FormerMember

Several months ago I went to the post office with my gazzionth filing to the VA and prepared to pay the exorbitant $6.45 for the Certified Mail-Return receipt requested. The postmistress asked me what was up on this as I have been doing it for 4 years. She said if all I needed was proof of mailing (which I did) then I should think about using USPS Form 3817 Certificate of Mailing. I smartly used it that day for my CUE filing to the Seattle RO. Wonder of wonders--nothing for months. I finally did an IRIS and asked what happened. As expected, nobody knew. I shot back a new one to them enclosing a copy of the prior filing, a copy of the 3817, and an explanation of what the common law mailbox rule is. Lo and behold, last week I got the standard "We got it. We're slightly delayed as you know. Will get back to you soon." I guess VA is going to get a lesson in this that they no longer can just toss this stuff in the circular file anymore because it isn't CM-3R with green card. Here's the good news- it costs $1.15 period. Done deal. Remember that if VA mails you something, it is presumed to have arrived. That's the law of Presumption of Regularity. If you mail anything to them, you have to prove it because we all know how unreliable and dishonest Vets are. This is called the Common Law Mailbox Rule. Now you can file five items and have enough for a disposable lighter left over to burn their denials.

Jez. What do I have to do to attain credibility on this site? (Re; Basser"s You are going to have to show me a more credible source than that. Anyone with a computer can write a blog and this person has it in for the VA,) Just because I have a blog rather than a forum-mode like this or the Pink Peggy site is immaterial to credibility. I did the forum model from 2008 to 11. I find the blog less cumbersome and less antagonistic. As for my cites, I make sure they are all easy to confirm. Jim Strickland could never be said to have it in for the VA? Are we on the same planet? My blog is balanced by facts and occasional humor. My takedowns of CAVC rulings are easy to read and comprehend. I don't believe in conspiracies and say as much-frequently. Everything in my book is above reproach and claim tested. My credibility is founded on helping vets win-and I do. I accept nothing and want nothing- no handshake, no medal or fame. The book is strictly to benefit Hepatitis C Vets attaining SC. To borrow a phrase, I call it Pay it Forward. Mr. Basser, I do not know you nor do I ever recall speaking to you. I find it remarkable that you have formed so complete a picture of me and my belief system. I'm sorry you feel compelled to question my bona fides with so little to base your assumption on. Feel free to follow my links on my site to confirm the truth of my posts. I'm not the biggest fan of the VA. They did a remarkable job keeping me out for nineteen years. I don't hate them or have an ax to grind. I respect them and their ability to deny legitimate Vets for long periods of time. If I was vindictive, I'd go after them for the 3 botched surgeries and the Alloderm on a Tort claim. I find it more helpful to channel my anger into a book to help others through the maze.Your arguments regarding credibility would be better directed at the VA., Theirs currently seems to be in far worse shape than mine. And TY4YS as well. Nod

One thing most AF Vets focus on regarding Thai AO exposure is having an AFSC of Security Policeman or their hootches being close to the perimeter like they were at Udorn. The big new "barns" they put up in 1970 to replace the old hooches were jammed right up (within 100 feet) of the Northwest perimeter. What some forget is the Communications guys who did telephone maintenance or cable splicing in the perimeter areas. VA has not even touched on that group. Here's a good list of the affected Comm Squadrons and a few Army/Marine places http://asknod.wordpress.com/2012/02/29/thailand-ao-exposure/ In fact, here's a picture of Detachment B, 7th Radio Research Field Station about 10 klics from T-11 (Chiang Mai Airport). This place was nuked the whole time I was there from Oct. 70- May 72. Nothing grew there-period. The black and white is from the Lima Site 20 A's parking apron for the Hmong T-28s. They tried to plant grass there for a volley ball court but it died after a week. The place was hosed with it. Third pic is from 1500 looking NW at Long Tieng and you can see all the bare dirt around the runway and taxiways. The Hmong kids used to spread AO and A Blue with cut off bleach bottles undiluted right out of the barrels. After two years, I came home coughing up blood and thought it was due to Red Marlboros. I switched to lights! I'm rated 40% for PCT on that. Hope the pictures help.

You are right. Transitive verb + brain fart. My son is in law school and I called him, too. He finally excavated it out of WESTLAW on the internet. It's 7103 but what is odd is the BVA lady indicated the VLJ believes a single judge can revise it. 7103 says absolutely not. It would have to be a 5 judge panel legally, but who can afford to squander judicial resources so profligately? VA is in enough backlog trouble as it is. If it goes against me, I'll argue the 5 judge panel requirement up at Indiana Ave.NW. Thank you for your insight.

Thank you very much for that research. I saw this several months ago and promptly forgot where it was . I believe 7102 is inapplicable because of that first phrase: "A proceeding instituted before the Board ". As I am the one instituting it, it cannot apply. 7103 would seem a good fit, but again it deals with the MFR issue rather than revision. Oddly the gal at the BVA says that a single judge can revise any decision of a prior board- even one sitting as a panel. Go figure. That's like saying a single judge decision at the CAVC could take precedence over an en banc or panel decision. I'll be happy to report back with the actual number of judges on the decision as soon as I see it. A win certainly won't be as glorious as Leroy Maclem's but it will be a windfall-sans interest. I seek justice, not money. The decision has rankled me for over twenty years.

Thank you, Berta. I talked with a nice lady at the BVA Ombudsman's office who didn't know the answer, but took my particulars and asked a VLJ. She kindly called me back with the information later. Problem solved.

Refer to my post <<<My Motion for Revision is coming up and I suspect a single judge is going to decide it even though the 92 decision was done with the aforementioned panel >>>>. Filing a Motion for Reconsideration is a dead end. You get one shot at it. If they decline to review, the claim can never be resurrected or appealed to the Court. Obviously I am not going to do that. I filed a Motion for Revision as in Clear and Unmistakable Error claim and I am the moving party pro se. <<<If yes, how does your question apply and effect your claim ? >>> I felt that was fairly obvious. I want to make sure they do not waste their time and mine with a single judge adjudicating a Motion for Revision without legal authority to do so. I've searched high and low in the USC and CFRs and find the one reference to Motions for Reconsideration. A MFR is a far cry from a revision. A MFR is a petition to review an old decision. A Motion to Revise is an adversarial, collateral attack on a prior decision. The Ebenefits site shows they are now looking at it. I had a hearing before the VLJ last April ((2011). We discussed it during the hearing about another appeal and he suggested I file the revision and he'd hear them both at the same time. It was filed May 11,2011. The revision is simple- the judges made 2 decisions medical in nature that were outcome determinative. To view the decision, see http://www.va.gov/vetapp/wraper_bva.asp?file=/vetapp92/files1/9204999.txt Now that we have that clarified, is there anyone who might be knowledgeable on this? I'm stumped and am not getting anywhere. I'll try the Ombudsman again. I left my name and number there last week, too. Nobody returned the call. In the meantime, if either of you have any answer on the subject, I'd be interested to hear it.

In an attempt to revise a prior decision, I find no one (even the BVA) willing to go out on a limb and definitively answer this question. In 1992, BVA boards were panels of three. There were twenty of them and until 1995, all decisions were by panel rather than single judge. My Motion for Revision is coming up and I suspect a single judge is going to decide it even though the 92 decision was done with the aforementioned panel (although one was missing). The question is simple. Can a sitting VL Judge (one) overturn a 92 panel decision of three? Now, before you cite to 38 CFR § 19.11(b), think it through. § 19.11(b) deals with Motions for Reconsideration, not Motions to Revise. Big difference: (b) Number of Members constituting a reconsideration panel. In the case of a matter originally heard by a single Member of the Board, the case shall be referred to a panel of three Members of the Board. In the case of a matter originally heard by a panel of Members of the Board, the case shall be referred to an enlarged panel, consisting of three or more Members than the original panel. In order to obtain a majority opinion, the number of Members assigned to a reconsideration panel may be increased in successive increments of three. I queried the BVA via IRIS and they sent me to the Atlanta VARO saying my claim was there. Atlanta booted me back to the BVA and said they were lying. The Veterans Service Compensation "technician" at the 800 number said "Huh?". A private VA attorney said sign the POA and I'll tell you. The BVA answered my IRIS query today and said "If we need any more info, we'll contact you." Any ideas? If so, predicated on what CFR §?