free_spirit_etc

http://obama.senate.gov/ Obama, Bond Applaud Senate Passage of Amendment to Expedite the Review of Personality Disorder Discharge Cases Friday, March 14, 2008 Printable FormatFOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE CONTACT: Michael Ortiz (Obama) or Shana Marchio (Bond) Budget provision provides resources to speed correction of military records and upgrade discharges WASHINGTON, D.C. - U.S. Senators Barack Obama (D-IL) and Kit Bond (R-MO) today praised the Senate's passage of their amendment to the FY 2009 Budget Resolution to expedite the military's review of cases in which service members may have been improperly diagnosed with a personality disorder and subsequently discharged. According to reports last year, the Department of Defense (DOD) inappropriately and inconsistently discharged service members who suffered combat-related psychological injuries such as Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) or closed head injuries such as Traumatic Brain Injuries (TBIs). Over the last six years, Defense Department records indicate that over 22,500 personality disorder discharges have been processed; or on average 10 service members have been discharged per day, every day in that time. Such discharges can result in the loss of some benefits and care for wounded veterans. In December 2007, Obama and Bond, along with 13 other senators, called on President Bush to temporarily halt this practice and to create a Special Review Board to examine these cases. "With thousands of service members suffering from the less visible wounds of war, reports that the Pentagon may be improperly diagnosing and discharging service members with personality disorders are unacceptable," said Senator Obama. "These heroes have made incredible sacrifices for our nation, and they should not have to face another battle at home to receive the care and benefits they have earned. I am proud that this amendment will add resources to expedite the review of such cases. We will continue to demand that the Administration and the Pentagon halt this practice until air-tight procedures are in place." "The federal government has a lifelong responsibility to care for volunteers who have served honorably in combat, whether their injuries are physical or mental. It is time for our government to accept the visible guilt in their failure to treat our wounded veterans' invisible injuries," said Bond. "This review is essential to give all our troops a chance to have their stories heard, their benefits restored, and any stigma taken off their records." With increases in combat-related psychological injuries (such as PTSD) and closed-head injuries (such as TBIs), there appear to be instances in which service members suffering from less visible combat wounds are being misdiagnosed with a pre-existing personality disorder, which can result in the loss of some benefits and care. When these wounded warriors subsequently decide to seek a correction of their records, they can encounter significant delays and red tape at their respective military Boards for Correction of Military Records. While fundamental improvements are still necessary to the military's management and care for our wounded warriors, this important amendment provides additional resources for the Boards for Correction of Military Records to expedite the review of such discharge cases. The Obama-Bond amendment is supported by the National Veterans Legal Services Program, Veterans for Common Sense, and Disabled American Veterans.

Woo Hoo! I love it when you don't give them room to wiggle! Because then, they either have to grant the claim, or dig a hole to wiggle in. If they don't grant the claim - you can catch them in the hole they dug. It takes a little longer - but you get there. In your case - it looks like you have: 1. Given them no wiggle room 2. Not given them a convenient hole to dig. You already caught them in their own hole. So now they will either: 1. Grant the claim (and then see if they can question your competence to handle your finances). 2. Lose your file. Things are looking up! Free

Domestic Goddess household hint # 478 If you let the biscuits soak in gravy for awhile, part of the biscuit becomes chewable. Any remaining biscuits should be put in the yard to feed the critters, who will be able to eat them once a heavy rain or two has softened them a bit God Bless our men who love us just as we are! :) Hey! Maybe you and I should invite the VA quacks over for dinner sometime. I bet we could whip them up something REALLY special! ;) Free

Thanks Don! My husband knew how to crochet. Not a lot - but enough to say he knew how. Like many things, he just learned it to prove to himself he could do it - and then moved on to learning something else. I could NOT crochet. He used to call me his "Domestic Goddess" - but kidding. LOL I think the first time I cooked for him and asked if he had a choice, would he prefer his mashed potatos to be lumpy or pastey - and he picked lumpy - and I told him - "too late, they are already heading toward pastey" he realized that we might want to eat out a lot. And to this day I honestly don't believe it was really my mashed potatoes that clogged up the garbage disposal. I think it was already clogged up before I put them in there.... Free

I love this poem we put in our wedding vows: I PROMISE I promise to give you the best of myself and to ask of you no more than you can give. I promise to respect you as your own person and to realize that your interests, desires and needs are no less important than my own. I promise to share with you my time and my attention and to bring joy, strength and imagination to our relationship. I promise to keep myself open to you, to let you see through the window of my world into my innermost fears and feelings, secrets and dreams. I promise to grow along with you, to be willing to face changes in order to keep our relationship alive and exciting. I promise to love you in good times and in bad, with all I have to give and all I feel inside in the only way I know how. Completely and forever. ~Dorothy Colgan Free By the way - I had a talk with my husband last night - and told him while he was up there - with nothing much to do to keep him busy - to keep a watch over your claim, Betty. I swear he winked at me...lol Free

Loved the intertwined things ma bob! Hopefully, that might get them to CUE themselves and move on it more quickly. It is very well written. I might suggest a bit more polishing on the third to last paragraph to: "Also new evidence has been entered into my VA records that indicates that my Depression is directly caused by the two tours in Vietnam, as well as secondary to my Service Connected conditions of DMII Heart Disease, and Chronic Pain related to my Service Connected conditions." 1. Because I am a teacher 2. Because I pick for things the VA can pull out of context, twist around, and run with to avoid the real issue on a claim. Hopefully - they won't want to play around to for years to see if you experienced anything "stressful" while you were in Vietnam - to prove that something might have occured there that could cause depression. Tell them you still weep uncontrollably when you see a picture of Jane Fonda! But really - no one (EXCEPT maybe the VA and their C&P examiners) would be able to say that your depression is caused by everything else in your life and totally unrelated to your tours in Vietnam, Your Diabetes, Your Heart Disease, and your Chronic Pain. Free

If they have you go, you might want to contact the congressman who has been helping you - and ask the congressman to request that your husband be allowed to attend the C&P with you. That way, you will less likely to be stuck with whatever power game they want to pull when you get there. Free

Yep. It is either for the vets protection or another ploy to see if they can keep the money til the vet dies. and actually, in Betty's case - they might be trying to make sure they cover ALL the bases (finally). Probably afraid that if they pay her the retro without checking it out - she will go to the BVA with another battle, tell the BVA that she was incompetent and spent all her money, and the BVA will order them to pay her AGAIN - lololololol Free

Yep. I certainly see your point. And I actually don't think they have a legit reason to send you to another one. I was pointing out where it says the level of compentency is NOT to address any restrictions in any area of your life or functioning EXCEPT in the handling of finances. Just as your med records showed NO personality disorder - your records do NOT bring into question ANY problems with managing finances. Years and years of med records - with discussion of anxiety - but NO mention of inablity to handle your funds. You did not recently become disabled. You have been disabled for YEARS. Finanical management has NEVER been part of your disability. There is NO justification (except to cover their ___, or drag things out) for them to question your ability to manage your finances based on a GAF score that was given by doctors who were not found to be credible. If they try to make you go - ask if the TV crews will be allowed in early to set up their equipment. You really should write a book (and it might pay quicker....) Free

http://www.vba.va.gov/bln/21/benefits/exams/disexm37.htm D. Diagnostic Tests: Provide psychological testing if deemed necessary. If testing is requested, the results must be reported and considered in arriving at the diagnosis. Provide any specific evaluation information required by the rating board or on BVA Remand (in claims folder). CAPACITY TO MANAGE FINANCIAL AFFAIRS Mental competency, for VA benefits purposes, refers only to the ability of the veteran to manage VA benefit payments in his or her own best interest, and not to any other subject. Mental incompetence, for VA benefits purposes, means that the veteran, because of injury or disease, is not capable of managing benefit payments in his or her best interest. In order to assist raters in making a legal determination as to competency, please address the following: What is the impact of injury or disease on the veteran's ability to manage his or her financial affairs, including consideration of such things as knowing the amount of his or her VA benefit payment, knowing the amounts and types of bills owed monthly, and handling the payment prudently? Does the veteran handle the money and pay the bills? Based on your examination, do you believe that the veteran is capable of managing his or her financial affairs? Please provide examples to support your conclusion. If you believe a Social Work Service assessment is needed before you can give your opinion on the veteran's ability to manage his or her financial affairs, please explain why.

Surely they won't send you back to THOSE two. It sounds like it could be a safety check. They are going to be paying a HUGE amount of retro - so if there is a any question as to your compentency - and they don't check it out - and they send a huge amount - and you "mismanaged it" - they might be afraid of their own liability. However, your reports talk about ANXIETY - and the competency should only cover your ability to handle your finances. Your record doesn't reflect ANY question of competency in how you handle your finances. If they are basing this on your GAF score for the quacks -Perhaps your VSO could point out to them that of ALL the doctors the BVA found to be credible - it was NOT them. Without any other doctors questioning your compentancy to handle your financial affairs - they quacks who were NOT found to be credible - THEIR opinion on your competency level should not even be given ANY weight in this matter. And watch out for a ploy in trying to push you into "proving " your competency - so they can use the back door to rate you at less than 100 percent. Keep your eye on - Yes, I have crippling anxiety - and I can manage my money just fine, thank you. Tell them you are too busy to go to a C&P, as your schedule is a bit full with your meetings with your stock brokers. Free

Pardon us women folk while we talk Don... But I LOVE your quilt Betty! It is so colorful and beautiful! I have thought of having a quilt or wall hanging made out of some of my favorite clothes of my husband's. (Notice it is not HIS favorite clothes - but MY favorite ones of HIS) lol Anyway - I only was able to come up with a VERY small pile to get rid of so far. Because he wore this shirt to tat event and that shirt to this event - and I always loved that one - etc. etc. So I have thought of having something made from them. Not a rug -- don't want to step on him that much. lol Tomorrow is our wedding anniversary. So even today is very bitter-sweet. Free

LOL @ the thingy ma bobber! Free

I thought the same thing. They should be able to grant it - no problem. Looks like Don can turn their won game against them. They didn't notice the intertwining of the claims - so they used one claim to deny another. I agree with john999 on this. How in the world could they decide with ALL the issues he had going on, that his depression was CAUSED by ONLY the Nonservice connected condition (that ended up being service connected.) I think they were playing a game - but now the game can turn back on them - because they used heart condition as a CAUSE for the depression to DENY the claim - now that the heart condition is SC - they will have a hard time saying it is NOT caused by the heart condition. (Though I still think it is a good idea to tie it in to the other SC conditions.) Free

It looks pretty good. I apologize for not keeping up with everyone's stuff - but I am having a hard time keeping up with my own. ACK! Anyway - I was thinking that you had BOTH depression and heart disease pending at the same time - and they denied the depression as it was due to heart disease - your other pending claim. Anyway - I was thinking about the BVA often using the term "inextricably intertwined." They probably shouldn't have decided the inextricably intertwined issues separately. So I was just thinking IF that was the case for you - working up a sentence or two about - Though I was granted service connection for my heart disease, my depressional claim that was denied on the basis that it was caused by my heart condition (which was pending SC) rather than a condition that had already been granted SC. As these conditions were inextricably intertwined, I should have been granted SC for the depression at the same time I was granted SC for the heart disease that the VA maintains caused my depression... Oh..dang.. I am not saying this well - and am actually typing standing up...(popped on the computer while my students are taking a test ) But -- I wouldn't go into a whole lot of detail on it - but you might want to check out the inextricably intertwined psrt -- and throw those words in there somewhere. http://www.va.gov/vetapp06/files2/0608100.txt The Board notes that the claim for service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder, secondary to a left knee disability is inextricably intertwined with the issue of whether service connection is warranted for a left knee disability. Where a pending claim (i.e., service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder, secondary to a left knee disability) is inextricably intertwined with a claim currently on appeal (service connection for a left knee disability), the appropriate remedy is to remand the claim on appeal pending the adjudication of the inextricably intertwined claim. See Harris, supra; cf. Holland v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 443 (1994)..

I remember reading a claim that was denied because a patient was molested by her VA doctor. The VA said that since the doctor was not acting within the "scope of his employment" when he molested her - that she couldn't be granted benefits - because they only grant benefits when the VA harms you while acting within the scope of their employment. Totally 100% absurb! Free

As a general rule I haven't seen equitable tolling claims work very well with the VA. But I am not sure what you mean by the evidence being there and being withheld. A claim in which they did not consider the evidence could be a CUE. But I don't think not considering the evidence would count for equitable tolling. If they actually withheld evidence - then you might have a case if you can show they withheld it - and that it effected your claim. Though they didn't mention equitable tolling in Betty's claim - it seems like they might be leaning in that direction - toward and earlier effective date because of the military withholding her medical records and covering up her SC illness. I researched equitable tolling some quite some time back. Most of the decisions didn't look that promising. Because equitable tolling is about the statute of limitations - or where deadlines are tolled - the VA's basic stance has been that there is no NEED to toll a veteran's claim, because a veteran's claim is never barred. Like in a lawsuit - if you don't file by a certain time - it is forever barred, unless you can show wrong doing, etc. so the deadline for filing is equitably tolled. But the VA has pretty consistently either: 1. Found the wrong doing on the part of some one OTHER than the VA - and therefore the VA's deadline can't be equitably tolled - no matter how much the wrong doing affected the vet's claim - because the VA wasn't responsible for the error. or 2. Decided equitable tolling is not an option because the vet's claim is never barred, and the vet always has the right to open or reopen the claim (it is never FOREVER barred). But, actually, CUEs are basically a type of equitable tolling - so the VA pretty much seems to stick to them. I haven't looked too much at the Federal Courts (in their decisions on vets claims) about this though. And I can see what you mean about how before the CVA was formed, the Vet had no other recourse. I am just not sure how it would play out. But now, with attorneys on the scene, I am sure there will be many things questioned - and hopefully some questions answered. Free

Thanks for your replies. Thanks for the link Betty. I am checking out that info. And I am glad you are having a positive experience thus far with Dr. Barson. His website says to submit the Initial Consultation Form, located in the forms section - but there is no Forms section. I used the Contact Us page to ask where to get the form but have not heard back from him on that yet. But now I know if I send in the Payment, he will contact me. Free

Once upon a time Lane Evans was trying to get the government to make the documents about the chemicals on Guam unclassified. The EPA sites definately confirm AO on Guam because of the amount found in the soil on various locations at Andersen. And the vets report that it was sprayed to kill the weeds. They know it was there. But at this point a vet would pretty much have to prove they actually handled the drums or sprayed it to get SC. I will add it to my husband's claim - and indicate he was in Guam - and the EPA report - so that if they ever decide to admit it was used there, that issue might be protected. But I need to keep it brief and artful; so the RO doesn't spend all it's time talking about Guam and AO - and miss the inservice onset and Asbestos parts. You know how they like to seize on the points you can't prove. Free

I know several people had mentioned contacting Dr. Barson about an IMO. I was just wanting to know if anyone had done so - if they have heard from him - and how that is going. Free

Yeah. I imagine it will just kind of die...one of those Sine Die kind of things, where they don't vote on it and don't push it - so whoever wanted it introduced is happy with the person that introduced it - but it just lays idle - and nothing ever happens... It MAY pass - but I wouldn't count on it. I think they are already having to pay too much to private dentists because they have to send active duty people to them because they don't have enough dentists. Or that is what I heard. So it would not be likely that they start providing dental care to vets with 10% SC. I do think they should provide care based on income - or to higher levels of SC. But again, the law already says you get ONE TIME dental care upon discharge - where they fix whatever is wrong ONE TIME. My husband applied for that when he retired. The RO and the BVA bounced that back and forth between them - debating whether he was entitled to SC PAY for his teeth - and he kept saying he just wanted his ONE TIME TREATMENT - but they kept trying to decide about COMPENSATION. He never DID get approval for the TREATMENT from 1998 until he died in 2007. But they DID cause him to probably lose years of lung cancer SC, if it is granted. BEcause the ONLY thing he was actively applying for was his lung cancer. He got a letter he was denied and telling him he could appeal. Then he got a letter telling him his appeal was sent to the BVA. He THOUGHT it was his lung cancer claim, since that is the only thing he had been pursuing. SO while he was waiting to the BVA to hear his claim - they were closing it. We found out later it had been closed - when he called for an update on the claim. (well - actually - when he called for an update - they TOLD him it was still open - and that they would send the new evidence to the BVA - But they told the Senator it was closed.) And they NEVER responded to his written requests to find out if it was open or closed - and WHY it was closed, if it was. They IGNORED his written requests. But they later told the Senator that it was NOT his lung cancer claim that was sent to the BVA - it was the dental claim - that the RO had sent back to the BVA. So he most likely lost from 2001 (filing date for lung cancer) to 2006 (when the VA reopened it) because of the dental claim boomerang the RO and BVA played. If he gets SC - I will at least try to go back to an earlier date. Hopefully they can consider the time he called and they told him his case was still open - and INFORMAL claim to reopen. He had NO reason to try to reopen it in writing - since they told him it WAS open. And he did follow up with a letter - informing them of his intent to send more evidence. Free

Yes. That one was all over the news.. though lots of sources didn't report it correctly - lots of them say the COURT awarded it; not the BVA. I was thinking that a pretty recent case also was granted at the BVA. My husband was in Guam in the early 70's - so I have been keeping an eye on the AO claims there. I know there are several cases on the docket now. I get emails every once in awhile asking for statements - since I am on the email list of people looking for info on AO (and other crud) on Guam. Free

Can you file a claim for depression - AND ALSO file an NOD on the heart disease claim, indicating that you agree with the heart diease, but the NOD is about the fact that they missed the implied claim for depression - as your record clearly indicates you have depression and that it is caused by your heart disease. Free

I think he'd make a great pinata! :) (You can still pour honey on him and tie him near a Fire Ant mound Don....just let us beat him with sticks first! ;) ) Free