Jay Johnson

The "pyramid" excuse is BS, but, yeah, they combine all mental disorders (and shouldn't). As for your CUE: If you think the VA was in error (legally speaking) then file the CUE....worst they can say is no.

There are many places on the internet that one can go to for political debate and I think Tbird wants to focus on veteran's issues, so her decision to remove the political forum was a wise one imo...... I know some will say that, "well you can keep the forums separate", but just having the forum can attract people who just want to argue politics (without giving any advice/support), which can cause issues for those who actually do need help/want to help.....

They most certainly do have docs handling patients who have not yet past their medical boards....the federal gov is exempt from most liability and those pseudo-doctors don't even need malpractice insurance. Also, while you may point out that a resident is a licensed MD, you failed to acknowledge that a resident is often **learning** a specialized field and, in the civilian world, works under a specialist for that particular field. In the military/VA, however, a resident can work in/head a specialized field which they are, at the time, unqualified to do. There's a BIG difference between a resident doing general care for a vet and a resident doing a C&P for a specialized affliction like neurological disorders due to brain trauma or heart problems....this is why full general practice MDs with DECADES of experience send their patients to cardiologists/neurologists in the civilian world.

They are all rated under the same lump group, so more mental disorders can really only help your case (provided a C&P doesn't also show a decrease in the severity of your PTSD). The only real draw back to memory loss is incompetency which can mean the VA appoints a fiduciary to handle your finances (or at least evaluates you for one). Fiduciary program = the devil, so stay away from that if you can:-) Other than that, don't worry about it...memory loss and other such issues can all be linked to PTSD anyway and may show a worsening of your overall symptoms for PTSD.

Well keep in mind that SC is an all or nothing proposition, so there's not a lot of room for debate, at least as far as the medical end is concerned. If you have solid evidence and a doc to say your disability is as likely as not to be linked to said evidence, you *should* win your case. However, the "level" of disability can be highly subjective and a psychiatrist's opinion should carry more weight than a psychologist's, but even that depends on how thorough the docs are in their opinions....in other words, if the psychiatrist spends 10 minutes with you and writes a general eval, but the psychologist spends 1.5 hrs and gives a detailed eval including a thorough review of your medical records, the psychologist's opinion may then carry more weight. But, in the end, it depends on whether or not the RO wants to play by the book and whether or not they give more weight to a VA doc (even if it's a PA) just because said doc has ties to the VA.....nothing seems to be written in stone imo, but this is a good decision to cite for future reference.

Berta, I'm not upset at you for posting it at all, but it does seem to be a bit of a double edged sword that gets more press than when the VA screws a veteran. Like you, I look around for stories on vets and I see far more negative stories like fraud, or a veteran going "postal" at a VA hospital/clinic than I see of veteran friendly stories that put the VA in the same light. Even in that post that Tbird linked about the veteran who got denied in Reno......the story had to be prefaced by a "pro" VA subject like the average amount per year awarded to veterans in nevada. It's as if the media cannot separate the VA from the veteran in most cases and they feel that attacking the VA is analagous to attacking a veteran (which we know isn't true). So, don't feel bad; I just wish the veterans who get screwed by the VA got as much press...... Personally, I wouldn't post that stuff because I have confidence that the system will handle the matter. Conversely, I know the system will not take care of the raters that routinely low-ball and deny legitimate claims for deserving veterans, so those stories need to be told in order to fix the process. Talking about a veteran that has committed fraud doesn't do anything but make good veterans look bad....but that's just my opinion based on a society that punishes the many for the actions of the few.....

But isn't this treating every veteran as if they are lying before they even get started in the compensation process; moreover, isn't that exactly what the VA wants from the general public....to call everyone's service into question? I understand the basic need to confirm military service, but, as Pete said, you can simply do that with a DD 214 (though those can probably be faked). The same sort of hysteria is brought into many debates in which the government is trying to overemphasize and very small minority of cases.......how many cases from NO did we see about people frauding the government out of money??? Yet, how many people in NO got no help at all because of the government's inept handling of the crisis (some even died as a result)? It's only fair when there is a proportional representation and I don't see that at the moment....one can walk into any RO in the country and see dozens of low-balled and falsely denied claims for compensation and NONE of them ever make any real news (or rarely do, as was the case of the vet that tbird recently posted), but if ONE vet gets caught lying it's major news across the nation, which makes it seem as if frauds are the norm in the VA system, which we all know is far from the truth. I guess it's just me, but I think the system doesn't even allow for real veterans to get benefits in many cases, so I have confidence that the fake ones will not be getting any money any time soon, so, to me, it's not a story at all.

Why is it that every time the VA "finds" a phony veteran, it's huge news, yet there are literally tens of thousands of veterans who the VA is low-balling every day and we hear nothing about it even though the "fake veterans" comprise probably less than 0.00000001% of the cases the VA sees? Honestly, I really get upset when these things are posted because it feeds into the propaganda the VA is selling and the illusion that veterans don't deserve their benefits...... No offense intended at all Berta, but you know as well as I that this almost NEVER happens in the VA system and anyone who is faking their SC is almost always caught, yet by highlighting it we lend credence to the idea that vets are lying to steal money from the government. On the other hand, I cannot stand censorship of any kind, so I understand the need to post things like this, but I can't help shake the feeling that we're doing the dirty work for the VA in the process either.....

It also depends on your disability in my opinion. Some disabilities are more subjective than others and, hence, the VA may be more likely to lower a rating with said disabilities. For instance, if my wife, who is 100% PTSD, were to start volunteering and the RO caught wind of it I'm sure they would reopen her case and at least investigate things, which can be a nightmare in and of itself. However, realistically, what are the chances someone in the RO will get wind of what you are doing? So, it comes down to how secure you think you are in your rating if the VA were to reopen your case TODAY (do you have medical proof that you still deserve the 100%?) and how much you want to volunteer knowing there is a chance, be it ever so slim, that the VA could *attempt* to use it against you........ Personally, there are ways to do things without linking your name to them...in other words, one can do volunteer work from home (via the internet, home office, making phone calls, etc), but use your spouse's name as the one actually doing the work. You could even set something up outside of home that your "spouse" is getting credit for, though you're the one actually putting in the leg work (maybe handing out pamphlets for an non-profit). This way, you get to contribute to society in some way, but there is no official record of it at all.

Passing a concurrent receipt bill that covers *ALL* medically retired vets would help some (I know an extra $1000/month would be a big help to us), but they do need to revisit the amount in general as well, especially given the ridiculous inflation in housing cost since bush took office. The house I'm in now (renting 'cause I can't afford to buy it), is worth about 450K....the owners bought it about 3 years ago for 250K...that's an ****80%**** increase in three years, yet we got, what, a 6% increase in compensation over the same period....insane!!!!!!!! But, the fiscal conservatives that tell us how the economy is doing don't seem to factor in housing costs into the "economy"...to them, the stock market is up 2K points so everyone MUST be doing great......right???

Isn't "Myhealthvet" an oxymoron?:-)

By the way, are you still on a TDRL (temporary retirement list)? If so, you will still need to be reevaluated by your branch of service within the time designated on your medical boarding (usually 2-3 years I think). P.S. - I *believe* there is a law that states that the VA must rate you at 50%, at least, upon your initial rating if you are rated within a set period of being medically discharged (6 months I think)......my memory on this one is shaky and it might only apply to PTSD, but I think it's for any SC condition that you are boarded for. This also means that the VA could go lower in a future exam, which could be scheduled fairly soon after that initial rating.....

I believe you are refering to concurrent receipt which would likely not cover this invdividual, though some lawmakers are trying to expand/rush the law. Anywho, in your case, you will get whichever is higher (factoring in that VA is non-taxed and military is taxed). They really should pay both rates considering every other governmental agency gets their pension + disability money, but that's another debate I suppose....

I think what Time is trying to say is that there are other methods to getting threads back on track and/or stopping folks from personal attacks. If a thread starts to get derailed and a rant ensues, a mod can always pop in and say, "ok, let's get this thing back on track"; or, if a thread becomes angry or overly argumentative, a mod *should* (not sure if they can) just delete the offensive post(s) and send the member a PM to help get things back on track. The reason for this is, just as with the recent "nugent" thing that popped up in which I was a part of, the members can often resolve things on their own, which we did, and locking such a thread may hurt a veteran who was benefiting from the non-OT remarks. Personally, I think the mods have done fairly well at this, but there have been a couple of threads that got out of hand that probably should not have been locked, because there was still some vital information in said thread despite the other nonsense. So, I don't claim to speak for Time, but I think the point was just to hold off on locking any thread until every other remedy has been explored......some threads just get so out of hand that there's no option and some threads start off bad, which means it's better to cut them off before things get even worse. I know it's a fine line to walk, but it's a good reminder none-the-less. Keep up the good work BTW; it's appreciated....

I would consider hiring a lawyer at this point. It sounds as if you have a VERY strong case and the VA is just bullying your nephew out of, what will be, a VERY large sum of money. If he reported the MST, and there is record of it, it should be SC and if what you say about his medical record is true they would have to approve the back issues as well. The key to your case is gathering ALL of the medical evidence you can, coupled with any buddy statement or other lay statements, and presenting them in a professional manner in which the VA cannot refuse. It is possible for you to do this yourself, but a lawyer, if there are any knowledgable about VA matters at this point, may help. For the time being, just start gathering every shred of evidence you can and continue to fight the claim....it sounds very strong to me.

A resident needs only to report to a licensed MD; he/she does not need said MD present at all times. This brings up an interesting, yet horrible, story about my wife in the AF: While my wife was pregnant with our 3rd child, we had decided that she should have her tubes tied because 3 was enough (too many in my opinion:-), so the head of obstetrics, who was her doctor at sheppard AFB, said he would tie them right after the delivery so she wouldn't have to go through another recovery. Well, the delivery came and went and she asked the doctor to tie her tubes. The doctor then informed her that he did not want to tie her tubes while she was that young (22yrs old) because, "it would look bad on my record when I try to pass my medical boards". Yup, the ***HEAD*** of obtetrics at SAFB wasn't even a licensed MD and he had the entire department reporting to him (the rest were PAs or NPs). I'm not sure who he reported to, if anyone, but I was shocked when I heard it; especially given that SAFB is a fairly large base given it is the main technical training base for the air force. Yet another reason not to touch VA health care (or military for that matter) with a ten foot pole.....avoid at all cost imo.

I'm sorry for the rant, but I hate when people, such as nugent, misrepresent *facts*. Personal views and opinions are the spice of life, but when someone misuses a fact to make a "belief" sound as if it's true, I tend to get upset:-) As for your hearing - The VA is just like a criminal defense; you need to have more proof than they do. You just need to get every piece of evidence you can that shows a "stressor" and present it within the scope of the VA regulations. You can learn a lot by reading past BVA hearings and the VA regs....use their regulations and words against them and be prepared for the typical BS they will no doubt throw at you. It's hard to get much more specific then that without more detail.....

That's the whole point. If they were to review EVERY veteran, P&T or not, it would likely end up costing them more, so it makes NO sense that they would even be suggesting it. Why the heck would you review someone who is parapalegic unless you wanted to piss away money??? Seriously, that makes absolutely no sense and this is coming from someone who thinks the VA is always out to get my wife:-) Now, had the report said that they wanted to review all PTSD vets, P&T or not, then I could at least see your reasoning because it's a more subjective disorder and there's a chance that someone could get "better" (as defined by VA scum trying to save $). It's not like they hand out P&T to any slack-jawed yokel with a headache....most of those ratings are thoroughly vetted and physical in nature.

Personality disorders are the least understood disorders in mental health and can only be diagnosed with a longitudinal study of the patient because you need extensive notes over a long period of time (IE - prior to service) in order to make that call, and even then it's a really gray issue. This is a loophole for the military/VA and they are abusing it, period!

Sorry, but Nugent is an idiot and his "statistics" are always greatly flawed or taken out of context. America has more teen pregnancies, more drugs, FAR more violence and pays more taxes than any other industrialized nation on earth and we are FAR more socially conservative in ALL of those regards. The stats show, quite clearly, that if you let people do what they want the world will be better off. The 60's was a revolution against suppression (anti-black, anti-woman culture of the 50's) and was NEEDED in order to correct the problems of prior decades. Sure, there was excess, but excess is self correcting, because people, eventually, need to come back down to reality. BTW, the divorce rates are higher today, because, unlike the 1950's and earlier, it is actually illegal to beat your wife (you could rape your wife until the 1980's and could not be charged with a crime in most states...some states still allow some forms of rape against spouses). Divorce went up when women got a voice in the matter.....period! One more note, during the "liberal" period of the clinton era teen pregnancies went down, abortions went down, drug use went down and violence went down....under bush, they've all spiked again and he's the most conservative president we've had in decades..... How does this relate to veterans? It doesn't, but I could beat my cat to death with a stupid stick and it would still be smarter than anything nugent has ever said!

Where does it say *ALL* veterans should be reevaluated every 3 years? The line about reevaluation is clearly under the subheading of "periodic review". You do understand that it would be completely illogical to reevaluate EVERY veteran every three years, don't you? Do you think someone will grow that lung back or regenerate an arm and leg??? Clearly, it makes *NO* sense, in that context, that the report, which was to ***streamline the VA*** would want to reevaluate veterans who cannot physiologically get better. From a PTSD standpoint I guess I could see the recommendation, but that's putting a LOT of specificity into a very general comment under "periodic review". Also, damn near every VA reg would have to be rewritten if no one could ever be deemed permanently disabled....the VA uses verbage like "static", "permanent in nature", etc over and over again in their regs. I mean, good god.....I'm probably one of the bigger alarmists on this forum and this seems incredibly far fetched even for me:-)

"3.327 Reexaminations. (a) General. Reexaminations, including periods of hospital observation, will be requested whenever VA determines there is a need to verify either the continued existence or the current severity of a disability. Generally, reexaminations will be required if it is likely that a disability has improved, or if evidence indicates there has been a material change in a disability or that the current rating may be incorrect. Individuals for whom reexaminations have been authorized and scheduled are required to report for such reexaminations. Paragraphs ( and © of this section provide general guidelines for requesting reexaminations, but shall not be construed as limiting VA's authority to request reexaminations, or periods of hospital observation, at any time in order to ensure that a disability is accurately rated. (Authority: 38 U.S.C. 501) (;) Compensation cases —(1) Scheduling reexaminations. Assignment of a prestabilization rating requires reexamination within the second 6 months period following separation from service. Following initial Department of Veterans Affairs examination, or any scheduled future or other examination, reexamination, if in order, will be scheduled within not less than 2 years nor more than 5 years within the judgment of the rating board, unless another time period is elsewhere specified. (2) No periodic future examinations will be requested. In service-connected cases, no periodic reexamination will be scheduled: (i) When the disability is established as static; (ii) When the findings and symptoms are shown by examinations scheduled in paragraph (B)(2)(i) of this section or other examinations and hospital reports to have persisted without material improvement for a period of 5 years or more; (iii) Where the disability from disease is permanent in character and of such nature that there is no likelihood of improvement; (iv) In cases of veterans over 55 years of age, except under unusual circumstances; (v) When the rating is a prescribed scheduled minimum rating; or (vi) Where a combined disability evaluation would not be affected if the future examination should result in reduced evaluation for one or more conditions." Clearly, this is what that one line is referring to (in bold). Even though my wife was found to be 100% P&T one year earlier and also found to be P&T again (after much fighting) the "rater" tried to schedule her for a reexamination 1 year after the finding of 100% P&T with housebound. Of course we fought it and now there are no future exams, but it highlights the fact that raters are given great latitude to administer reevaluations and that there is great disparity, even within a given RO, about when to schedule a reexamination for non-P&T vets. The VA *should* be scheduling them 2-5 years, but I'm betting many here have had rexams far quicker then 2 years and without any real justification other than, "the rater said so". This is clearly a line about uniformity in non-P&T cases, so calm down a bit:-) Edit - Perhaps you should use Ockham's Razor for this one:-)

I think you are misreading that portion of the report. A "periodic review" is not P&T and, under current rules, the VA is "supposed" to wait 2 years to review a non-P&T case, but they are given great lattitude and many vets are reviewed far more frequently. To me it sounds as if the report is saying that it should be more standardized to reduce needless reviews....... There was no mention of P&T in that portion of the report and it didn't seem to me to be implying P&T either....

You don't need *medical" records to prove a service connection; you only need evidence showing that there was a stressor. Combat is *one* type of stressor, but there are many others that can lead to SC without actually being in physical combat. I knew a vet who got SC for PTSD just for seeing the bodies coming back from nam at Dover AFB.

This is the major problem with psychology....it relies WAY too much on self reporting statements that can easily be taken out of context or the person giving the statements can simply be lying. Personally, I think self reporting statements are as accurate as a blind monkey trying to shoot a humming bird with a sling shot.