allan

[allan, I'm still trying to figure out if my brain atrophy is associated with my TBI, if there will continue to be more atrophy, the effects it has had over the years and if I will deteriorate more due to it. carlie ] Carlie, im sure i've posted medical information showing brain atrophy is associated with TBI. Recheck the TBI section. As for will it continue to atrophy? You should get a consult with a neurologist to get those answers. I know that doesn't ease the fear, but it may be the best way to find out. Allan

The Pathology Guy http://www.pathguy.com/

It's very difficult Carlie, It took me years of researching & looking up definitions of the medical terms. I could not understand why the VAMC Dr's would keep down playing the lesion in the corpus collosum & wouldn't discuss it. One neurologist said I shouldn't worry about that. He said it's healing well. A lesion in the corpus collosum is specific for MS, not TBI. Anyone with neurological symptoms should study their diagnostic tests like MRI's & catscans very carefully.

Recent VA News Releases To view and download VA news release, please visit the following Internet address: http://www.va.gov/opa/pressrel Secretary Shinseki Announces Expansion of Counseling for Combat Veterans Additional 28 New Community Vet Centers WASHINGTON (August 14, 2009) - Today, Secretary of Veterans Affairs Eric K. Shinseki announced that combat Veterans will receive readjustment counseling and other assistance in 28 additional communities across the country where the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) will establish Vet Centers in 2010. "VA is committed to providing high-quality outreach and readjustment counseling to all combat Veterans," Secretary Shinseki said. "These 28 new Vet Centers will address the growing need for those services." The community-based Vet Centers -- already in all 50 states -- are a key component of VA's mental health program, providing Veterans with mental health screening and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) counseling. The existing 232 centers conduct community outreach to offer counseling on employment, family issues and education to combat Veterans and family members, as well as bereavement counseling for families of servicemembers killed on active duty and counseling for Veterans who were sexually harassed on active duty. Vet Center services are earned through service in a combat zone or area of hostility and are provided at no cost to Veterans or their families. They are staffed by small multi-disciplinary teams, which may include social workers, psychologists, psychiatric nurses, master's-level counselors and outreach specialists. Over 70 percent of Vet Center employees are Veterans themselves, a majority of whom served in combat zones. The Vet Center program was established in 1979 by Congress, recognizing that many Vietnam Veterans were still having readjustment problems. In 2008, the Vet Center program provided over 1.1 million visits to over 167,000 Veterans, including over 53,000 visits by more than 14,500 Veteran families. More information about Vet Centers can be found at www.vetcenter.va.gov/index.asp. Communities Receiving New VA Vet Centers American Samoa Arizona -- Mohave and Yuma Counties California -- San Luis Obispo County Delaware - Sussex County Florida -Marion, Lake, Collier, Okaloosa and Bay Counties Georgia - Muscogee and Richmond Counties Hawaii - Western Oahu Indiana - St. Joseph County Louisiana - Rapides Parish Michigan - Grand Traverse County, also serving Wexford County Missouri - Boone County Montana - Cascade and Flathead Counties Ohio - Stark County Oregon - Deschutes County Pennsylvania - Lancaster County South Carolina - Horry County Texas - Jefferson and Taylor Counties Utah - Washington County Washington - Walla Walla County, also serving Umatilla County, Oregon Wisconsin - LaCrosse County, also serving Monroe County

Casualties of War, Part I: The hell of war comes home http://www.gazette.com/articles/iframe-590...idge-audio.html

Spokane VAMC Expanding Its Behavioral Health Department. The Spokane (WA) Spokesman-Review (8/13, Graman) reports, "Amid a revolt by its staff psychiatrists, the Spokane Veterans Affairs Medical Center has begun expanding a behavioral health department strained by an increasing number of veterans seeking help. In a July 24 e-mail, all four of the department's psychiatrists and one psychiatric nurse practitioner said they would refuse to accept new patients." The employees "said they could not add to their caseloads, which they said in some cases were more than 70 percent above the VA standard." The "stand came amid increasing concern across the nation about the mental health of service members returning from Iraq and Afghanistan and after a spike in suicides last year among veterans in the Spokane area." http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2009/aug/...atric-staffing/ SOURCE: http://www.veteranstoday.com/article8273.html

I've posted a time & place to find out. You know, I've read this email over & over again & I couldn't find any more to it no matter how hard I tried. The only thing I can figure out is to go to this site & find out what it's about. Stardust Radio has been posted by me, Berta & others for years on hadit.com. It's on every week on Wed & old shows can be seen there as well. I am not responcible for the content of the online radio show for veterans, just for informing you of it. Allan

White Matter Brain Lesions http://spinwarp.ucsd.edu/NeuroWeb/Text/br-840.htm

[What types of VA or otherwise therapy/assistance are available for mild-TBI?] I was diagnosed with TBI in 2004 by a VA neurologist & share many of the symptoms you have discribed. Haven't recieved any specific treatment for it yet. From what I've been told is little can be done but treat the symptoms. They tell me the same about MS. There are several disorders that may cause the white UBO's on brain MRI's besides TBI. Gliosis, Ischemia, MS. It was described to me as holes that fill with water. Nothing to worry about, is what I was told for over a decade before being diagnosed.

VA Research Advances Brief updates on the work of VA Research. Each fact sheet focuses on a specific disease or research topic and presents information on VA's most recent research developments and impacts. http://www.research.va.gov/resources/pubs/factsheets.cfm

e-CFR Data is current as of July 31, 2009 Title 38: Pensions, Bonuses, and Veterans' Relief PART 4—SCHEDULE FOR RATING DISABILITIES Subpart A—General Policy in Rating Browse Previous | Browse Next § 4.2 Interpretation of examination reports. Different examiners, at different times, will not describe the same disability in the same language. Features of the disability which must have persisted unchanged may be overlooked or a change for the better or worse may not be accurately appreciated or described. It is the responsibility of the rating specialist to interpret reports of examination in the light of the whole recorded history, reconciling the various reports into a consistent picture so that the current rating may accurately reflect the elements of disability present. Each disability must be considered from the point of view of the veteran working or seeking work. If a diagnosis is not supported by the findings on the examination report or if the report does not contain sufficient detail, it is incumbent upon the rating board to return the report as inadequate for evaluation purposes. [41 FR 11292, Mar. 18, 1976] SOURCE: http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-...7.2&idno=38

e-CFR Data is current as of July 31, 2009 Title 38: Pensions, Bonuses, and Veterans' Relief PART 4—SCHEDULE FOR RATING DISABILITIES Subpart B—Disability Ratings The Musculoskeletal System Browse Previous | Browse Next § 4.41 History of injury. In considering the residuals of injury, it is essential to trace the medical-industrial history of the disabled person from the original injury, considering the nature of the injury and the attendant circumstances, and the requirements for, and the effect of, treatment over past periods, and the course of the recovery to date. The duration of the initial, and any subsequent, period of total incapacity, especially periods reflecting delayed union, inflammation, swelling, drainage, or operative intervention, should be given close attention. This consideration, or the absence of clear cut evidence of injury, may result in classifying the disability as not of traumatic origin, either reflecting congenital or developmental etiology, or the effects of healed disease. SOURCE: http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-...7.2&idno=38

e-CFR Data is current as of July 31, 2009 Title 38: Pensions, Bonuses, and Veterans' Relief PART 4—SCHEDULE FOR RATING DISABILITIES Subpart B—Disability Ratings The Musculoskeletal System Browse Previous | Browse Next § 4.70 Inadequate examinations. If the report of examination is inadequate as a basis for the required consideration of service connection and evaluation, the rating agency may request a supplementary report from the examiner giving further details as to the limitations of the disabled person's ordinary activity imposed by the disease, injury, or residual condition, the prognosis for return to, or continuance of, useful work. When the best interests of the service will be advanced by personal conference with the examiner, such conference may be arranged through channels. SOURCE: http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-....24&idno=38

e-CFR Data is current as of July 31, 2009 Title 38: Pensions, Bonuses, and Veterans' Relief PART 17—MEDICAL Enrollment Provisions and Medical Benefits Package Browse Previous | Browse Next § 17.38 Medical benefits package. (a) Subject to paragraphs (b) and © of this section, the following hospital, outpatient, and extended care services constitute the “medical benefits package” (basic care and preventive care): (1) Basic care. (i) Outpatient medical, surgical, and mental healthcare, including care for substance abuse. (ii) Inpatient hospital, medical, surgical, and mental healthcare, including care for substance abuse. (iii) Prescription drugs, including over-the-counter drugs and medical and surgical supplies available under the VA national formulary system. (iv) Emergency care in VA facilities; and emergency care in non-VA facilities in accordance with sharing contracts or if authorized by §§17.52(a)(3), 17.53, 17.54, 17.120–132. (v) Bereavement counseling as authorized in §17.98. (vi) Comprehensive rehabilitative services other than vocational services provided under 38 U.S.C. chapter 31. (vii) Consultation, professional counseling, training, and mental health services for the members of the immediate family or legal guardian of the veteran or the individual in whose household the veteran certifies an intention to live, if needed to treat: (A) The service-connected disability of a veteran; or (B) The nonservice-connected disability of a veteran where these services were first given during the veteran's hospitalization and continuing them is essential to permit the veteran's release from inpatient care. (viii) Durable medical equipment and prosthetic and orthotic devices, including eyeglasses and hearing aids as authorized under §17.149. (ix) Home health services authorized under 38 U.S.C. 1717 and 1720C. (x) Reconstructive (plastic) surgery required as a result of disease or trauma, but not including cosmetic surgery that is not medically necessary. (xi)(A) Hospice care, palliative care, and institutional respite care; and (B) Noninstitutional geriatric evaluation, noninstitutional adult day health care, and noninstitutional respite care. (xii) Payment of beneficiary travel as authorized under 38 CFR part 70. (xiii) Pregnancy and delivery services, to the extent authorized by law. (xiv) Completion of forms (e.g., Family Medical Leave forms, life insurance applications, Department of Education forms for loan repayment exemptions based on disability, non-VA disability program forms) by healthcare professionals based on an examination or knowledge of the veteran's condition, but not including the completion of forms for examinations if a third party customarily will pay health care practitioners for the examination but will not pay VA. (2) Preventive care, as defined in 38 U.S.C. 1701(9), which includes: (i) Periodic medical exams. (ii) Health education, including nutrition education. (iii) Maintenance of drug-use profiles, drug monitoring, and drug use education. (iv) Mental health and substance abuse preventive services. (v) Immunizations against infectious disease. (vi) Prevention of musculoskeletal deformity or other gradually developing disabilities of a metabolic or degenerative nature. (vii) Genetic counseling concerning inheritance of genetically determined diseases. (viii) Routine vision testing and eye-care services. (ix) Periodic reexamination of members of high-risk groups for selected diseases and for functional decline of sensory organs, and the services to treat these diseases and functional declines. (b) Provision of the “medical benefits package”. Care referred to in the “medical benefits package” will be provided to individuals only if it is determined by appropriate healthcare professionals that the care is needed to promote, preserve, or restore the health of the individual and is in accord with generally accepted standards of medical practice. (1) Promote health. Care is deemed to promote health if the care will enhance the quality of life or daily functional level of the veteran, identify a predisposition for development of a condition or early onset of disease which can be partly or totally ameliorated by monitoring or early diagnosis and treatment, and prevent future disease. (2) Preserve health. Care is deemed to preserve health if the care will maintain the current quality of life or daily functional level of the veteran, prevent the progression of disease, cure disease, or extend life span. (3) Restoring health. Care is deemed to restore health if the care will restore the quality of life or daily functional level that has been lost due to illness or injury. © In addition to the care specifically excluded from the “medical benefits package” under paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section, the “medical benefits package” does not include the following: (1) Abortions and abortion counseling. (2) In vitro fertilization. (3) Drugs, biologicals, and medical devices not approved by the Food and Drug Administration unless the treating medical facility is conducting formal clinical trials under an Investigational Device Exemption (IDE) or an Investigational New Drug (IND) application, or the drugs, biologicals, or medical devices are prescribed under a compassionate use exemption. (4) Gender alterations. (5) Hospital and outpatient care for a veteran who is either a patient or inmate in an institution of another government agency if that agency has a duty to give the care or services. (6) Membership in spas and health clubs. (Authority: 38 U.S.C. 101, 501, 1701, 1705, 1710, 1710A, 1721, 1722) [64 FR 54217, Oct. 6, 1999, as amended at 67 FR 35039, May 17, 2002; 73 FR 36798, June 30, 2008] SOURCE: http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-...r17_main_02.tpl

Subject: AGENT ORANGE EXPOSURE 3.8 DISABILITY COMPENSATION FOR DISEASES ASSOCIATED WITH AGENT ORANGE AND OTHER HERBICIDES USED IN VIETNAM 3.8.1 The Three Requirements for Disability Compensation Based Upon Agent Orange Exposure 3.8.1.1 The Vietnam Service Requirement 3.8.1.2 The Second Requirement: Medical Evidence That the Veteran Has a Disease, or the Residuals of a Disease, Associated with Agent Orange Exposure 3.8.1.3 The Third Requirement for Some Diseases: Medical Evidence of the Onset of the Disease Within a Certain Time Period 3.8.1.4 Special Rules Regarding Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma (NHL) 3.8.2 Veterans Should Reapply If Previously Denied Compensation for a Disease Listed in Table 3-1 3.8.3 Vietnam Veterans Who Have a Disease Not Recognized by VA as Connected to Agent Orange Exposure 3.8.4 Veterans Exposed to Agent Orange Outside Vietnam or Not During the Vietnam Era 3.8.5 The Lawsuits Against the Chemical Companies that Manufactured Agent Orange Congress and the VA have afforded Vietnam veterans with an additional method to qualify for compensation benefits for certain diseases associated with Agent Orange.541 Vietnam veterans who have one of the diseases now recognized by the VA as connected to Agent Orange exposure, or the residuals of one of these diseases, are able to have their disabilities presumptively service connected. This change in law is relatively recent.542 During the 1970s and 1980s, the VA denied tens of thousands of claims for disabilities and death which Vietnam veterans and their survivors attributed to Agent Orange exposure. Partially due to NVLSP's advocacy, the VA was forced to acknowledge beginning in 1990 that several types of cancer and other serious diseases are related to Agent Orange exposure. As a result, thousands of Vietnam veterans and their survivors have received hundreds of millions of dollars in disability and death benefits. Additional favorable changes in law have recently occurred and may occur in the future. As a result of the Agent Orange Act of 1991,543 the VA has contracted with an independent organization, the National Academy of Sciences, to review the scientific evidence on links between dioxin exposure and disease. Whenever the National Academy issues a periodic report about its review of the scientific evidence, the VA must decide whether additional diseases should be service connected. The Act requires the VA to service connect a disease based on exposure to Agent Orange if the National Academy report and other evidence show a positive association exists between Agent Orange and the disease. If the credible evidence for an association between Agent Orange exposure and a disease is equal to, or outweighs the credible evidence against, then the VA must service connect the disease. Under the contract with the VA, the National Academy has already issued four reports on the health effects of Agent Orange, plus a special report on the link between diabetes and Agent Orange exposure.544 As a result of the first two reports of the National Academy, the VA added many more diseases to the list of diseases presumed to be connected to Agent Orange exposure. The National Academy is continuing to analyze the scientific studies on the health effects of exposure to the herbicides used in Vietnam and will issue additional reports every two years until the year 2014.545 Therefore, the VA may further revise their Agent Orange service connection rules in the future. Advocates who represent Vietnam veterans and their surviving family members can research the latest developments in this rapidly changing area of veterans' benefits law on NVLSP's web site (http://www.nvlsp.org). Footnotes 541. Agent Orange is the most commonly used of the many herbicides that were used during the Vietnam War, including Agents Blue, White, Purple, Brown, Green and Pink. Agent Orange was made from a combination of two compounds: 2,4-D and 2,4,5-T, which are chlorinated phenoxy acids. Exposure to Agent Orange has been associated with a variety of adverse health effects, largely because of the presence of a contaminant that is commonly known as dioxin. For purposes of this Manual, the term "Agent Orange" is used to refer to all of the herbicides used in Vietnam. 542. See 38 U.S.C.S. § 1116(a); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.307(a)(6), 3.309(e) (2002). 543. 38 U.S.C.S. § 1116(a). 544. In 1999, then Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Togo West, requested that the National Academy expedite its report on Agent Orange exposure and diabetes. This report was issued on October 11, 2000, resulting in the addition of type 2 diabetes to the list of diseases presumed to be connected to Agent Orange. 545. See Pub. L. No. 107-103, Tit. II, § 201(d)(2), 115 Stat. 988 (Dec. 27, 2001). 3.8.1 The Three Requirements for Disability Compensation Based Upon Agent Orange Exposure To qualify for disability compensation based on Agent Orange exposure, a veteran only needs to satisfy two or three simple rules: (1) the veteran served in Vietnam during the Vietnam era; and (2) the veteran currently has one of the diseases, or the residuals of one of the diseases, recognized by the VA as linked to Agent Orange exposure to a disabling degree of 10% or more; and (3) for some (but not all) of the recognized non-cancer diseases (but not for any of the recognized cancers546), the disease manifested itself within a certain time period from the last day of service in Vietnam. Footnotes 546.. Prior to 2002, the recognized respiratory cancers were subject to a time manifestation requirement. See Section 3.8.1.3. 3.8.1.1 The Vietnam Service Requirement Vietnam veterans do not need to prove actual exposure to Agent Orange or any other herbicide during service in Vietnam to qualify for presumptive service connection. The rules require the VA to assume that if a veteran served in Vietnam, the veteran was exposed.547 Therefore, the requirement of an in-service precipitating event reduces to showing that the veteran served in Vietnam during the Vietnam era. Service in Vietnam is defined as "active military, naval, or air service . . . in the Republic of Vietnam at some point between January 9, 1962, and May 7, 1975."548 This includes service "in the waters offshore and service in other locations if the conditions of service involved duty or visitation in the Republic of Vietnam."549 Flying over Vietnam in an aircraft, without landing in Vietnam, does not qualify as service in Vietnam.550 Further, serving on board a ship in the waters offshore, without any visitation in Vietnam, generally does not qualify as service in Vietnam.551 Footnotes 547. See 38 U.S.C.S. § 1116(a). 548. 38 C.F.R. § 3.307(a)(6)(iii) (2002). See also, 38 U.S.C.S. § 1116(a)(3). 549. Id. 550. VA Gen. Coun. Prec. 7-93 (Aug. 12, 1993). 551. VA Gen. Coun. Prec. 21-97 (July 23, 1997). 3.8.1.2 The Second Requirement: Medical Evidence That the Veteran Has a Disease, or the Residuals of a Disease, Associated with Agent Orange Exposure To satisfy the second requirement, Vietnam veterans only need submit medical evidence showing that they currently have one of the recognized diseases (or its residuals) to a disabling degree of 10% or more.552 All of the diseases on the VA's recognized list of conditions linked to Agent Orange exposure as of the date of publication of the 2002 edition of this Manual appear in the left-hand column of Table 3-1. Table 3-1553 Diseases Recognized by VA as Length of Time Requirements: (When Connected to Agent Orange Exposure symptoms of the disease have to appear and result in a disability at least 10% disabling in order to qualify for benefits) Types of Cancer Cancer of the Bronchus No time requirement (veteran qualifies no matter when this disease first appears). Cancer of the Larynx No time requirement (veteran qualifies no matter when this disease first appears). Lung Cancer No time requirement (veteran qualifies no matter when this disease first appears). Prostate Cancer No time requirement (veteran qualifies no matter when this disease first appears). Cancer of the Trachea No time requirement (veteran qualifies no matter when this disease first appears). Hodgkin's Disease No time requirement (veteran qualifies no matter when this disease first appears). Multiple Myeloma No time requirement (veteran qualifies no matter when this disease first appears). Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma No time requirement (veteran qualifies no matter when this disease first appears). Diabetes (Type II; also known as diabetes No time requirement (veteran qualifies no mellitus) matter when this disease first appears). Types of Soft Tissue Sarcoma Time Requirement Adult Fibrosarcoma No time requirement (veteran qualifies no Alveolar Soft Part matter when this disease first appears). Sarcoma Angiosarcoma Clear Cell Sarcoma of Aponeuroses Clear Cell Sarcoma of Tendons and Aponeuroses Congenital Fibrosarcoma Dermatofibrosarcoma Protuberans Ectomesenchymoma Epithelioid Malignant Leiomyosarcoma Epithelioid and Glandular Malignant Schwannomas Epithelioid Sarcoma Extraskeletal Ewing's Sarcoma Hemangiosarcoma Infantile Fibrosarcoma Leiomyosarcoma Liposarcoma Lymphangiosarcoma Malignant Fibrous Histiocytoma Malignant Giant Cell Tumor of the Tendon Sheath Malignant Glandular Schwannoma Malignant Glomus Tumor Malignant Hemangiopericytoma Malignant Mesenchymoma Malignant Ganglioneuroma Malignant Granular Cell Tumor Malignant Leiomyoblastoma Malignant Synovioma Malignant Schwannoma with Rhabdomyoblastic Differentiation Proliferating (systemic) Angiendotheliomatosis Rhabdomyosarcoma Synovial Sarcoma Diseases Other Than Cancer Time Requirement Peripheral Neuropathy (acute or subacute) Within months of exposure to Agent Orange in Vietnam and cured within two years after symptoms first appear (Note: this time requirement is written so narrowly it appears to be impossible for any Vietnam veteran to qualify). Chloracne Within one year of the last day the veteran served in Vietnam. Porphyria Cutanea Tarda Within one year of the last day the veteran served in Vietnam. Disabilities in Children of Vietnam Time Requirement Veterans Spina Bifida554 Child must have been conceived after veteran first arrived in Vietnam. Certain Birth Defects in Children of Child must have been conceived after Female Vietnam Veterans555 veteran first arrived in Vietnam. It is important to understand that medical terms sometimes change. For example, Non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (NHL) has been called by many different names, such as lymphosarcoma and reticulum cell sarcoma. Appendix 3-G to this Chapter contains a list of some common terms for NHL. To find out for sure whether the veteran's diagnosed disease is among those that are presumptively service connected due to exposure to Agent Orange, consult with a medical professional. To help understand the nature of the diseases listed above in Table 3-1, a short description of most of these diseases appears in Appendix 3-F to this Chapter. Vietnam veterans who develop one of the cancers listed in Table 3-1 may still be denied disability compensation if the cancer on the list developed as a result of, or was caused by a different cancer. The U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims has ruled that if a Vietnam veteran first develops a cancer that is not listed in Table 3-1, like colon cancer, and that cancer later shifts or spreads (in medical language, "metastasizes") to another part or organ of the body so that the veteran then has a cancer that is listed in Table 3-1, like lung cancer, the VA is not required to grant the claim under the Agent Orange exposure regulations.556 On the other hand, if the veteran first develops a cancer that is listed in Table 3-1 and it shifts or spreads to another part or organ of the body that is not listed in Table 3-1, the VA must grant the claim and, in rating the degree of disability, it must consider the disabling effects of both the original cancer and the secondary cancer sites that may develop from the original cancer.557 **Advocacy Tip** The key to winning a claim when the veteran suffers from at least one cancer on the VA list and at least one cancer that is not on the list is to obtain helpful medical evidence. Veterans and their advocates should try to get a statement from a physician, preferably an oncologist (a physician who is a specialist in cancer), stating that in the physician's expert opinion, it is as likely as not (or, even better, that it is very probable) that the cancer on the VA list was a "primary" cancer, and did not develop from a different cancer that the veteran already had. Footnotes 552. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.307(a)(6)(ii) (2002). 553. This list of diseases associated with Agent Orange exposure as recognized by the VA appears in 38 C.F.R. § 3.309(e) (2002), except spina bifida in children of Vietnam Veterans which appears in 38 C.F.R. § 3.814 (2002). 554.See 38 C.F.R. § 3.814 (2002). See also Section 7.5 of this Manual for further information concerning benefits for children born with spina bifida. 555.Congress has required the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to publish regulations identifying the birth defects that will qualify. See U.S.C.S. §§ 1811-15. These regulations were not published as of the publication of the 2002 edition of this Manual. When published, these regulations must have an effective date of December 1, 2001. See generally Section 7.5.1.1. of this Manual. 556. Darby v. Brown, 10 Vet. App. 243 (1997). 557. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.310 (2002). 3.8.1.3 The Third Requirement for Some Diseases: Medical Evidence of the Onset of the Disease Within a Certain Time Period For some of the non-cancer diseases on the VA's list, there is a third requirement: that the condition became manifest (that is, symptoms of the condition began to appear) within a certain length of time after leaving Vietnam.558 For diseases with a time requirement, the veteran must also show that the disease caused a disability that is at least 10% disabling within the same required time period.559 If there is a requirement that the disease appear within a certain time period, the time period appears in the right-hand column to Table 3-1 above. The proof that the disease manifested to the required degree within the required period must be in the form of medical evidence. Advocates should explore whether a physician is available and able to state, at minimum, that it is at least as likely as not that if the veteran experienced the symptoms as reported to the physician, the veteran was experiencing the symptoms of the disease. This medical evidence coupled with the veteran's or survivor's statement about the early symptomatology and any corroborating statements, should lead the VA to find that the claimant has satisfied the manifestation period requirement. Prior to 2002, the recognized respiratory cancers – that is, cancer of the lung, larynx, bronchus, and trachea – were subject to a time manifestation requirement. Under the rule in effect from 1994 (when the VA first recognized these respiratory cancers as being related to Agent Orange exposure) through 2001, a respiratory cancer would not qualify under the VA's Agent Orange rules if the cancer first became manifest to a degree of 10% or more after 30 years had already expired from the last day of the veteran's service in Vietnam.560 Congress repealed the 30-year manifestation rule for respiratory cancers, effective on January 1, 2002.561 Thus, the rule now is that a Vietnam veteran who develops a respiratory cancer to a disabling degree of 10% or more, or a qualifying surviving family member of a Vietnam veteran who dies of a respiratory cancer, is entitled to compensation based on that cancer no matter now when the respiratory cancer first appeared. A Vietnam veteran or surviving family member who applied for, but was finally denied compensation because of the 30-year manifestation rule, can now qualify for compensation simply by filing a new application. To ensure that the VA grants the new claim – as it should -- the veteran or survivor should alert the VA to the fact that the 30-year manifestation rule has been repealed. If this new claim is filed before January 1, 2003, the effective date of the award should be January 1, 2002, or the date the cancer became manifest to a disabling degree of 10% or more, whichever date is later. If the new claim is not filed until after January 1, 2003, the effective date of the award should be one year before the date the VA received the new claim, or the date the cancer became manifest to a disabling degree of 10% or more, whichever date is later. Because Congress did not make the repeal of the 30-year manifestation rule retroactive, the effective date of an award of benefits cannot be before January 1, 2002, in a case in which the respiratory cancer first became manifest more than 30 years after the veteran's last day of service in Vietnam. Footnotes 558. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.307(a)(6)(ii) (2002). 559. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.307(a)(6)(ii) (2002). 560.. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.307(a)(6)(ii) (2002). 561.. See Pub. L. No. 107-103, Tit. II, § 201(a), 115 Stat. 987 (Dec. 27, 2001). 3.8.1.4 Special Rules Regarding Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma (NHL) The rules for service connection regarding Non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (NHL)562 are slightly different than the rules for other disease linked to exposure to Agent Orange. One of the regulations that grant service connection for NHL bases the connection on service in Vietnam and not Agent Orange exposure.563 In most ways that regulation operates the same as regulations granting service connection based on Agent Orange exposure. However, there are a couple of differences worth noting. One difference involves the definition of service in Vietnam. The definition of service in Vietnam is slightly broader than it is for the other diseases listed in Table 3-1 above. For all diseases other than NHL, veterans are required to have either had duty or visitation in Vietnam.564 Under one of the two regulations providing for service connection for NHL, service members who served in the waters off-shore do not have to show any duty or visitation in Vietnam.565 Second, the effective date rules for an award of benefits for NHL under 38 C.F.R. § 3.313 are more favorable than the effective date rules for an award for an NHL claim based the Agent Orange exposure under 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.307(a)(6) and 3.309(e). For these reasons, NHL claimants should always cite to 38 C.F.R. § 3.313 instead of 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.307(a)(6)(3) and 3.309(e) when filing a claim.566 In addition, effective October 23, 1995, the VA changed the rating schedule that is used to determine the level of disability caused by NHL.567 Prior to that date, NHL was rated according to the same criteria as Hodgkin's disease, with incremental percentage ratings for varying degrees of disability.568 Under the amended regulation, NHL must be rated as 100% disabling when the disease is "active" or during a "treatment phase."569 Thus, a veteran can only be 0% disabled or 100% disabled by NHL. However, if the disease is not active, the VA must also rate the veteran on the residuals of NHL.570 Footnotes 562. For the purpose of service connection for this disease, the definition of NHL "includes any diagnosis of a lymphoma (other than Hodgkin's lymphoma), mycosis fungoides, and old terms such as lymphosarcoma, reticulum cell sarcoma, and Sternberg's sarcoma." VBA Circular 21-90-11, change 1, ¶ 2(b) (Jan. 25, 1991). 563. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.313 (2002). 564. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.307(a)(6)(iii) (2002). 565. There are two regulation that provide presumptive service connection for NHL, 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.313 3.309(e) (2002). (Service in Vietnam for purposes of 38 C.F.R. § 3.309(e) (2001) is defined in 38 C.F.R. § 3.307(a)(6)(iii)) (2002)). 38 C.F.R. § 3.313 (2002) provides the broader and more favorable definition of service in Vietnam for veterans. 566. See Section 8.6 of this Manual for more information concerning effective dates for awards of benefits due to Agent Orange. 567. 60 Fed. Reg. 49,225 (1995). 568. 38 C.F.R. § 4.117 (1996). The diagnostic code for NHL is 7715. The diagnostic code for Hodgkin's disease is 7709 (lymphogranulomatosis). 569. See 38 C.F.R. § 4.117 (2002). 570. Id. See also, Green v. West, 11 Vet. App. 472, 475 (1998). 3.8.2 Veterans Should Reapply If Previously Denied Compensation for a Disease Listed in Table 3-1 It took over two decades after the U.S. military halted its spraying of Agent Orange in Vietnam because of concerns about its dangers to the health of its troops for the VA to recognize that Agent Orange is associated with seriously disabling diseases. As Table 3-2 below shows, the VA did not begin to recognize this association until the 1990s. Column 2 of the table lists for each disease the VA now recognizes as related to Agent Orange exposure the date that the VA published amendments to its regulations recognizing the disease for the first time. Table 3-2 Disease Publication Date Effective Date 38 CFR § Chloracne 05-19-93 02-06-91 3.309(e) Soft-tissue sarcoma (STS) 10-15-91 09-25-85 3.311a 05-19-93 02-06-91 3.307 & 3.309(e) Non-Hodgkin's lymphoma 10-26-90 08-05-64 3. 313 05-19-93 02-06-91 3.307 & 3.309(e) Porphyria Cutanea Tarda 04-03-94 04-03-94 3.307 & 3.309(e) Hodgkin's disease 04-03-94 04-03-94 3.307 & 3.309(e) Cancer of the lung 06-09-94 06-09-94 3.307 & 3.309(e) Cancer of the larynx 06-09-94 06-09-94 3.307 & 3.309(e) Cancer of the bronchus 06-09-94 06-09-94 3.307 & 3.309(e) Cancer of the trachea 06-09-94 06-09-94 3.307 & 3.309(e) Multiple Myeloma 06-09-94 06-09-94 3.307 & 3.309(e) Prostate cancer 11-07-96 11-07-96 3.307 & 3.309(e) Acute and subacute 11-07-96 11-07-96 3.307 & 3.309(e) Peripheral Neuropathy Spina Bifida in children of 09-30-97 10-01-97 3.814 Vietnam veterans Type II Diabetes 05-08-01 07-09-01 3.307 & 3.309(e) Prior to these changes, the VA's denial that a relationship exists between Agent Orange and serious disabling diseases led the VA to deny tens of thousands of disability and death claims filed by Vietnam veterans and their survivors, many of which asserted that Agent Orange caused the disease or death. A Court Order issued in a class action lawsuit litigated by attorneys from the NVLSP required the VA to automatically identify many of these previously denied claimants, reevaluate their claims under the amended Agent Orange regulations, and, if they qualified under the new regulations, grant them prospective and retroactive disability compensation or DIC benefits.571 Unfortunately, the VA violated this Court Order by failing to identify many claimants previously denied benefits for diseases the VA later recognized as related to Agent Orange.572 Any Vietnam veteran who was previously denied disability benefits by the VA for a disease listed in Tables 3-1 and 3-2 should file a new application for the same benefits under the new regulations.573 The same advice applies to surviving family members of Vietnam veterans who died of a disease listed in Tables 3-1 and 3-2 and who were previously denied DIC benefits by the VA. Those who reapply and qualify for benefits under the rules discussed in this chapter will not only receive benefits in the future, but, as discussed in Section 8.6 of this Manual, many of them will also receive benefits retroactive to the date the VA received the claim it previously denied.574 Footnotes 571. See Appendix 8-A at the end of Chapter 8 of this Manual. A description of this class action lawsuit appears in Section 8.6.1 of this Manual. 572. See Nehmer v. U.S. Veterans Administration, 32 F. Supp. 2d 1175 (N.D. Cal. 1999). 573. Veterans who applied before and were denied but have no current disabling residuals from the disease, should still re-apply as they may still be eligible for retroactive benefits. 574. Many veterans and surviving family members are entitled to retroactive benefits due to a class action lawsuit brought by NVLSP, Nehmer v. U.S. Veterans' Administration. In Nehmer the Court invalidated the VA's denials of all claims based on diseases related to Agent Orange exposure, if such denials were made on or after September 25, 1985. See Nehmer v. U.S. Veterans' Administration, 712 F. Supp 1404 (N.D. Cal. 1989). Pursuant to the Court's Order, all claims based on Agent Orange-related diseases which it denied on or after September 25, 1985 must be readjudicated. Nehmer v. U.S. Dep't of Veterans Affairs, No. CV-86-6160 at ¶¶ 3 and 5 (N.D. Cal. May 14, 1991) (Final Stipulation and Order). For further information concerning readjudication and retroactive effective dates under Nehmer, review Section 8.6 of this Manual, and write to NVLSP's Agent Orange Resource Center, 2001 S Street, N.W., Suite 610, Washington, D.C. 20009. Also available from NVLSP is a 45-page Self-Help Guide on Agent Orange, published both in English and Spanish. 3.8.3 Vietnam Veterans Who Have a Disease Not Recognized by VA as Connected to Agent Orange Exposure Unfortunately, Vietnam veterans who develop a condition not on the VA's list have a hard time convincing the VA that it resulted from exposure to Agent Orange. Although unlikely, it is possible that a claim for compensation could be granted if a veteran can submit (1) a doctor's statement that the veteran currently suffers from the disease or disability (or its residuals), and (2) an opinion from a medical expert stating that it is as likely as not that exposure to Agent Orange caused the disease or disability.575 As mentioned, the list of recognized diseases has changed on a number of occasions. Veterans and their advocates should check to see whether, after the 2002 edition of this Manual was published, the veteran's disease was added to the VA's list of diseases that are presumptively service connected to herbicide exposure in Vietnam.576 If the disease is not on the VA's current list, veterans may still qualify for service-connected disability compensation at this time under VA rules discussed earlier in this chapter that have nothing to do with Agent Orange. In addition, if the veteran does not qualify for compensation under any of the VA's rules, the veteran may still be able to get help at this time from the VA in the form of a non-service-connected disability pension.577 Even if the veteran does not qualify for benefits under any current rules, it may still be advisable to file a claim immediately. This is especially true if the disease at issue is one of the diseases currently being studied by the National Academy and is among those most likely to be added in the future to those diseases recognized by the VA as associated with Agent Orange exposure. The benefit of taking this action is that if the VA later adds the disease to those that are presumptively service connected and grants the claim, the veteran will have a better chance of receiving retroactive benefits. The following Table 3-3 lists the diseases most likely to be added to the list of diseases recognized by the VA. Table 3-3578 Diseases and Disabilities Having the Best Chance of Being Added in the Future to the Conditions Connected to Agent Orange Exposure Abnormal Sperm Parameters and Infertility Birth Defects (Other than Spina Bifida in Children of Vietnam Veterans) Bladder Cancer Bone Cancer Breast Cancer Childhood Cancer (in Children of Vietnam Veterans) Chronic Peripheral Nervous System Disorders Circulatory Disorders Cognitive and Neuropsychiatric Disorders Female Reproductive Cancers (cervical, uterine, ovarian) Hepatobiliary Cancers Immune System Disorders Leukemia Liver Cancer Low Birthweight (in Children of Vietnam Veterans) Metabolic and Digestive Disorders (changes in liver enzymes, lipid abnormalities, ulcers) Motor or Coordination Dysfunction Nasal or Nasopharyngeal Cancer Neonatal or Infant Death and Stillbirths Renal Cancer Respiratory Disorders Skin Cancer Spontaneous Abortion Testicular Cancer Urinary Bladder Cancer Footnotes 575. Prior to 2002, the VA would not presume exposure to Agent Orange unless the Vietnam veteran had one of the diseases the VA recognizes as associated with Agent Orange exposure. See McCartt v. West, 12 Vet. App. 164 (1999). Therefore, for claims concerning diseases not presumptively service connected, evidence of exposure to Agent Orange had to be submitted. In December 2001, Congress eliminated the need to submit exposure evidence, even for diseases not yet recognized by the VA as presumptively service connected. See Pub. L. No. 107-103, Tit. II, § 201©(1), 115 Stat. 988 (Dec. 27, 2001). For all diseases alleged to have resulted from Agent Orange exposure, the VA must now assume that if the veteran served in Vietnam, he or shewas exposed. 576. Congress has required the National Academy to continue until the year 2014 to write new reports analyzing the scientific evidence that becomes available in the future. Whenever a new report is issued, the VA may decide it needs to add more diseases to the list in Table 3-1. The NVLSP web site (http://www.nvlsp.org) contains an up-to-date list of all the diseases recognized by the VA. 577. The veteran may also qualify for free medical care. For more information, see Section 10.3.1 of this Manual. 578. See "Veterans and Agent Orange" Institute of Medicine, National Academy of Sciences Press 1994; "Veterans and Agent Orange: Update 1996" Institute of Medicine, National Academy of Sciences Press 1996; "Veterans and Agent Orange: Update 1998" Institute of Medicine, National Academy of Sciences Press 1999; "Veterans and Agent Orange: Update 2000" Institute of Medicine, National Academy of Sciences Press 2001. 3.8.4 Veterans Exposed to Agent Orange Outside Vietnam or Not During the Vietnam Era The presumption for service connection only applies to veterans who served in Vietnam as defined above. However, Agent Orange was used not only in Vietnam, but also in Korea and other hostile areas.579 Until recently, the VA would grant compensation to veterans exposed to Agent Orange outside of Vietnam only if the claimant proved exposure to Agent Orange and submitted persuasive medical evidence of a connection between the veteran's current disease and that exposure.580 In an apparent effort to equalize the treatment of all veterans exposed to Agent Orange, the VA announced in 2001 that if exposure outside of Vietnam were proven, and the veteran had one of the diseases presumed by law to be related to exposure to Agent Orange (see Table 3-1 above), the medical condition would be presumed to have resulted from Agent Orange exposure and the claim granted unless there were other disqualifying factors.581 The most difficult issue in these cases is proving exposure. The authors of this Manual have been informed that the VA is in the process of determining whether Department of Defense information is sufficient to presume that some non-Vietnam units were exposed to Agent Orange. No VA determination of this type was made as of the publication of the 2002 edition of this Manual. The following areas outside of Vietnam have been confirmed as places where Agent Orange was used: the Korean demilitarized zone in 1968 and 1969 (extensive spraying); and Fort Drum, New York in 1959 (testing). Other areas where veterans allege Agent Orange was sprayed or stored include: Guam from 1955 through 1960s; the Johnston Atoll (1972-1978); and the Panama Canal Zone from 1960s to early 1970s. Any veteran concerned about exposure to Agent Orange during its use, manufacture, testing or transport outside of Vietnam is entitled to an Agent Orange physical by the VA and to be added to the Agent Orange Registry.582 Footnotes 579. See BVA 98-17647 (Mar. 12, 1999); Todd Robertson, Bases May Have Been Sprayed With Agent Orange, Dallas Morning News, Aug. 24, 1999. 580. See BVA 98-17647 (Mar. 12, 1999) granting compensation to a veteran who established exposure to Agent Orange in Korea and who was diagnosed with NHL. 581. See comments on the final rule adding diabetes to the list of "diseases" in 38 C.F.R. § 3.309(e), at 66 Fed. Reg. 23166 (May 8, 2001). 582. Veterans Health Administration Directive 2000-027. 3.8.5 The Lawsuits Against the Chemical Companies that Manufactured Agent Orange In 1978, a Vietnam veteran named Paul Reutershan filed a lawsuit against some of the chemical companies that had manufactured Agent Orange. Other veterans later joined the suit, which was broadened to include all seven manufacturers (Dow Chemical Company, Monsanto Company, Hercules, Inc., T.H. Agriculture & Nutrition Company, Diamond Shamrock Chemicals Company, Thompson Chemical Corporation, and Uniroyal, Inc.).583 The lawsuit sought money damages for injuries caused to Vietnam veterans and their families by Agent Orange. The suit was a class action, that is, it affected not only the original plaintiffs, but also all the members of a class as defined by the court that supervised the case. The class members included any person who had been in the United States, New Zealand, or Australian armed forces at any time from 1961 to 1972 who was injured while in or near Vietnam by exposure to Agent Orange or other phenoxy herbicides. The class also included certain spouses, parents, and children. A settlement was announced on May 7, 1984, the day on which the trial had been scheduled to begin. In exchange for the veterans' dropping the lawsuit, the chemical companies agreed to contribute $180 million to a settlement fund. Between 1984 and 1988, when all of the appeals to overturn the settlement were finally denied, the settlement fund grew to $240 million with interest. In July 1988, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York finalized plans to distribute cash and develop funding for services to veterans and their families. The settlement money was divided into two main funds: $170 million to be paid directly to disabled veterans or survivors (including $5 million for veterans from Australia and New Zealand) and $42 million (later $52 million) to be used to fund programs that would benefit Vietnam veterans and their families. About 5% of the fund went for attorneys' fees, paid out of the interest earned on the original principal settlement amount. The court established a payment program to distribute the $170 million set aside for Vietnam veterans and surviving family members. The court also created the Agent Orange Class Assistance Program (AOCAP) to administer the funds set aside to provide services to veterans and their families. To be eligible for compensation under the payment program, veterans had to have served in the U.S. armed forces in or near Vietnam any time from January 1, 1961, through December 31, 1971; have been exposed to herbicides (using court-approved criteria) while in or near Vietnam; and have a total disability that occurred prior to the veteran's 60th birthday. Not all types of disabilities were compensable. A survivor was eligible for compensation if he or she could show that the veteran had served in the U.S. armed forces in or near Vietnam any time from January 1, 1961, through December 31, 1971; that the veteran had been exposed to herbicides; and that the veteran had died before age 60 from a non-traumatic cause. The final deadline for applications to the payment program was January 17, 1995. This program is now closed, and it is too late to apply. While the program was open, 105,762 Vietnam veterans or their survivors applied to the payment program; 52,023 of these disability and survivor compensation claims were granted. AOCAP is also closed now. During its existence, AOCAP administered grants to 85 programs (including NVLSP) to provide services to Vietnam veterans and their families. The program disbursed more than $71 million and helped more than 239,000 Vietnam veterans and their family members.584 Until 2000, it appeared that no matter when they developed a disease that may have been caused by Agent Orange, Vietnam veterans could only receive compensation from the chemical company manufacturers through the settlement of this class action. In Stephenson v. Dow Chemical Co.,585 however, the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruled that two Vietnam veterans who first became ill after 1994 (that is, after all the settlement funds had been paid out) "Keep on, Keepin' on" Dan Cedusky, Champaign IL "Colonel Dan" See my web site at: http://www.angelfire.com/il2/VeteranIssues/

Welcome to VFVC live on the air! Hosted by; Gene Simes & Jere Beery 9pm Eastern - 8pm Central - 7pm Mountain - 6pm Pacific Listen live on your computer at: WWW.STARDUSTRADIO.COM August 11, 2008 Tune in! Special guest: Who is Linda May? Let’s find out! You get to ask the questions! Call in at 319 648-5143

Military Order of the Purple Heart National Convention Opens in Rogers, Arkansas Posted on August 11, 2009 by gm Springfield, VA, August 11, 2009 The 77th Annual Convention of The Military Order of the Purple Heart (MOPH) and the Ladies Auxiliary of the MOPH opened today in Rogers, Arkansas. Among the many dignitaries attending the opening ceremonies were Arkansas Senator Mark Pryor, US House Representative John Boozman, the Arkansas Military Liaison, Mr. Rod Sweetman, and Kevin Secor (USMC, Ret), Office of the Secretary of Veterans’ Affairs. On Wednesday, August 12, at 1:30 pm, the State of Arkansas will dedicate one of its major interstate highways as the Arkansas Purple Heart Trail. The ceremony will take place at the Embassy Suites Hotel in Rogers, Arkansas. This annual event brings together the Commanders and delegates of the Order’s Regions, Departments, Chapters and Units from throughout the nation to elect the National Leadership of the Order for the upcoming year. Delegates will participate in training sessions, review the business of the past year, approve new governing amendments and organizational bylaw changes, and set an agenda for coming year. The primary purpose of the MOPH is to assist veterans. There are many programs conducted by the MOPH and the MOPH Service Foundation to assist all veterans, with emphasis on returning veterans of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, disabled veterans, and veterans afflicted with the signature illnesses of the current wars, Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and Tramatic Brain Injuries (TBI). Funded by grants provided by the MOPH Service Foundation, the MOPH conducts programs that help veterans to receive the benefits they have earned from the Department of Veteran Affairs and to help them transition into productive members of our society. The MOPH conducts veteran job fairs across the country to assist veterans in finding employment and provides training on how to establish and fund their own small business enterprises. Under the Veteran Affairs Volunteer Service (VAVS) program, some 700 MOPH volunteers throughout the Country, last year donated over 900,000 hours at more than 100 VA Facilities to assist Veterans. The largest of these efforts, the MOPH Service Program, provides veterans' benefits experts at various Veterans Administration regional offices, hospitals, vet centers, and state and county veterans’ facilities. Funded by MOPH Service Foundation grants, this program operates a nation-wide network of more than 85 offices, staffed by over 170 trained Service Officers and assistants; accredited by the Department of Veterans Affairs. MOPH National Service Officers (NSO’s) process Veterans' claims for compensation, pension, medical care, education, job training, employment, Veterans’ preference, housing, death, and burial benefits. Many of the MOPH National Service Officers are themselves combat wounded and disabled veterans. In 2008, MOPH Service Officers assisted over 66,000 Veterans with VA claims and recovered over $200 million in benefits for Veterans and their dependents. Finally, In 2008, there were more than 2,700 outreach visits by NSOs to assist veterans in hard to reach rural areas as well as handicapped and destitute veterans unable to go to a VA regional office. The MOPH Service Foundation publishes and distributes throughout the country the signature guide to PTSD, including how to recognize the symptoms, where to get help, and a guide to assist both families and the veteran in learning how to cope with the illness. The Foundation also conducts a program known as the “Veterans Benefit Training Center,” in conjunction with the University of Michigan and other educational partners, to provide training for disabled veterans in the field of telecommunications. Upon graduation, assistance is provided in job placement in the private sector. Finally, the Foundation is preparing to participate in the U.S. Congressional PTSD initiative to provide a national PTSD hotline that will assist veterans and their families in crisis. The organization now known as the "Military Order of the Purple Heart (MOPH) of the U.S.A. Inc.," was formed in 1932 for the protection and mutual interest of all who have received the decoration. Chartered by the Congress, The MOPH is unique among Veteran Service Organizations in that all its members were wounded in combat. For this sacrifice, they received the Purple Heart Medal. The MOPH is an equal opportunity employer that actively seeks to hire recipients of the Purple Heart Award, combat veterans, and other veterans. It is MOPH policy to employ and promote veterans and disabled veterans to all occupations for which they possess the necessary skills, education, and experience. MOPH strives to maintain an environment full of respect, dignity, courtesy and patriotism for its members and employees. For further information contact: National Adjutant, Jack Leonard, 703-642-5360 Or, National Public Relations Director, John Bircher, 352-753-5535 Email: PublicRelations@Purpleheart.org Web: www.purpleheart.org SOURCE: http://www.veteranstoday.com/modules.php?n...le&sid=8255

Action Needed on the Burn Pit Amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act (H.R. 2647) Take Action! Please Contact Your Elected Officials Today The DAV has been at the forefront of legislation addressing OIF/OEF active duty personnel and veterans who have been and continue to be exposed to toxic fumes from open-air burn pits in Iraq and Afghanistan. As a result of our efforts, Rep. Tim Bishop and Rep. Carol Shea-Porter cosponsored the "Burn Pit" amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act (HR 2647). The amendment would require the Defense Secretary to prohibit the disposal of medical and hazardous waste in open-air burn pits for longer than 12 months during a contingency operation. It also would require the Secretary to submit a report on the use of such burn pits. As reported by CNN, Fox News and Military Times, hundreds of Iraq and Afghanistan veterans are becoming sick and even dying from what appears to be overexposure to dangerous toxins produced by open-air burn pits used to destroy large quantities of waste. We endorse this amendment as have the American Legion, Veterans of Foreign Wars, Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, Military Officers Association of America, National Guard Association of the United States, and Veterans and Military Families for Progress. This critical amendment needs your assistance NOW! We encourage you to support this provision, which will begin protecting our service members from these dangers. Please contact both of your U.S. Senators and your Representative today by telephone, or by electronic means provided here, with a strong message that urges Senate passage of the bill. An electronic message is included here, but feel free to use your own words. On behalf of DAV's National Legislative Staff, we appreciate your advocacy.

Stand Up for Veterans Update More Info August 7, 2009 Veterans Health Care Budget Reform and Transparency Act Clears Senate Moving another major step towards ensuring sufficient, timely and predictable funding for veterans health care programs, the Senate yesterday approved the Veterans Health Care Budget Reform and Transparency Act (S. 423 / H.R. 1016). The legislation must now be reconciled with a slightly different House version approved in June before it can be sent to President Obama, who has promised to sign it into law. DAV, which issued a release that can be found here, is grateful to Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee Chairman Daniel Akaka for championing this legislation from day one, and for his vigorous and tireless advocacy throughout this process. DAV also applauds the dedicated efforts of Senator Richard Burr, the Ranking Member of the Committee, who has worked in a bipartisan manner to pass this legislation and ensure that millions of veterans can access VA health care services when and where they need them. With 56 bipartisan cosponsors in the Senate, this legislation had a number of important supporters who contributed towards its approval, including: Senator Tim Johnson, who chairs the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee that has already approved $48.2 billion in advance appropriations for FY 2011; and Senator Jim Inhofe, who offered a crucial floor amendment to the budget resolution that cleared the way for Senate passage of this legislation. About the Stand Up for Veterans Initiative Stand Up for Veterans is an initiative of the Disabled American Veterans, an organization of 1.4 million disabled veterans who are focused on building better lives for disabled veterans and their families. The initiative seeks to find public policy solutions for all veterans, particularly those returning from Iraq and Afghanistan, who have incurred devastating injuries and disabilities, including traumatic brain injury, post-traumatic stress disorder and other psychological wounds of war.

http://www.dfas.mil/rna-news/july2009/reti...ecoupments.html Retired Pay Recoupments In the past, Voluntary Separation Incentive (VSI), Special Separation Benefit (SSB) and other separation payments such as severance pay, have been offered to Active Duty military service members in an effort to urge members to depart from active service and ultimately reduce a surplus of manpower in certain career fields. Those receiving these payments were required to maintain an affiliation with the Ready Reserve of a military Reserve component. In circumstances where these service members would go on to attain status as military retirees and begin to receive Retired Pay, it would then become necessary to repay the VSI, SSB or severance pay that was previously received. Federal statutes governing these programs have normally not allowed the Department of Defense (DoD) or its Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS) to alter repayment ratios or provide alternative repayment plans for these military retirees regardless of the financial hardships a retiree may be experiencing. However, the Department of Defense has announced that recoupment of military retirees' VSI, SSB and certain other separation payments by DFAS has been temporarily suspended for military retirees in an active pay status effective for the May 2009 retired pay entitlements pending a formal policy and legal review by the DoD. Military Retired pay for these members received on June 1, 2009 was not reduced by any recoupment amounts. The policy and legal review will allow DoD and DFAS to determine what options, if any, may be available to allow DoD to meet its statutory responsibilities while providing relief to military retirees impacted by recoupment actions. Letters have been sent to all affected military retirees. To view a sample, click here. Whatever the outcome of the review, members will continue to receive correspondence before any further action is taken on their accounts. Further information, including a list of Frequently Asked Questions, is available at our website - www.dfas.mil/retiredpay.html - and by contacting our customer service representatives at 1-800-321-1080. "Keep on, Keepin' on" Dan Cedusky, Champaign IL "Colonel Dan" See my web site at: http://www.angelfire.com/il2/VeteranIssues/

Note: Of course the VA Doctors can say what they want, The VA Claim Reps & raters are smarter. The VA does not recognize it as service connected…majority of the time…Vietnam Vets with PTSD are still waiting for s/c for Heart, hypertension, etc… (s) ColonelDan PTSD raises heart disease risk in Iraq war vets Tue Aug 4, 2009 5:15pm EDT http://www.reuters.com/article/healthNews/...E5736SM20090804 NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - Veterans who come home from Iraq and Afghanistan with posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and other mental health diagnoses are hit with a double whammy: They also have greater risk factors for heart disease, according to a report in the Journal of the American Medical Association. PTSD related to military service has been linked to heart disease in the past, but, to the authors' knowledge, the present study is the first to examine the association for veterans of the current Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts. Given the time frame of the recent wars, the authors of the study did not look at heart attacks or other events, but examined risk factors for heart disease instead. PTSD and other mental disorders, such anxiety disorder, more than doubled the risk of tobacco use, for example, which is a well-known risk factor. The study, by Dr. Beth E. Cohen and colleagues, from Veterans Affairs Medical Center, San Francisco, included more than 300,000 veterans who began using Veterans Affairs healthcare from October 7, 2001 to September 30, 2008. Most - 88 percent - of the subjects were male and the average age was 31 years. About a quarter had PTSD. Among those who did, about half also suffered from depression, and more than a quarter suffered from anxiety disorder. About a fifth abused alcohol. Men with mental disorders other than PTSD were at increased risk for all of the heart disease risk factors studied, including tobacco use, high blood pressure, obesity, and diabetes. All of those risk factors were also elevated in men with PTSD, except diabetes. In women, PTSD was significantly linked to all of the risk factors studied. Other mental disorders were tied to all of the risk factors except diabetes. SOURCE: JAMA, August 5, 2009. __._,_.___ "Keep on, Keepin' on" Dan Cedusky, Champaign IL "Colonel Dan" See my web site at: http://www.angelfire.com/il2/VeteranIssues/

Partial reprint of attached article in PDF format Mum's the word A declassified letter by V.K. Rowe at Dow's Biochemical Research Library to Bioproducts Manager Ross Milholland dated June 24, 1965 clearly states that the company knew the dioxin in their products, including Agent Orange, could hurt people. In reference to 2,4,5,-trichlorophenol and 2,3,7,8,-tetrachlorodibenzodioxin (components of Agent Orange), Rowe stated: "This material is exceptionally toxic; it has a tremendous potential for producing chloracne and systemic injury." Rowe worried the company would suffer if word got out. "The whole 2,4,5-T industry would be hard hit and I would expect restrictive legislation, either barring the material or putting very rigid controls upon it." ******** The report quotes a 1988 letter from Dr. James R. Clary, a former government scientist with the Chemical Weapons Branch, to Senator Tom Daschle. Dr. Clary was involved in designing tanks that sprayed herbicides and defoliants in Vietnam, according to the report. Clary told Daschle: "When we (military scientists) initiated the herbicide program in the 1960's, we were aware of the potential for damage due to dioxin contamination in the herbicide. We were even aware that the 'military' formulation had a higher dioxin concentration than the 'civilian' version due to the lower cost and speed of manufacture. However, because the material was to be used on the 'enemy,' none of us were overly concerned. We never considered a scenario in which our own personnel would become contaminated with the herbicide. And, if we had, we would have expected our own government to give assistance to veterans so contaminated." Chemical warfare: calling a spade a spade Supporters of the US's Agent Orange Campaign prefer to call it an "herbicide program" rather than chemical warfare. But official documents reveal that the US Senate knew its real name. In US Senate Congressional Records dated August 11, 1969, a table presented to senators showed that congress clearly classified 2,4-D and 2,4,5-T (main components of Agent Orange) in the Chemical and Biological Warfare category. The table also includes Cacodylic Acid, a main component of Agent Blue, another chemical sprayed on Vietnam to kill plants, in the official Chemical and Biological Warfare category. The table describes it as "an arsenic-base compound.heavy concentrations will cause arsenical poisoning in humans. Widely used in Vietnam. It is composed of 54.29 percent arsenic." As Vietnam War Scholar and US Veteran W.D. Ehrhart put it concisely in a Thanh Nien Daily interview last week: "It would be hard to describe Agent Orange as anything other than a chemical weapon. Dioxin is a chemical." So is arsenic. -----Original Message----- From: Ney, Gerald A CIV [mailto:gerald.ney@navy.mil] Sent: Monday, August 10, 2009 2:11 PM To: ColonelDan Subject: FW: Dioxin's Dangers Known Beforehand -----Original Message----- From: Wayne Dwernychuk [mailto:wdwernychuk@telus.net] Sent: Monday, August 10, 2009 15:02 Subject: Dioxin's Dangers Known Beforehand You should find this of interest. Wayne __._,_.___Attachment(s) from Colonel Dan 1 of 1 File(s) Dioxin's_Dangers_Known_THANHNIEN_p3.pdf "Keep on, Keepin' on" Dan Cedusky, Champaign IL "Colonel Dan" See my web site at: http://www.angelfire.com/il2/VeteranIssues/

The Veteran as Lower Class Citizen, Date: August 10, 2009 http://www.veteranstoday.com/article8240.html Can leave comments at the bottom of above web site This opinion piece was sent into us by Ray Parrish a member of the Chicago chapter of Vietnam Veterans Against the War (VVAW) and the National Veterans Service Officer for VVAW. The Veterans of VVAW have been recognized both negatively and positively for their pro-Peace and anti-war activities of the Vietnam War that gave birth to the organization, [they got special recognition during the 2004 Presidential election due to the long ago leadership role played by Senator John Kerry for a short time], but what has been ignored is that at the same time that VVAW championed an end to their war, they also were the tip of the spear on the recognition of PTSD and Agent Orange that would eventually be the sources of Vietnam Veteran discontent that Vietnam Veterans of America (VVA) would initially rally behind and still champions today. We want to remind our readers that Veterans and Military Family groups with "Against," "Peace," or "Speak Out" on their logos get a great deal of demonizing, are used by the liberal establishment to stop wars of aggression, but rarely do they get recognized for the humanitarian Veterans advocacy they perform focusing on the battles fought by returning troops of all wars. I decided to post it, because I'm a member of VVAW, and it compliments my previous articles on the Long and Winding Road that is the broken VA Claims system. What really amazed me about this is that Ray wrote this opinion piece way back in the Summer of 2002 even before we invaded and occupied Iraq. He was among the few with a crystal ball, well really lessons learned by the Vietnam Veterans Movement to project how our youngest generation of Veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan would be treated and why. Regardless which VSO Ray represents, and VVAW is a VSO though not chartered by Congress [more the better], what Ray said back in 2002 has come to pass, but who's really surprised that learned lessons from the Vietnam Veterans movement. Robert L. Hanafin indythinker@sbcglobal.net Major, U.S. Air Force-Retired Veterans Advocacy Editor The Veteran as Second Class Citizen By Veteran Service Officer Raymond Parrish The sacrifices of countless veterans built this once prosperous society, but many veterans feel that they are second class citizens because of the failure of the laws and agencies that were established in response to disability claims and complaints of abuse. Now, I have to offer what proof I have to explain our feeling that we have been betrayed by our own people, government and veterans' organizations. We feel that we have been used up and discarded for financial or political reasons. During my eighteen years as a military dependent ("brat"), four years of active duty and twenty-five years as a veterans' counselor, I have seen three generations of American veterans come and go. I have been called upon by my fellow veterans to bear witness to the seeming indifference of government bureaucrats, politicians and their neighbors to the problems resulting from their military experience. More than anything else, I am the messenger and the facts that I present will speak for themselves. Veterans and their families are treated as second-class citizens under the current laws when they are condemned to ineffective legal representation and remedies in disability claims. As GIs, we leave behind families and comfort and risk lives and sanity. At last we come home as veterans, but to a society which seems to be unable to deal with our problems and us. You brainwash us with songs and stories of glory and send us to die alone in a jungle or the desert or by the thousands on a beach or a hilltop, and we do what we are asked with grim determination and pride. We fight and die to protect the freedoms that you enjoy and upon which our nation was founded, and then we give them up for the sake of military discipline. You march us through radioactive fallout in atomic bomb tests, Agent Orange in Vietnam, oil well fires, chemical weapons and experimental counter-weapons in the Persian Gulf. When we return you spit on us and call us baby killers. You don't allow your daughters to date us and feel fear or suspicion when you see us. You put our exploits on TV to get the new cannon fodder and then ignore us. Don't you know that this is all true, no matter how good the parades and speeches make us feel for a little while? Don't you know how it must make us feel? Don't you know that what has happened to us since our return, what you have done to us, is just as devastating as the war that we fought for you? Don't you see that this neglect proves to us that our mere existence is a continued embarrassment to our own country? Don't you know that "better off dead" is merely a thought to many of us, but the last words for far too many of us? Don't you know that even if all of this was done without malice, it doesn't change what has happened or how we see ourselves? Don't you know that you have made us see ourselves as less than nothing, as less than lower class citizens? I apologize for using the word lower class, and I promise that you won't see it here again for it rings of "low life." However, low life is the only words that even hints at the depth of the emotions involved. I have seen too many of us lose patience and hope. It is that deafening scream of the unsatisfied dead ringing in my ears that cannot be drowned out by anything less. I am willing to deal with any criticism because, whatever the cost, it's a small price to pay to focus the public's attention on this issue, and I could do no less for my comrades. G. I. Blues Before addressing the legal and bureaucratic causes of veterans' complaints, it's necessary to understand the resulting veterans' sense of betrayal. We need to understand why so many veterans say that the VA is just waiting for them to die or that certain VA personnel are criminals who should be jailed or worse. The veterans we are talking about are, by definition, survivors, with all that implies. This is especially true of combat veterans, whose problems may be more severe than those of their non-combat comrades. Although many combat veterans have successfully dealt with their problems, some can even write about them in novels that glorify war, but many others conceal their emotions and their past and are able to pass as "normal" civilians. 　 　 Many veterans are bothered by what they did in order to survive or to insure the survival of their comrades. Many are full of regret and shame because of the cruelties that they inflicted upon innocent civilians. They participate in reconciliation programs designed to help former enemies rebuild battle-torn areas and clear minefields. Some excuse past behavior by embracing anti-communism, patriotism or racism. Some are unable to sleep well no matter how many times they recite the "I was only following orders" mantra, even if it's true. Sights, sounds or smells may trigger disturbing memories. For some, the war is never over. When you see a veteran with the so-called "thousand-yard stare," try to remember that he is seeing the faces of the dead and try not to laugh at those who duck when a car backfires. Many veterans turn vegetarian or avoid barbecues because the smell of burning flesh reminds them of a horrific experience with napalm or phosphorous weapons. Similar reasons may cause them to avoid any Asian food or recoil at Asian faces or language. Those who have seen needless deaths because of the mistakes of others have a hard time trusting anyone in authority. They can't keep jobs unless they are in charge or have an understanding boss, most often a fellow veteran. Those few veterans who get public attention are the ones whose extreme behavior brings on headlines and stiff prison sentences. Other veterans see this as "the squeaky wheel gets oiled," and copy the behavior. They are desperate to have someone listen to their complaints and have their "day in court." Few of them imagine, however, that it would be them rather than the government on trial that day. The VA points to statistics that show that most claims are decided speedily and correctly and that most VA employees are honest and hardworking. But many legitimate claims are delayed or denied at the local level and are then overturned after years of appeals. Veterans see this as proof that the denials were illegal and demand disciplinary or criminal actions against those whose decisions were reversed. The VA simply sees these as mistakes and will do no more than say, "Oops, sorry." Veterans see this as the arrogance of those who think that they are above the law. This perceived lack of accountability outrages veterans. I have had to talk insanely irate victims of this abuse out of violence against the VA employees who denied or delayed their disability claims. The threats were, in reality, just hot air, but I could swear that I sometimes saw steam coming out of their ears as they were ranting. Then I have to talk to veterans who were made homeless and hopeless by such VA actions into continuing to fight to live. Many veterans just give up because they no longer feel that society appreciates their sacrifices and have now come to see themselves as nothing more than a burden to society. They won't rob anyone because they would rather die than use violence to survive and their personal honor is the only thing they have left. Some are angered when they see their battlefield heroics exploited to attract cannon fodder for the politicians' latest war or guinea pigs for the nuclear or chemical industries. When they wake up from nightmares of blood combat, veterans can no longer take comfort in the thought that the deaths that they witnessed or caused were worth the cost or justified by anything more than survival. I have seen veterans lose hope and try to kill themselves using drugs, fast cars or police return-fire to do it. Many try to kill perceived enemies, strangers or their own poverty-stricken families. Many succeed. The Legal Minefield Before you dismiss or trivialize these problems, allow me a chance to persuade you how serious this problem is for us as a nation. While we all see media stories on veterans' problems regularly, only a fraction of the complaints are reported. There is no TV or radio show devoted to this issue. Statistically, veterans are more likely to be unemployed, be homeless, have a serious mental illness, or sue the U.S. government. To understand why this is so, you need to understand the system of complex VA rules, U.S. court decisions, and efforts of veterans' groups and the reality of how it all works. 　 　 Two things have set the limits of the legal remedies available to veterans. First, the concept of "sovereign immunity" basically means that the U.S. government decides who can sue it. Many veterans feel that the government has misused this to protect private companies operating under government contract. Then, the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Feres vs. U.S. prohibits veterans from suing the government. To make up for this, Congress passed laws that were supposed to insure that the VA disability system is "friendly and non-adversarial." That's not the reality that we live and die with. Most veterans' complaints concern the military's refusal to change discharges and VA denials that their disability is "service-connected" or that their disabilities make them totally disabled. Most of these denials say that not enough evidence to prove the claim was submitted. Veterans disagree not only with the conclusion but also with the process. Winning these claims can be very significant when it comes to getting medical care, compensation or benefits. A totally disabled veteran, if the disability is considered 100% service-connected, the veteran gets a little over $2000 per month. The disability compensation is based on ratings from a low of 10% to severity of 100%. VA Pensions are needs based. Although it often takes longer, the Chicago VA Regional Office (VARO) says that, with their backlog of claims, it takes them ninety days to make a decision once evidence is submitted, which may take years to find. If a VARO denies a claim you can appeal to the Board of Veterans' Appeals (BVA). The BVA now says that it will take those eighteen months to work through their backlog and make a decision. Until recently, appeals to the BVA took five years. Until 1988, BVA denials could be appealed in the U.S. Court of Appeals, but only if you got a lawyer. After years of complaints and hearings, Congress acknowledged that claimants for VA benefits are in an "adversarial" relationship with the VA and created the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) in 1988. This is the only U.S. Court where appellants aren't required to have a lawyer. Over half of these appeals are begun without representation, but enough find lawyers so that less than half are unrepresented by the time that the CAVC makes a decision. Even though most claims without representation lose at the CAVC, enough unrepresented veterans win, so other veterans are encouraged to appeal without legal representation. Recent law has changed to allow Veterans access to attorneys, but lawyers certified by the VA are few in number and hard to find. That is because up until 2007, lawyers could only be paid no more than $10 to represent claimants for VA benefits, under a 19th century law passed to protect Civil War veterans from unscrupulous lawyers. This limit is lifted if the case is appealed in the CAVC, and lawyers can get a percentage, but only 15%, rather than the usual 33% for non-VA claims such as Social Security. But new evidence, which is often necessary to win the claim, cannot be added to the case at that point. So veterans have to pay lawyers to be told that they can't win, or they can readily find lawyers who are glad to take a percentage of easy wins. Veteran service organizations, such as the American Legion, have veteran service officers (VSOs) who provide free, non-attorney representation. This is supposed to insure that veterans get representation equal to that which lawyers would provide, but training and competence varies, and the only cases they take to the CAVC are those that set precedents. In addition, all states have their own Department of Veterans Affairs, and many counties have veterans' service commissions, with service officers who help veterans with complex rules and paperwork, but many don't represent veterans at the VA. These agencies are organized and work together in a variety of ways. The American Legion, like some national groups, gives the responsibility for hiring VSOs to their state affiliates. Some national veterans' groups, most notably the Disabled American Veterans, retain control of their VSOs at the national level. As a way of assisting these groups, some states pay the salaries of the VSOs accredited by national groups and working in the VAROs representing veterans and writing appeals. The Illinois Department of Veterans' Affairs (IDVA), for example, maintains a statewide system of field offices to help veterans with VA paperwork and procedures, but doesn't represent veterans at the VA. Most of the counties have a veterans' commission which employs a service officer for the same purpose and with the same restrictions. The IDVA supports those VSOs who represent veterans by paying the salary (with state employee benefits) of a VSO in each of the big national groups' offices at the Chicago VA regional offices. The only exception is the American Legion - it appears that the state doesn't trust the Legion to do this work. With that in mind, I can now bring up the fact, without it sounding entirely like sour grapes, that the VA had the American Legion fire me, one of their own veteran service officers (VSOs), for complaining too much. The VA said that my memos to them on behalf of veterans were too "antagonistic." The facts surrounding this and the American Legion's personnel file used for my termination are what I am now making public as evidence that these problems have reached a crisis. [That was 2002, and now it is 2009, is the VA system still in crisis? How many Veterans Service Organization Service Officers are willing to place your job on the line by well "complaining too much" about how America's Veterans are mistreated. Damn, we thought that was your job? Major Hanafin.] The Bureaucratic Snake pit Even when the law and evidence supports a veteran's claim, it can be denied or delayed by some nameless bureaucrat at the VARO, we VSOs working there are supposed to prevent that from happening or get it reversed if it happens. In order to ensure that the VA handles all claims correctly, we are given direct access to the veteran's claim files and the VARO personnel making the decisions. During my time at the Chicago VARO I saw so many bad decisions and dealt with VA personnel that were so out of touch with reality that I must conclude that they are simply crazy. Every day, some VA employee complains about a Service Officer because of the very nature of our jobs. [it makes no difference if you are a Service Officer for the Legion, VFW, or some VSO with "Against," "Peace," or "Speak Out" in your logo. Major Hanafin] Called GIs - that is, Government Issue - how can we help but see ourselves as property as low lifes, well putting it politely lower class, nothing more than slaves? Ray Parrish is a member of the Chicago chapter of VVAW. 　 "Keep on, Keepin' on" Dan Cedusky, Champaign IL "Colonel Dan" See my web site at: http://www.angelfire.com/il2/VeteranIssues/

When I first filed my claim it was denied right away. I filed an NOD & requested a hearing. After the hearing I won a partial award of 30% & pension. It seems they almost deny everyone the first time, so atleast folks should send in their NOD's to rebut the denials before appealing to the BVA. As soon as you appeal to the BVA, your claim will just get passed back to the RO level anyway. It's better to try to get the RO level to work out their error's, before it goes to the BVA. Everyone should read their denials carefully. Most are full of errors to outright lies from what i've experienced. Some can get worked out by requesting a local hearing at the VARO. When you've exhausted your NOD's to the VARO, than file a form 9 and appeal to the BVA if you need to. If you have to appeal to the BVA, it's a long, long road to travel. First it gets burried in the caverns of the AMC for years, before the BVA makes a final.

His email says hyper-keritosis is one of his issues. States he has basic training at Ft Lewis. What is AIT group? I can ask him & find out for you if I know what it is.