Jump to content

Blueboy

Seaman
  • Content Count

    17
  • Donations

    $0.00 
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About Blueboy

  • Rank
    E-3 Seaman

Profile Information

  • Military Rank
    AO-2
  • Location
    VA 153

Previous Fields

  • Service Connected Disability
    100%
  • Branch of Service
    USN
  • Hobby
    Fishing

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. When I applied for a vehicle the first time, due to disability, it took two years of back and forth on forms, who to talk to, and getting updates. I now am ready for a second vehicle and would like to know who should I go to to complete the 10-1394 so It doesn't get kicked back in my face a dozen times. On the form it says to bring it to your regional office. But it doesn't say to whom. I'm also told that I will have to go through the VA drivers test to qualify. Who sets this up? Will the VA do it on their own, or do I have to initiate something? And what? After waiting for two years the last time, where can I get some help?10-1394-fill (1).
  2. I was awarded 10% for Tinnitus but turned down for hearing loss. How can that be?
  3. Available information concerning HR 299 shows that there is no need to specify sailors who were ‘within the Territorial Seas of Vietnam’ because the headcount used by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) for costing the legislation includes all sailors who served within the Theater of Combat of Vietnam. The area of the Territorial Seas is just a small portion of the Theater of Combat. < http://www.oldbluewater.com/three line map.pdf > The CBO Cost Estimate dated May 15, 2018 for H.R. 299 tells which Vietnam veterans were used to develop the estimated costs of the legislation. They are defined as “about 174,500 service members [who] served offshore during the Vietnam War.” The number 174,500 includes all sailors of the Seventh Fleet who served within the Vietnam Theater of Combat and was taken from periodic DoD OASD (Comptroller) reports by the Directorate for Information Operations and Control. < http://www.oldbluewater.com/ADA150910_1-3.pdf > By the title of the Bill and by frequent references within the Bill, the target individuals are also defined as “veterans who served in the territorial seas of Vietnam during the Vietnam War.” Navy veterans who served within the Territorial Seas are only a portion of the total number of veterans that were used in the costing of the H.R. 299. This could cause confusion. The number 174,500 is shown in the Defense Manpower Data Center report titled “Vietnam Conflict – Casualty Summary” which provides an estimated breakdown of active duty service members from each branch of the Armed Forces who served during the Vietnam War. < https://dcas.dmdc.osd.mil/dcas/pages/report_vietnam_sum.xhtml > [As of May 29, 2018.] The categories for “[Total] Number Serving” are broken down by Branch as well as by ‘location’ and are given for NAVY as: - Number Serving Worldwide – 1,842,000 - Number Serving Southeast Asia – 229,000 - Number Serving South Vietnam – 174,000 < www.oldbluewater.com/Congressional Research Service.pdf > Aside from 174,500 Navy Personnel (estimated by the CBO to be 500 more than the Data Manpower Data Center number), there are no other naval personnel eligible for presumptive exposure by virtue of service in Vietnam. The 174,500 individuals represent both those who served in the Vietnam Theater of Combat and those within that subset group which served in the Territorial Seas of Vietnam and there are no other naval personnel to consider. Given these facts, H.R.299 could go to the Committee of the House without mention of the Territorial Sea. This would facilitate much clearer instructions for the VA to implement this legislation. Source has asked to remain anonymous.
  4. Available information concerning HR 299 shows that there is no need to specify sailors who were ‘within the Territorial Seas of Vietnam’ because the headcount used by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) for costing the legislation includes all sailors who served within the Theater of Combat of Vietnam. The area of the Territorial Seas is just a small portion of the Theater of Combat. < http://www.oldbluewater.com/three line map.pdf > The CBO Cost Estimate dated May 15, 2018 for H.R. 299 tells which Vietnam veterans were used to develop the estimated costs of the legislation. They are defined as “about 174,500 service members [who] served offshore during the Vietnam War.” The number 174,500 includes all sailors of the Seventh Fleet who served within the Vietnam Theater of Combat and was taken from periodic DoD OASD (Comptroller) reports by the Directorate for Information Operations and Control. < http://www.oldbluewater.com/ADA150910_1-3.pdf > By the title of the Bill and by frequent references within the Bill, the target individuals are also defined as “veterans who served in the territorial seas of Vietnam during the Vietnam War.” Navy veterans who served within the Territorial Seas are only a portion of the total number of veterans that were used in the costing of the H.R. 299. This could cause confusion. The number 174,500 is shown in the Defense Manpower Data Center report titled “Vietnam Conflict – Casualty Summary” which provides an estimated breakdown of active duty service members from each branch of the Armed Forces who served during the Vietnam War. < https://dcas.dmdc.osd.mil/dcas/pages/report_vietnam_sum.xhtml > [As of May 29, 2018.] The categories for “[Total] Number Serving” are broken down by Branch as well as by ‘location’ and are given for NAVY as: - Number Serving Worldwide – 1,842,000 - Number Serving Southeast Asia – 229,000 - Number Serving South Vietnam – 174,000 < www.oldbluewater.com/Congressional Research Service.pdf > Aside from 174,500 Navy Personnel (estimated by the CBO to be 500 more than the Data Manpower Data Center number), there are no other naval personnel eligible for presumptive exposure by virtue of service in Vietnam. The 174,500 individuals represent both those who served in the Vietnam Theater of Combat and those within that subset group which served in the Territorial Seas of Vietnam and there are no other naval personnel to consider. Given these facts, H.R.299 could go to the Committee of the House without mention of the Territorial Sea. This would facilitate much clearer instructions for the VA to implement this legislation. Source as asked to remain anonymous.
  5. The BWNVVA counsel is afraid to bring these actions because “I don’t want to piss them off” [leadership]. My thought is who cares if we piss them off. They have let us hang and denied passage of the Blue Water Navy Bills for at least 10 years. Although discharge petitions have not been very successful in the past, some have done what they intended. The thought of embarrassing the leadership is fine with me. They should be embarrassed! Pissing them off does not affect the outcome of the BWNVVA bill status, because we will lose nothing. We do not have presumptive status. Congress denies us at every turn. Since that is a fact we lose nothing. Perhaps this will turn it around. We can keep begging for our rights for another 10 years, or bring this to closure now. Let it be known that I do not represent the BWNVVA in any capacity. It's not clear to me whether a discharge petition was used in 1991 for HR 566. I do know there was a suspension of the rules to bring it to the floor for a vote. Whatever you call it, the bill was passed unanimously in both the House and Senate. "A discharge petition is a means of bringing a bill out of committee and to the floor for consideration without a report from the committee and usually without cooperation of the leadership by "discharging" the committee from further consideration of a bill or resolution. 563 discharge petitions were filed between 1931 and 2003, of which only 47 obtained the required majority of signatures. The House voted for discharge 26 times and passed 19 of the measures, but only two have become law. However, the threat of a discharge petition has caused the leadership to relent several times; such petitions are dropped only because the leadership allowed the bill to move forward, rendering the petition superfluous. Overall, either the petition was completed or else the measure made it to the floor by other means in 16 percent of cases." PL 102-4 Actions H.R.556 — 102nd Congress (1991-1992) 01/30/1991 Senate Received in the Senate, read twice, considered, read the third time, and passed in lieu of S. 238 without amendment by Yea-Nay Vote. 99-0. Record Vote No: 9. 01/29/1991-2:26pm House On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays (2/3 required): 412 - 0 (Roll No. 16). For more information go to Text: https://www.congress.gov/bill/102nd-congress/house-bill/556
  6. The BWNVVA counsel is afraid to bring these actions because “I don’t want to piss them off” [leadership]. My thought is who cares if we piss them off. They have let us hang and denied passage of the Blue Water Navy Bills for at least 10 years. Although discharge petitions have not been very successful in the past, some have done what they intended. The thought of embarrassing the leadership is fine with me. They should be embarrassed! Pissing them off does not affect the outcome of the BWNVVA bill status, because we will lose nothing. We do not have presumptive status. Congress denies us at every turn. Since that is a fact we lose nothing. Perhaps this will turn it around. We can keep begging for our rights for another 10 years, or bring this to closure now. Let it be known that I do not represent the BWNVVA in any capacity. It's not clear to me whether a discharge petition was used in 1991 for HR 566. I do know there was a suspension of the rules to bring it to the floor for a vote. Whatever you call it, the bill was passed unanimously in both the House and Senate. "A discharge petition is a means of bringing a bill out of committee and to the floor for consideration without a report from the committee and usually without cooperation of the leadership by "discharging" the committee from further consideration of a bill or resolution. 563 discharge petitions were filed between 1931 and 2003, of which only 47 obtained the required majority of signatures. The House voted for discharge 26 times and passed 19 of the measures, but only two have become law. However, the threat of a discharge petition has caused the leadership to relent several times; such petitions are dropped only because the leadership allowed the bill to move forward, rendering the petition superfluous. Overall, either the petition was completed or else the measure made it to the floor by other means in 16 percent of cases." PL 102-4 Actions H.R.556 — 102nd Congress (1991-1992) 01/30/1991 Senate Received in the Senate, read twice, considered, read the third time, and passed in lieu of S. 238 without amendment by Yea-Nay Vote. 99-0. Record Vote No: 9. 01/29/1991-2:26pm House On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays (2/3 required): 412 - 0 (Roll No. 16). For more information go to Text: https://www.congress.gov/bill/102nd-congress/house-bill/556
  7. I did win my case. I was granted the Automotive and Housing grants. I cited the BVA Decision, Citation Nr: 1631670 Decision Date: 08/09/16. In Tucker v. West, 11 Vet. App. 369, 373 (1999), the Court of Veteran Appeals stated that the relevant inquiry concerning loss of use is not whether amputation is warranted, but whether the claimant has had effective function remaining other than that which would be equally well served by an amputation with use of a suitable prosthetic appliance. This veteran would not have more effective use of his feet by an amputation with use of a suitable prosthetic appliance because his COPD would still restrict him to a wheel chair. The BVA Decision, Citation Nr: 1631670 Decision Date: 08/09/16 Archive Date: 08/12/16, DOCKET NO. 09-41 184 granted LOU of use of both feet to a veteran under similar circumstances.
  8. I found a C&P exam entered into my medical record on a claim I have pending. The C&P exam was obviously biased and done by a PA. I did not receive any notice or asked to challenge it. I have a Nexus statement from a VA doctor that my medical condition supports my claim which is not cited. I know the VA make up its own rules, but is this common practice? Do I have a right to challenge its validity?
  9. Here is a short testimony by Secretary Shulkin on the Vietnam Blue Water Navy presumption issue. https://www.dropbox.com/s/3pqpoku04nakhyi/Shulkin299testimony.mp4?dl=0
  10. I lost some money, but that's not the point. I can't let the VA raters get away with being my Mental Health evaporators. They have no knowledge of Mental Health and the only ones that can say I've improved are myself and my doctors. You don't cure or improve a condition that has been there for 40 years in 6 months. Also the evidence they presented is bogus. Money is not the object.
  11. Yes I am, but I will not use them. I had a very bad experience with my NVSO.
  12. Under Explanation his letter informs me of a reduction in my PTSD disability rating from 50% to 30%. It lists the reasoning for this decision. They noted all these items as reasons for the reduction but never explained how they arrived at their decision other than "the overall evidentiary record shows":... No where do any of these terms show up in any evaluation in my medical records. I've appealed it. How do they get away with manufacturing this type of evidence? Of course they did not give me due process, I had no predetermination hearing. In my NOD I stated, "To date I have not received this predetermination hearing. I believe this may have been offered in correspondence somewhere, but the confusion of proposed vs. an actual reduction may have clouded the issue. In any event, if I am entitled to a hearing, I request one be scheduled." Do you think I have a case?
  13. The distance I can travel is about 10 feet before having to stop due to shortness of breath.. This is with a walker or some other device, If you were to amputate my leg, I could not do any better. Please don't ask me to amputate to prove it! "Loss of use of a hand or a foot" will be held to exist when no effective function remains, other than that which would be equally well served by an amputation stump at the site of election below elbow or knee, with use of a suitable prosthetic appliance. The determination will be made on the basis of the actual remaining function, with attention to whether the acts of balance or propulsion could be accomplished equally well by an amputation stump with prosthesis. 38 C.F.R. § 3.350(a)(2)(i). The history section of an August 2005 VA examination report notes that the veteran's COPD resulted in the functional impairment of inability to walk short distances. After providing the results of physical examination and diagnostic tests, the examiner remarked that the veteran required aid for ambulation. He needed to use a wheelchair and oxygen. He was able to leave home or immediate premises in a wheelchair with oxygen, supervision and assistance. In this case, the evidence discussed in the veteran's claim for SMC establishes that he has no effective lower extremity function other than that which would be equally well served by an amputation stump below the knee with use of a suitable prosthetic appliance. He could perform the acts of balance or propulsion equally well by an amputation stump with prosthesis. Accordingly, the evidence supports entitlement to an automobile and/or adaptive equipment. 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 3901, 3902 (West 2002); 38 C.F.R. § 3.808 (2006). It is unclear if the veteran can drive at this time. However, the issue of whether the veteran can drive is not before the Board at this time. This describes me to a "T". However I was denied. I just came across the above yesterday. So now the question is should I try for an appeal?
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

{terms] and Guidelines