAMPUS benefits can be available back to the EDD date. If there were significant medical expenses in this period, or other medical insurance is too expensive, you should look into it. If the government screws around with Medicare too much, it might be of benefit. Form for applying for Base ID to access Commissary, Exchange, and MWR(commander's discretion at some bases) Note: DOD is in the process of changing the ID cards (Again) a particular base may still be issuing DD Form 2765 IDs, or a newer ID Card Form. The back of the 2765 ID has a "standard" bar code and a complex digital code section, as well as the usual dates personal statistics, etc. The newest card has another encoding scheme as well. The application form provided by the VA is obsolete, but contains the needed information anyway. That information along with a picture they take is transferred to a system that is used to generate the ID card. Once the ID card is issued, you have the option (take it) of registering in "DEERS" Most bases are doing away with the vehicle stickers, etc. With the ID card, a "visitor's pass" is not needed. Generally, you take the stack of paper the VA provided, your driver's license, another valid picture ID to the base visitor control center. They provide a temporary visitor's pass, and directions to the unit that issues the ID card. They are sort of "ticky" concerning documents proving that you are married, etc. to obtain your spouse's ID (Since we did not have a "certified raised seal" copy, I had to use state department records to show that we were married, etc.) It is kind of ironic that the original marriage was an "interdenominational" marriage, per "Canon law" ( https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Canon_law ) (A form of marriage recognized by at least all western nations, and a long story behind that one!)

AO Nehmer court rulings are likely at the heart of the VA's actions. They are required to look at any and all AO presumptive conditions, as well as any others in the records that might be associated with military service. The VA put out a "Fast letter" instruction to the RO's concerning what had to be done. An IHD diagnosis can be confirmed by testing such as you mentioned. An echo cardiogram can be done in different ways. http://www.heartsite...cardiogram.html is a better description than I might give. It is interesting that they are calling for a second exam relating to IHD after awarding the claim. Combined with a chemical stress test, it's quite definitive, and reasonably safe when conducted by a cardiologist. The "Gold Standard" is actually a cardiac cath. (I've had both types of tests in the fairy recent past) Another similar test involves radioactive dye, etc. A chemical stress test increases the heart rate and strength of the pumping actions. When IHD is present, the heart starts to show visible symptoms that are rather obvious. A cardiologist can easily define the amount of "efficiency", and any damaged areas. This can be translated to the scheme the VA uses to determine compensation. As an example, 30% or less LVEF translates to a VA scheduler rating of 100%. The radioactive dye can also show blockages and restrictions in the various arteries. With a significant case of IHD, a standard electrocardiogram will usually have abnormalities. These also point to damaged areas of the heart. DMII and IHD seem to be part of a not well defined set of problems referred to as metabolic disorder. IHD generally means that there are blockages, and they may need to be dealt with. DMII can increase the risks of blockages forming and existing ones becoming more severe. Actually, the VA screwed up in that medical records showing DMII should have resulted in the VA automatically starting the claim process for it without further action from you, other than supplying any additional records needed to define the level of DMII. DMII is usually rated at 10 to 20%. The "Fast Letter" I mentioned instructs the RO to do a more comprehensive review of medical records than they have routinely done in the past. Get the claim out the door was more important than a complete development.

You rolls the dice and - - - Is probably the best way to put it! In principal, the VA should go back to the appealed denial for an EDD. In fact, they often do not, for whatever reasons. Then, there is the problem that the VA is inconsistent, does not necessarily follow the law when it comes to clauses that favor a veteran. It is possible to get the VA to do an administrative action that has the same effect as a CUE. Again, there is no consistency to the VA's actions.

Did SSA rate the Parkinson's as totally disabling? If so, then regardless of a less than totally disabling rating by the VA, TDIU can be applied. (It might take a fight with the VA, however.) Another possible path is to have the VA training program for veteran's say that the veteran is not capable of holding a job, etc. Parkinson's is generally progressive, and it's likely that the VA would try to increment the compensation.

Let's just say that my experience with the Atlanta VARO caused me to hire a lawyer. The GA state Veteran's VSO's are OK for filing straightforward claims, and may catch obvious problems in such things as form 9's.

If your claim falls under Nehmer, I'd really consider contacting the NVLSP. Given the claim time frame, if you are in fact a Vietnam veteran with "feet on ground", Brown water service, or some other misc. types/locations considered to be A/O presumptive, etc., it's likely that you might fall under Nehmer. I do. One of my the past problems with the VA was that they never placed me on the "list". My claims for problems other than a cut and dried DMII claim were denied, appealed, floated around the VA system, etc. for years. Finally, I contacted the NVLSP and reluctantly hired a lawyer. Event he initial DMII claim award was "lowballed". The NVLSP contact disclosed that the VA had NOT placed my name on the list that they were required to provide by the Nehmer ruling. (In spite of the fact that I was already "service connected" for an "A/O Presumptive" condition, had proved not only "Brown Water" service, but also "Feet on Ground".) Evidently when the NVLSP asked the VA for a copy of my file, and why wasn't my name on the court directed list, things started happening. The VAMC handling my case abruptly transferred my claim, even with pending appeals, to one of the Nehmer processing centers. I received notice of a decision and retro a few months ago. You can use google to find the various web references for the NVLSP and the web site. There is an email process that you can use if you choose to do so. Under Nehmer, the reto pay can go back to the original claim date you mentioned. Had the government and the VA been "honest" concerning A/O decades ago, I and thousands of other veterans would have filed claims when problems started occurring, rather than waiting for information associating various conditions to dioxin and A/O. Many of the problems associated with A/O exposure have been known by the EPA, it's predecessors, the military, and industrial medicine for longer than I've been around. NVLSP MAIL ADDRESS PO Box65762 Washington, DC 20035 202-265-8305 Fax 202-328-0063 info@nvlsp.org

The VA would like a veteran to think that! Any condition or disease that originated and occurred during military service (Other than from "misconduct") meets one of the basic requirements for compensation eligibility. Naturally, if the VA can show offsetting facts, or other countering evidence, such as heredity, they will attempt to do so. A/O exposure related confers a "presumptive" status for mainly Vietnam veteran's. All this really does is force the VA to abide by the Nehmer court ruling, and makes it much harder (in theory) for the VA to try it's other "tricks" used to deny or minimize claims. I'm still frosted by the government's ignoring probable Dioxin exposure at places such as Treasure Island Navy Base. Treasure Island was a (now closed) base used to outfit and provide training to thousands of sailors assigned to the Far East, including "blue" and "brown" water sailors. A common facet of this training was Fire Fighting. The fuels used for the fires and smoke resulted in Dioxin contamination of the fire fighting school. (EPA fund site) As a result, a very large number of 7th Fleet sailors were exposed to Dioxin before they were sent overseas to various duty stations and ships.

SC is better than Georgia! No refund on tax. County will not accept veteran's exemptions after the first quarter for the real estate taxes due in December for the same year. Forget any retroactive tax benefits that might have been a possible result of the VA's delay in resolving a claim.

The SSA rules are complex to say the least. Your wife's benefits may be either based upon your SS amount, or her contributions. There are some complex combinations that may give you some options, if allowed. For instance, can she switch from her entitled payment to yours? If so, could she collect a lesser amount from her entitlement at age 62, until she is 66, then switch to yours? I know certain combinations are allowed, and others not. My wife does not have enough quarters in SSA, since she was under a teachers retirement program, so, she is paid hundreds a month from it, until she is 66, and is covered as well by my SSA entitlement. If it were necessary, she could claim reduced benefits under my SSA entitlement now, since she is over 62. Since the hypothetical $1700 is the same as your full benefit, and you were changed from SSDI to SSI at 65 or 66, your wife would then qualify for a percentage of your benefits when she reaches retirement age.

Hopefully, you will see an answer before September 2011. The answer may tell you that a C&P is scheduled, it may request more information, or be an approval, a partial approval, with issues "deferred", or even a denial. Remember that "simple" VA claims are taking about five months at a minimum.

In the past, both the VA and SSA accepted a copy of medical records, then turned around and asked for release forms to obtain the same information from the original sources. Problems arose when the source did not respond, or furnished less than complete records. The VA in particular seemed to use the incomplete records, and ignore the more complete ones. What has changed? I suspect that since turn around times became of concern, the VA and possibly SSA has made some internal decisions that simplify things a bit by relying more on the applicant's submitted information and records.

"This does not seem right" The VA seldom does what any reasonable person would consider "right". In general, the VA has little concern for timely actions that would greatly benefit veterans. Instead, "put off anything you can, anyway you can" seems to be one of the guiding principals that the VA follows. I was caught in a similar loop until the Nehmer related deadlines became a VA concern. A good lawyer can do what can be done, and just sometimes, a politician can help. Unless and until the laws impose deadlines and penalties on the VA, it will continue it's long established practices of delay, deny, and lowball, with the "hamster wheel" as the result for many veterans claims. The current fight in congress over "tax and spend" is not helping, to say the least. Anything done to speed things up in the VA will inevitably cost money, one way or another.