free_spirit_etc

Let's AXXX their whips too! Glad to see I wasn't hallucinating! I thought I was really suffering from sleep depravation - and hallucinating that Betty was saying ASHES...or something like that. Free (THinks Betty has dang well earned the right to say whatever she DXXX well pleases!)

I'm on dial up - but this page seemed to load faster than the previous one did. Loved the pictures. The sound startled me at first becaus my son had the speakers way up and I wasn't expecting any sound -- thought my computer was playing tricks on me...lol Love the new page! Free

I am not sure about the working for VA purposes. SSA allows you to deduct impairment related work expenses. And I think they have something about you aren't "gainfully" employed for SSA purposes if you are working and getting paid for something that is not really transferable in the market place. Gainfully employed = capable of earning a living. So you might research the implications of that - and see if you can dove-tail them. i.e. can you declare enough of her income as yours, but also indicate that --really..you are working for your WIFE - no one else in the real world would pay you that much to do what you do for her business. (i.e. you didn't really EARN $5,000 - you just worked for your wife and were PAID that amount). This argument might also help you with Social Security too - so they don't come back and say that though you earned less than substantial gainful that you showed you CAN work (yeah...when your wife hires you). Or can you even declare part of the income and pay self employment tax without being an ACTIVE partner (i.e. you didn't work). Is it earnings you really need? Or quarters paid in. Those quarters paid in can be a pain - because if you are a few quarters short - by the time you earn those - the ones at this end are added, but the one at the other end of how far they go back drop off (because it moves forward each year). Free

I think that is a DISTINCT possibilty - because of the BVA stating that the military discharged her KNOWING this. They basically KNEW she had a claim - so they tried to destroy it. That might be on THEM now. It just isn't playing fair to make you sign papers to destroy your medical records to let you out KNOWING those medical records would show a SC illness. I think she has a valid claim that she should be paid all the way back to discharge - because THEY hid (and tried to destroy) the evidence that granted SC. Basically, Betty caught them at their own game. Free

Glad things are going better for you. I also think you had a BRILLIANT idea about a service that obtains records for individuals. I really don't understad the whole idea that your medical records belong to everybody BUT the patient. It seems like it would make more sense to give ONE copy to the patient to send out - rather than make a copy of the WHOLE file for everyone that needs it. But when YOU need the file - it is so LARGE. I requested records from Social Security so I can have my own copies to send out - and they told me if someone needs them I should request them through"appropriate" channels. LOL - The patient is supposed to be kept out of the loop. And then there is an issue of RE-releasing records. Like when the Pet Center sent a report to the oncologist - the oncologist was NOT supposed to RE-release the records. They are only supposed to send their OWN records. Seems like it would be much easier to just give the patient a copy. But it is often hard to SEE your records too. They want to sit with you and hold the chart and say "What do you want to see?" And read that page to you. Nope. I want to SEE the record..and then I will know what I want to see. Free

You might not have any recourse through the VA. I have read cases where the VSO missed the deadline - and they didn't toll the date for the vet because the VSO is not part of the VA - so it wasn't the VA's fault the deadline was missed. However, lawyers are civil. They are not protected under the government umbrella. So you could have a civil case against the lawyer - that his actions caused you to lose benefits. If you won that case - the lawyer would have to pay you the amount of benefits you lost. Lawyers in most states are required to carry malpractice insurance. Attorney malpractice cases are not easy though -because: 1> you have to find an attorney who is willnig to sue another attorney. 2. You have to prove you suffered loss (WOULD have won the claim) 3. You have to show the lawyer was negligent in their duties. Free

Nope. I haven't heard that one. My husband tried using IRIS a few times - and he mostly got cut and paste responses that had nothing to do with his questions. But they have been pretty good with their responses to me (for the most part). Not that they always tell me something I want to hear - or even always correct. Hwever, I like the IRIS system because I have a written record of what I asked and a written record of their answer. With the phone - there is NO evidence that you ever asked anything - WHAT you asked, or what they told you. So they can tell you anything - and never have to account for what you were told. Why in the world would they set up the IRIS system in a way that security was breached? It sounds more like they don't want a record of what they tell you. It is possible that some of their written responses have come back to haunt them. I guess you could - after their phone call - IRIS them back with your understanding of what they told you - and asking them to respond in writing (either IRIS or LETTER) if your understanding is not correct. Then you would have a better chance of having that stand if they did not respond. I am always suspicious with any type of customer service when I send a question in writing that is clear and specific - and the only written response they will give is that they need to TALK to me. To me that means "we are not about to create a record of what we are going to tell you on this..." Free

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL @ the IN YOUR FACE stuff!!! OMG! - I remember when I first joined had it - and there was a member called Jospehine - that posted quite often - And then at some point - Josephine was IN OUR FACE! OMG! There was NOTHING you could post about ANYTHING without Josephine getting "in your face." You could say "Boy. I am tired today." And the next post would be from Josephine - Saying "Tired. Yes. I know what you mean. For instance, MY case - the RO did this, and these doctors did that - and there was this Doris at the bottom of the swimming pool..yadayadayada.." Then you would go to read someone else's post. They might have said something like "I'm scheduled for a C&P exam." The next post would be from Josephine. 'Did someone say C&P exam??? That reminds me of MY C&P exam. You see I don't remember much of it because I think I was drugged - but the doctors said "what happened in the pool...." and suddenly, there I was... She was ALWAYS telling her story - ALWAYS seeking the keys to get past the blocks the VA was throwing her way - and ALWAYS seeking advice on how to handle her case. Sometimes she would apologize for bringing it up so much. But she would usually end her apology by telling us more about it.. LOL (I'm sorry to bring it up - But Doris, the Doctors, so and so who treated me - I babysat for him you know... and my first C&P..and these two quacks that lied about me...and on and on and on.. I will have to admit that at first I wondered "Who IS this Josephine? She apparently thinks she has a case - but *I* sure can't make any sense out of what she is talking about... Hmmm maybe if we ignore she will go away... WRONG! She was stuck here like glue. Okay. Maybe if I talk to her - she will quiet down.. WRONG! She had something to say and she was going to say it until she was listened to - and until she could get the whole tangled mess untangled. The more I read of her story - the more it started making more and more sense. And the more I began to realize - she DOES have a case - she has an EXCELLENT case! But even then - it seemed like the deck was stacked so heavily against her; not because of the evidence (the evidence was 99% on HER side) but because of the VA games. It was amazing to watch how she took the tangled mess she was handed from the VA - and untangled the strings one by one creating the tapestry that became her winning case. I got on board with those who were already helping her untangle those strings - as well as those who came later to help. I feel very blessed that I had the opportunity to be able to play a small part in helping untangle a string here and there and so Betty could weave her tapestry. And I thank Betty for staying "in my face" until I finally saw through the tangled mess to the tapestry that was behind it. Had she not done so, I might have missed that opportunity. Free

Woo Hoo! I am SOOOOOOO Happy for you!! Sounds like you will get your TAX FREE BIG chunk right off the bat! And it also sounds like they will be deciding about paying your further back, but possibly NOT at 100%. It looks like the BVA sent them a VERY strong message to STOP playing games - and now they have the opportunity to "do the right thing" in YOUR case (many years too late) and so they can pretend that this was just an error - and not a game they played with YOU and many OTHER Veterans. Wouldn't this make a GREAT News Story. Can't you see it now - Betty on CNN explaining how she almost drowned in the military - and when she sought help the doctor choked her until she wet her pants. And that the military discharged her knowing full well the damage they had caused - but making her sign away her rights to escape their abuse.... And telling about her battle through the years - and that even though Betty had ample evidence to show her disabilty - and that it was caused by the service - that the VA didn't even request the SMRS (relying on the fact that the evidence is supposed to be destroyed when they discharge a vet in that way) Perhaps she could have a lawyer on the panel to discuss WHY in the WORLD the GOVERNMENT would WANT any medical evidence DESTROYED on their veterans. And maybe the news corrospondent would have statistics of how MANY vets they do this to. And of course, Betty will HAVE to tell the story of the VA sending her to some BOGUS C&P exam, where she was traumatized (though she is not sure EXACTLY what happened in that room - but the nurse told her that MOST the patients that see those two doctors don't seem to remember much of what occured either....hmmmmmmmm) -Anyway - Betty tells her story of how the VA took the bogus report from those two doctors WITH NO MEDICAL EVIDENCE TO BACK THEM over the OVERWHELMING evidence in the REST of her record - (even the VA's OWN doctors) -- and how Betty was required to pay a couple thousand dollars to be evluated by a TOP NOTCH psychiatrist. And she can end with her concern for all the OTHER vets this is happening to - all the other vets who have had their lives ruined by these BOGUS discharges - bogus C&Ps - and how they are being robbed of what they rightfully deserve by such tactics. And she can tell those vets to NEVER give up in their battle - to keep pushing until the TRUTH comes out - and they can FINALLY get what they deserve! How INSPIRING! Free

In February 1999, the veteran appeared before a Veterans Law Judge (then Member of the Board) and presented testimony in support of his claim. That individual is no longer employed at the Board. The Veterans Law Judge who holds a hearing is required to participate in making the final determination of the claim. 38 C.F.R. § 20.707 (2007). The veteran has not been notified of his right to an additional hearing; however in view of the Board's decision below, which is a full grant of the benefit sought, notification regarding this is unnecessary. In November 2005, the RO found that the veteran's claim had remained open since he submitted an August 1972 notice of disagreement to the September 1971 and June 1972 RO decisions, and granted an earlier effective date for the grant of service connection for PTSD to December 5, 1973. The RO based the assignment of the December 5, 1973 effective date on a VA medical expert's April 2004 opinion that the veteran's PTSD was first manifested at a VA December 1973 examination. It looks like in this case the veteran kept his case open up to the level of the BVA. And this would have been at a time where the BVA was the highest level. So it looks like the BVA denied it also. I was wondering why the case had to go to the BVA THIS time, as the RO had already granted the earlier effective date. It might be because the RO didn't have the right to over rule the BVA's earlier decision - so the case still had to go through THEM to reverse THEIR earlier decision. And as the veteran had kept the claim open to the extent that he could - he never let the claim die - and the BVA had the right to reverse their "final" decision. I think for your question that some of it depends on the specifics of the case. If you didn't appeal - the situation would be different. But that wouldn't neccessarily have to work against you. THe RO and the BVA both have the right (but not always the duty) to reverse an earlier decision. I think that in the case at point - it had to go to the BVA because the RO couldn't reverse the earlier decision of the BVA - They could only reverse their own. So the fact that BOTH the RO and BVA reversed their earlier decisions is a good sign. If you didn't appeal - the RO MIGHT be able to reverse their earlier decision at THEIR level - as long as they don't get hung up on the whether or not you appealed factor. Though we know of a lot of the negative decisions of the ROs - and the BVA decisions (the good, the bad, and the ugly)I imgaine their are MANY favorable decisions made at the RO level that we are not aware of. I think this is well worth researching and finding the reasoning used to overturn these earlier decisions at BOTH levels - because they didn't really know about PTSD then - nor did anyone. So here was a disorder that many vets suffered from - that wasn't even acknowledged. The disorder was already there - but they didn't have a lable to put on it because they didn't know about it. So yes, once they find out about the label - they SHOULD be able to go back and say - Now that we know what PTSD is - does this person has signs of that BACK THEN? And they SHOULD be able to grant SC back to that point. It would be worth it to spend some time looking for cases in which these earlier decisions were reversed - and building some reasoning around it - especially if you have medical opinions that support that you were displaying signs of PTSD at the time you originally filed. I know one of the things about PTSD is it often does not show up until later (i.e. the POST traumatic). However, the chain of claims you WERE granted for could even connect the dots for that. Had you NOT been diagnosed with PTSD - then the other disorders would be what they were. But WITH the later PTSD diagnosis, an argument could be that the earlier conditions that you WERE granted SC for - were actually manifestations of PTSD.) Free

Kim, What a great idea for the Masters! I am sure your Robert has been honored. And losing a soulmate is very hard - because we connect in such a way it is hard to tell where they end and we begin - so it can feel like part of them is gone and part of them is still here, but also feel like part of you is still here and part of you is gone. I don't have much active experience with online support groups for losing a soulmate. There is a online forum http://www.griefnet.org/ that has many groups - all with specific types of losses. So you might want to check some of them out. Free

Maybe I will use this regulation to request the VA NOT to pay for an IMO. ;) I could actually build an argument on it to try to head them off at the pass - LOL Let's see - Dr. IMO states ___. His opinion supports and clarifies the doctor notes of Dr. __ and ____, which have already been submitted with the initial claim. This reasoning follows medically established principles in the field of cancer - as it is the same thing reported in ____., and ____, and ____ - and taught by ___ medical school, and explained by the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology in BVA decisions ___, ____, )____ and ____. Therefore, this is such common knowledge to the medical community, and fairly common knowledge even to lay persons. As such, I am waiving my right to request an IMO paid for by the VA, under ]§ 20.901 Rule 901, as the issue at point is neither complex nor controversial - and thus does not warrant that any additional medical expertise be required. :) Free

Maybe I will use this regulation to request the VA NOT to pay for an IMO. ;) I could actually build an argument on it to try to head them off at the pass - LOL Let's see - Dr. IMO states ___. His opinion supports and clarifies the doctor notes of Dr. __ and ____, which have already been submitted with the initial claim. This reasoning follows medically established principles in the field of cancer - as it is the same thing reported in ____., and ____, and ____ - and taught by ___ medical school, and explained by the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology in BVA decisions ___, ____, )____ and ____. Therefore, this is such common knowledge to the medical community, and fairly common knowledge even to lay persons. As such, I am waiving my right to request an IMO paid for by the VA, under ]§ 20.901 Rule 901, as the issue at point is neither complex nor controversial - and thus does not warrant that any additional medical expertise be required. :) Free

I think some of their standards are set by law, some by the court decision, and some by precendence and their own regualtions. And then, they have some leeway. So the "standards" are the LEAST that you can expect - but you can get more with the leeway. So if you don't get what MOST PEOPLE get - in a way that MOST PEOPLE get it - you can have a basis to complain. (technically)- as they are going against precedence. But if you get THE same as MOST PEOPLE get in SAME ways - then, even if SOME people get more or different, or better - they would say you don't technically have the right to complain. So as long as they meet the benchmark - or exceed it - they are pretty much covered, even if they don't exceed it in your case, a much as they did in other cases - or even if they only met it in your case and exceeded it in others. But you are totally right - it doesn't seem fair and it doesn't make sense sometimes. That is why I think it is important to look to see what they GENERALLY decide and how they GENERALLY decide it - to learn how to develop a claim. One or two cases can be misleading. Read lots of claims that are similar to yours and look for the patterns of what is generally done in those cases - That gives you an idea of the becnhmark - and what you have to do to meet it. I have looked up quite a few cancer cases - (and will look up more, especially concerning post service diagnosis. One thing I found insipring was when I typed in a search for "cancer" and "doubling time" - I saw GRANTED, GRANTED, GRANTED. Not remands - Many granted. So I looked at the differences between those the VA granted and those they denied. The difference was in the medical opinions. Most anyone going in with one or two strong medical opinions that STATE what is known and assumed to be true about cancer growth rates- as long as the doctor stated it -- and wasn't stretching it on the time frame (i.e. it was a cancer that's growth rate would have made it close (was it 3 years? or 4 years? is close. --Was it 2 years? or 15 years? is not close) - those were granted. The BVA is already aware that medically accepted standards indicate a cancer has to double a certain amount of times to reach a certain size - and each cancer has it's pretty standard range of growth. But those who went in with no IMO ran a risk. Sometimes the BVA would get a Medical Opinion that granted it. Other times they would get one of those Medical Opinions that stated "the onset of cancer is when it is diagnosed." Any decent doctor could blow that out of the water. but if the vet (or usually widow) didn't HAVE an medical opinion - the ONLY medical evidence of record was against the claim. I think a big difference too - was that many of these claims were widows claims - and they could be represented by lawyers at the BVA level. (They are not a vet). So the VA couldn't blow them off quite as easily. But they did start creating a precendence. I WILL send some of the BVA opnions with my claim evidence. They BVA does not HAVE to go by them. But showing that there are quite a few SC's for cancer granted on the SAME theory will help show that this theory is NOT new to the VA, it is NOT unusual - In fact - it is a pretty STANDARD argument - and an arguement that has commonly been accepted by the VA. There are even some cases where the BVA itself used treatises evidence of THEIR OWN to back it. There are also decisions where they quote the ARMED FORCES Institute of Pathology stating the same thing about growth rates. Did the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology discuss my husband's cancer specifically? No. but the IMO will - as does out treatises evidence. So - yep - gonna include some of those decisions. And MY OWN summary - Dr. IMO stated ____. This is a MEDICALLY ACCEPTED STANDARD. - This is the SAME standard used by the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology in BVA case ___, and BVA case ___, and BVA case ____. So they almost HAVE to buy the THEORY of growth rates - the only thing left would be showing that my husband's cancer more likely than not did NOT grow FIFTEEN TIMES FASTER than the "typical" adenocarcinoma. I highly doubt that it did - unless it slowed down quite a bit once it got into late stages. Free

LOL - Now THERE's a thought. Maybe I should IRIS them and ask them if they think they will have my copy to me in a couple weeks - because I need to have time to make copies. And tell them if it will take longer than that, I am sending $100 for 10 additional copies to send to REAL doctors...LOLOLOLOLOLOL Chicago Regional will tell you off the bat that it takes AT LEAST 6 months to get them from them. Of course, when I viewed the file last July she gave me sticky notes to mark what I wanted copies of - so I could get those copies sooner. But I think they actually lost track of me - and thought that since they let me view the file, my request had been handled. NOT. So - I gave them their 6 months and have started following up. == Reminding them that I have not recieved my copy yet. I was nice about it. (As I still haven't recieved the copy of the C-file I requested last summer --) I actually just got my FIRST letter that they recieved my request for records. The IRIS said the request had been sent to the Privacy Office. But I think they should go by the date of my request - not the date they sent it to the Privacy off -- as to where I stand in the list of people they are making wait. You made some very good points. I don't have a VSO at the time. I honestly haven't had time to follow up on the VA claim that much. I wanted to get SOcial Security and DFAS done first - and my husband's estate closed - (and all the other crap that comes up) so I will have time to focus on it more intensely - I know there are good VSOs and not so good ones. I just haven't been willing to risk getting a not so good one yet. All I do NOT need is one more idiot to deal with right now. Now maybe I won't get an idiot. But if I do - I would like to trade in 3 or 4 of the current idiots I am now dealing with - and be done dealing with them - before I risk adding another potential idiot to the mix. Free

That is one of their games then. Holding the evidence in their court. Though I will say the VA takes their own sweet time - they do seem to be a bit better than other agencies about giving the appearance of being willing to give you the stuff. Most likely because they have had to deal with masses of veteran's upholding their rights. I have also requested my son's medical records from Social Security. Our copies were destroyed in a flooded basement. Have since found that the schools and hospitals have purged their records on him (from 14 years ago) - and Social Security has a THICK file of his old medical and school records. Am trying to get a copy - since they are the key to proving he was disabled PRIOR to age 18/ 21. I WANT MY OWN COPY. They hemmed and hawed around -- telling me I should request them through "appropriate channels" (i.e. if someone needs evidence - they want to release the records directly to THEM - not give them to US to give to them). Nope. I want a copy. They DID give us an appointment to SEE them 7 months ago - and told us we would get a copy "in a few weeks" - they are working short, very busy, the file is so LARGE, etc. Stopped by again this week - they are still "working on it..." Now get this - DFAS can't accept Social Security's statement that he was disabled before age 18. They have to have a Medical Treatment Facility Statement. And THEY can't take Social Security's word for it either - unless THEY see the records of what tests Social Security did to declare him disabled. Geez... Free

Betty, Thanks. That is really helpful. Sounds like your doctor had LOTs to look at. I was thinking of you today when I was calling half the governmental offices in the country checking up on all my other stuff going on. I kept saying "If Betty can do this - I can do this. ;) Free

Thanks - I was wondering... mostly because of the one poster saying that the VA specifically said that since THEY hadn't sent the doctor the C-file - they were questioning that he actually saw the whole file - though he said he did. As if THEM mailing it would have made a difference. I mean, come on - just because THEY mail it - does that mean he is going to look at the whole thing? Since this is a post service diagnosis of illness - and we aren't even saying he had any symptoms in service - the SMRs aren't totally relevant - but I know they need to be sent. Ironically, we pointed out that As this IS a post-service diagnosis - the POST service medical records are most relevant. They have all kinds of regualtions covering post service diagnosis - and merely having a diagnosis post service does not preclude SC if the nature of the disease would show it was more likely than not incurred in service. But no matter how much we point out HEY FOLKS! This was DIAGNOSED Post Service! LOOK at THOSE records! They keep going back to the SMR's and say - NOPE. He wasn't diagnosed in service. Duh.......... Thanks - I know more what to do now - to cover my bases. Free

Here is another thing to check out http://www.cem.va.gov/cem/hm_hm.asp They have all kind of grave markers - and you can decide what to have put on them. You can have markers leave room for your spouse's name - or not. You can pick your religious belief emblem if you want one. And most often they have room for your nickname or something. It would have helped me if I had known for sure what my husband wanted on his marker. I ended up putting his name, rank, service - Vietnam Era / Desert Storm - and then I had them put SHIRT9 at the bottom. Free

Tell them to watch what forms the VA has them sign too. My husband was eligible for the $600 burial allowance ($300 plot and $300 funeral expenses). He will be eligible for $2000 if they service connect his death. My husband's father paid for his burial plot (he wanted him buried where his mother and brother are). I paid for the funeral. So he was putting in for the $300 plot allowance - and I was putting in for the $300 funeral allowance. We still haven't got paid. I filled in his claim - checked the appropraite Boxes that said his was for PLOT ALLOWANCE ONLY. On my form I filled out the part that CLEARLY SAYS - "If someone else will be claiming the plot allowance..." and asks for their name and address. The way the form is set up - you know the VA is fully aware that the expenses are often split. BUT - they sent ME a waiver to SIGN for HIM to be paid. But the waiver has nothing to do with the situation. The waiver is meant for someone who is a CREDITOR (like a funeral home or something) because the VA won't pay the family unless all the creditors have been paid in full. They have the reciepts that show everything has been paid in full - and a letter from me that we are claiming the separate allowances. ($300 and $300). They sent me another dang form. I am sorry. I wouldn't sign it. It sayds that I certify that the amounts in PArt 2 are correct (but they didn't send me Part 2 - they said I didn't need it) and I would sign that I am waiving MY right to claim ANY burial benefits. I wrote all over the form - and I sent them a letter also - telling them WHAT I am waving. I wrote that I am unwilling to sign a form CERTIFYING that any information is true - UNLESS they give me the information I am supposed to be certifying. I also told them that I am CLAIMING funeral benefits - and WAIVING plot allowance - and that the plot allowance should be paid to his father. Not sure what they will do with that - but I wasn't signing the form that had nothing to do with what is true. Free

I am thinking that dependent parents are also eligible. And dependent adult children WHO ARE DISABLED and were disabled PRIOR to age (hmm 18 or 21 - gotta check). Grandchildren are not dependents (unless adopted)even if they actually were dependent on the vet. But most of it is about who was dependent on the vet, rather than who the vet was dependent on. Accrued benefits can also be paid to whomever paid the expenses of the vet's last illness - and / or burial. I am not sure what they consider the "last illness." That would need some checking into. And I am not sure what expenses count (only medical? or living expenses too?") Oddly enough - if a child PAYS for someone to take care of their parent - they would most likely be reimbursed from accrued benefits - but if they give up working to take care of the parent themselves. I am not so sure. I have just read a little bit on it - in the BVA cases - and family who weren't considered dependents could only get acrrued benefits to the extent that they paid certain expenses for the vet. Free

And another thing about the draft. I think if they draft you - you should have the presumption of soundness for EVERYTHING! If you were sound enough for them to take you - you were sound enough... Free

And I always find it amazing that Vietnam vets have to try to prove they experienced a "stressor." ;) Maybe the RO's should all be sent to a war zone on a field trip - and see if they find the experience a bit stressful. Free

Yeah. I remember Vietnam. (I campaigned for McGovern ;) ) But I was somewhat young and didn't know much until the tail end of it. (I am 51). It's odd because I remember so many times someone coming to school and getting a student out of class. They would leave crying...but you would have to find out through the whispered grapevine what had happened. Their brother had been killed. But we only got to find out through the whispers. It was briefly mentioned and then not discussed again. I have no idea why they didn't announce it. Why our flag wasn't lowered. Why they didn't pay Taps. Something. One of the student's in the school's brother had been serving his country (most likely drafted) and had been killed in his service. But instead of honoring him as a hero - the death was whispered. I even remember going with my friend's parents to the local VFW. They had dances on the weekends. But they wouldn't let the Vietnam vets in. The old guys kept saying Vietnam wasn't a war. And I remember many Vietnam vets "welcome" home. Our country really disgraced itself - in its treatment of Vietnam vets - and continues to do so. Free

Jessie, I join with the others in keeping you and your family in my thoughts and prayers. Free