broncovet

"Peggy" is so sick, she would have to get better to die. This ongoing communication problem with Veterans and VA is a key factor in VA's troubles. This happened some time ago. You see, VA employees did not want to talk to Veterans for several reasons. First, they did not want to get yelled at, and next, they claimed it slowed down production. (Maybe these employees should consider a different career if they did not want to talk to Vets..after all, they could try Burger King, and would rarely have to confront mad Veterans, there) In reality, communicating with Veterans does not slow it down, it speeds it up. Let me explain: Lets say you could not speak to your Burger King Window. You just had to pull up to the window, and honk your horn. The poor BK lady would then "guess" your order..oh I think he wants a Whopper and large fries..and a coke. So, you pull up and honk as required. Only you want a fish sandwich, no fries, and diet dr. pepper. So, if this were VA, you would get a whooper large fries and coke..after a 2 year delay, having to fill up your car in the line which would extend from Washington DC to San Francisco. Once you got your order, you would realize it was wrong. So, you would send it back, (appeal for a fish sandwich, no fries and diet dr. pepper). After 4 more years, the BVA would say, ok, you got your fish sandwich fries and coke. Then you would appeal again, honking the horn again (remember, lack of communication saves time, according to VA employees), as you were not actually allowed to speak to anyone human, ever. This continues until you die of starvation, or get food elsewhere. This is the way VA operates..under the false premise that non communication will help..this is why Peggy does not work. VA does not want it to work.

Of course they "agree with management decisions", but, remember, each rating specialist has "discretion", too, otherwise we would just be rated by computer. I think it may help some. A few years ago, I remember when VA was "trying to get its number of Veteran employees below 20%", because they were concerned too many Vets would help too many vets. I think VA is between 20 and 30 percent, now. Of course, this is in conflict with VA's "get rid of Veteran homelessness" program, because few Vets, if any, are homeless and working at VA. Its part of what has been called a "culture of denial" at VA. I hope the firings get rid of some of this, at least.

Well, yes. Berta will chime in, but a CUE would only apply if you were diagnosed with agorophobia when your decision occurred awarded 100 percent. In other words if you were not housebound then, but are now, then an increase is applicable, not a cue. All this said, listen to Berta who went through this: The regulation you mean is not only a regulation but SMC is a statutory mandate, and I used that reg for my SMC CUE. and a direct quote and copy of how NVLSP explains the mandate in the VBM. Chuck is right .In my case my husband had been rated 100% P & T for SC PTSD EED to 1991, but they failed to consider SMC due to his 1151 1992 stroke, 80% NSC on the 1998 rating sheet. Their lack of consideration and application of the SMC regulations was the first CUE, Their ratings on a NSC stroke (which was actually 1151) became the next CUE, And their diagnostic codes were wrong, 3rd CUE I also enclosed the rating sheet that contained 4 CUEs. The 4th CUE I raised in a separate CUE claim, as to no diagnostic code or rating at all for an 1151 IHD condition,which ultimately became an AO IHD condition. 100% PTSD, & 100% 1151 CVA equaled the SMC S award. As jbasser said, treat this as a CUE. end of berta quote.

Hopefully this is just the "first" 900 employees...maybe more. I would like to know who was honored by being the first one to get fired. Maybe that will straighten out some of the others who thought they were "fire proof".

If you cant handle the stress of trying for an increase, then have someone do it for you. A spouse, a VSO, an attorney, or a friend..you choose. You can just give em the paperwork and dont check to see how its going. This will give at least as good a result as doing nothing. Ask your rep not to contact you until there is a decision. Or, dont even look for a decision, just do something else..get a hobby. Some people do well without "baby sitting" their claim constantly. Sometimes, a watched pot never boils.

It would not make sense to award IU if you qualified for 100%. However, VA does not make sense. I think Pete may have it...award 100% then hoodwink you out of an earlier effective date. This is similar to what they did to me.

Kelly It would be interesting to see...the unions fight VASEC for firing incompetent and untruthful VA employees. This would look very bad for unions. He is not firing good help..he is firing those who need to be fired.

I agree with USMC...its not enough to be unemployed..to get IU, your doc has to say that your inability to maintain SGE is because of sc conditions.

Buck posted: " yes you are entitled to SMC,you might want to recheck your award letter, if they never mention SMC to you? ( explain the entitlement) then there's the cue!" I think I recall reading that..something about if you are awarded a single 100% award, they are supposed to adjuticate SMC-s. But I can not find it. Does anyone know where that it says the VA is required to adjuticate SMCS when there is a single 100 percent award???

Im in a fight now to get SMCS back for years. I will let you know when I know how it turns out.

Yes, its worth it. I think SMC S is about 340 per month. Since you get the OLD rate when ever there is retro, you still are looking at 300 per month average times 14 years...that's "about" a 50,000 retro.

You need 2 things, and I saw neither in your statements: 1. That you are unable to mainitain SGE (Substantial Gainful Employment). 2. The reason for number 1 in Service connected conditions. Its not enough to be unemployed, or even "underemployed". Your doctor needs to state you can not work due to Service connected conditions. YOu see, there are many reasons to be unemployed or underemployed, some of which have nothing to do with Service connection: Maybe you dont have the skills to get employed in todays market..maybe you didnt apply...maybe there is a bad economy..maybe you are sick, but it has nothing to do with what you are service connected for.

Your doc is in a much better position to answer that than we are. If you have doubts, you can get a second opinion.

Im gonna guess "yes". It is a little unclear if its 100 plus 60 (added) or 100 plus 60 (combined). I think you get it either way, tho. Expect VA to fight you tooth and nail for this, but maybe not.

I hope this sends a message: LIE TO VETS AND YOU LOSE YOUR JOB. We should be able to count on what they say, and if they dont know, they should say that, too.

This is good news for Vets, maybe even good news for employees. I bet its tough to work where you are pressured to be dishonest, and to retaliate on whistle blowers. http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/va-hospital-scandal/v-secretary-900-people-have-been-fired-n306041

Im in somewhat similar circumstances...I had evidence shredded from 2002-2012 and it appears to continue. I emailed Robert Mc Donald a week ago, and have not received a response yet. I think I will wait another week before emailing Allison. We should be able to email our VARO director, directly, so that he/she can look into it personally. While I love that Alison and Robert are moving forward, I think this needs to be expanded with the VARO director held responsible. We should be able to email the director and, only then, go to the big boss. Its called "chain of command" and most of us learned this quite well, while in the military. You ask your boss first, and, only if he does not adequately respond do you go up the chain of command. It does make sense..why email the president of the United states, if your immediate supervisor does not even know your problem exists?? I will say, given what I posted above, I should have emailied Allison first, before Robert, as I have already tried dozens of times to get this resolved at the RO level. In that, I guess I have no one to blame but myself.

Your statement about Shinseki's exit statement says it all: "He was duped by people he thought were doing their jobs". This is not good leadership. A great leader knows how to read people right through those fictious statements. Of course people will lie to you! One study said the average American lies several times in a given day! A common lie: "How are you?" "IM fine". Most of the time you are not fine, you are worried, upset, hungry, thirsty, have to go to the bathroom, your back hurts, your knees hurt, your wife hurt you etc. Sure, that is a white lie, few of us, when we ask how are you, realy want to hear all your aches and pains, so we say fine. Im not suggesting Mr. Shinseki call people on the carpet for saying they are fine when they have a backache. Im saying he needs to read what people say, then check if its the truth, when necessary. Its about accountability, and its lacking at VA, and Shinseki did nothing to fix that.

A "deemed denial" , unfortunately, does not meet the criteria for CUE. While I agree with you, and there is a regulation stating that a Veteran deserves a written decision, the CAVC has ruled that there can be a denial "sub silentio", that is, a deemed denial. The issue of deemed denial normally comes up in instances of effective date disputes. You see, we are required to wait for the VA to make a decision, no matter how long it takes..even if it is decades. I think Veterans should start appealing "deemed denials". You could win because the reasons and bases is faulty, that is, non existant. However, even if you "win" it would likely be a remand, with instructions for the VA to adjuticate your claim, and you may not win anything.

If you meet the criteria as a "Nehmer" Vet, then NVLSP will review your case and represent you for free. They were supposed to have reviewed the Nehmer cases, but it looks like yours likely fell through the cracks. This is complex and you are best advised to enlist the services of a professional (NVLSP lawyers) to get the best result for you. I would not go it alone or have a VSO. The attorney fees, if NVLSP takes your case (Nehmer or no nehmer) will be paid for EAJA act and you wont pay anything.

Scroll down to the NVLSP link for common effective date errors and see if yours applies. The "date entitlement arose" means the date the doc said you were disabled. If the doc said you were disabled in Dec.2014, its gonna be hard to over come this. The general rule is the effective date will be the later of the date you applied or the "facts found" (this means the same as date entitlement arose, since the date your doc says you became 100% is the "facts found". The only way to overcome medical evidence is more medical evidence; basically we can not tell the doc he is wrong. Another doctor, however, can, with an IME/IMO. ) The NVLSP link goes over the exceptions to the general rule, above. My recommendation: 1. Read your C and P exam, or other medical reports and note what date the doc said you were completely disabled. Keep that date handy. This is the "facts found". 2. Read the NVLSP link for effective date errors, and see if your situation applies to any of these exceptions to the general rule. As you have stated, CFR 38 3.156 is on the nvlsp's list of common effective date errors , but its not the only one.

This is one of the VERY bad things wrong with VA. They dont have to adjuticate your claim, they can simply forget it until you die. This said, you dont have to take this treatment lying down. Try these things: 1. Send an IRIS email asking your status on IHD claim. 2. Send a 21-4138 asking for your status, and reference your earlier claim date, sending a copy if necessary. Send the new one, to one of the 2 RO's where they scan em in. I beleive those are called data management centers. 3. Send an email to Robert McDonald, or Allison Hickey. 4. Call em. 5. Show up at your RO and ask why this 5 year old claim has not been adjuticated. 6. Resubmit the claim, if necessary, and reference and copy your initial claim for an eed. 7. You can also consider a Writ of Mandamus at CAVC requesting an adjutication. 8. If none of these things are productive, contact your congressman. The CAVC has something called a "deemed denial" because what you indicate happens often enough that they even have a name for it. However, there have been more recent cases that "deemed denials" must indicate you got a decision and the decision led reasonably indicates a denial. You can appeal a case on a faulty "reasons and bases", that is, they denied it and did not give a reason. You could try appealing the deemed denial.

I will add that Admiral Zumwalt used to send us "Z-grams" and yours could be called "A-mails" (for your middle initial, or "R-mails"). Employees should know that its never a good idea for your career to ignore "A-mails". Rest assured, whenever we got a "Z-gram", we all discussed how to immediatly implement the Admiral's request in the most effective manner.

Dear Mr. Mc Donald I want to thank you for your service to Veterans. Many Veterans have indicated you are making a difference. I have a simple suggestion on how to expand your "Ask Bob" emails. I love your ask Bob emails and many Vets like them also. I do think he should be implementing this "email Bob" more nationally. In other words, we should email our VARO director, and that VARO director should solve the problem and divide his work load by 57 regional offices. Maybe the complaints are "tracked", and there needs to be follow up...something like this: (My suggestion for an email follows): Dear Mary Smith (VARO director, St. Pete RO, a hypothetical name) Im forwarding this email I got from a Veteran in St. Augustine Florida. Please check this out and report back to me in 30 days or less what the result was. Thank you Robert McDonald Then, these complaints should be tracked..and Mr. McDonald should respond, if nothing happens like this: Dear Mary Smith, VARO Director: A month ago, I forwarded you an email from Joe Veteran, in St. Augustive, and asked you to get back to me when you had checked it out. Since I have not heard anything, please call my office right away, and explain why you have not taken any action. If you were(are) gone on leave, please have your Assistant Director Call me and explain what happened. Robert McDonald. End suggested emails. Notice that "follow up" is not recommended, its mandantory. This will keep the pressure on to do their job right.

I agree Coffman was a little hard on the new VASEC. I do understand why, tho. We have seen a lot of VASECS and each one seems to make big promises and deliver a whole lot less, or even make things worse. All that said, Robert McDonald seems to have gotten at least some things right. I like his idea about emailing him or Allison Hickey with problems. What I cant understand is why this did not happen earlier. I am concerned, tho, that Mr. McDonald will "burn out" trying to help Veterans personally, especially when he was attacked like that. I wish Mr. McDonald well. I do think he should be implementing this "email Bob" more nationally. In other words, we should email our VARO director, and that VARO director should solve the problem and divide his work load by 57 regional offices. Maybe the complaints are "tracked", and there needs to be follow up...something like this: (My suggestion for an email follows): Dear Mary Smith (VARO director, St. Pete RO, a hypothetical name) Im forwarding this email I got from a Veteran in St. Augustine Florida. Please check this out and report back to me in 30 days or less what the result was. Thank you Robert McDonald Then, these complaints should be tracked..and Mr. McDonald should respond, if nothing happens like this: Dear Mary Smith, VARO Director: A month ago, I forwarded you an email from Joe Veteran, in St. Augustive, and asked you to get back to me when you had checked it out. Since I have not heard anything, please call my office right away, and explain why you have not taken any action. If you were(are) gone on leave, please have your Assistant Director Call me and explain what happened. Robert McDonald. End suggested emails. Notice that "follow up" is not recommended, its mandantory. This will keep the pressure on to do their job right.