free_spirit_etc

Great idea! And good point - That even people who cannot "earn a living" the way our society has set up the "work world" still have SO MUCH to offer (even if it doesn't fit into the neat little packages that employers want it to fit in in order to pay you).

John, Now that is a totally valid argument and an argument that I understand very well. The risks most certainly need to be considered 587 times before a person makes the choice to try to work. I certainly agree that anyone on any type of disability benefit who asks if they can work needs to be warned very directly that though the laws say you can work, as long as the work is not "substantial" they are running a very big risk of the potential of the agency eventually determining they are no longer disabled and stopping their benefits. This, of course, would be devastating for someone who truly couldn't work enough to support themselves. But that is a totally different argument than the argument that people who do try to work are frauds, or people who lost their benefits probably lied about working and got caught, or that the law says that in order to be disabled you cannot be capable of working at all, or that it is morally wrong to work part time if the government is paying you disability benefits. I would certainly not advise someone to just leap into trying to work. In most instances that would probably not be advisable, unless the person was recovered somewhat, or had received additional training and now could do a job they previously couldn't do, or something - AND were sure they were willing to take the risk of potentially losing benefits. I certainly don't agree with the advice that it is okay to work as long as you keep your income below substantial gainful. Again, if a person is capable of working that much and intentionally keeps their income below the threshold in order to keep their benefits - they are gaming the system. And I do agree that there are plenty of people out there gaming the system. But I do not agree that everyone who works is gaming the system. And again, I think that some (though certainly not most) of the people who do not work also game the system. I understand this has been debated before. Though I wasn't involved in the debates there does seem to be a "it has already been settled" type of air about the issue. Apparently there are other people who do not realize the issue has already been settled, because the question keeps coming up. I also think that people who ask deserve respect and accurate information - and facts as well as opinions. I don't see anything wrong with letting people know that going back to work does not always constitute fraud, is not always wrong, and though it might not be a wise choice - due to the risk of losing benefits - that it doesn't always result in a loss of benefits. The misconception that a person has to be totally unable to work in order to be approved for / or receive benefits causes many people to lose benefits they could have received. Many people who apply for disability have worked reduced hours, or missed a lot of work, prior to stopping work all together. That person can often be adjudicated disabled at the point their income dropped below substantial gainful, rather than at the point they stopped working – if the drop in income was because of their disability. But often the agency just uses the last day worked as the disability onset date – and the claimant doesn’t realize they can ask for earlier entitlement. Free

Mustang, You can find BVA decisions by going to the BVA website - and clicking on the search decisions link - http://www.index.va.gov/search/va/bva.html - and typing in hazing, or whatever search term you want to look up. Reading some of the decisions will give you an idea of what the BVA was looking for, and how they decided these claims. I zipped through a few of them - all remanded for development, mostly beginning with giving the veteran the opportunity to show some evidence that the events occurred. Of course, most often the events were never officially reported. But there are still ways to substantiate the claim. Anyway - if you read some of the appeals - it should give you a decent understanding of how to proceed. Good luck! Free

Cherie, I think my son's took longer because of complications. The award letter had a different date the the ALJ decision. (ALJ decision said May 1, 2007 - Award letter said February 2007). I thought the award letter was in error because the ALJ decision is binding. The Processing Center doesn't actually have the authority to change the date of the award. So rather than let them pay all the retro back to February 2007, and have the possibility to have to return some of the money - I contacted SSA and asked them to determine the correct date of the award BEFORE they sent the check (and BEFORE they enrolled him in Medicare). I imagine that this added a significant amount of time to the process. He was also on SSI, prior to receiving the DAC (Disabled Adult Child) benefits. So they had to determine the offset for that - which also takes time. However, they did tell me when I called that retro checks are not the first priority. Getting people their ongoing monthly payments takes precedence, and so sometimes, when they are swamped, the retro checks might take longer than anticipated. If they have already determined your back pay amount and attorney fees - that is a good sign. My son's initial letter just gave his date of entitlement - with no amount indicated yet. My husband, on the other hand, had his money deposited in his bank account before the even got the award letter. He received his money a few weeks after applying. But my husband's claim was a TERI (Terminal Illness) claim - and they process those quickly. I doubt your wait will be as long as my son's. But it may be a bit longer than 60 to 90 days. Free

Jerr, Yes. I understand that. But in response to the question about what would people on the outside think of a veteran working when he is getting compensated for being unable to work - I was making a point of how would people on the outside know what the veteran was being compensated for (i.e schedular rating or being unemployable.) I do not think that most people on the outside would make any distinction between whether a vet was receiving a schedular disability or disability for being unemployable. Nor would they make the distinction between if the vet were drawing 70% or 100%. I do not understand the argument that a vet on TDIU cannot even work part-time or sporadically (if they are capable of doing so) because of what people might think. Granted, once a person on TDIU or SSA starts working at all, it might start the process in the direction that a determination may eventually be made that they are no longer "unemployable." (i.e. the agency may later determine their condition has improved and that they are capable of self-support). But even then, the Vet will not lose all benefits; they will retain their schedular ones. AND that is a whole different issue than the argument that Vets shouldn't work at ALL because of what people might think. Income is only one thing a person gets from working. Most people DO want to work, at least at a job where they feel like they can accomplish something. You hear it over and over and over again in here - "I wish I COULD work!" (Not for the extra income - but the wish that if they could hand their VA check and earn every penny by working they would do it in a heartbeat). I think it was Halos that said in one thread "When I became disabled, I lost part of myself" or something of that nature. Working is not only about getting an income. Working involves many things. My husband LOVED to teach. For awhile he had to take off from teaching. But I could still see how much he missed it. He taught Sociology. I teach Speech Communication. He dropped by my classes regularly and often got involved in the class discussion - or I would ask him to cover certain sections or topics for me. I saw what teaching did for him. It fed his soul. When he walked in that classroom, a special part of him came to life. He lit up and the students lit up. Later, though he was already on SSDI, he made plans to return to teaching. And yes - he reported it to Social Security. In fact, he took his contract to Social Security the day he received it in November 2006 - though he wasn't actually going to start teaching until January 2007. They calculated his earnings and determined that he would still be eligible for SSD. (He was only scheduled to teach one class). He did not return to teaching - as his condition worsened in January, and he died February 5. However, he hung on to that possibility of teaching until he could no longer do so. He waited until a few days before the semester started before he told the Director for sure he would not be able to teach that semester. At that time, he still had hoped he could teach the NEXT semester though. I do not understand why so many people are so insistent that anyone on any type of disability should not be allowed to work AT ALL, despite the fact disability rules do allow people to work some and still be considered disabled, as they are not capable of working ENOUGH to support themselves. I do not understand this on the basis that working provides so much more than merely making an income. I don't understand why if someone is LEGALLY disabled, but they are capable of working SOME, and they want to try that - why so many people want to call them frauds, and judge them, and indicate other people will judge them, etc. A person who is disabled has already lost A LOT. Why take away that which does not necessarily have to be taken away?

Yep. Last year was NOT a good year for investments. :( I invested in food - I figured it would hold it's value. :) (I didn't buy stocks in food companies. I bought food!)

Halos, You bring up a very valid point. Actually what I said about people who gamble for a hobby being able to only deduct their losses is true. I just did not explain it fully. I was mostly comparing gambling as a hobby with gambling as a profession - and the only thing those who gamble for a hobby are allowed to deduct is their losses, whereas those who gamble for a profession are allowed to deduct other things as a business expenses. I am sorry if it appeared that I was indicating that gamblers can deduct all of their losses. That was not my intent. Of course, as you stated, they are only allowed to deduct losses to offset what they won. Any loss above their winnings is not deductible. However, professional gamblers can deduct ANY gambling related expense as a business expense. My main intent was not to give an IRS lesson on gambling. My main intent was to indicate that is not always safe to assume that gambling income is always considered unearned income. The VA or SSA would sometimes be able to come in and say if you are capable of gambling that much you are capable of working. And if the facts of your case are such that the VA or SSA determined that you met the IRS standards for a professional gambler, they could say you already were working. And as you state - yes, gambling can sometimes become a very powerful addiction. Free

John, I think you bring up a somewhat valid point. And I imagine some people outside the system would not think too highly of the idea. But most people outside the system don't understand the system anyway. They would have trouble discerning which vets were getting compensated for SC conditions and which vets were getting compensated for being unable to work. So would you suggest that vets who were drawing a certain amount of compensation because of the SC conditions quit working so that people on the outside of the VA wouldn't look at them badly? What level of SC disability should a Vet be allowed to draw and still remain employed?

Larry, Thank you for explaining that, and thank you for being respectful in your response. I am having trouble understanding why you are so sure that the person did not report their earnings to the VA. While it is possible that is what occurred, I think it is also very possible that the veteran returned to full time work, reported it, and was taken off TDIU. I see no harm in granting a veteran the benefit of the doubt unless the evidence shows otherwise. I also am beginning to understand that this is really an emotionally charged issue for many on this board. Yet the argument I hear the most is that Unemployable means you can't work; not at all, no work what-so-ever, etc. What I have trouble understanding is why the members of this board keep putting conditions on this that Congress, the VA, and Social Security did not. All three have specifically stated that Unemployable means that you unable to work in a substantially gainful way. According to their standards, someone who can work - but only a small amount - is Unemployable. Someone who can work but because of their disability is unable to hold a job for any amount of time is Unemployable. (That can be someone who can't get along with others because of their disability, someone who misses a lot of work because of their disability, etc.) If Congress wanted to require a person to be totally unable to work at all, they could have done so. However, they did not put such requirements on the programs, so I have trouble understanding why members of the board are so insistent on doing so. I realize that many people collecting disability do work under the table without reporting their earnings. And yes, that is fraud. Ironically, some of those people wouldn't be taken off disability if they did report their earnings because they really ARE unable to earn much or maintain any steady employment. But many people do return to work AND report their earnings. Some are eventually taken off disability. Some are not. It depends on the facts in their case. But I do not agree that they should be judged so harshly, or called frauds, just because they worked. It would seem like Congress intended for people on disability to be able to TRY to work - as they set up a whole set of rules for that to happen. And yes, some people do lie. And some people do commit fraud. But not everyone who works commits fraud. In fact, some people who do not work commit fraud. Just as there are cases of people who work and don't report it, there are also cases of individuals who become capable of working again, but don't. Is that better? John Q Public is granted SSD and TDIU - and later thinks he might be able to try to work. But if he tries to work, he is suddenly a fraud, because he is lying by working AND collecting benefits (even though the law allows him to do so under certain conditions - or for a period of time). Or John Q Public is granted SSD and TDIU - and later thinks he might be able to try to work, but he doesn't try at all, because he might lose his benefits, and it really isn't "right" for him to collect benefits AND work (even when it is allowed by law) so he just decides to collect benefits, rather than rock the boat? Does that make him a better person? I am not saying that every person on disability should try to work. But I am saying that not everyone who works is a fraud - and not everyone who doesn't work is not a fraud. I definitely think that people who consistently work and intentionally keep their earnings low in order to keep getting benefits (but are actually capable of earning more) are "gaming the system" (i.e. frauds). But I don't believe the mere fact that you work or don't work is the deciding factor in determining how honest a person is. And I also believe that vets who ask are entitled to information that affects the choices they make. They certainly shouldn't jump into trying to work without being fully informed. But neither should they shy away from trying to work without being fully informed. I do understand that most people on the board do not agree with me. Free

That certainly is a distinct possibility. What does your treating physician say about your left foot and other knee? The first thing you might want to do is pick up a copy of the C&P report and see what it says. You don't have to wait to get your decision from the RO. You should be able to get a copy of the C&P report from the facility where you had the C&P. If you get a copy of it yourself, then you will know what the doctor actually said. (Sometimes it loses a bit in the translation). My husband had a claim for cervical problems when he retired. The claim was denied because they said they could not find a current disability, though they did find a slight problem at one of the areas. He was given another C&P on his appeals. The same area on the x-rays was noted - with an increase in the gap in the disk space - but still no finding of disability. Later, he had a claim for his headaches. He went to a C&P exam, and the claim was denied. The RO denied it because it was not an "undiagnosed illness." Their profound statement was "Your headaches have been diagnosed as headaches." LOL What they FAILED to tell him was that the C&P examiner had actually attributed his headaches to the service. He stated the headaches originating in the back of his head were from the cervical area. He included copies of xrays, and drew arrows to the area of the injury (the EXACT same area they had noted before) which showed it had become MUCH worse since he originally filed a claim for the cervical strain (when they couldn't find a "current" disability). The examiner also indicated his headaches that started in the front were the result of his chronic sinusitis. The examiner pointed out that this had been diagnosed in service, confirmed by xrays in the service, and treated in the service. Yet the RO merely informed him that his claim for headaches was denied because they had been diagnosed as headaches and thus were not an undiagnosed illness. So always, always, always get copies of the doctor's reports and read them. Free

Ah.. here is one for the other leg: http://www.index.va.gov/search/va/bva.html "The Veteran underwent a VA examination for his right ankle in October 2005. The examiner diagnosed mild arthritis of the right ankle by use of radiographs from February 2005. The examiner opined that it was certainly reasonable to believe that the Veteran's right ankle pain has been exacerbated by previous injury to his left ankle. The examiner qualifies the opinion by adding that he cannot say definitively that the problems with the right leg are due to the problems with the left leg without resorting to mere speculation. The examiner's opinion is enough to grant service connection on a secondary basis. As the Veteran argues and the examiner notes, the Veteran has been limping on his left ankle for 30 years, which causes pain to the right ankle. There is no medical opinion contradicting this or offering any alternative reason for the Veteran's right ankle problems. Thus, the Veteran must be given the benefit of the doubt, and the claim is allowed."

Old Vet needing advice, Thank you for your service! Another thing you might want to consider is doing some research of BVA decisions, and how they treat weight gain, secondary conditions, sleep apnea, etc. I would recommend just checking out some decisions to notice the patterns. Don't look so much for that one case that was granted, or that one case that was denied - but what was the pattern that you noticed in the decisions of how they reached whatever conclusions they did. I certainly didn't do enough research to determine any pattern yet - but just typing in weight gain secondary - I found these cases interesting: This is interesting where they discuss "proximate cause" http://www4.va.gov/vetapp09/files3/0917744.txt "The Board acknowledges that there is some indication in the record that excessive body weight is a contributing factor, and that the Veteran reports weight gain secondary to an inability to stay active due to back problems. See, e.g., VA History and Physical Note dated May 7, 2002 (recommended that Veteran lose weight). However, any relationship between the Veteran's service-connected back disability and obstructive sleep apnea, including aggravation due to weight gain, is tenuous and does not show that his back disability is the proximate cause of his sleep apnea or the proximate cause of any aggravation of such disease. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.310. See also Dorland's Illustrated Medical Dictionary, 1530 (30th ed. 2003) (proximate is defined as the immediate or nearest). As such, service connection is not warranted under such theory of entitlement." That was surprising to me, because I thought they would develop the chain a bit further back. But here they seem to focus just on the "proximate cause" part - saying it has to be the closest or nearest. Of course, that could be because he didn't have strong medical evidence tying up links in the chain. Another one was: http://www4.va.gov/vetapp09/files3/0925552.txt "Although the medical evidence of record establishes an indirect link between the service-connected PTSD and weight gain, a separate grant of service connection for weight gain/loss on a secondary basis is not warranted, as there is no indication that the weight gain is a disability in and of itself. Moreover, according to 38 C.F.R. § 3.310(a), when service connection is established for a secondary condition, the secondary condition shall be considered a part of the original condition; and, significantly, the Veteran's service-connected PTSD is already rated as 100 percent disabling. Thus, inclusion of weight gain as a symptom of the service-connected PTSD, would not result in a higher disability rating because the Veteran is already in receipt of the maximum allowable scheduler rating for that disability. Moreover, the medical evidence of record has never shown that the Veteran has a separately ratable disability manifested by weight gain/loss and the symptom of weight gain/loss has been attributed to a known diagnosis, service connection for a disability manifested by weight gain is not warranted." The interesting part to me is the part where though they acknowledge an indirect link, with the weight gain being attributable to the meds taken for his SC PTSD, they say the secondary condition is considered part of the original condition, and that he was already rated at 100% for the original condition, and thus had already received a maximum rating for that disability. I am not sure if they would have rated it separately if the weight gain was, in and of itself, disabling - or resulted in other disabling conditions. I just kind of skimmed a few. But I think you might need a VERY strong IMO to connect the sleep apnea. However, they do seem to acknowledge weight gain as being attributable to treatment meds and sedentary lifestyle from the SC disability. I know I read several cases quite some time ago that were successful in getting secondary connections for back problems, other leg besides the injured one, etc. from injury to one leg. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand that a disabling condition in one leg often does effect the other leg, back, etc. especially over time. It changes your gait, your balance, and everything. Anyway - you might want to check out the BVA site. http://www4.va.gov/vbs/bva/ and search some of the decisions http://www.index.va.gov/search/va/bva.html and see what patterns you find for some of your questions. I wish you much luck! Free

As Josephine suggested - you may want to get a Congressman / Senator involved. Take them a copy of the denial letter, the form you sent in, the signed return receipt, the IRIS confirming they had received the form, and any record you may have of the phone call. Ask them to check out why the VA denied your claim on the basis they did not receive the form when all evidence shows they did receive it and even acknowledged that they did. Sometimes getting a Congressperson involved can slow down a claim. But in this case it might speed it up. I played run around with them for a couple of years on my widow's month of death payment. They had froze the money in my bank account for months and eventually reclaimed it. When I got a copy of the C-file I even found a transmittal stating I was entitled to my husband's last payment and instructing finance to RELEASE the hold on my money. Instead, they reclaimed the money (i.e. took it out of my bank account) a couple of months after being instructed to release the hold. When I called this to the VA's attention - I just got responses they would forward the info to the appropriate unit and that I would get a letter. I never got a letter. When it became public that the VA had not paid the month of death payment to many widows (on the excuse that they didn't know the widows existed in most cases) they set up a special unit to deal with the month of death payment issues. I contacted the special unit, and gave them all the info(that the VA had already APPROVED my payment, but had not paid me). Again, I got nowhere with that. I gave all the info to my local Congressman, and I got my check in about a month or so, and a letter a few weeks later where the VA actually admitted they had handled my claim incorrectly. So it might be worth a shot to call your Congressman. Free

There are many veterans who have PTSD, who are not approved for IU benefits. And some of those veterans continue to work for years. And some of those veterans, at some point, become unable to work anymore. And some are eventually granted IU benefits. I am getting that you are saying that your brother-in-law was granted IU right off the bat. But he chose to go to work. And because he sustained gainful employment for quite some time, the VA decided he was no longer "unemployable," and that, in fact, his SC condition had "improved" as he was now able to work. That makes perfect sense to me. I am not quite sure why people want to call it fraud. Unfortunately though, it seems like your brother-in-law is at a disadvantage compared to some other vets with PTSD who eventually stopped working. The other vets, who were not declared disabled (or disabled "enough") in the first place - can now sometimes show that their PTSD has worsened to the point they can no longer work. As your brother-in-law was declared unemployable in the first place - a determination was made that he had actually improved once he maintained steady gainful employment. So now he is having trouble getting them to connect his disability level to his SC PTSD. I would hope that some vets would actually feel compassion for a fellow vet with PTSD, who decided to work instead of drawing IU, and later became unable to work and had difficulty reestablishing IU. "Never judge a man until you've walked a mile in his shoes." As you said your brother-in-law stopped going to the VA appointments, he also lacked the continuity of care for his condition. Sounds like he decided to just "bite the bullet" and "tough it out" - and let his PTSD go untreated until it came back and bit him in the butt. But then, again, many vets have toughed it out and got bit in the butt by their untreated PTSD. And many of them also have trouble getting their PTSD SC'd or IU granted. And again, your brother-in-law has most likely had a tougher time because of the determination that his PTSD had improved. And regardless of how unemployable he is from all conditions, he can't get IU unless he has a high enough rating on an SC condition. I am not quite sure why some people want to call it fraud. Is there a possibility your brother-in-law can get a VA Pension?

Wow! Do you text alot? lol Are you saying that you sent the form 21-8940, and they received it on 11/6 (confirmed by the return receipt, the toll-free number, and an IRIS response) but now they have denied your claim on the basis that they did not receive the form? Free

I agree with you in many ways (I think..). The regulations don't require that a person does not work at all to be considered unemployable, as unemployable is not defined as NO employment, but the inability to maintain consistent "gainful" employment. So someone, like hawkfire's example of her husband, who can develop a hobby somewhat, and earn some money at it - but not near the income it would take to support themselves - then the VA (and SSA) would still consider them to be "unemployable." Likewise, someone who really wants to work, but is actually only capable of working a couple hours a day would still be considered unemployable, because they are only capable of what the VA considers "marginal employment, and not capable of maintaining what SSA considers "substantially gainful" employment. Actually, both systems even have a safety net of sorts built in for those who want to try working at a more significant level. SSA has the Trial Work Period and the VA has the regulation where you have to be able to sustain your employment, generally for a year, before they no longer consider you "unemployable." So there is still a safety net for those who TRY working full-time for awhile and then find out they really can't do it. I am not sure how that works out in real life, but I do think it looks good on paper (i.e. the regs) because some people try working and eventually can work again. But for those who try and don't succeed, there isn't an automatic loss of benefits just for trying. But like you, I believe that just "skating" under the allowable earnings is "gaming the system." Someone who is capable of working enough to earn more than the threshold amount, that merely keeps their income down so they can skate under the allowed amount - is not what the regulations intended. So even though the regulations say that anything under the federal poverty level is "marginal employment" you would have to wonder if someone can consistently earn $700 or $800 a month was actually capable of earning $1000. And if the reason they only earn $700 is because they intentionally keep their earnings down - that is gaming the system. If someone really can only earn a few hundred dollars a month, or if someone works a couple months sometimes, but can never actually keep a job very long - they are, in essence, "unemployable" according to the standards. For those on SSI, the standards are a bit different. Because SSI is based on need, they deduct $1 from your SSI benefits for every $2 you earn (after the standard deduction).

LOL - you are funny (sometimes.... well, most of the time...) But in all seriousness, I think people also need to watch it with gambling. Most generally we think of gambling winnings as unearned income (i.e. it is a game and I won something). But the IRS has two ways of treating gambling winnings - as a hobby or as a profession. The professional gambler can deduct gambling expenses (such a travel, etc.) as business income. The people that just gamble for fun (i.e. hobby) can only deduct their losses. Here is one IRS link on it: http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-utl/am2008013.pdf So a disabled vet, or someone on SSD who gambled some and won (or lost) some money - Yes, that would be unearned income from a hobby. But if that person gambled to such an extent that the IRS would consider their gambling to be a business / profession - that would move the income into the realm of earned income. That consistent income, combined with whatever skills, etc. it may take to consistently gamble - could result in a finding that you are no longer disabled to the point of being unemployable.

Investing is generally not considered a job, or self-employment - as long as you are just doing some average buying and selling of stocks, bonds, funds, whatever. But if you did it enough that you made a living at it, such as a day trader - then it could be looked at as an earned income, rather than a passive income.

Oh Pete... I am so sorry to hear that. This year has been so rough for you. My thoughts and prayers stay with you and your family. Free

VA complaints: http://www4.va.gov/oig/contacts/hotline.asp Help VA'S Secretary to ensure the integrity of departmental operations by reporting suspected fraud, waste or abuse in VA programs or operations. Call the VAOIG Hotline toll-free at 1-800-488-8244 [8:30am–4:00pm Eastern Time Monday–Friday excluding Federal holidays] You may also contact us by mail, e-mail and FAX: Write the VAOIG Hotline: VA INSPECTOR GENERAL HOTLINE (53E) P.O. BOX 50410 WASHINGTON, DC 20091-0410 E-mail the VAOIG Hotline: vaoighotline@va.gov FAX the VAOIG Hotline: (202) 565-7936 Before contacting the Hotline, please read the following information which includes important information such as who to contact for matters outside the VAOIG's jurisdiction, confidential/anonymous complaints, and what information to include in your complaint: What information should be included in Hotline complaints? The complaint should include sufficient information for the OIG to determine whether the complaint warrants review or investigation by the OIG, such as: * The particular VA facility or office involved. * The identity of the wrongdoer(s) and victim(s). * The alleged legal or policy violation(s) or other misconduct. * The effect of the wrongdoing, such as dollars lost, delay produced, etc. * The date(s) when the event(s) occurred. * The identity of any witness(es) to the event(s). * Copies of relevant documents that support the allegation. * Whether anyone else has already reviewed the allegation. * An address and telephone number of a named complainant and whether the complainant wishes confidentiality. The Hotline accepts complaints concerning criminal activity, waste, fraud, abuse, and mismanagement involving VA programs and operations, such as: * Employee misconduct. * Patient abuse. * Serious safety violations. * Theft from VA beneficiaries. * Theft or misuse of Government property. * False claims by beneficiaries, claimants, patients, employees, or contractors. * Systemic problems with VA programs or operations. * Gross waste of funds or official time. What types of common complaints are not accepted by the VAOIG Hotline? The Hotline does not accept complaints that are unrelated to programs and operations of the Department of Veterans Affairs nor that are addressed in another legal or administrative forum: Type of Complaint - Who You Should Contact Claim for VA disability and pension benefits, and ratings, appeals, or home loan issues Veterans Benefits Administration 1-800-827-1000 Claim for VA education benefits - Veterans Benefits Administration 1-888-442-4551 Patient health care dispute - Patient Advocate at your local VA medical facility Tort claim or other legal issue/case/claim - Local VA Regional Counsel office 202-273-6660 Litigation matters - Private counsel; applicable court Whistleblower retaliation issues - U.S. Office of Special Counsel 1-800-872-9855 Whistleblower disclosures not related to the VA - U.S. Office of Special Counsel 1-800-872-2249 Discrimination and EEO complaints for VA employees, former VA employees, and applicants for VA positions - VA Office of Resolution Management 1-888-737-3361 Discrimination and complaints related to the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA) - U.S. Department of Labor's Veterans' Employment and Training ServiceU.S. Office of Special Counsel Disagreement with law or other political dispute -Your elected legislative official

Yes. This would be a specific address to send specific complaints to Social Security - specifically complaints alleging misconduct / bias by an ALJ. This is different than disagreeing with the Hearing decision. And it is different than complaining about other actions of the agency. As far as the VA, I am sure they have a process too - but it most likely depends on what the nature of the complaint is, and who the complaint is about. I know Josephine can tell you more about the "Complaint clicker" on the VA website. This would be used to issue "in house" types of complaints - where the VA, itself, would handle it. But as the VA is a Federal Agency, they should have procedures in place for processing various types of complaints. I would think most of them would involve the OIG, or going through a Senator / Representative.

I don't count on anything being automatic. I have read posts where members were waiting for SSA to send their records to the VA. I have read BVA decisions where the BVA indicated that the RO had not obtained the Social Security records. The BVA remands (= more time). So the best plan of action is that if you want to make sure the VA gets certain records from Social Security, try to get copies of them from SSA and submit the copies to the RO.

Nice to hear that citing related BVA case decisions helped your claim.

Or make plans for how you are going to spend your big retro check!!!

Ah shucks.... Being a widow and all... It is kind of nice to be able to argue with a man every once in awhile... just to keep in practice... :)