allan

Hello Y#5, It wasn't easy to get copies of my VOC-Rehab ILS records. I requested them, but it was a few years later when my C-file was being prepared to send to the BVA for appeals, that someone spotted the request and sent the records. VAMC's tend to be somewhat better at getting record requests processed. Spokane and Seattle records depts are very good at complying with requests in a timely manner. Getting records is what I keep thinking an SO should be able to do for Vets. Allan

Appendix C to Part 4—Alphabetical Index of Disabilities http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-...1.3&idno=38

§ 4.97 Schedule of ratings—respiratory system. http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-....51&idno=38

e-CFR Data is current as of December 11, 2007 Title 38: Pensions, Bonuses, and Veterans' Relief PART 4—SCHEDULE FOR RATING DISABILITIES Subpart B—Disability Ratings The Respiratory System Browse Next § 4.96 Special provisions regarding evaluation of respiratory conditions. (a) Rating coexisting respiratory conditions. Ratings under diagnostic codes 6600 through 6817 and 6822 through 6847 will not be combined with each other. Where there is lung or pleural involvement, ratings under diagnostic codes 6819 and 6820 will not be combined with each other or with diagnostic codes 6600 through 6817 or 6822 through 6847. A single rating will be assigned under the diagnostic code which reflects the predominant disability with elevation to the next higher evaluation where the severity of the overall disability warrants such elevation. However, in cases protected by the provisions of Pub. L. 90–493, the graduated ratings of 50 and 30 percent for inactive tuberculosis will not be elevated. (b) Rating “protected” tuberculosis cases. Public Law 90–493 repealed section 356 of title 38, United States Code which had provided graduated ratings for inactive tuberculosis. The repealed section, however, still applies to the case of any veteran who on August 19, 1968, was receiving or entitled to receive compensation for tuberculosis. The use of the protective provisions of Pub. L. 90–493 should be mentioned in the discussion portion of all ratings in which these provisions are applied. For application in rating cases in which the protective provisions of Pub. L. 90–493 apply the former evaluations pertaining to pulmonary tuberculosis are retained in §4.97. © Special monthly compensation. When evaluating any claim involving complete organic aphonia, refer to §3.350 of this chapter to determine whether the veteran may be entitled to special monthly compensation. Footnotes in the schedule indicate conditions which potentially establish entitlement to special monthly compensation; however, there are other conditions in this section which under certain circumstances also establish entitlement to special monthly compensation. (d) Special provisions for the application of evaluation criteria for diagnostic codes 6600, 6603, 6604, 6825–6833, and 6840–6845. (1) Pulmonary function tests (PFT's) are required to evaluate these conditions except: (i) When the results of a maximum exercise capacity test are of record and are 20 ml/kg/min or less. If a maximum exercise capacity test is not of record, evaluate based on alternative criteria. (ii) When pulmonary hypertension (documented by an echocardiogram or cardiac catheterization), cor pulmonale, or right ventricular hypertrophy has been diagnosed. (iii) When there have been one or more episodes of acute respiratory failure. (iv) When outpatient oxygen therapy is required. (2) If the DLCO (SB) (Diffusion Capacity of the Lung for Carbon Monoxide by the Single Breath Method) test is not of record, evaluate based on alternative criteria as long as the examiner states why the test would not be useful or valid in a particular case. (3) When the PFT's are not consistent with clinical findings, evaluate based on the PFT's unless the examiner states why they are not a valid indication of respiratory functional impairment in a particular case. (4) Post-bronchodilator studies are required when PFT's are done for disability evaluation purposes except when the results of pre-bronchodilator pulmonary function tests are normal or when the examiner determines that post-bronchodilator studies should not be done and states why. (5) When evaluating based on PFT's, use post-bronchodilator results in applying the evaluation criteria in the rating schedule unless the post-bronchodilator results were poorer than the pre-bronchodilator results. In those cases, use the pre-bronchodilator values for rating purposes. (6) When there is a disparity between the results of different PFT's (FEV–1 (Forced Expiratory Volume in one second), FVC (Forced Vital Capacity), etc.), so that the level of evaluation would differ depending on which test result is used, use the test result that the examiner states most accurately reflects the level of disability. (7) If the FEV–1 and the FVC are both greater than 100 percent, do not assign a compensable evaluation based on a decreased FEV–1/FVC ratio. (Authority: 38 U.S.C. 1155) [34 FR 5062, Mar. 11, 1969, as amended at 61 FR 46727, Sept. 5, 1996; 71 FR 52459, Sept. 6, 2006] SOURCE: http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-....50&idno=38

e-CFR Data is current as of December 11, 2007 Title 38: Pensions, Bonuses, and Veterans' Relief PART 4—SCHEDULE FOR RATING DISABILITIES Subpart B—Disability Ratings Impairment of Auditory Acuity § 4.86 Exceptional patterns of hearing impairment. (a) When the puretone threshold at each of the four specified frequencies (1000, 2000, 3000, and 4000 Hertz) is 55 decibels or more, the rating specialist will determine the Roman numeral designation for hearing impairment from either Table VI or Table VIa, whichever results in the higher numeral. Each ear will be evaluated separately. (b) When the puretone threshold is 30 decibels or less at 1000 Hertz, and 70 decibels or more at 2000 Hertz, the rating specialist will determine the Roman numeral designation for hearing impairment from either Table VI or Table VIa, whichever results in the higher numeral. That numeral will then be elevated to the next higher Roman numeral. Each ear will be evaluated separately. (Authority: 38 U.S.C. 1155) [64 FR 25209, May 11, 1999] SOURCE: http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-....42&idno=38

§ 4.87 Schedule of ratings—ear. Diseases of the Ear http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-....43&idno=38

§ 4.85 Evaluation of hearing impairment. http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-....41&idno=38

§ 19.29 Statement of the Case. top The Statement of the Case must be complete enough to allow the appellant to present written and/or oral arguments before the Board of Veterans' Appeals. It must contain: (a) A summary of the evidence in the case relating to the issue or issues with which the appellant or representative has expressed disagreement; (b) A summary of the applicable laws and regulations, with appropriate citations, and a discussion of how such laws and regulations affect the determination; and © The determination of the agency of original jurisdiction on each issue and the reasons for each such determination with respect to which disagreement has been expressed. (Authority: 38 U.S.C. 7105(d)(1)) § 19.30 Furnishing the Statement of the Case and instructions for filing a Substantive Appeal. top (a) To whom the Statement of the Case is furnished. The Statement of the Case will be forwarded to the appellant at the latest address of record and a separate copy provided to his or her representative (if any). (b) Information furnished with the Statement of the Case. With the Statement of the Case, the appellant and the representative will be furnished information on the right to file, and time limit for filing, a Substantive Appeal; information on hearing and representation rights; and a VA Form 9, “Appeal to Board of Veterans' Appeals.” (Authority: 38 U.S.C. 7105) [57 FR 4104, Feb. 3, 1992, as amended at 61 FR 20449, May 7, 1996] § 19.31 Supplemental statement of the case. top (a) Purpose and limitations. A “Supplemental Statement of the Case,” so identified, is a document prepared by the agency of original jurisdiction to inform the appellant of any material changes in, or additions to, the information included in the Statement of the Case or any prior Supplemental Statement of the Case. In no case will a Supplemental Statement of the Case be used to announce decisions by the agency of original jurisdiction on issues not previously addressed in the Statement of the Case, or to respond to a notice of disagreement on newly appealed issues that were not addressed in the Statement of the Case. The agency of original jurisdiction will respond to notices of disagreement on newly appealed issues not addressed in the Statement of the Case using the procedures in §§19.29 and 19.30 of this part (relating to statements of the case). (b) When furnished. The agency of original jurisdiction will furnish the appellant and his or her representative, if any, a Supplemental Statement of the Case if: (1) The agency of original jurisdiction receives additional pertinent evidence after a Statement of the Case or the most recent Supplemental Statement of the Case has been issued and before the appeal is certified to the Board of Veterans' Appeals and the appellate record is transferred to the Board; (2) A material defect in the Statement of the Case or a prior Supplemental statement of the Case is discovered; or (3) For any other reason the Statement of the Case or a prior Supplemental Statement of the Case is inadequate. © Pursuant to remand from the Board. The agency of original jurisdiction will issue a Supplemental Statement of the Case if, pursuant to a remand by the Board, it develops the evidence or cures a procedural defect, unless: (1) The only purpose of the remand is to assemble records previously considered by the agency of original jurisdiction and properly discussed in a prior Statement of the Case or Supplemental Statement of the Case; or (2) The Board specifies in the remand that a Supplemental Statement of the Case is not required. (Authority: 38 U.S.C. 7105(d)). [67 FR 3104, Jan. 23, 2002] § 19.32 Closing of appeal for failure to respond to Statement of the Case. top The agency of original jurisdiction may close the appeal without notice to an appellant or his or her representative for failure to respond to a Statement of the Case within the period allowed. However, if a Substantive Appeal is subsequently received within the 1-year appeal period (60-day appeal period for simultaneously contested claims), the appeal will be considered to be reactivated. (Authority: 38 U.S.C. 7105(d)(3)) § 19.33 Timely filing of Notice of Disagreement or Substantive Appeal questioned within the agency of original jurisdiction. top If, within the agency of original jurisdiction, there is a question as to the timely filing of a Notice of Disagreement or Substantive Appeal, the procedures for an administrative appeal must be followed. (Authority: 38 U.S.C. 7105, 7106) § 19.34 Determination that Notice of Disagreement or Substantive Appeal was not timely filed protested by claimant or representative. top Whether a Notice of Disagreement or Substantive Appeal has been filed on time is an appealable issue. If the claimant or his or her representative protests an adverse determination made by the agency of original jurisdiction with respect to timely filing of the Notice of Disagreement or Substantive Appeal, the claimant will be furnished a Statement of the Case. (Authority: 38 U.S.C. 7105) § 19.35 Certification of appeals. top Following receipt of a timely Substantive Appeal, the agency of original jurisdiction will certify the case to the Board of Veterans' Appeals. Certification is accomplished by the completion of VA Form 8, “Certification of Appeal.” The certification is used for administrative purposes and does not serve to either confer or deprive the Board of Veterans' Appeals of jurisdiction over an issue. (Authority: 38 U.S.C. 7105) [57 FR 4104, Feb. 3, 1992, as amended at 61 FR 20449, May 7, 1996; 66 FR 53339, Oct. 22, 2001] § 19.36 Notification of certification of appeal and transfer of appellate record. top When an appeal is certified to the Board of Veterans' Appeals for appellate review and the appellate record is transferred to the Board, the appellant and his or her representative, if any, will be notified in writing of the certification and transfer and of the time limit for requesting a change in representation, for requesting a personal hearing, and for submitting additional evidence described in Rule of Practice 1304 (§20.1304 of this chapter). (Authority: 38 U.S.C. 7105) § 19.37 Consideration of additional evidence received by the agency of original jurisdiction after an appeal has been initiated. top (a) Evidence received prior to transfer of records to Board of Veterans' Appeals. Evidence received by the agency of original jurisdiction prior to transfer of the records to the Board of Veterans' Appeals after an appeal has been initiated (including evidence received after certification has been completed) will be referred to the appropriate rating or authorization activity for review and disposition. If the Statement of the Case and any prior Supplemental Statements of the Case were prepared before the receipt of the additional evidence, a Supplemental Statement of the Case will be furnished to the appellant and his or her representative as provided in §19.31 of this part, unless the additional evidence received duplicates evidence previously of record which was discussed in the Statement of the Case or a prior Supplemental Statement of the Case or the additional evidence is not relevant to the issue, or issues, on appeal. (b) Evidence received after transfer of records to the Board of Veterans' Appeals. Additional evidence received by the agency of original jurisdiction after the records have been transferred to the Board of Veterans' Appeals for appellate consideration will be forwarded to the Board if it has a bearing on the appellate issue or issues. The Board will then determine what action is required with respect to the additional evidence. (Authority: 38 U.S.C. 7105(d)(1)) § 19.38 Action by agency of original jurisdiction when remand received. top When a case is remanded by the Board of Veterans' Appeals, the agency of original jurisdiction will complete the additional development of the evidence or procedural development required. Following completion of the development, the case will be reviewed to determine whether the additional development, together with the evidence which was previously of record, supports the allowance of all benefits sought on appeal. If so, the appellant and his or her representative, if any, will be promptly informed. If any benefits sought on appeal remain denied following this review, the agency of original jurisdiction will issue a Supplemental Statement of the Case concerning the additional development pertaining to those issues in accordance with the provisions of §19.31 of this part. Following the 60-day period allowed for a response to the Supplemental Statement of the Case pursuant to Rule of Practice 302, paragraph © (§20.302© of this chapter), the case will be returned to the Board for further appellate processing unless the appeal is withdrawn or review of the response to the Supplemental Statement of the Case results in the allowance of all benefits sought on appeal. Remanded cases will not be closed for failure to respond to the Supplemental Statement of the Case. (Authority 38 U.S.C. 7105(d)(1)) [57 FR 4104, Feb. 3, 1992, as amended at 69 FR 53808, Sept. 3, 2004] §§ 19.39-19.49 [Reserved] top Subpart C—Administrative Appeals top § 19.50 Nature and form of administrative appeal. top (a) General. An administrative appeal from an agency of original jurisdiction determination is an appeal taken by an official of the Department of Veterans Affairs authorized to do so to resolve a conflict of opinion or a question pertaining to a claim involving benefits under laws administered by the Department of Veterans Affairs. Such appeals may be taken not only from determinations involving dissenting opinions, but also from unanimous determinations denying or allowing the benefit claimed in whole or in part. (b) Form of Appeal. An administrative appeal is entered by a memorandum entitled “Administrative Appeal” in which the issues and the basis for the appeal are set forth. (Authority: 38 U.S.C. 7106) § 19.51 Officials authorized to file administrative appeals and time limits for filing. top The Secretary of Veterans Affairs authorizes certain officials of the Department of Veterans Affairs to file administrative appeals within specified time limits, as follows: (a) Central Office —(1) Officials. The Under Secretary for Benefits or a service director of the Veterans Benefits Administration, the Under Secretary for Health or a service director of the Veterans Health Administration, and the General Counsel. (2) Time limit. Such officials must file an administrative appeal within 1 year from the date of mailing notice of such determination to the claimant. (b) Agencies of original jurisdiction —(1) Officials. Directors, adjudication officers, and officials at comparable levels in field offices deciding any claims for benefits, from any determination originating within their established jurisdiction. (2) Time limit. The Director or comparable official must file an administrative appeal within 6 months from the date of mailing notice of the determination to the claimant. Officials below the level of Director must do so within 60 days from such date. © The date of mailing. With respect to paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section, the date of mailing notice of the determination to the claimant will be presumed to be the same as the date of the letter of notification to the claimant. (Authority: 38 U.S.C. 7106) [57 FR 4104, Feb. 3, 1992, as amended at 61 FR 20449, May 7, 1996] § 19.52 Notification to claimant of filing of administrative appeal. top When an administrative appeal is entered, the claimant and his or her representative, if any, will be promptly furnished a copy of the memorandum entitled “Administrative Appeal,” or an adequate summary thereof, outlining the question at issue. They will be allowed a period of 60 days to join in the appeal if they so desire. The claimant will also be advised of the effect of such action and of the preservation of normal appeal rights if he or she does not elect to join in the administrative appeal. (Authority: 38 U.S.C. 7106) § 19.53 Restriction as to change in payments pending determination of administrative appeals. top If an administrative appeal is taken from a review or determination by the agency of original jurisdiction pursuant to §§19.50 and 19.51 of this part, that review or determination may not be used to effect any change in payments until after a decision is made by the Board of Veterans' Appeals. (Authority: 38 U.S.C. 7106) Source: http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-...c5d9441;cc=ecfr

National Center for Posttraumatic Stress Disorder http://www.ncptsd.va.gov/ncmain/veterans/

293 - General court martial 294 - Special court martial 311 - Alien without legal residence in the United States 312 - Separation of members of Reserve components on active duty who, due to age, would be precluded from attaining eligibility pay as provided by 10 USC 1331.1337 ******************************* SPN codes from 295 through 310 are missing. My dd214 shows "305". Is there earlier SPN codes for the year 1971/USN Thanks for this post............Allan

WOW! That is really good news Paul. Congratulations!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I'm praying my claim takes the same coarse. What a miracle! Thank you Betty. Your persistance and numbers have gottin a stalled claim moving again. I honestly didnt think it was possible. I hope to hear something soon than. Maybe next week. Your in the door now Paul. Merry Christmas! Allan

Hello WJack, the VARO rating specialists tend to set aside favorable evidence and focus primarily on "any" kind of negative evidence. They claim pushing a car out of some mud or walking in snow(post service)caused more spinal problems than the "Blunt Chest Trauma" or artillery trauma I experienced at age 19. I have no doubt they'll deny my asbestos claim as well, but i'm going to file it anyway. Lacking a certified photo of asbestos from the ship entering my mouth or nose, signed by an officer in my SMR's, it may be difficult to convince VARO raters of exposure during service. Toxic exposure some how must have been controlled and made safe on every US Naval vessel and piece of land, everywhere on the planet except the soil of Vietnam. WoW! Almost to good to believe. According to the DVA and our government, life was so good on these ships, enlistees were lucky to get paid. I'm surprized the rater didn't say, since your father had no boots on the ground in Vietnam, he couldn't have been exposed to asbestos. I suppose the AO, jet fuel, diesel and bunker crude that was sucked up the ships intake, ran through the evaps and ran through your fathers body on a daily bases, has no effect on him either? It wasn't long ago I had an SO explain why my claim wasn't going anywhere. "You didn't do anything during your service, you were in the Navy". "Your not a Vietnam Vet and there is no boots on the ground." There is more to it than getting favorable evidence properly weighed, working agaisnt veterans.

fwd from Kelly Blue Water Navy and other At the bottom - VA medical compared to Nazi Germany "Hundreds of documents alleging negligence by the Department of Veterans Affairs, and comparing the scandal to Nazi experiments on humans during World War II. The sad part is this was way before Walter Reed and Congress and the Media really did nothing or even address it. You see it was against our own Veterans not the enemy they seemed to want to protect while doing nothing to protect us from VA abuses. That includes the lying ass media also. Join the military and get treated like we hanged folks for and Congress for the most part just says but gee we gave you more money. What else do you want? Yet, this kind of backroom stuff goes on daily at the VA and the answer is give them more money? I think not. The answer is a responsible caring government for their protectors of which we do not have. Need a new one? You bet we do in all areas of executive branch as well as congress. But it will all be taken care of by Peake as he like so many have promised to fix the problems. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ironically just out is a pilot program to have VA do the compensation exams for the DoD and as you read below VA will provide the professionals to do the exams. Now lets not forget that the folks contracted (outsourced) to do this exams is a company called QTC and our soon to be new Veterans Affairs secretary is as it just so happens a director on the board of QTC. And it just so happens when that a billion dollar award was given to QTC, Secretary Principi was the COO of this company. And it ,the BS, just keeps on getting thicker and thicker.............and thicker and deeper and deeper......and deeper. VVA: VA News Release - VA/DOD Commence Single Disability Pilot Program FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE November 29, 2007 VA/DOD Commence Single Disability Examination Pilot Program for Wounded Warriors Evaluation to Provide Smoother Transition to Disability Benefits and Compensation WASHINGTON -- The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) and the Department of Defense (DoD) this week began a pilot program to test a new single disability evaluation system for wounded warriors at the three major military medical facilities in the Washington D.C. area. This initiative is designed to eliminate the duplicative and often confusing elements of the current disability processes of the two departments. Key features of the disability evaluation system (DES) pilot include one medical examination and a single-sourced disability rating. The single disability examination pilot is another improvement as a result of the President's Commission on Care for America's Returning Wounded Warriors (Dole/Shalala) and is aimed to simplify health care and rehabilitation for injured service members and veterans. This pilot program will seek to ease the transition of wounded service members through the disability evaluation system to reentry into the civilian community with more efficient delivery of disability compensation at the time they leave military service. VA is providing the medical professionals performing the examinations. The pilot is being conducted for service members at the Washington, D.C., VA Medical Center, Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington, D.C., the National Naval Medical Center in Bethesda, Md., and the Malcolm Grow Medical Center at Andrews Air Force Base, Md., and will run for one year. Throughout the pilot, VA and DoD officials will monitor progress to determine potential expansion into other locations. The pilot includes all non-clinical care and administrative activities, such as case management and counseling requirements associated with disability case processing from the service member's initial referral to a Military Department Medical Evaluation Board to VA's compensation and benefits program. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- blue Water Navy From Norm The below RAO Bulletin segment tells how the VA intends to circumvent the court's decision to extend the presumption of Agent Orange/defoliant exposure to all veterans with a Vietnam Service Medal (the CAVC rescinded the "boots-on-the-ground" rule). The VA offers us a brief period to submit objections, but we all know that if the Bush-appointed VA heads can defy the CAVC, they are sure as hell not going to back up for a few old veterans. As I read the law, the VA cannot write regulations that contradict laws and rescind court decisions even when the VA acts on behalf of the president to cut veterans' entitlements. I think we need to push this in the faces of our representatives, our media, our judges et al. Let's see who supports the law, the people and the courts and who belongs to King George and the petro-chemical crones. If Bush appointees can defy the courts and re-write the law, our representative democracy and our Constitution are history. Nc -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From RAO Bulletin 01 December 2007, p. 9: Agent Orange Lawsuits Update 11: On 19 NOV Acting VA Secretary Mansfield approved a notice for publication in the Federal Register to rescind provisions of its Adjudication Procedures Manual, M21-1 that were found by the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) not to have been properly rescinded. The notice can be reviewed in the 27 NOV issue (Volume 72, Number 22 7) Page 66218-66219. The notice in effect says that since a 2001 change to the manual’s 1991 provisions has been ruled illegal by the CAVC it would be further changed if the VA lost their appeal to this ruling. The provision in question allowed veterans who received the Vietnam Service medal and served offshore in Vietnam during that war the presumption of exposure to Agent Orange in accordance with a 1991 ruling of the Veterans Court. The VA subsequently changed the rules in their M-21 manual in 2002 taking away this right which brought on the Haas v. VADC-Nicholson lawsuit which the VA lost and is currently appealing. Now the VA is seeking to correctly alter the M-21 provisions by giving notice and a time for comment as required when an agency makes a “substantive change”. The VA is in effect trying to wipe out both the 1991, and 2002 M-21 manual provisions laying the groundwork for a new provision which will allow the VA to continue denying Blue water Navy the same rights as their fellow veterans who received the Vietnam Service medal. And at the same time they say that if they win their appeal to the Federal Courts, they will withdraw this change and keep the M-21 change of 2002 which denies presumption of exposure. Bottom line either way NO COMPENSATION for Blue Water Navy veteran’s Agent Orange related disabilities. Veterans are encouraged to exercise their right to comment on the change. Written comments must be received by VA on or before 28 JAN 08. They may be submitted through online at http://www.Regulations.gov; or by mail or hand-delivery to the Director, Regulations Management (00REG), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Ave., NW. Room 1068, Washington, DC 20420; or by fax to (202) 273-9026. Comments should indicate that they are submitted in response to “Rescission of Manual M21-1 Provisions Related to Exposure to Herbicides Based on Receipt of the Vietnam Service Medal.” Copies of comments received will be available for public inspection in the Office of Regulation Policy and Management, Room 1063B, between the hours of 08-1630 M-F (except holidays). To review call (202) 273-9515 for an appointment. In addition, during the comment period, comments may be viewed online through the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) at http://www.Regulations.gov. [source: http://www.valaw.org Editor Ray B Davis Jr. 27 Nov 07 ++] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- It looks like (Conflict of Interest) Peake is in and will win senate support hands down. Another executive branch federal agency puppet making decisions for the executive branch and not science, medicine, and statistical facts. Backed up by the "less than prestigious IOM. " -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From retired Master Guns McCartney VA Secretary Nominee Gets Favorable Senate Hearing Michael Posner CongressDaily December 5, 2007 http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/1207/120507cdpm2.htm\ Retired Lt. Gen. James Peake, President Bush's nominee for Veterans Affairs secretary, breezed through a Senate confirmation hearing today with bipartisan support. Members of the Veterans' Affairs Committee praised Peake, 63, a highly decorated veteran with 38 years of Army service including time in Vietnam and two years as its surgeon general. They also told him his task ahead would be difficult if confirmed. "You have a tremendous challenge facing you," Veteran Affairs Committee Chairman Daniel Akaka, D-Hawaii, told Peake. "Indeed it may be one of the most daunting tasks in or out of government." Akaka and other senators said returning Iraq war veterans have problems different from other veterans, including mental health difficulties. A significant number of returning veterans suffer from traumatic brain injuries, other wounds and post traumatic stress disorders, Akaka said. In testimony, Peake said veterans' mental health issues may be his biggest challenge in the job. "I appreciate the universal concern that PTSD and traumatic brain injury may be less apparent than some of the horrendous physical wounds that we see fresh from the battlefields," he said, adding that "PTSDs are real wounds of war and ought to be treated." He said PTSD and traumatic brain injuries "are likely to become the signature injury of this conflict." Peake pledged to work on getting veterans health care claims adjusted faster. So has every other head of Veteran Affairs so what? "A veteran should not need a lawyer to figure out what benefit is due, or get that benefit," Peake said. So has every other head of Veteran Affairs so what? He also vowed to address problems with the transition of veterans from active duty to veteran status. So has every other head of Veteran Affairs so what? "I don't think you could have better prepared for this job if you had planned it," commented Veterans Affairs ranking member Richard Burr, R-N.C. His conflict of interests prepared him greatly for this puppet mission. But Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., told him "a strong resume is not enough." She called on Peake to have "the fortitude, the backbone, and the courage to stand up to the administration, to be honest and upfront about our veterans' current and future course." That folks including integrity ain’t going to happen! Akaka criticized former Veterans Affairs Secretary Jim Nicholson for not advocating more funding for the VA, but Peake promised to work for adequate funding. The committee has not set a date for a confirmation vote. It all comes back to funding, which is bull crap. INTEGRITY AND TRUTH ARE MORE IMPORTANT! -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From a Marine Corpsman THE WAR IN THE SAND BOX AND OTHER AREAS OF THE GLOBE IS NOT WINNABLE. ESP. THE SAND BOX. THE ONLY COUNTRY THAT CAN PUT A SHORT LEASH ON N. KOREA AND OTHER MUSLIM IDIOTS IN THE FLIP ISLANDS; THE INDOCHINA; AND THE MALAY AND INDONESIA IS CHINA. WE NEED TO WITH DRAW ALL TROOPS FROM AS MANY PLACES AS POSSIBLE AND LET THEM KILL EACH OTHER; NO RE-ENLISTMENTS; THEY'RE GETTING THE SHAFT, FROM THE DOD AND THEIR RESPECTIVE MILITARY ORGS. WE ONLY NEED TO SUPPORT ISRAEL IN COUNTRY WITH WHAT EVER THEY NEED AND MOST OF THAT MONEY DOES NOT COME FROM THE FEDS BUT JEWISH NATIONALS OR AMERICANS IN THE USA. THEIR ARE MANY WAYS TO NEUTRALIZE HOSTILE COUNTRIES WITHOUT NUCLEAR FALLOUT; WE HAVE IT IN NON-NUKE AND NON-RADIATION NUKES AND SHOULD USE IT. THEN WITH DRAW TO CONUS AND USE THE TROOPS WE HAVE AND PLANES AND SHIPS TO DEFEND OUR SHORES FROM ALL DIRECTIONS. IT IS VIABLE. I KNOW WHAT I'M TAKING ABOUT CONCERNING NON RADIATION NUKES AND BOMBS SO POWERFUL THEY ACTUALLY GIVE OFF SOME RADIATION; NOT MUCH BUT SOME. WE NEVER USED THOSE. THE DOD WILL HAVE TO RE-INSTATE THE DRAFT AND WHEN THAT IS DONE; THE LINE WILL BE DRAWN IN THE SAND. IT'S THAT SIMPLE. THIS ALSO INCLUDES DEFENDING US FROM CUBA AND SOUTH AMERICA AND MEXICO AS WELL AS SOME GAPS IN CANADA. I HAVE KIDS THAT HAVE BEEN ON BOTH SIDES OF THE GLOBE FOR 16 YEARS NOW. ENOUGH IS ENOUGH. THE VA IS SO CORRUPT IT CAN'T EVER BE FIXED. THE HOTDOGS GO TO BETHESDA WHILE I TROOPS GO TO AN OUTDATED WALTER REED HOSPITAL. OUR BODY CONGRESS GETS THE BEST CARE IN THE BEST PLACE FOR FREE WHILE OUR TROOPS GET THE WORST. TIME TO BRING THEM HOME AND PUT THEM ON THE BORDERS AND SHIPS OFF SHORE TO PROTECT OUR COUNTRY. THE CANDIDATES FOR OFFICE WILL SAY ANYTHING TO GET YOUR VOTE. UNLESS OF COURSE THEY'RE BUSTED BEFORE THE ELECTIONS FOR HITTING ON KIDS OR PEOPLE IN PUBLIC RESTROOMS. PEDOPHILES AND QUEER BAIT OVER PAID ASSHOLES. WHO GET A BIG COLA BASED ON THEIR SALARY PLUS THE ANNUAL BONUS EACH JULY FOR THE BODY CONGRESS; OVAL OFFICE AND SUPREME COURT. IT SUCKS. I COULD QUOTE WILL ROGERS ALL DAY LONG ON POLITICIANS. EACH OF US KNOWS OUR RUNNER'S WILL LIE TO GET ELECTED; THE CHOICE IS TO VOTE FOR THE MOST INCOMPETENT. OBAMA IS A TRAITOR. HE WON'T COVER HIS HEART DURING THE ANTHEM NOR WILL HE SALUTE THE FLAG; NOR WILL HE Sing THE NATIONAL ANTHEM. THE TIME HAS LONG LAST COME AND GONE WHERE THE ITALIAN MAFIA HAS MORE INTEGRITY THAN OUR OWN CONGRESSIONAL ELECTED, COURT AND OVAL OFFICE. AT LEAST THE MAFIA KEEPS THEIR WORD; CHARGES A FAIR PRICE AND DELIVERS. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From a Nam Vet on Burying the VA One hell of a great idea because as all veterans know, the VA will "never" get caught up with their back logged claims no matter what they say or do. So we might as well just add more fuel to the fire and let them see what it feels like to have the heat put on them for a change. Right off the top of my head I can think of roughly five or six different claims I can submit that I would have normally just forgot about. One may be a first for us Nam veterans and that being - I will file a claim for TBI. After all, those in Iraq are doing it and all it amounts to is being around loud explosions that rattle your brain. I think a mortar round that exploded right next to me, strong enough to blow me off my feet and caused me to come down with migraine headaches, just might be enough to prove my brain was injured. I haven't heard of a Nam vet having his claim adjudicated in his favor for submitting a claim for TBI so that will be the first one I fire off to the VA. Then my teeth falling out, diabetic, sore on left big toe, both knees, a CUE on my low back, oral surgery needed. Yea, I can keep somebody in the VA busy for a long time. And none of these claims can ever be viewed as submitting a claim where the VA can accuse me of fraud. I have fought the rotten VA system for over twenty years. Additionally during those twenty years I assisted veterans in filing their claims for service connected disabilities against the VA AND Social Security. I'd much rather prefer to go out dying while I'm typing up a claim or an appeal rather than just sitting in my recliner or wheel chair, day after day, staring at the walls. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- One thing I would pass on again as to what the State VA worker told me. Do not allow the VA or the VSO to force you or to even recommend signing a form 9 requesting a BVA. These are crooked and once out of the local office there is nothing the state or state workers can do to help you. You will not be allowed to present a case as they tell you - trust me. In addition they can hold these for decades without so much as one decision and as I am finding out even when they are remanded there is nothing you can do bring them back to the local level to get some help. As a matter of fact I was told to tell all Veterans that little bit of information - do not allow the claim to leave the local level - keep filing notices of disagreements (NOD's) as they deny your claims. Once inside 495 you can just about forget it for at least five years minimum. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In the above issues it just so happens I was being waited on a young man that was to enter the Navy shortly. The only thing on his mind was the enlistment bonus so he could get a motorcycle. I informed him he would be better off finding another way to obtain what he wanted. I then went on to tell him what VA and DoD is doing to Veterans in all areas including paying back of the bonus if they could not complete their term of conditions. Not only did they say it was not their policy; but they were doing it any way on unsuspecting Veterans and families, as long as they could get away with it. I informed him if was he was hurt for any reason he would be left out in the cold with a fight on his hands that would be easier to fight the enemy than our government and in fact the government did not care whether he served or not or what happened to him. How they minimize or lie about disorders and then appoint a man that whose company is in charge of rating Veterans in charge of Veterans. I informed him he would lose all guaranteed constitutional rights as a citizen and as a human if he enlists and become the property of Veterans Affairs the rest of his life. Now I did give him my phone number and told him that if his dad or his lying ass recruiter wanted to argue the issues please call me. The recruiter had told him he would not be in harms way joining the Navy. I told him that was so much crap and once he was in all that shit was by the way side. Maybe I convinced him – maybe not – that motorcycle was foremost in his mind and his now indestructible body and wanting to believe his unscrupulous recruiter. As I said, I am glad for what we have now but these boys signing up for motorcycles must be told the real facts and the truth as we have lived them; before he signs on that life changing dotted line. DoD is not going to do that. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- e-mail from Naval Aviation Thanks, Bro, for the updates on efforts to bring the VA to its knees - to really start serving all of us. The high rate of suicides among returning Iran and Afghanistan vets hit the news last month. It was no surprise to us, but news anchors across the nation appeared "surprised." I remember a couple of VA doctors examining me for my C & P case, trying to get me to "fess up" to alcoholism as the cause of my neuropathy. It would have been a feather in each of their caps. Sad for them and good for me, it turned out that alcohol is an impossible cause for my afflictions. So they knocked me off the table by stating that "I had not filed in time." I refuse to go through all that crap of 10 years putting together my C&P case myself. When I finally ended up at the Federal Bldg. in LA for the interview, the American Legion Rep. looked at me in wonder. His statement was: "Most disabled vets give up after a few years of fighting. What makes you keep going?" Not that he didn't defend me with all he had. He simply reflected the fact that the VA manages to dig us all into the ground so heavily that we do give up. The word from the vets I know is that now the VA is just waiting for all of us Viet vets to die off. Look at the "Taps" section of any military magazine. They are right. We are lucky, as a group, to make it to age 55 (the average number of years of life for a Vietnam vet). Blessings to you and yours for the holidays. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Veterans affairs compared to Nazi Germany Court papers detail dark chapter at VA By BRENDAN J. LYONS, Senior writer First published: Sunday, December 9, 2007 Albany -- The veterans and their spouses called it the drip room. It was a grim place, located on the first floor at Stratton Veterans Affairs Medical Center just past the cashier's office and the pharmacy. Hard plastic seats spilled into the hallway, with relatives who waited hours for their loved ones to get the cancer drugs that offered them hope. The spacious room, with its IV-friendly lounge chairs and a row of beds for the patients who got nauseous, began filling to capacity about nine years ago. The crowds were in large part caused by experiments on dozens of desperate cancer patients who were given powerful mixtures of drugs that were being tested for their marketability. In September 2001, as the number of cancer drug studies at Stratton tripled to more than 20, two nurses warned a VA oversight board that conditions were unsafe and patients were at risk. No one took action. Yet that bustling business was only a symptom of a systemic breakdown in which veterans were being pushed into poorly run drug studies for which they didn't medically qualify. They also were the victims of fraud and deception, and top hospital officials privately suspected that as many as five veterans, and possibly more, died prematurely from the fallout. New information surfaced last month in hundreds of pages of depositions and internal reports filed in a lawsuit by several widows of veterans who died after enrolling in Stratton's drug studies, providing a spotlight on a government research program that had spiraled out of control. Attorneys in the case declined comment. The federal court documents, which include confidential investigative reports never made public, indicate that about 70 percent of Stratton's former cancer research patients were victimized in the scandal, which triggered nationwide hiring reforms in VA research programs. In early 2002, at the time it began unfolding, 91 veterans were involved. Allegations include: Cancer patients were pres into joining experimental studies in which they and their families did not want to be enrolled. A nurse who still works for a VA hospital received only a reprimand for issuing pre-signed prescriptions for controlled substances without doctor approval. Three research coordinators were ordered to enroll as many people as possible in drug studies by a physician who said their salaries and job security were at stake. Paul H. Kornak, a convicted felon who never completed medical school, was hired as a research coordinator and fraudulently posed as a doctor when supervisors knew of his background. Research coordinators were allowed to illegally use a physician's electronic signature and computer access codes to perform functions for which they were not qualified. Kornak and the former cancer research director, Dr. James A. Holland, continued working for months after their scientific misconduct was discovered. Stratton's Institutional Review Board, which monitors research studies, "did not adequately protect the rights and welfare of human subjects." Glenn McGee, a bioethics expert at Albany Medical College enlisted as an expert witness by the attorneys for the widows, characterized the situation as a "systematic deception by clinicians in plain violation of medical and research ethics across 3,000 years of the development of such principals." "The clinical trials conducted at the VA involving the plaintiffs and their loved ones in this case violated the standards and regulations governing the conduct of clinical trials in this country and throughout the world," McGee wrote in a report filed in the case. The case is pending in U.S. District Court in Albany. The hospital is being defended by Justice Department attorneys from Massachusetts because federal prosecutors in Albany oversaw the prosecutions of Kornak and Holland, both of whom were convicted of federal crimes related to research fraud. At a hearing scheduled for Monday, the government's attorneys are expected to argue for a dismissal of the class action lawsuit on the grounds there is no proof the experimental drugs caused more than one death. They have also argued that since the participants were terminally ill cancer patients their deaths were already likely, and their pain and suffering from the experimental drugs cannot be quantified. The widows' attorneys have filed hundreds of documents alleging negligence by the Department of Veterans Affairs, and comparing the scandal to Nazi experiments on humans during World War II. The fraud at Stratton was discovered in December 2001 by a monitor for a Texas drug company who visited Stratton and began scrutinizing the records of a cancer patient. The monitor, whose job was to check the integrity of drug studies, found a forged radiological report and confronted Kornak, the study coordinator. Kornak, 56, who had been working at Stratton for two years, got into a shouting match with the monitor and they had to be physically separated, according to sworn depositions of witnesses. It wasn't the first time Kornak had argued with a drug company monitor, witnesses said. This time, Kornak's behavior and the discovery of the forged medical record further raised the suspicions of co-workers who were already unsettled by the fact he was allowed to wear a name tag with "M.D." on it. He also was introduced to patients and their families as a doctor and carried VA-issued business cards that listed him as a medical doctor. Kornak was not a doctor. He was a convicted felon who never finished medical school and had tried more than once to use forged transcripts to obtain a medical license, according to federal court records. Fifteen years ago in Pennsylvania, Kornak pleaded guilty to federal mail fraud charges and was sentenced to probation after admitting he lied on a medical license application, the records show. After the drug company's monitor confronted Kornak, he told Holland what had happened. Holland responded by writing a memorandum to his research staff affirming their ethical obligations. On May 28, 2003, some five months after it was first discovered, Kornak and Holland reported the incident to Dr. Donald Pasquale, the chief of research and head of the hospital's Institutional Review Board for research. Pasquale initiated an internal probe, but the investigation began slowly and Kornak continued working. At that time, hospital officials were apparently unaware of the scope of the scandal or that nearly three-fourths of their cancer research patients had been subjected to fraud. Despite the fact that Kornak had admitted "scientific misconduct," and also that top hospital officials had begun questioning his credentials, he was allowed to continue working for almost 10 months, and he continued to commit more fraud. Hospital officials defend their actions, noting that Kornak was removed from caring for "sensitive patients" and his computer access was limited. "I strongly feel that our (system) functioned adequately," a high-ranking Stratton physician said during an interview at the newspaper last week. The physician declined to be identified on the grounds he or she is not authorized to talk about the case. Kornak was finally barred from Stratton's premises in October 2002 after a clerk in the cancer unit reported he'd tried to get her computer access code to hack into the system, according to court records. On Nov. 2, 2002, Pasquale and Dr. Eina Fishman, who was chief of staff at Stratton, met for two hours in Fishman's office with Holland. The meeting, which is characterized in the court documents as a "conversation," was tape recorded. According to a transcript of the meeting, Holland admitted he was overwhelmed with work and had relied on his three research coordinators, none of them physicians, to carry out many of his duties. Most notably, he said, the researchers took the lead in getting cancer patients to sign consent forms that would enroll them in drug studies. Still, Holland blamed Kornak. "This is so black and devious," he said in the meeting. "There's got to be a lot more to this and he's put all of our jobs at risk. And he put my medical license at risk. ... If I was (not) a calmer person, I would've strangled him." The infusion suite, where the drugs were administered, became so busy nurses were "pounding me ... this is not safe," Holland said. He recounted a case in which a patient could have died because of a prescription mishap that wasn't caught until the nurse who was supposed to administer the drugs noticed a problem. "That was cutting it really close; it should have never have gotten that far," Holland said. As for the high number of patients, Holland said he often felt "rushed" to treat them and under pressure from the drug companies to get more veterans in studies. Yet, he also said Kornak was pushing people into studies who didn't qualify, claiming Kornak's motive was to earn overtime pay from the added work. Looking back, Holland said at the time, he was concerned that at least four deaths may have been linked to Kornak's fraud and forgeries. Holland specifically cited the case of James J. DiGeorgio, an Air Force veteran from Rensselaer County who died during a drug study. Kornak would later be convicted of negligent homicide for DiGeorgio's death. Four deaths involving veterans on drug studies, including DiGeorgio, bothered Holland as he reflected on the circumstances of their cases, he said in the interview. Another veteran, George Hunt, died after being infused with experimental drugs that required subjects have no history of heart disease in order to qualify for them. In Hunt's case, his EKGs (electrocardiograms) used as criteria for admission to study had been handled by Kornak. "I was told that Paul had altered some EKGs, and I was hoping I saw the right EKG at that particular point," Holland said of his decision to order a drug infusion. "I'm afraid, hoping he wasn't the one that the EKG had been altered beforehand. ... Next thing I know, I come back in the morning and the guy had coded in the middle of the night." Hunt died later that day. In a deposition on Jan. 16 at the federal prison in Ohio at which he is serving a 71-month prison sentence, Kornak invoked his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination four times as he was pressed by an attorney for the widows about the extent of his crimes. Kornak cast blame on Holland, saying the former researcher knew Kornak lacked a medical license and that Holland encouraged staffers to push patients into the drug studies. "There was a blackboard or a marker board in the office areas that listed all the studies and he would urge that more patients be placed on the study that was less than fulfilled," Kornak said. "He told me there was no reason why a patient shouldn't be placed on a study ... that is the mantra that he lived by at the VA." Between 1998 and 2002, the number of studies at Albany's VA hospital jumped from five to nearly 30, Kornak said. "He opened up every study he could and decided to fill them to their capacity," Kornak said. "It seemed to me that he wanted me to take over more of his duties." Lori Megherian, another research coordinator, backed Kornak's version. In a seven-page affidavit given to investigators with the Food and Drug Administration, Megherian recounted Holland's drive to get patients enrolled. Holland would say "we need to get patients on the studies and our salaries are based on enrollment, on how much money we were bringing in," Megherian said. In January 2003, 13 months after the fraud was discovered, hospital officials began drafting letters to the families of research patients to notify them there was a problem. Fishman said she chose to personally attempt to contact the families of five veterans, including DiGeorgio and Carl M. Steubing, both of whose widows are plaintiffs in the lawsuit. "I had a concern that the deaths may have been related to the documentation issues," said Fishman, who no longer works at Stratton. Brendan J. Lyons can be reached at 454-5547 or by e-mail at blyons@timesunion.com. * Independent audit of Stratton research program: "Subjects were consented, enrolled, and examined by an individual posing as a medical doctor.... The Internal Review Board did not adequately protect the rights and welfare of human subjects." * Karen Sutton, whose father, Charles G. Merritt, a World War II Army veteran, died Aug. 10. 1999: "I remember my father saying he understood the importance of experimental chemo but he didn't want to do it. He was overmedicated and things got kind of out of control there for him. He was hallucinating. They falsified his records and Dr. Holland coerced him into signing the paper." * Interview of Dr. James Holland by VA officials, Nov. 8, 2002: "I was told that Paul had altered some EKGs and I was hoping I saw the right EKG -- I'm afraid, hoping he wasn't the one that the EKG had been altered beforehand -- I come back in the morning and the guy had coded in the middle of the night." Scandal in the making 1990: Paul H. Kornak is denied a medical license in New Jersey for falsifying documents in his application. 1992: Kornak, who never completed medical school and forged his college transcripts, is convicted of federal mail fraud in Pennsylvania for lying on a medical license application. He is sentenced to probation and fined $2,500. 1995: Stratton Veterans Affairs Medical Center pharmacist Jeffrey Fudin warns hospital officials of corruption in Stratton's cancer program that he said is resulting in "needless premature patient suffering and/or death." 1998: A review of Stratton's cancer program by other VA oncologists determines it is in disarray and patient care is poor. Dr. James A. Holland is hired by Stratton VA. 1999: Kornak is hired as a laboratory technician at Stratton through nonprofit Albany Research Institute. 2000: Holland appointed head of Stratton's cancer program, including research. Despite lying on his application, Kornak gets a government job at Stratton as a human research coordinator. 2001: Two nurses complain to Stratton's research oversight board that patients are at risk because of an overtaxed research department. One of the nurses is later reprimanded for issuing presigned prescriptions for controlled substances to patients. The cancer program's research studies have swelled from five in 1998 to more than 20. A monitor for Ilex Oncology, a Texas company funding a drug study at Stratton, discovers fraud in a patient's file at Stratton. 2002: FDA investigators report serious record-keeping flaws in Stratton's cancer research program, including alteration of patient medical tests. A federal criminal investigation is launched. Kornak and Holland are suspended and later terminated. 2003: Legislation is introduced in Congress creating an independent oversight office to keep tabs on medical research programs at Veterans Affairs hospitals nationwide. Dr. Thomas Ferro, a former pulmonary physician at Stratton who was appointed to lead the 1995 internal investigation of Fudin's allegations, tells the Times Union that he took part in a cover-up designed to "thwart the truth." Quintiles Consulting, an independent clinical site auditor hired by Stratton, discovers fraud in 70 percent of Stratton's cancer research patients' files. The confidential report concludes the hospital's human experiments "lack adequate oversight" and that an Institutional Review Board, which monitors research protocols, "did not adequately protect the rights and welfare of human subjects." A federal grand jury hands up a 48-count indictment against Kornak, including charges of negligent homicide. The first of seven widows of veterans, all of whom died after being enrolled in experimental drug studies at Stratton, files what is now a class-action lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, Kornak and Holland. 2005: Under a plea and cooperation agreement, Kornak pleads guilty to three felony counts and is sentenced to 71 months in federal prison. 2007: Holland pleads guilty in federal court to a misdemeanor count of failing to keep accurate records on research patients. He continues to practice medicine. His sentencing is pending. Compiled by Senior writer Brendan J. Lyons Sources: Interviews; U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs; federal court records; U.S. attorney's office Kelley http://www.2ndbattalion94thartillery.com/C...uewaterplus.htm

This and That I had to laugh at the AJC coverage of James Peake for new Secretary of Veterans Affairs. Words like, “Nominee to head VA pledges to do right thing by Veterans.” No mention of the fact that he and Principi were head haunchoes in the VA contract for Billions for their company to do the C & P on Veterans. The very minimum C & P; I might add. What a crock and a bunch of self-serving crooks we have inside 495. Then on top of all that they state he hedged on any specific plans he would implement for the Veterans Administration. Did anyone, especially Veterans and their families except anything differently? The best thing our government could do is fire every one of them and start over with a totally independent group or at least have the presidential puppet start out with no conflict of interest and an appointed position of at least 15 years so the head puppet does not bow and scrape to the executive branch or any other branch of government as the guide wires are tightened. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- About finished the Texas Tech presentation except for formatting, some additions on definitions which is boring and hard to do, and I want to use the Parkinson’s approval on a BVA claim to show that “biological plausibility” is good enough. We do not need to prove what the current level of science itself cannot prove in causation and etiology. Especially if science in general says, the herbicides are neurotoxic. Moreover, in one case I know of at Columbia the science funding was cutoff or at least hard to come by to prove the issues with 2,4, -D and ALS and other neurological disorders. So much for everything being associated with 2,4,5-T. I also want to show how in this case by Veterans Affairs being the science monitor and science decision makers for the nation, which it is not, and stating what is not presumptive and the influence at the court level it has. This includes the IOM also. Yes, inclusive is OK but not "exclusive" by the very court system you are seeking justice from is wrong. And just as a coniendcedce I am sure; what VA says, as the nations science monitor on toxicology is not associated; is exactly what Veterans and their families have been saying is associated for at least 28 years. What a coniendcedce in empirical data and study data; yet, Veterans Affairs can spit this stuff out like it is real facts. I hope those in the House we are working with will realize the wrongness of these Veterans Affairs activities when it comes to getting any kind of fair judgement or concluding points of contention from RO's or judges. Again I state that the Senate on these issues has been missing in action on all fronts. This would be like going into the court system where the judge has already been given by the supreme court, statements that your defense or presentation of the facts is not scientific nor plausible - before you and your doctor or doctors - even present your case. Not exactly what one would consider justice. I think I have some good points in recent findings in dioxin cell damages that are now measurable and some good associations to the cytokines that are affected by dioxin isomers and like isomers and the outcomes in immune system issues for death and disability. http://www.2ndbattalion94thartillery.com/Chas/tt.htm -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I did get e-mail from Debra at krasu@msn.com as follows: URGENT: Call to Action to Raise Public Awareness Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 11:31:42 AM EST We cannot say anything about any network in particular, but I will say there is one that is going through its second rounds of meetings about covering this forum. The point of this forum is to use this election as a platform to remind the American public that wars do not end when service members come home. (Were it only that simple.) We need people to contact the networks NOW urging them to cover the forum: 1) Go to: www.nbc.com/Footer/Contact_Us/ There is a pull down menu above the CONTACT US form: chose "OTHER" 2) Email: evenings@cbs.com with "story idea" in the subject line 3) Go to: www.cnn.com/exchange/ireports/topics/forms/breaking.news.html and http://www.cnn.com/feedback/fo... Info w/ data and stats at: http://militaryspousesforchang... Local news clip on our efforts: www.news8austin.com/content/your_news/default.asp?ArID=195555 Details Below Break Presidential Forum on Veterans, Wounded Warriors, and Military Families MSC is inviting the candidates from both parties to Texas to participate in this Forum at the end of January/no later than Feb. 3, 2008. We have been joined by Veterans and Military Families for Progress (www.vmfp.org), Not This Time Vets (www.notthistimevets.org), Veterans for Common Sense (www.veteransforcommonsense.org), Veterans Village (www.veteransvillage.org), Veterans United for Truth (www.vuft.org), Empowering Veterans (www.empoweringveterans.org), and the Farmers-Veterans Coalition (www.farmvetco.org). We will most likely have two separate forums, one for each party. We need your help. DETAILS BELOW As much as individual presidential candidates talk about health care plans or personal values, the fact remains that we are electing a war president. We are electing a president who will probably spend the bulk of his or her first term managing military conflicts and performing extensive foreign policy damage control. In 2008, the next President will inherit at least two wars and the costs of those wars, internally as well as internationally, will continue to grow long after the last service member comes home. Fort Hood is the largest military installation in the United States. There are almost 46,000 soldiers assigned to Fort Hood and more than 24,000 spouses. On any given day, at least a third of these soldiers are deployed to Iraq and every week at least two soldiers from Fort Hood (on average) are killed in Iraq. (I am 34 and I know more widows than my mother knows.) This kind of event has never been done before and it needs to be done now. Not only because Americans on both side of the aisle need to be reminded (before Super Tuesday) that we are electing the next Commander-in-Chief, but also because our service members and their families deserve to be addressed and heard by the people who wish to be elected in that position. We also think this country's large veteran community should know which candidates truly value the military and veteran vote (if not for moral reasons, then for practical reasons). There are approximately 1.4 million active duty service members in America and 1.2 million in the National Guard/Reserves. If you include the spouses, that comes to a total of 4.1 million votes. Meanwhile, according to the U.S. Census Bureau, 1 in 8 adults were veterans (26.4 million) in 2003. If we assume that at least half of those adults were married, then we have approximately 39 million vet couples giving us a total of almost 43 million American adults who are currently serving in the military, have served in the military, or are married to someone serving or who had served. That is not an insignificant number. As an organization and as military spouses, clearly U.S. foreign policy is important to us. But the American public has an interest in this as well, not only for fiscal reasons (e.g., we have spent 447 billion dollars on the war in Iraq alone), but for national security reasons. Furthermore, what about the depletion of our states' National Guard and reserve units? How are we going to replenish those units so that individual states can respond to a natural disaster or, heaven forbid, another 9/11? So far 1.5 million service members have been deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan. What are the candidates' positions on the possibility of reinstating the draft if, for example, we become engaged with Iran before he or she enters office? Since September 11, 2001, the Department of Defense has reported more than 64,000 wounded and 4,000 killed in Iraq or Afghanistan. The Department of Veterans Affairs, however, has reported treating 200,000 Iraq and Afghanistan war veterans, including 95,000 for mental health conditions. Meanwhile, an estimated 700,000 Iraq and Afghanistan veterans are expected to seek care from the VA within the next ten years, at a projected short-term cost of 7 to 9 billion dollars and long term cost of 660 BILLION dollars. A recent DoD taskforce assessing the mental health capabilities of the military announced: "The system of care for psychological health that has evolved over recent decades is insufficient to meet the needs of today's forces and their beneficiaries, and will not be sufficient to meet their needs in the future." http://www.ha.osd.mil/dhb/mhtf... What do the candidates propose to do for our returning wounded warriors and their families? How do we effectively identify their mental, physical, social, and financial needs and how do we effectively meet those needs? The suicide rate is the highest in almost 30 years and the propensity to serve is at a 20 year low. Consequently, the Army and Marine Corps are relying on reenlistment and recruiting bonuses that will cost nearly 2.5 billion dollars next year. Iraq is the defining electoral issue of 2008. Unfortunately, the war in Iraq does not end when the service member comes home and most people do not realize this. How do we help our military and veteran families receive the help they need emotionally, medically, and/or financially? What are our obligations and responsibilities to them as a nation once they have fulfilled their obligations and responsibilities to us? What can and/or should we be doing to help our returning warriors successfully reintegrate into peacetime society? If we don't take adequate care of our veterans and military families, this voluntary force upon which EVERY American today RELIES and ASSUMES will continue, will dry up. Isn't this a conversation EVERY AMERICAN needs to be having? The networks hesitate to commit to covering this event b/c they think Americans are not interested. Help us prove that they are wrong... Please share this with your friends via email, message boards, etc... -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Also, e-mail from Carissa Picard at http://www.militaryspousesforchange.com/ I just published this op-ed on military.com. They have asked me to contribute other pieces as well. You can see my profile and get the links to the sources cited within the article at: http://www.military.com/Military/NewDesign/Commentary At War With Themselves In 2006, Congress ordered the Secretary of Defense to assess the mental health needs of the Armed Forces and the ability of the DoD to meet those needs. As a result, the DoD created a Mental Health Task Force that found: "The system of care for the psychological health that has evolved over recent decades is insufficient to meet the needs of today's armed forces and their beneficiaries, and will not be sufficient to meet their needs in the future." (Read the full report) While recognizing the existence of these needs is an important step, it is only the first of many important steps that we have to take on behalf of our wounded warriors. The unmet mental health care needs of the men and women we send to wage war in other countries are causing them to wage their own wars, with themselves and with others, in this one. Consider 1st Lieutenant Whiteside. Lt. Whiteside faces criminal prosecution for trying to kill herself in Iraq. Granted, when she had her psychotic break she waved a gun around at her fellow soldiers to keep them away (so she could successfully shoot herself twice in the abdomen). The DoD acknowledges its institutional inability to ensure that its service members have the support and services they need to cope with extraordinary psychological stress and yet the Army believes Lt. Whiteside should be further penalized for what happened that day? Research by CBS News revealed at least 120 vets per week in 2005 committed suicide. Seventeen veterans committed suicide every day that year. I wonder how many service members and veterans attempted to kill themselves the day that Lt. Whiteside tried to kill herself? I wonder how many succeeded. Meanwhile, between 2001 and 2006, 22,500 service members, many of whom served combat tours, were involuntarily separated from the military (with no mental health treatment) for "personality disorders." In July, both Houses of Congress introduced legislation (S1817 and HR3167) to stop these discharges until the DoD can explain how it plans to accurately distinguish between PTSD and a bona fide personality disorder. Both bills have languished in their respective committees since then and these discharges continue. Yet PTSD that is undiagnosed, mismanaged, or untreated can manifest itself in violence towards one's self or towards others. Of course, we don't keep official records of these casualties. Senator Kit Bond recently told reporters that he was going to draft legislation asking the President to create a Special Review Board to re-evaluate the 22,500 service members who were discharged for these alleged "pre-existing" mental health conditions. Americans like to keep the ugliness of war contained so as to maintain an illusion of civility. In short, we have evolved enough as a species to feel shame about engaging in acts of war but we haven't evolved enough to avoid these acts in the first place. When we see the men and women who have been broken, physically or psychologically, by combat, the degree to which we have failed to truly be civilized is hard to accept. In "Just and Unjust Wars," the Michael Walzer wrote, "what we conveniently call inhumanity is simply humanity under pressure." Our wounded warriors reflect the side of human nature in general, and America in particular, that most Americans do not want to think about. So rather than take responsibility for sending these men and women to another country to do and see things that are really quite brutal (even if necessary), we ignore, minimize, or vilify the men and women who, in a very normal fashion, are traumatized in the process. The more our institutions make the service members' problems about them, the less uncivilized, inhumane, and/or unreasonable we are--the socio-national equivalent of putting a rape victim on trial. My point is this: our discomfort with our wounded warriors makes us even less civilized, not more. The very people whose wounds make us feel the least amount of pride individually are giving us an opportunity to do something to feel the most pride collectively. By tending to the wounds of those who remind us of our inhumanity, we become more humane. That means we have to do more than just bring our troops home, we have to take care of them when they are here. Pretending that we don't see them -- or trying not to think about them--doesn't make our wounded go away, it only makes it easier not to care. -- Carissa Picard President Military Spouses for Change 254.213.1101 406.498.2134 © Involve. Inform. Inspire. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I would add that yes Iraqi and Afghanistan Vets are in the news but let us not forget what our government did and is still doing to many other era Veterans including Nam and Gulf War Vets and DoD testing Vets. Vietnam Vets have and are still getting the long shaft from IOM and Veterans Affairs and from our government in general. While the Gulf War Vets, it is approaching that of our Nam Vets just as soon as we all die off and they are left. Then VA and the government and all involved in Nam Vets screwing, no different than other era vets, will say we are sorry you were right and we were wrong; our bad. Now who wants to sign up for more treatment just like we did to all the era period Veterans? I am glad we have the ones we have now but I and I know my entire family including extended family sure as hell would not recommend anyone serving in the military for this government. Not until some changes at DoD and VA and the IOM are made. Maybe Carissa and her group can get that done if we help. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Engineer: Dow data was bad.......big surprise!!!!!!!!!!!! It has been bad since this dioxin mess started! Thursday, December 6, 2007 Engineer: Dow data was bad Employee claims she was demoted after questioning test results on Tittabawassee River. Paul Egan / The Detroit News Dow Chemical Co. knowingly submitted bad data about chemical levels in the Tittabawassee River to state environmental regulators, a company insider alleges in a whistleblower lawsuit. Priscilla Denney, a Dow engineer who says she was responsible for validating Dow's data about levels of dioxin and other chemicals before it was sent to the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, alleges in a lawsuit filed in Saginaw County Circuit Court that she was demoted after raising concerns about the data. On Wednesday, a Dow spokeswoman denied that the company demoted Denney, who still works for the Midland-based chemical giant. Also, "we do stand by the data that was submitted," Jennifer Heronema said. "It was accurate, reliable data." By demoting Denney in January and requiring her to work from home, Dow ensured she "would be silenced and not be an obstacle to the submission of unvalidated data" to the state, Denney alleges in the lawsuit, which was served on Dow last week. Dow admits it discharged dioxin -- a highly toxic cancer-causing chemical -- into the water and air from its Midland plant for many years, though it says it stopped the practice decades ago. Dow is required to test and report soil and water conditions around the Tittabawassee as part of a 2005 agreement reached with the state to settle a lawsuit filed by Midland-area residents. Denney, represented by Saginaw attorney Victor Mastromarco, was a project engineering specialist responsible for the validation of chemical samples collected by a Dow contractor, Ann Arbor Technical Services Inc., and analyzed by another contractor, TriMatrix Laboratories of Grand Rapids. Project Enhancement Corp., the Germantown, Md., company hired to validate data from samples collected in August 2006, rejected the data that November because of "major technical non-compliance," Denney alleges in the lawsuit. Heronema confirmed Project Enhancement rejected the data, but said Dow had it tested by another company, which she could not identify. That company said Project Enhancement applied the wrong standards and the data was acceptable, she said. The samples in question did not relate to dioxin, but to other chlorinated chemicals and some metals, she said. Denney alleges she reported the flaws to her supervisors, but Dow "submitted said bad data to the (state) on or about Feb. 1, 2007." In retaliation for reporting the data validation problems, Denney alleges she was demoted. Robert McCann, a spokesman for the DEQ, said that in response to the lawsuit, the state asked Dow Monday for the backup information showing the data the company provided is valid. "We expect to have it by the end of the week," McCann said. There is no indication in the lawsuit whether the alleged data flaws would result in chemical levels being understated or exaggerated. Last month, scientists found a spot in the Saginaw River where the dioxin reading was 1.6 million parts per trillion -- 20 times higher than any previous sample in U.S. Environmental Protection Agency archives, officials said. Levels above 90 parts per trillion trigger state action. Ricardo Martinez, president of Project Enhancement, did not return a phone call. According to the complaint, Project Enhancement terminated its contract with Dow as a result of the data problems in December 2006. Peter Simon, project manager for Ann Arbor Technical Services, declined comment. Farmington Hills attorney Martin Bordoley said TriMatrix "felt their data was completely accurate." You can reach Paul Egan at (313) 222-2069 or pegan@detnews.com. Kelley http://www.2ndbattalion94thartillery.com:8...hisandthat2.htm

Thanks everyone. I was able to talk to Erica before she walked out the door to a meeting. I sent her an email with some background information and fwd a copy to Diane Winston with Pauls help. Erica has my money on returning a call. Need to stay off line until this evening. Will follow up..... Allan

OK. That went just like I expected it to. Talk about rude people. If there was a door open through this contact, (AMC Director Russo's office. 1- 202- 530- 9455 Ask to speak to Diane Winston)it was slammed shut by a rude conversation with fizz Sanders..............and "YOU" vets need to go through the "800" number. fizz Winston can't get her work done by being interfered with. Nice touch! A simple,(i'll let her know you called) apparently is way out of line. Next............. will try some of the other contacts. Don't care to speak with anymore mizz Sanders. I don't think she would have been so rude without Diane expressing how much she dislikes being asked for assistance. L8R

Hello Dean, My claim was assigned to the AMC for prosessing, when it opened in 2003. It has not been finalized for the simple fact that rating specialists have, "intentionally" ignored the evidence in the file. It doesn't matter if the evidence is in your folder or not. Raters simply set it asside and see what there is to deny on. Being patient is a blessing. I've been patient, lost it completely along with peace of mind and now i'm starting over again. This seems to be a door that has opened for some resolve with the years of waiting. It's rare to even hear of it. Allan **************************************** Paul/Betty, Im not understanding what a coach does at the AMC. Are Vets supposed to be assigned to one? Thank you Betty and Paul. It's almost 9am on the east coast. Maybe i'll try giving Diane another call a see what she discovered. Will post the results........... allan

PRESENTS! fwd from Gene Welcome to VFVC live on the air! December 4, 2007 Hosted by; Gene Simes & Jere Beery 9pm Eastern 8pm Central 7pm Mountain 6pm Pacific Listen live on your computer at: WWW.STARDUSTRADIO.COM Tune-in as Simes and Beery take on the recent televised CNN YouTube Presidential Debate, and the question of ‘Politically-Correct-Pollution’ within the mainstream media. Special Guest: RICK TOWNSEND National Director of the Firebase Network and host of the Firebase Network’s Veterans’ Hour on Stardust Radio Call in number: 1-877-213-4329 Toll Free!

Update on Texas Tech lecture http://www.2ndbattalion94thartillery.com/Chas/tt.htm Please remember this is all preliminary and in draft - I have a lot more handouts and work to do on this. Kelley

fwd from Mike Harris Hello All, This appears to be very good news. Now to see if it passes and is distributed properly. I thought Senator Craig went down in flames. Now here he is holding things up. GRRR...!!! Mike -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Money Tap for Vets Turns On Tom Philpott | November 21, 2007 Democrats Turned On Money Tap for Vet Programs Veterans’ service organizations are thrilled with a $43.1 billion appropriations bill that Congress is set to pass next month for the Department of Veterans Affairs. The funding level for veterans programs and facilities is almost 20 percent higher than demoralized Republican leaders left behind a year ago. The $6.9 billion increase will allow VA to hire 1800 more claim processors, beef up medical staffs and modernize long-neglected hospitals and clinics. “I can’t praise the Democratic leadership enough for what they’ve done with addressing the budget that was handed to them the day they took office,” said Steve Robertson, legislative director for the American Legion. The 109th Congress adjourned last December without passing a VA appropriations bill. It left the department operating under a “continuing resolution” with VA spending frozen at its fiscal ’06 level. In taking control of the 110th Congress, Democrats immediately raised VA funding for fiscal 2007 by $3.5 billion. They then turned to veterans groups for guidance on setting the VA budget for ‘08. As usual, four major organizations – Veterans of Foreign Wars, Disabled American Veterans, Paralyzed Veterans of America and American Veterans (AMVETS) – prepared an “independent budget” to guide lawmakers. The American Legion followed up, also as usual, with its own budget wish list. But then Democrats last spring did something very unusual. To the delight of advocacy groups, they used the budget guidance from vet groups to set their budget blueprint, making VA funding a clear priority. “In the 20 years I’ve been working in Washington,” said Robertson, “this is the first time that [Congress] met or exceeded every recommendation that was made by both the Independent Budget and the American Legion. It’s unprecedented.” It still is too early to access what veterans will gain legislatively in this year besides robust VA funding, which is a lock. Committee hearings and reports from special commissions produced many headlines on needed benefit gains. But many of the resulting ideas, from bigger GI Bill benefits to raised disability payments, were controversial and costly. Most likely they won’t win serious consideration from lawmakers until 2008, at the earliest. Other bills have been endorsed by the veterans’ affairs committees and some have been passed by either the House or the Senate. But their final passage is mired in partisan politics and special interests. In separate phone interviews before Thanksgiving, Sen. Daniel Akaka (Hawaii) and Rep. Bob Filner (Calif.), chairmen of the veterans’ affairs committees, cited the VA funding increases as the clear highlight of their first year holding their committee gavel. “The key thing is resources have been put in place to do the job,” said Filner. He describe a VA health system “stretched to its limit” by an aging veteran population and the special challenges of veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan with post-traumatic stress and traumatic brain injuries. “Typical for this administration, they weren’t prepared to deal with it,” said Filner who seldom passes on an opportunity to fire a partisan shot. “Here we are four to five years into the war and they still don’t have enough PTSD people or [experts] to consult on suicide. It’s just ridiculous.” Both chairmen said they continue to emphasis to colleagues, and to Bush administration officials, that care of veterans must be seen as a “cost of war.” Therefore VA budget increases must be part of any wartime supplemental budget bill passed to fund continued wartime operations. Though Akaka and Filner helped to secure sharp increases this year in VA funding, they also chair the committees responsible for authorizing new programs and raising current benefits. Their success in that role has not been established. Akaka confirmed that two major bills, which were cleared by his committee and are flush with initiatives to improve veterans’ healthcare and other benefits, might not be enacted until 2008. The Veterans’ Traumatic Brain Injury and Other Health Programs Improvement Act (S. 1233) would extend the period of eligibility for discharged combat veterans to have swift access to VA healthcare from two years to five. Veterans who believe they suffer one of the “invisible wounds” of PTSD or brain injury would be guaranteed a mental health exam within 30 days of making a request. The same bill would increase the travel reimbursement rate for veterans commuting long distances to get VA care. It would jump to 28 cents a mile from the 11 cent rate set in 1978. Sen. Larry Craig (R-Idaho) has put a hold on the bill, however, because of a provision was added after it cleared committee to reopen VA healthcare to new Priority 8 enrollees. These are veterans with no service-connected disabilities and adequate incomes by government standards. Akaka and Filner support Priority 8 enrollments. Dan Whiting, Craig’s spokesman, said he opposes reopening VA health care to every veteran “because it would take resources away from returning injured veterans.” Craig also is blocking the Veterans Benefits Enhancement Act (S. 1315) which would improve veterans' life insurance, adaptable housing and other benefits. What he opposes in this bill is language to give service pensions to Filipino veterans of World War II. Craig argues the pensions are too generous and they would be paid with dollars earmarked to provide a special monthly pension for elderly and housebound U.S. veterans. Akaka and Filner pushed the Filipino pension provision through committee. Both have large Filipino populations among their constituencies. Whiting said Craig is talking with Akaka about a possible compromise. http://www.military.com/features/0,15240,156818,00.html

Thank You Betty. I'll give Diane a few days than follow up with your sugestion. Thanks for your help. WoW! Your claim really was rated? I am so happy for you lady. Allan

>Allen, believe me if you call the Directors number and ask to speak to Diane Winston and tell them you must speak to her about your claim, this guy will put you through. Always, Josephine ********************************************* I called Director Russo's office and they put me through to Diane Winston yesterday. I think she thought I was lying from the beginning because of the computer date of my claim being received by the AMC and entered as,"ready to rate" status". That took a great deal of time to convince her I wasn't lying to her. She kept trying to get me to call the 1-800 line, but finally started to check out what I was saying. According to her, the AMC computers show the date my claim went to "ready to rate" status was Oct 6, 2007. She kept saying we just received your remand and could understand why I was claiming the AMC has had it for 17 months without beginning to correct the errors. Some how, she was able to view the BVA remand from June-2006. And I was finally able to convince her that the correct date of ready to rate status was June 22,2006. I than asked if she had ever heard of a Dr Bash? She said she had and said he is a specialist of some kind. I then let her know if someone properly viewed the three IMO's the BVA is remanding the claim for, that my claim can be finalized. I said my claim has been at the AMC since it opened in 2003 and has a 1998 docket number. She finally asked for my number to call me back . She said I don't want you to have to wait another 5 days to hear something. Maybe she could see that I called last Monday? The AMC computers no longer show I have a claim for multiple sclerosis. When they want to, they can hang you up for a long time, just by false entries into the computers. I called at 11:15 am yesterday. As much as I heard, "you should call the 1-800 number", I have no faith in hearing a return call or a resolve to the stall tactics If I do. VA is as VA does.

fwd from: Colonel Dan Call their number, the number to call is BR 549, quicker answers from Junior Sample Monday, December 3, 2007 Military Update: Silence on VA Retro Pay frustrates retirees By Tom Philpott, Special to Stars and Stripes Pacific edition, Saturday, December 1, 2007 http://www.stripes.com/article.asp?section...mp;archive=true Retired Air Force Maj. Eric Pettersen, 61, of Colorado Springs, Colo., has been frustrated for months by a lack of information on the VA Retro Pay program coming from the Defense Finance and Accounting Service. His frustration, and that of many retirees, turned to anger when a Nov. 15 self-imposed deadline for DFAS to complete a review of pay records for 133,000 disabled retirees, that original pool of retirees potentially eligible for retroactive “concurrent receipt” payments, was missed without explanation. The retro pay program, which so far has paid catch-up amounts worth $200 million to disabled retirees, has been marred by several missed deadlines and shoddy communication. But those failings will be addressed, a senior DFAS official vowed in a Wednesday interview with Military Update. “We have not met customer expectations. I personally find that unacceptable and apologize to all the VA Retro-eligible recipients,” said Lee Krushinski. The senior executive has been acting director of operations for DFAS for three weeks, since replacing Patrick Shine who retired Oct. 31. DFAS and VA officials, when they launched the VA Retro Pay effort in September 2006, said all payments would be made within a year. In August, as that year drew to a close, officials said all but 33,000 files had been reviewed. DFAS set a new deadline of mid-November to fully pay the original pool of eligible retirees, many of whom are owed thousands. DFAS officials now acknowledge that they didn’t have a firm grasp on the facts when they revised that deadline three months ago. As of Nov. 15, a total of 48,760 files of disabled retirees still needed to have pay reviews completed to determine retro pay eligibility. Also, DFAS officials say they don’t have enough facts yet to set a new completion of payment deadline. Pettersen believes he is owed more than $25,000. It’s not the wait that angers him, he said, as much as the information void at DFAS, even after the agency misses it own deadlines for notifying eligible retirees. He said a DFAS official had told him his file was being reviewed, but if he didn’t get a payment notice by Nov. 15, he should assume he is ineligible. “I know I’m entitled,” Pettersen said. “But there’s no one to communicate with. It’s like some sort of covert program where if you don’t get a letter saying you’re going to get money, you can’t ask a question. But when you do ask a question, they can’t give you any information. “What’s going on? Why didn’t they put something in retiree newsletters, or send an e-mail saying ‘We’re not going to be done by the November date.’?” The money that Pettersen believes he is due was withheld from his retired pay from April 2004 to mid-August 2006, a period when DFAS and the Department of Veterans Affairs were still debating how to implement Combat-Related Special Compensation (CRSC) and Concurrent Retirement and Disability Pay (CRDP). The pays were enacted in 2003 and 2004 to begin to dismantle a ban on concurrent receipt of military retirement and VA disability compensation. VA and DFAS still struggle with the complexity of the payments, particularly with compensating eligible retirees retroactively. Individual retro payments so far have averaged about $1,800. With Petersen, however, the VA took 29 months to reassess his 80 percent disability rating. When it was raised to 100 percent in August 2006, he became eligible, back to April 2004, for higher CRDP payments. Krushinski promises to address VA Retro Pay problems. One of his first steps is to improve communication, he said. Letters are being sent immediately to all retirees with files being reviewed and to 46,000 retirees whose files have been reviewed but have no back pay due. It is “just unacceptable” that these retirees weren’t informed earlier, Krushinski said. “Communication with our customers was not what I would call adequate, at all,” he said. The missed deadlines, and the inaccurate statements on progress made earlier by DFAS and VA officials, were blamed in part on a misunderstanding of data being supplied by Lockheed Martin, the contractor hired to review files and calculate payments. The “payments” reported often only partially compensated retirees for total retro pay due. For example, some retirees are eligible for both CRSC or CRDP and can switch between the programs each year based which will pay more for their personal circumstances. A retiree might be due two or three “payments.” DFAS officials had misinterpreted Lockheed’s monthly payment totals to mean total retiree pay files reviewed and cleared. This fooled Pat Shine before he retired. It also left Thomas J. Pamperin, deputy director of the VA compensation and pension service, misinformed. These two senior officials routinely briefed readers of Military Update on progress with the program. Krushinski said he too misunderstood the data when briefed on VA Retro Pay just a few weeks ago. It was only after he “sat down with everybody and really went through the numbers, drilling into them, that I definitely saw the problems we have here.” Wrong numbers given “the media,” he said, “led many people to believe we were closer to finishing the project than we actually were.” Lockheed Martin personnel trained to screen retiree pay files have cleared 128,000 payments through Nov. 15. But only 84,300 potentially eligible retirees from the original 133,000 pool have had pay files reviewed. Lockheed has been told to raise the number of full-time personnel hired for the project by 16, to reach 98 in December, an official said. Another factor for November’s missed deadline was computer software developed to automate retro pay calculations. It had an error rate of 17 percent and had to be scrapped. “We really counted on that automation to allow us to get out of manual processing,” Krushinski said. DFAS officials couldn’t explain why that information wasn’t shared with retirees before now. To comment, e-mail milupdate@aol.com, write Military Update, P.O. Box 231111, Centreville, VA 20120-1111 or visit www.militaryupdate.com © 2007 Stars and Stripes. All Rights Reserved. __._,_.___ Messages in this topic (1) Reply (via web post) | Start a new topic Messages "Keep on, Keepin' on" Dan Cedusky, Champaign IL "Colonel Dan" See my web site at: http://www.angelfire.com/il2/VeteranIssues/

fwd from Mike Harris............. Hello All, Earlier this year I was asked to host a web based radio broadcast dealing with veterans matters. "Jerrel Cook", who owns the "Surviving Veterans Resolve" (SVR) portion of the "Stardust Radio Network" (SRN) then asked me to do a 2nd show on August 22, 2007. I termed the program "VA Claims 101" and it came off very nicely according to the listeners. A couple of weeks ago Jerrel asked me to consider doing a once a month show with more of a "Christian" emphasis for veterans. Early next year he would like to increase the broadcasts to 4 per month. This is a wonderful opportunity...! The call-in talk show last 1 1/2 hours. It is broadcast over the Internet and currently reaches approximately 40,000 listeners. Anyone with a laptop and the website can listen in. This means our military personnel in places like Afghanistan and Iraq can pick up the show if they are connected in. I discussed the matter with Dana Morgan, President of Point Man International Ministries (PMIM) in NY. Dana is all for having PMIM participate whenever possible. I then contacted Chuck Dean to see if he would be interested in being on the initial show to sort of "break the ice". He agreed. Dana will most likely be a guest on the next show. Then I would like to have varied guests like Bridget Cantrell, PhD, Lee Craig who is PM in Redding, Ca and others participate. It's wide open so join me in prayer as we see what the Holy Spirit has in store. The show will air on Wednesday - December 5th - 6:30 PM Eastern Time. This means we who are involved on the west coast will join in at 3:30 PM our time. Here are some simple instructions for connecting to the broadcast. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- To Listen to the SVR "Surviving Veterans Resolve" With Host Jerrel Cook * 5:30 to 7:00 pm eastern time Every Wednesday Instructions To Listen To Live Shows On Stardust Web Radio 1) Using Windows Media * Go to http://www.stardustent.com/ * Go To Upper Right Corner. Under picture of microphone you will see: * If you are having problems listening to our station...click here for winamp or real player * Click where shown and your sound device will show up allowing you to start the sound from the station. [ The Chat Star phase below is optional. You can listen to the broadcast by using the information above without participating in the chat portion ] 2) Using Chat Star Auditorium with Multi Media (Sound & Video) * Go to http://www.stardustent.com/ * Scroll down to and then click on the Gold & White Chat Star box * You will see two boxes – If you are already a member, click on the member box. * If you would like to become a member to use the auditorium, click on the sign-up box. Fill out the information in the next screen. At some point in the sign up process, you will be asked to download the software to use Chat Star. It takes about 30 seconds and it is totally safe – no spyware or anything else. Chat Star is a totally family safe “community” and only legal and ethical software and behavior is allowed. * Next, you will be taken to the Chat Star Welcome page where you will see some highlights on some upcoming events and you will see a list of the “rooms” to your left. If you wish to listen to the SVR Broadcast or any other show, just click on that room. > Once you have entered the SVR room, you can interact by typing in your questions or comments to the moderators and show hosts! Place your cursor in the small center box and type in your message. By hitting your “Enter” key, your message will be moved from that box into the upper box, where it will be visible to all in the auditorium. * Stardust has recently introduced Chat Star and is making rooms available at very reasonable corporate rates and is offering special arrangements to those involved in the support of our country. If you have any questions, please let us know! Judi & Jeff Stardust Radio nwflangel@embarqmail.com or unitedweroll@stardustradio.com -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Thanks in advance for your prayers regarding this matter. It will be interesting to see what direction the shows take. May it ALL be for our Lord's glory... Only By HIS Grace, Mike Harris Business: http://www.legaciesofhonor.com Personal: http://www.riverinesailor.com Webmaster: http://www.mrfa.org Webmaster: http://www.pointman101.org

Hello Josephine, A decision by rating officers that refuse to reconize "evidence of the record", IMO's, SMR's private treatment records etc will generate a denial on a remand. It takes two years to have the BVA review your claim again and say, dang! They didn't do what we requested? So they send it back to the Appeals Management Center for another remand to do exactly what they asked three years ago. Your claim will likely stay in "ready to wait status" at the AMC for a year or two before a rating officer actually reviews your folder. Then they will completely ignore just about anything resembling favorable evidence and get nasty in their denials like, "you didn't have a brain when you enlisted, so you couldn't have developed any mental disorders during service" and deny the claim. The Cycle repeats itself. Discourging isn't the word for it. It plays on your mind constantly and eats a hole in a persons spirit to experience the injustice, over and over and over again. If those numbers didn't provoke someone to take a look at your situation, a vet thats been stuck in the,"when pigs fly" pile all these years, especially a Tin Can Navy Vet, ain't likely to get any responce. Thanks Paul! I'll call again tomarrow. like you said, maybe I just got ahold of someone that was filling in. The one I talked to, sounded like calling the AMC Directors office for a claims issue, wasn't appropreate. Thats why he said he would have someone call me from claims. If he gave a name, I sure don't remember it. I've also recieved a letter to reply to AMC at "I" street. And letter to reply to AMC at "EYE" street. Allan ********************************************* Allen, Your statement is no problem. I guess I just get discusted with the whole blooming mess. I can't get out of the AMC and I would prefer a denial, just to get out of there. Is there an answer, I haven't located it to date. The Court is the best place to be, but don't know how to get there. Always, Josephine