Jump to content


Chief Petty Officers
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


jamescripps2 last won the day on June 20

jamescripps2 had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

26 Excellent

About jamescripps2

  • Rank
    E-5 Petty Officer 2nd Class
  • Birthday 01/19/1949

Contact Methods

  • AIM
  • Website URL
  • ICQ

Profile Information

  • Military Rank
    SP5 E5
  • Location
    Ashland City TN.
  • Interests
    heavy construction equipment

Previous Fields

  • Service Connected Disability
  • Branch of Service
  • Hobby
    supporting and winning veterans claims

Recent Profile Visitors

1,543 profile views
  1. Yes, I also called Alex about representing me. He he is booked up and has more than he can do at this time. Alex went above and beyond in offering to read my BVA decision and offer an opinion. He then took the time to hook me up with CCK. IMHO there is no veterans advocate more dedicated than Alex.
  2. Great idea, but decades too late for this class of veterans and surviving spouses.
  3. I got had a inadequate C&P exam and I complained. I was granted a second C&P but with the stipulation that the second exam would be preformed by the exact same doctor. The second exam took place within thirty days of the first exam. As expected the doctor was very defensive and ugly to me. The second exam was much less favorable to me than the first. I used the comparison of the two conflicting C&P exams to prove bias. At the BVA, as such, the C&P exam was afforded little probative value and my private doctor's exam prevailed over the C&P exam and the claim was awarded.
  4. The focal point and the argument in the case at COVA will be whether or not the SMC at A&A should have been inferred. If it is decided that indeed it should have been inferred everything else will fall in place. It is expected that there will be a joint motion for remand, (JMR) back to the Board where the EED eventually will be awarded.
  5. Yes Buck, If A&A would have been inferred, as it should have been, the retro would have gone back to 2011. SMC "O" and A&A at the rate of R-1 was finally granted in 2016. Considering what has just been said, I have been drawing at the maximum rate starting in 2016. With that in mind, if I win at the Court the retro will be due from 2011 through 2016 because I have been paid the proper amount from 2016 through the present date. Yes, you are spot on with the whopping retro amount x 59 months. Along the way there have been ancillary and other benefits such as automobile grant with adaptive equipment, Special adaptive housing grant, clothing allowance, (three per year), a HISA grant, and many ILP items furnished. Up until now it has been quite an accomplishment for a pro se vet, but at the court I will need/use professional representation.
  6. It is of record that I called it a cue, but my argument is that the Board should have inferred A&A upon the decision granting loss of two extremities. M21 and Akles vs Derwinski support my contention. Now, just think about this, a VAF 21-2680 is used to support a A&A claim, but keeping in mind that you are only required to file one 21-526 in a lifetime, what form would you use to actually file a claim for A&A. The day of a 21-4138 being recognized as filing a claim is gone. Have you ever seen or heard of a form to file for a "S" award or a "K" award, or for that matter, a form to file for any SMC? I did ask for A&A and a final R-1 rating on my RO nod and on my Form 9 that was certified to the Board. I was granted A&A, and loss of use of two extremities, resulting in the "O" award and the automatic bump to R-1 because of two SMC ratings between SMC "L" and "SMC "N". Like I said, I am going to COVA for a five year EED retro. The EED issue is the only item that is on the table for decision, and that is decision is dependent on the ruling of whether or not the A&A should have been an inferred claim. The decision, if granted, involves six figures in back pay after legal fees. It should be over with and done within eight months to a year if it is a single judge decision. A full panel decision in the case could stretch it out to maybe two years. Considering that I have already been granted the maximum benefit in a partial grant, and was paid for the issue, the retro is a fixed amount and does not accumulate more retro with time as most claims do. After this pending Court decision, however it goes, the only thing left for me is R-2, should I ever need it, a burial plot and a flag. So far, it has been a long hard fifteen year road to prosecute what was called a frivolous claim. Never again can the VA say, "Mr. Cripps", "we never, ever used Agent Orange in the Continental United States"!
  7. I was granted R-1 earlier in the claim but was not assigned the effective date that I thought that I was due. An EED spanning five years back is the only remaining issue to be decided. The BVA says that I was required to file a claim for A&A while I am saying that A&A should have been an inferred issue based upon the well documented medical records of heart disease. The records were in their possession at the time of a 100% grant for loss of use for one hand and one foot. I have three 100% P&T grants and many lesser grants. Docket No. 16-61 183, The decision has not yet been posted on the BVA site, but should be posted soon. I engaged The CCK law firm to represent me before the Court. Due to the blatant nature of the denial, I think that any law firm would have taken the case, but I see CCK to be one of the best, if not the very best in the business The case may have the potential to set a precedent before a panel, but that kind of stuff is beyond my pay grade. WE will see!
  8. Update, The appeal for an EED was denied at the BVA in a decision dated April 23, 2020. On May 22 my appeal was filed at COVA. I am lawyered up and ready to go to court.
  9. You might like to check out my articles at


  10. Broncovet is correct. Back pay, for effective date purpose, is the first of the month following the month in which you filed your claim.
  11. Wow, I did not know that Kurt had passed! We worked together on AO issues for Congressman Bob Filner and spoke on the phone many times. I was trying to win my CONUS claim, at the same time as Kurt was trying to make his case for a Thailand win. Kurt's win proceeded my CONUS win by only a few months.
  12. We veterans need to understand that when we ask a doctor to write a NEXUS, an IOM, or IME we are asking for their professional medical opinion. They put their professional reputation on the line every time they opine. They are required to back up their opinion with sound medical rational. If your claim is one that cannot be supported by sound rational, the doctor cannot just manufacture evidence, or just pull sound rational out of the thin air. If you do find a doctor to write a opinion that can't be supported and is based upon pure speculation he will then be exposed as being incompetent, and therefore of no more use as far as supporting veterans claims. Reading this post, I am seeing that the OP suggest that the doctor write an IMO covering multiple issues. That is not how I think it works. I would think one $1500.00 fee for one IOM on one stand alone issue is more like what I would expect. An IOM or a NEXUS is not a one size fits all custom built item. But again, how would I know? I have never forked over large amounts of money to buy one.
  13. Thanks Berta and GBarmy, we should all get together some day to compare battle scars and wounds of our well fought VA battles. As you know well, those battles reshaped our lives and altered not only our futures, but also the future hopes and dreams of our family members. There is a well defined road to success in a VA claim if one can ever find their way through the maze, remain focused, and outlive the process.
  14. As the first veteran to be granted AO exposure at a post or base inside CONUS, I am asked many questions. The most prevalent question is," how long is AO toxic after application", for the purpose, and in the amount, needed to win an AO claim outside of Vietnam and Korea. The short answer is that there is no answer. In order to win my claim I had a statement from the world's foremost agent orange expert who states that once AO enters the sub soil, 100 years. On the other hand, some experts reply that it quickly evaporates in the foliage and tends to never make it to the ground, and even if it does, the residuals are not detectable and are non toxic after three days in sunlight. The real answer is that, after application, Agent Orange remains toxic after application for as long as you can get can an expert to to say that it is! That expert needs to back up his expert opinion with a sound rational supported by experience, education, and/or scientific principles. It seems as though the VA uses the expert opinion of their choice to deny claims, while the DOD and the US government use a different expert opinion of their own choice to award untold millions for cleanup of toxic soil in Vietnam, fifty years after the fact! Where are your environmental experts, and how do you locate them? They are the top toxicology professors at the numerous colleges and universities across America. How do you get a statement from someone with such glorious credentials? Do your DD and research to find out where such professionals are located and email them. Tell them what you need and why you need it. I emailed the top five toxicology professors across the US and received three highly probative statements. One of those experts who wrote a statement worked for the CDC. in Atlanta GA. and had been involved in AO research. If you can get that kind of expert evidence in your claims folder, it is unlikely that the VA can refute it and you didn't pay $10.000 for the expert opinion. You will still face a uphill battle that I would expect to only be awarded at the BVA or COVA. Be mindful and aware, it takes three elements to win your direct exposure AO claim. You still need to have a diagnosis of one of the AO recognized disease and at least one well written nexus letter. I would suggest several nexus letters. I had thirteen nexus letters and never paid more than a medicare co-payment for any of them. As there is no presumptive of exposure outside of Korea and Vietnam, you will need to show exactly how, when, and where you was directly exposed to AO. If you don't have one of the diseases on the AO list, but you are convinced that your disease may have been caused by AO exposure, anywhere, at any time during service, you then have an uphill and almost insurmountable battle. Not an impossible scenario but definitely not a task for the faint of heart. You will need rock solid IMOs and IMEs. You will need to be tenacious and focused, do your research and respond with all of the DD that it is going to require of you. My advice on a claim like that is that if you don't intend to finish it, then don't start it. There are opinions that most AO claims have already been filed and decided long ago, so why would I be posting something like this? Just wait until the proposed new AO conditions are added to the AO list and you will understand, new claims will come out of the woodwork, and that is the reason why I went to the trouble to post this information.
  15. Ah ha jbasser, You do see what I was talking about! Can you imagine the fees when a case is won on a claim that involves many years of substantial back pay? If the Court felt the need to do something like that to veterans they should have capped the total amount of attorney fees, or at least capped the out of pocket from past due benefits cost to the veteran. With consideration of this new precedent at the Court, If I manage to get a (JMR) remand back to the Board, and the board awards my claim, the attorney fees in, total, may well be $50,000. I fully understand the fact that attorneys fees are expensive, but I really can't see the justification for that amount of charge for representation. We, as the affected veterans, going up against the CAVC, have little choice in the matter. Now, the reasonable cost of justice can still be had by a veteran if the Court would do its job, to the full extent, by using it's authority in awarding claims, on their own at COVA, instead of remanding the claim back to the BVA, where the veteran is reintroduced to the agency,s famous hamster wheel. The Court has the authority and the power to do exactly that, although it is rarely done. Ravin V McDonald, recently set that precedent, allowing the attorney to charge EAJA at the Court, in addition to 20%-30% of the veteran's precious retro back at the BVA, with no offset for EAJA fees. This is what I was asking Alex about two minutes before the airing of the Exposed Vet Podcast last Thursday. I am sure that Alex or someone else will chime in and enlighten us.
  • Create New...

Important Information

{terms] and Guidelines