Jay Johnson

Here is the Link . Just because you can google PTSD and memory loss does not make those findings scientific and/or peer reviewed. The fact is that people suffer forms of memory loss with age regardless of PTSD and there is VERY little information available (in terms of longitudinal studies...IE - studies over time that would accurately account for differences in memory loss). Also, there's a HUGE difference between memory loss surrounding the traumatic event (very common even in mild PTSD) and generalized memory impairment on a regular and progressive basis, especially on a level described by this veteran's wife. My wife is a 100% PTSD vet that has even had A&A and a GAF of 10 and when she's highly anxious she can barely remember her own name; however, when she is calm she has a memory that far surpasses mine (she can remember social security numbers from people in the military from several years ago). The same can be said for her cognitive skills....when she is calm her IQ is higher than the average person, but when she is anxious she can't even walk straight. This is what people refer to when they talk about memory and cognitive problems in PTSD patients. Now, this isn't to say that PTSD cannot cause permanent and/or long term impairment in memory and cognitive functions, but there is relatively little research to prove such a theory and what research there is seems to tie a decrease in functioning with the level of disability and/or acuteness of symptoms. BTW, I'm not an MD, nor a PsyD, but I bet I know as much, or more, than most of them on this subject (as do most PTSD spouses imo; especially those like me who are studying the field....):-)

There are some recent studies that have linked increased memory loss, with age, in people with PTSD (even if they have overcome it), but the studies weren't a cause/effect type of thing. It is *believed* that PTSD affects the hippocampus, which just happens to be associated with memory, but it's hard to say whether or not a smaller than normal hippocampus was preexisting and made the folks with PTSD more susceptible to its effects, or whether the PTSD caused the hippocampus to shrink (one would need MRIs BEFORE the traumatic event to determine this and we can't predict who will have traumatic experiences in life). Typically, memory loss and cognitive issues are linked to acute PTSD episodes where the patient is suffering from a panic attack, increased depression, disassociation, psychosis, etc and not long term impairment. With that said, this could still be a PTSD issue, but, imho, it's more likely to be something else....either way, it's worth pursuing as a PTSD issue for the sake of SC.

There could be lots of factors that can cause/lead to memory loss and other issues....meds can be an issue, as can poor diet, diabetes, cancer, anemia, and many, many other relatively mild issues. The best thing you can do is have him tested......maybe get him in for some blood work at the very least to see if everything checks out; if they recently changed a dose of meds he could be having a reaction to it.

How old is he? Age is a huge factor in alzheimer's. As far as PTSD causing memory loss: It can, but usually during periods of extreme anxiety and/or disassociative states. Being that he is only rated at 30% I am reluctant to say that he would have such glaring mental errors due to an anxiety disorder. There are tests that can be done to determine if he has alzheimer's, but can you get him to take said tests?:-(

Couple of facts: Atlanta is home to one of the largest child prostitution rings in the world.......the average age for consent for most of europe is 14-15 and it's 13, or less, in most of asia, the middle east, africa, india, russia and south america (japan is 13, but even that's not strictly enforced and, by the way, japan has far lower rates of rape, child prostitution, teenage pregnancy and abortions)........there is no correlation between promiscuity, teenage pregnancy or mental health issues in consensual sex in teenagers. Of course "no age of consent" would not be a policy I would follow, but the current age should be lowered and each case should be taken on an individual basis. In other words, if a 16 year old and a 20 year old fall in love, have sex within the confines of a normal relationship and the 20 year old did not use any "influence" over the girl than the relationship should be perfectly legal, but if the 20 year old is a teacher's assistant and uses his position in the classroom to coerce the teenager into a purely sexual relationship than there should be repercussions. Either way, the point isn't to argue about the finer details of the age of consent; the point was that not all crimes that would land one on a registered sex offender list are the same. Most on the list deserve to be there, but the ones that don't deserve to be there water the list down and demean the purpose the list, in my opinion. The laws need to reflect the severity of the crime and because they currently do not, it hurts the victims of the truly violent and abhorrent crimes.

The key difference being that young girls who are "groomed" for sex with adult males almost never suffer adverse mental reactions later in life; whereas, forcible rape and/or consensual sex with girls under a certain age (10ish) typically results in long term mental instabilities. In essence, the 25 yr old and 15 yr old scenario is more of a social issue than a legal one or one about protecting the young girl. However, you are quite correct in that adult influence is usually used to coerce the girl into intercourse, so it should remain a crime and there should still be some form of punishment, but that punishment should not be under the same category as forcible rape or pedophilia. I would concede that a multiple sex offender that seems to prey on teenage girls should be put on the sexual offender registry, but a single incident should not condemn someone for life, nor should it grey the lines between a real threat and someone who takes advantage of immaturity. Keep in mind that it was fairly common, for most of human history, for girls as young as 12 to marry much older men; in fact, it was the norm for millennia.

Actually, there was a story in the news recently about a kid, around here in WA, who had to register as a sex offender because his girlfriend's parents didn't like him and reported him to the police.......she was 17 and he was 18 and they had been dating for quite some time. The story was about how the public wanted the "registered sex offender" tag dropped, by the law just doesn't allow for it at the moment, so he will be a sexual predator for the rest of his life and treated EXACTLY the same as some insane pedophile. There in lies the problem: Around here there are hundreds (if not thousands) of people on the "registered sex offender" list, but many of those are fairly harmless and were involved in non-violent crimes. This dilutes the meaning of "sexual predator" and makes the general public indifferent to the term in general. If we were to use that tag for ONLY true pedophiles and those convicted of forcible rape, then we, as a community, could better keep track of them and protect ourselves and our children. Again, the laws need to change drastically and we need to get over this right-wing, anti-sex, fear mongering we've been taught for so many years. Many other countries have NO age of consent (or much younger ages), yet their kids are better taught to respect themselves and one-another, so the average age their kids begin having sex is actually later than our own sexually repressed kids. But we, as Americans, put consenting kids in jail, which is ridiculous imho and it plays down what real rape is all about.... Anywho, sorry about the tangent, but I recently wrote a paper on the differences in sex education (and its effects) between the US and other countries.......

Agreed, but should someone do 20 years in prison if some 15 year old girl comes on to him and he's to stupid/ignorant to say no? The law says he should, which is why we can't convict anyone of rape in this country! I find it a bit hypocritical of americans, in general, to get sooo offended when an older guy finds some teenager attractive, yet the standard of beauty in this country is that of a 16 year old....think about it, what does the average model look like? Thin, not a single wrinkle on her body, perky breasts/butt and porcelain skin....you've just described 99% of girls aged 14-18! In essence, the standard of beauty in this country is modeled around teenagers, yet we freak out when we hear that someone actually had relations with a minor. With that said, it is still WRONG for adults to prey on young girls who are not mature enough to make those decisions on an adult level.....however, it is a far cry from a true pedophile who is attracted to very young kids. Pedophilia is a disease of the mind, which is typically brought on by childhood experiences (IE - those who were molested tend to be molesters). So, it may still be wrong, as you say, but it does not rise to the level of a crime that should deny veterans the benefits/recognition they deserve......at least in my opinion....

Here's the problem with the current laws and why I disagree with everyone here (and I HATE to do so): As the laws are written now, ANYONE who has sex with a "minor" has to register as a "sex offender". So, let's say you're 18 year old son has been dating a girl for 2 years, but he turned 18 6 months before his girlfriend did.....if they have sex the boy could spend years in jail and have to register as a sex offender for the rest of his life. Another lesser example (but a bad one none-the-less): Let's say a 28yr old has consensual sex with a 15 year old........although this is still a bad thing to do and there should be repercussions, is it the same as a 40 yr old having sex with an 8 yr old? These screwed up black/white laws are what makes it SOOOOO difficult for women to prosecute rape, because most of our rape laws fall under one category and many "rapes" are different and the laws governing them should compensate for it. Instead, we have to keep the rape penalties fairly low, because we cannot send someone to jail for 20 years because they had consensual sex with their girlfriend, but it's still ,"technically" rape in the law's eyes. There are even states where two kids of equal age having consensual sex can be charged with rape because "ANY sex under 18 is illegal and considered to be statutory rape". With that said, my aunt's husband (complete loser) was caught molesting my 1st cousin's kid (the girl was 6 I believe) and when the guy was caught he committed suicide before he could be charged. Regardless, he got a full veteran's burial due to prior service and a disability. Those types of guys have NO business getting treatment reserved for those who served honorably (both while in service and later in life). So, what we really need to do is change our laws to reflect TRUE pedophiles that prey on young kids....I don't know about you folks, but most 14 yr old girls look just like 25 yr old girls these days and I think there's a completely different type of crime/thought process involved between consensual sex with a 15 yr old and consensual sex with a 7 year old. I was "sexually active" at 14 with my 14 year old girlfriend (whom I had been dating for 2 years)....in some areas that would make me a rapist and sexual predator; does that sound right? So when you hear the term "registered sex offender" keep the aforementioned in mind........the only people who should have to "register" as sex offenders should be those who rape (unconsensual) ANYONE of any age and those who have any sort of sexual contact with kids below the age of 10. There should be some grey area between 10 and 13, but, after that, any consenual sex should be handled differently than "normal" rape cases......

Has anyone ever filed a 1151 claim for sexual assault by a psychiatrist who was treating them for MST? Wouldn't that be within the scope of "medical services and treatment"? If your job is to "treat" their mind and you make their mind worse by your actions how is that different than botching a heart surgery that causes death, while trying to fix someone's heart? I agree with wings; this is the most twisted logic I’ve ever heard…..

You cannot fail at that which you have no control. You've been through hell and back and you're still here, so you should have faith that you will get over this hurdle regardless of whether or not you are prepared to handle it. Does basic training really prepare anyone for the horrors of war? Did the military prepare you for life after service?......you have more strength than you know; just hang in there and lean on whomever you can until you get through this. BTW, sometimes it's better to pull away in a relationship in order to bring things back together; at times, pushing a relationship on someone can actually drive them further apart......get the help you need to stabilize and let your wife come to you. If she elects not to, then it was not meant to be:-(

One can"believe" in the mission while the mission is going on, yet change their minds down the road. This was exactly what happened in 'nam........military folks "need" to believe in this mission because they don't want to suffer (or watch others suffer) in vain. It took decades for many 'nam vets to come to terms with the ridiculous war that was, because most couldn't come to accept that their friends, and loved one's, deaths could, and should, have been prevented. I think you are downplaying a serious problem at the detriment of our armed forces and I would choose my words more carefully if I were you......

Spike, I cannot sympathize with your problems, but I can sympathize with your wife's. Being the spouse of the veteran with PTSD, I see the same things she is seeing and I have certainly felt the things she feels, but some people are better suited to deal with those problems than others and it takes a certain kind of a person to live with someone with so many issues. In a perfect world, everyone would "get" this disease and there would be far better support for both of you, but we don't live in such a world, so we must deal with what we have. All you can do is try to survive and cope for as long as you can....either your wife will come around or she will not; either way, it is not YOUR fault. Again, not everyone is cut out to deal with this stuff and, to be honest, I think most people require some formal training in psychology to properly handle a PTSD vet at 100%.......it seems like every "problem" a PTSD vet has is linked to some deeper meaning and it takes some training (and patience) to figure that out. I know that when my wife lashes out at me, she is not angry at ME; rather, she is venting anger that she has been bottling up, in order to survive, and I'm just the adult in the room when the cork pops.....this is something that many spouses don't get and without understanding it, you cannot possibly live within the confines of a marriage. I wish you the best my friend, but I fear you'll have to draw strength from elsewhere. Just hold on and get through this rough patch and try to see the light at the end of the tunnel....regardless of what happens, you have time on your side and things will inevitably improve; you just have to hang on until things turn around. Feel free to PM me if you want to chat further....

I did it with my wife's case and she won (not saying that was the reasoning though). Sometimes those %#@$! at the RO think they can ignore their own rules and that you are too stupid to notice, so copying them and highlighting the relevant points shows them that you understand, full well, your rights and VA law. It can only help imho.

Linking a physical disorder to PTSD is theory at best. It would take a research MD that is specifically looking into that connection in order to even attempt a connection in my opinion. This isn't to say that PTSD isn't the cause of heart issues (and many other physical ailments), but there is next to no scientific data that shows a causal effect of PTSD in terms of physical conditions. Also, the fact that you're at 10% for PTSD doesn't bode well for your case....perhaps if you were 100% you could make a better connection between your severe PTSD and physical issues.....

The fiduciary program is a joke in most cases...the threshold for being declared "incompetent" is ridiculous to begin with. Unless a veteran requests financial help and/or the VA obtains PROOF of poor money management, then the VA should have NO business in the veteran's financial affairs. These things are easy to prove by simply running a credit check to see if there are any financial issues. The VA found my wife "incompetent" without ever having met with her or giving us a chance to fight the finding. Their basis was that "she was 100% for PTSD so she is automatically found incompetent to manage her finances". We found out she was in the program when a guy came to our house (unannounced...intentionally, which is great for a MST PTSD vet /sigh) for a "review" of her case (which is yearly). It took 3 years of fighting to get her out of the program and almost cost her the 100% P&T rating she had already won. This program should be completely scrapped and one the is totally separate from the VA should take its place......in other words, the VA should NOT be able to declare incompetency at all; that should be left up to the real legal system. However, they should keep a lesser program for veterans that "elect" to have the VA screw with their personal affairs at the potential cost of their disability compensation (which is a BAD idea, but there should at least be an option). Seriously, I can't say enough bad things about this program......it's the worst thing the VA does and I can't think of how it would ever truly help a veteran in need. Signing away one's life, involuntarily, should be illegal.

Any of the states that offer 100% property tax exemptions for 100% disabled vets would be good. PA has VERY high property taxes and offer such a benefit (can save you upwards of 10K/year) and many areas in PA are fairly low on the cost of living scale. The area around Lancaster PA is fairly cheap and fairly close to major cities like philly, balt, NY, etc. The area itself is fairly rural, but there is a lot of new development and you can get a really nice home for around 250K (2K+ sqft, new with .5 acres or better). You can probably find cheaper homes in the midwest/south, but you have to deal with lesser education opportunities and lower income scales for your family, so it evens out..... Currently, I'm in WA state and the benefits are kinda crappy, but I'm finishing school at the moment and have three young kids who will be in college in the next 7-10 years and WA just passed a bill that waves 100% of tuition costs (up to a bach) for 100% vets (PT), plus I can still collect the ch 35 beneifits with the free tuition, which makes this state a decent one for me (plus I LOVE the area). We almost moved to PA before coming ehre though due to the lower cost of living and tax exemption.....

TS, There are a few problems with the fiduciary program, the biggest of which is a constant review of your claim that can be used against you. Here are my issues with it: 1) It leaves you with very little say over your own finances and once you're in the program it's damn near impossible to get control of your finances again.......what if you divorce down the road? What if your spouse passes away? It can become a huge pain in that respect. 2) Your spouse (or whomever takes control of the money) has to report to the VA regularly and there's a lot of paperwork/regulations on how the fiduciary you appoint can handle the money. It can be a huge inconvenience. 3) The VA severely limits what YOU can do with your own money once a fiduciary is appointed. This means you cannot invest your own money, nor can you really spend anything outside of living expenses. Also, every purchase over a certain dollar amount must be approved by the VA, so if you want a new plasma TV your wife would have to request permission from the VA to do so (it's a certain dollar amount...like 1K I think..or was at least). 4) If you're found to be P&T, the fiduciary folks can reopen your case by providing "new and material evidence" because they routinely check in on you and give assessments of your condition to "evaluate" your continued need of the program. So, some guy with NO training in mental disorders can report that "you appear to be doing very well" which can prompt the RO to reduce your rating because it's technically new and material evidence. The spirit of the program was well intended, but, as with most governmental programs, it has grown into an all encompassing paper work nightmare that really only serves to hurt most veterans. The original intent of the program was to protect vets against spouses/loved ones who were taking advantage of their mental state and stealing their money; as well as, veterans with manic disorders who have issues with gambling and the like (common in bipolar cases). But, today, they just blanket anyone with a severe mental disorder and "assume" that anyone rated at a high level with PTSD is unable to handle their own finances. They also use the program to spy on vets in my opinion..... But maybe I'm just paranoid.....:-)

It's not a lot of money at all and not really worth the hassle of reopening a claim; especially a PTSD one rated at 100%, but if you really need the extra $ and feel your PTSD case is air tight, then go for it. However, if you are not yet P&T and you have an upcoming C&P then use housebound as a bargaining chip to keep your current rating. Sometimes the VA likes to feel as if they've won something and if you ask for HB during a C&P, they may be more inclined to keep you at 100% because the HB denotes a decrease in your functioning (even if they don't grant it). But I wouldn't reopen the case needlessly if you have a C&P in the future.....

To put it bluntly - the data is useless because it does not state the number of claims denied and/or the ratio of higher to lower ratings. In other words, if state "A" has 10 vets and 9 of them are rated at 100%, while one is rated at 10%, they will have an average payout of 2K or so, but if state "B" has 10 vets and 9 out of 10 of them are rated at 50% while one is rated at 30%, they would have an average payout far less than state "A". Neither is an example of one state paying more to vets than the other; rather, it's just a reflection of the number of severely disabled veterans who chose to live in said state. A number that would worry me would be how many claims are denied and/or more specific data that shows that vets with similar symptoms are being rated higher in one state versus another (to which I have not seen data of this sort...mostly because the VA will not divulge it). This is just a quick soundbite for politicians to use to point fingers at one-another in an election year (and the new media having NO understanding of the VA process).

Keep in mind that if *any* new evidence was given to the RO to strengthen your case since your original denial you would have a very weak case for a CUE, because you are arguing the evidence/laws from THAT claim and not any new evidence..... When you get into "weight" of evidence you're almost certainly going to lose a CUE; now if you asked them to review your military records and stated that you had evidence from your service time and they ignored the request, then you may have something to base a CUE on......

The retro pay idea will only help a small portion of veterans because not all vets are entitled to retro in an amount that would be sufficient to warrant a lawyer's time. I don't know the exact numbers, but I would *guess* that most claims do not involve large retro sums. Lawyers are a pricey bunch and fighting a claim, against a bureaucracy like the VA, is no small task, so I couldn't see lawyers taking cases unless there was at a minimum a $5K payout at the end of the tunnel. Heck, it cost me $2500 to get a lawyer for this ordeal my wife caused the other day and I had an open and shut case that involved all of 2 man hours on his part. So, I think you may be underestimating just how many vets will be unable to hire a lawyer for their claims and it's unfair that some vets will have strong legal representation whilst most have no representation and/or an SO to use (which is VERY hit or miss). Personally, it would be best if the SOs would work together to provide the legal fund themselves since they have the resources and contacts in place to do it, but I just don't see them taking a lead on that sort of thing unless they were pushed by their donating base. However, an IMO fund would also be a good idea for veterans needing more medical evidence, but that could be part of the legal fund as it would pertain to their case. In other words, if their lawyer says, "you need an IMO from specialist X", we provide the money for said visit as long as the lawyer believes it to be necessary. I don't know, I just can't help shake the feeling that this law will screw a great number of vets because retro pay is only involved in a fraction of cases and lawyers need to put food on the table too. Either way, I appreciate the feedback........I'm researching the idea more to see if it is viable and if I can find a partner to help get me started. As Pete mentioned, there are many small organizations that help veterans in various ways, but I think this issue requires something on a national scale that can have some influence in how the new law is developed and how to properly train lawyers to fight for veterans. My guess is that we would be shooting for lawyers who already practice SS law, since they are the most likely to enter into the market for the new VA law, but they need training and organization.

I've actually got an idea for a non-profit organization that could be a huge help to many disabled veterans around the country, but I don't have non-profit experience (though I do own a business license), nor do I have the inside contacts/capital to start it. The idea is thus (and don't steal it:-): Until recently, an SO was the only means of help for most veterans, but, as we all know, veterans can now hire attorneys once they are denied/low-balled by the RO. If we could set up a Disabled Veteran's Legal Fund (DVLF), we could assist veterans with the cost of hiring a lawyer, which gives them a professional means of fighting their case beyond SOs. The problem is that the SOs have a stronghold on the veteran population, at the moment, and it would take considerable resources and contacts to supplant/complement them. Personally, I think a non-profit like this could be a HUGE help to millions of vets down the road if someone could get it up and running. I'm willing to put as much effort forth as I can to assist in this venture, but I just don't have the resources to do it on my own. To be effective, we would need memberships/donations much like SOs currently receive and, possibly, government grants, but, again, that takes contacts and start-up capital to get the word out. By the way, I thought of this the other day when talking to a friend about my small business and capital making ventures in general..I had told him that the new law is going to make someone a lot of money if they can position themselves properly (IE - lawyers), but couldn't think of a way to make it into a business. Eventually, it hit me, like a ton of bricks, that SOs, essentially, already do what I'm suggesting, but they don't have the legal qualifications to do it on a professional legal basis. Supplying the money to veterans for an attorney (and keeping a data-bank of *good* VA attorneys) would be a huge benefit to those who cannot afford a lawyer on their own. This brings me to another point that makes this sort of program vital: I fear the new law will create have and have-not classes of veterans, in which those with the proper resources can have a much higher % chance of winning their claims than poorer veterans, which is a terribly flawed system imo. So, a legal fund should help correct this imbalance. Anywho, give me some feedback on the idea...

100% for PTSD now requires a "higher" signature also.....it's just VA politics.

I'm not certain on this, but I don't think SMCs stack....don't they just take the highest one?