Jay Johnson

As for the general question - it only took me about 2 weeks to get the form from the VA that the college requires. Basically, you send your award letter + your 214 and they mail you a paper saying you're qualified. This letter, in turn, is brought to the VA office at the college and they set up the money according to part-time/full-time status. A few notes - Berta is correct, you CAN utilize pell grants (if you qualify) AND your VA money...also, you can collect both of those with any scholarships you're awarded. The money you get from the VA MUST come in the form of a check...they will not direct deposit. Correspondence does not affect your VA money. Since my wife requires me to be at home 99% of the time, I take almost exclusively distance learning courses. The VA only cares about whether you're full-time, part-time, half-time, etc.. Also, look into your college bylaws (or state laws) and see if the college offers lower tuition for disabled veterans. On top of the VA monthly check, I only have to pay 50% of the normal tuition, per credit hour. If you have any other questions, please let me know. P.S. - You get the VA form (to send in) from the main VA website (under education I believe). The form tells you what you need (award letter + 214) and tells you where to send the letter (different for each state).

You don't need permission from the VA to add/drop in general... the only time you need to inform them of a class change is if it affects your fulltime status.

Well, this is something that would not only help vets, but it would also help the VA. Their ridiculous stance on work, here recently, is leading vets to stay out of the work force, when they may be able to get back into it. The VA benefits when they can get people off of the 100% payrolls and it just doesn't make sense to punish people who are *trying* to regain employment. On top of that, it's obvious the regs were thought up with this in mind...... When I think of the average veteran, I think of the concept of "learned helplessness". This is traditionally associated with people who become apathetic to their abusers, but it seems to be becoming more and more frequent with the VA......veterans seem afraid to speak up about obvious regulations violations for fear of more abuse from the system, so they keep their mouths shut and go with the flow (so to speak). As a matter of practicality, I agree with you sledge, but one can't help but wonder where veterans will be, say 50 years from now, if we keep letting them walk all over us even when the congressional law is clearly on our side /shrug.

I'm about 20 minutes from the Portland VA and even closer to the Oregon RO, yet all of the wife's paperwork has to go through Seattle because we live across the bridge in WA. From what I've seen, it's a huge pain when dealing with the two different states here, especially in terms of a C-file. I think you should try to schedule an appointment with that specialist and/or find a new one in WA, but don't expect them to sort it out for you, because the two states do not communicate well at all.

I see this as another example of the law saying one thing, but when the VA ignores said law, people let it slide and, therefore, the law has no meaning. The purpose of the law is to allow people who cannot work, due to disabilities, to TRY to work and/or to find different work that may not affect their disability as much. If you feel you want to TRY to work, then do so.....if the VA comes after you for following their own regulations, then fight them! It kills me that the VA constantly cries that they have too many people on the pay rolls, yet so many here seem ok with the VA not allowing folks to TRY to get better and/or adapt???? Seems like an idiotic circle to me.....

This is a fundamental difference in ideology. A large portion of the country believes we should all be working and that disability is for losers. Heck, mitt romney was just giving a stump speech about how any health care plan would lead to a wellfare state. Anytime we give money to people who need money that group of folks cries "wellfare, wellfare!!", yet they are ok with giving billions to corporations who fire Americans and move overseas to make 10 cents more per share on slave labor....all because the DOW goes up by 1.5% as a result. Once people stop voting against their own interest (at least 95% of us....I'm sure the folks at exxon are voting in their interests), we'll be a MUCH better country...both civilian and veterans alike.

Actually, the way I read this is that the VA is now switching gears and going after physically disabled vets. "advancement in medicine" and "changes in work" are basically saying that just because someone loses a leg (or legs) doesn't mean that they suffer in terms of income. Also, there are far fewer "manual labor" jobs in the US (due to cheap oversea's labor), so the majority of work in this country is shifting towards white collar, sit-down labor. In this type of labor force, many of the current high ratings, for physical disabilities, would not apply. One can be a fine lawyer whilst in a wheelchair....backpain plays little role in clerical work.....so on and so forth. Personally, I look at this report as more reasoning to LOWER vets, not "fix the system" (unless by fix the system one means less veterans therein). What should change, fundamentally, is that compensation should include a social component. Service men and women are not allowed to sue the military as a civilian could a privately owned business; thus, the military should pay proper restitution to veterans for things like pain and suffering, loss of consortion, and other social implications. To me, this is the ONLY fair course that can be taken on the part of our military...either that, or give vets back the right to sue their government when their government causes them undo harm.

This is exactly the same tactic the right uses to keep us in iraq. If you question the mission you are against the troops; if you question their health care, you are against the troops; if you question their actions (and try to get rid of the bad ones), you are against the troops. So, by this logic the troops will NEVER get better because we cannot question ANYTHING regarding the military. Yet, time and time agaain and on both sides of the isle, our elected officials tell us that the troops have the best health care in the world despite the fact that most of the doctors in the military and VA are straight out of college and not even licensed to practice. Of course, some sort of universal health care would fix this, but that would make us communists I guess.......

They're doing what they always do in the case of psychiatric disorders......playing down the facts that support your case and playing up the ones that don't. It sounds to me that your case is fairly strong and you have a good chance of winning it, but, on the other hand, your RO seems bent on denying you at that level regardless of what any new evidence shows. This is their way of weeding people out of the system...stick with it.

That's classic PTSD stuff there:-( The wife got to a point where she would "see death" all around her every time she got into the car. She would visualize running off of the road and crashing into a tree and, of course, she doesn't drive anymore as a result. Her issues, though, were just generalized fears and hallucinations from MST. I would imagine your issue, being far more specific to driving, is going to be even more difficult to deal with. I hate to say it, but you may want to stop driving all together until you can get a better grasp on your symptoms....you could end up being a danger to yourself, or others.

I would talk to your pharmacist about your med combination; they tend to be the most knowledgeable in that regard. I can, however, say that the drugs that most often cause issues are NSAIDS, SSRIs and MAOIs. SSRIs (selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors) and MAOIs (monoamine oxidase inhibitors...I think; it's been awhile:-) are largely for depression/anxiety. I'm guessing the clonazepam is being prescribed for anxiety for you given your PTSD. The only thing I would worry about is that you are taking a few drugs that can cause drowsiness, but if you're alert and it's not affecting your rate of sleep, it shouldn't really be an issue.

Panic attacks can seem like heart attacks to some people and the worse they tend to be the worst they tend to get. In other words, once the panic attack starts the individual now begins to think the panic attack is something more serious (physiologically) like a heart attack; this compounds and leads to an even worse panic attack, which compounds even further. The best thing you can do is find a safe spot, settle down, convince yourself this is simply a panic issue and try to talk yourself through it while taking deep, slow breaths. I think people also need to keep in mind just how limited the field of psychology is. One's psychological state can have a huge impact on our physiology and there are very few studies that show why, or how, this occurs. Before my wife initially broke down with PTSD (while she had everything bottled up), she had all sorts of physiological problems. She was seen several times for shortness of breath and her blood work was always WAY off (at one point they thought she might have cancer due to high/low white blood cell count). In hindsight, we believe these abnormalities were caused by her psychological issues. It wasn't until she got treatment for her PTSD that her blood work starting showing up as normal. As for specific treatments - The wife is currently on xanax XR for anxiety (XR = extended release). This is coupled with ativan PRN (PRN = as needed). The combination works better than anything she has taken thus far. However, the real key to avoiding anxiety is to avoid situations which cause high anxiety. No amount of drugs can "cure" PTSD, or other anxiety related issues, so one needs to be proactive in their daily environment in order to lead a somewhat productive life. I would suggest that you seek out a civilian psychiatrist (NOT psychologist/therapist) that specializes in anxiety disorders. This is the best course of action in most cases, but make sure that the doctor doesn't over/under medicate you.....the doctor should be VERY receptive to YOUR ideas on treatment; if not, fire him/her and move on.

On base care is typically quick and tricare is quick to pay because it's VERY cheap for them. The reason it's cheap is that most military doctors aren't even licensed to practice medicine and/or they are undereducated PAs and NPs. Quick + cheap doesn't always mean good..... The military needs to do away with stateside military hospitals as does the VA....they are costly and useless.

As far as the PTSD issue, I never once said that the symptoms could not appear for years, in fact I acknowledged as much when I said that PTSD can occur with delayed onset. My point about work was taken from a vet who has PTSD who said that his working kept him functioning. There is no doubt that keeping one's mind occupied will help one deal with the PTSD symtoms. Work, in and of itself, can, and usually does, hurt PTSD vets. The only time work becomes therapeutic is when the job is such that one is not forced to work (IE - to pay the bills) and/or one's job is very low stress (good boss, good environment, etc). Although there are scenarios in which one can work without needing the cash while the same person can be in a low stress, good work environment, I don't believe that's the norm for 95% of us. Rather, we work to live in jobs most of us don't care for, while working for inferior, rude people. This is the major flaw in Sally's argument to the VA. I guess she assumes that everyone makes 7 figures and gets paid to give opinions to a "think tank". Of course, if every vet had her job, they probably could work while being 100% with PTSD and it may actually help their symptoms...... To be honest, I do not feel that people should be able to get SSDI because they CHOSE to use drugs either. Now, if the alcohol and/or drugs are a means of self-medication, then that is a completely different story. You say you have a degree in mental health and you use this tired cliche? Drugs and mental disability are inextricably linked. People who abuse drugs are almost always using them as a form of self-medication. Hell, Freud was a huge proponent of cocaine as a psychologically therapeutic drug. People who are categorized as "choosing" to take drugs are just folks who are self-medicating and cannot admit to others, or even themselves, WHY they are self-medicating. Do you honestly believe hookers become hookers because it's a good career path? How many prostitutes, and other women in the sex industry, say that they had no childhood trauma? Yet, they smoke crack and sleep with dirty old men for money (which is used to buy more crack). In truth, these women cannot admit to THEMSELVES that they were molested as children and have become desensitized to the act of sex. I took drugs as a kid (LSD, coke, pot, etc.) and I never even came close to getting hooked or abused it. However, the friends who came from rough backgrounds ALL got hooked on the drugs and some even died as teenagers. So, is it conceivable that some people abuse drugs just for some sort of "high"? Perhaps, but it's far outside of the norm. As far as leaving PTSD up to those who have PTSD, that does not seem very bright considereing the fact that they are having trouble functioning (hence the reason for the disability). Now my PERSONAL OPINION is that those with mental disorders and are rated 100% should be able to work without losing their benefits. This would accomplish both goals, that of compensating the veteran for the disability and allowing them much needed work therapy. This is the exact way that veterans with phyiscal disabilities are treated. Now, if you have a problem with that OPINION, you can take this board and all the opinions that EVERYONE posts on here and shove them where the sun does not shine. Here we agree. 100% PTSD vets should be locked into that rating (after, say, a period of 3-5yrs) and they should be allowed to work. Money earned on said job should be deducted from their VA compensation. This would allow those vets to seek employment without having to worry about "needing" said employment to live, which takes away most of the stress associated with work. In essence, if you get $2500 from the VA you will always be guaranteed that wage, so income becomes less of an issue, which leaves one to focus on personal goals without unneeded stress. The problem is that the VA still buys into this idea that PTSD can be cured with words (IE - therapy), which is voodoo medicine in my opinion. Regardless, the VA will not lock any PTSD vet into a rating, nor give them any real guarantees that a veteran could trust with so many people advising them that PTSD is "all in one's head" and can be cured with hard work and dedication. Maybe we should tell someone who is missing two legs to just "walk it off"? Their ideas on PTSD are just as absurd.

I've been in Tricare east, Tricare south and, now, Tricare west....these are the three Tricare areas in this country and all were equally horrible. The problem with many folks, in this regard, is that a lot of veterans have been in the military health care system for their entire lives and have NO clue how health care *should* work. They only seem to consider that the health care is cheap and, therefore, good. Try a good civilian health provider that covers dental, medical and eye......see how much less red tape there is and just how many more doctors actually accept said insurance (as compared to tricare). We are the richest nation on earth and we shouldn't have to beg for services from some pencil pusher sitting behind a desk.....be it civilians or military. Yes, tricare will eventually cover most things if you go to their crappy doctors and jump through a ridiculous amount of hoops, but it's simply not worth it to me and it's designed, just like the VA system, to discourage folks from seeking benefits. Could I go to some idiot nurse practitioner for my wife's psych meds? Sure, if I was willing to travel for 1.5 hrs, get on a 5 month waiting list and fill out 25 forms that need to go to 10 different departments ONLY after getting authorization from her PCM. Personally, I'd rather pay out of pocket and get a REAL psychiatrist that is GOOD at his job and can actually HELP her. Part of the reason that she has been so bad over the last 5 years is because we were stuck using tricare's list of providers....the instant we decided to pay out of pocket we found a psych that specializes in anxiety disorders and has been very open with her in the med process. Because of this, she is more stable than she's ever been on the best set of meds she's had thus far. So, if you like bad doctors that are willing to accept pennies on the dollar then go for it....I would rather have a qualified doctor that actually has a medical degree and not a glorified nurse and/or some idiot with a general bachelor’s degree with 2 years of wanna-be med school (IE - a PA). P.S. - Despite the nonsense the media tries to feed the average American, military health care (for active duty) is among the worst health care in the world. They have the least qualified doctors with the least experience and the least educated and trained staff of any health care system on the planet.....3rd world nations get better health care. But it's free, so I guess that means it's good /sigh.

That's because, as Army stated, the VA misuses GAF scores on purpose. A GAF *IS* an overall disability picture...that's the whole point of GAF; hence, "Global Assesment of Functiong....Global = all around...functioning = occupational and social impairment. The reason the VA doesn't like GAF is because it gives little room for them to screw around with ratings. It's a concrete assessment that ties directly into one's overall disability picture and level of functioning. The VA wants to be able to cherry pick information to fit their disability rating, rather than have their disability rating dictated to them by a professional.

Tricare is run by Tricare and the problem really has nothing to do with the company itself. The problem with Tricare is that not only do they pay pennies on the dollar for claims, they also force "providers" to certify with them EVERY year in training courses in order for Tricare to even work with them. So, if a company comes to you and says, "we're not going to pay you anything and you'll have to work really hard to get next to no reimbursement", would you agree to those terms? The list of Tricare "approved" psychiatrists was about as long as when I looked 2 years ago, but when I called all of those providers they said they weren't taking "new" patients from "TRICARE" or they were no longer "certified" (because they were tired of the BS)...keep in mind that they weren't accepting new TRICARE patients, but they were accepting new patients (from any other medical insurance). When Tricare decided to send my daughter to a sports medicine doctor (that was as close as they could get to a bone specialist), the doctor just laughed and said why the hell did tricare send you to me? We discussed how horrible tricare was and he said, "the only reason I take tricare is because I feel obligated to help the military.....they are the worst insurance in the country". Do yourself a favor and ask your doctor about it the next time you see him/her. Tricare is absolutely HATED in the medical community and the only reason most doctors accept it is because they feel some sense of obligation to military families....and this panel wants to charge more and claims the benefits are unmatched???? They're out of their friggin minds....

Not a single one. Tricare is a joke and no doctor that actually wants to support his/her family would accept it. My son broke his arm a couple of years ago and the bill for the emergency room was around $5000....tricare paid them around $75, which, by law, they have to accept in that situation. Tricare pays fractions of pennies on the dollar...they are horrible.

What a joke. I had to take my 9yr old daughter to shriners because tricare won't cover a SINGLE specialist in the Portland area (we're talking an area of 1 million people or so) for a bone growth on her left ring finger. Time and time again tricare refuses to pay for services and when one finally does find a doctor stupid enough to accept tricare, one quickly finds that said doctor is really a PA or among the worst doctors in town. Hell, my wife is 100% SC for PTSD and they won't cover a SINGLE psychiatrist in the Portland area (but they'll cover some wanna-be nurse practitioner). So, I'm forced to pay out of pocket for her to recieve psychiatric care for a condition THEY caused. I can't believe congress, and the American public, is letting them cut an already terrible program with next to NO benefits at all.....finding a doctor that accepts tricare is like the current administration finding Bin Laden:-)

I wasn't trying to imply that a GAF would lead directly to a definitive rating; rather, it gives one a general idea of what to expect and what to fight for. Being that GAF is directly tied to your occupational and social disability level, it should translate, very closely, to the ratings table provided. 31-50 is major to severe impairment in social and occupational abilities, which should project someone into the 50-100% range depending on other circumstances. This should tell you that a rating of 10% would be bogus and I probably wouldn't "expect" them to go with 100% right off the bat (though you should always fight for the highest percentage you think you should get).

There's depression that is relatively minor and there's "major depression"...depression can be episodic or it can be chronic. All of these play into how high a rating can be. I would suggest you look up "global assessment of functioning"(GAF) to get a good idea on what symptoms lead to what level of disability. A "GAF" may not be the end all be all, in VA terminology, but it gives one a good idea of how severe their symtpoms impact their lives from a social and occupational standpoint.

Very true john...one would think:-) But they did "attempt" to lower the wife just several months after getting 100% P&T WITH A&A all for PTSD alone. Believe me, I used every reg in the book that you mentioned above to get back the 100% P&T, but only got housebound back rather than A&A (Lost the will to fight mostly). The disconnect seems to be that the RO ignores many of those regulations when making decisions (especially PTSD decisions), yet I think the BVA is more likely to uphold VA law. As I've said many times here, we need to hold the ROs accountable then they pull this nonsense, or they'll keep doing it and drawing claims out needlessly. Jim, The regs for finality of decisions is under 3.104 and 3.105. Basically, they just say that any decision is to be considered final and binding on all ROs unless there's clear and unmistakable error. Differences in opinion must be remanded to the "central office" for approval....an RO cannot simply disagree with itself, or a different RO, without getting authorization before hand (which I've never heard of). As for 20yr+ protection - John summed it up nicely. If you have a rating for 20+ years they cannot reduce it unless you obtained said rating under fraudulent circumstances (very difficult to prove) or you, in essence, say you're all better and don't want the money. However, as John stated, IU is ONLY for someone who is unemployed, so if that status has changed they can reevaluate the designation.

I'm not trying to turn this into a liberal v. conservative thing; rather, it's just "fiscal" conservatism that drives a lot of the stereotypes associated with universal health care. The thing I speak about are not "liberal" in any way....I've worked in the field and I get my information from non-bias groups like the WHO (and a recent report from another neutral source which made our health care system out to be even worse than the WHO's reports). The simple fact of the matter is that 90% of Americans cannot afford health care on their own....we need to be subsidized by the government or, in our current case, our employers. Now, that doesn't mean that we need one, gigantic VA-like system that is run by the government, in which all health care employees are employed by the government. Rather, we need a single payer insurance that is based on one's income level that covers everyone equally. Personally, I don't care for systems "run" by the government...I want my health care providers to remain private, but we absolutely NEED a system that covers everyone equally. This would benefit the average American most and, in my opinion, would help veterans a LOT by doing away with the clunky, under funded VA system that keeps much needed dollars out of the compensation system and puts it into the VA health care system. Simply put, if you're a disabled veteran you go directly into "exempt" insurance status, which would mean NO copays at all (anyone under a given economic line would also fall under this status). Essentially, we need a better Tricare like system that is regulated by the government and that covers EVERYONE in the US....this insurance system should base enrollment fees and copays on one's income level. With that sort of system taxes would go up VERY little, if at all, and we would still have plenty of local choices for private providers. I believe many European countries use a similar system.....I could be wrong, but I think Australia's is that way also.

No offense, but I'm guessing your opinions on this were shaped by conservative propaganda. Canada may not be the best health care system in the world, but it is ranked higher than ours in almost every category and, more importantly, the level of care is static; whereas, in America, we have greatly varying care based on economic status. Australia is known as one of the best health care systems in the world and is universal in nature. Ask ANY US doctor who's been there to compare the two systems. Most of Europe has universal health care and every country over there has better health care than we do. In fact, our highest rated health care insurance in this country is ChampVA, Medicare and Tricare (all government run). As for taxes - Most countries with universal health care systems pay an equal, or lower, tax rate than we currently do and their economies are doing fine. It is simply fiscal conservative spin that makes us believe that universal health care is going to cost us a bunch of money in taxes....sure, our taxes would likel go up, but government run health care is FAR more efficient than private health care so, overall, it would cost the American public less. The difference is that the top 1% of Americans would have to shoulder the brunt of the health care system's cost (oh, boohoo for them, they can't get that 4th house in malibu). Right now, we have a system that is worried about profit and NOT health care; which is counterintuitive. How many lives could we save if we gave breast cancer screens to women under 30?? How many lives could we save if we gave prostate screens under 30?? 10's of thousands EASY....But, the insurance companies have done the calculations and they know that screening for something that only a VERY small portion of Americans get under 30 isn't cost effective.....it's cheaper to let those people contract the disease and to treat the disease instead of testing everyone. In other words, it's fiscally more responsible to let 10,000 people die every year because it helps their bottom line. This is the STANDARD practice in private health care......100's of thousands die every year because companies are more worried about MONEY than they are human life, which is abhorrent. Some things were simply not meant to be privatized and our health is one of them. I don't want to watch my young child die, because some Ahole at an insurance company thought the cost/benefit ratio on a given test wasn't worth the money. Private health care is the most vicious and hateful thing this country has ever produced, period. To top it of, it is horribly inefficient (twice as costly as medicare per capita) and is terribly ineffective, yet we continue with it for fear of "evil taxes" or some ridiculous notion that the government will put microchips in our brains. In my opinion, we need less fear mongering and more common sense. P.S. - Your pay WOULD go up under unviersal health care....companies are going bankrupt at the moment trying to pay for health care they cannot afford. If the burden is put on the state, companies WILL make more money. I may not subcribe to the trickle down method of economics, but it would translate to *some* wage increase to help make up for any tax increase. By the way, the ONLY reason the conservatives are starting to support the idea of unviersal health care is that many powerful and rich people (IE - fiscal conservatives) are starting to see how much health insruance is killing their companies; hence the more recent support for the idea.

I'm not disagreeing with you on the fact that PTSD vets need to continue documenting care (if only for meds), but where we differ is in where that care should come from. I have FAR more control over my wife's civilian psychiatrist than I would a VA psychiatrist and I don't have to worry about some small note stating that "the patient seems to be improved today" that the VA can take out of context and use against her. In essence, a civilian doctor gives US control over what the VA can and can't see AND it stops the RO from going on fishing expeditions whenever they feel like it based on some VA doctor's notes. As for your car registration - In WA we were able to get vet tags by simply mailing off a copy of her DD214 to the state DMV's veteran's office. It was fairly simple and painless and we didn't even have to go into a DMV to get it (was done all by mail). Perhaps you should check the CA DMV website and see if there's a similar program. Also, what the DMV did to you may fall under the American's With Disabilities Act and you could have a possible lawsuite on your hands....may be worth looking into.