SgtAFMOB

Heard same speech and the President specifically mentioned the three new presumptives and making it easier for Vietnam Vets to obtain their compensation. This FNG as previously referred to as dumb and a lecturer on this board has credentials that I would put up against anyone on this board academic, service to country after military, or otherwise. It would seem that factual comments that support those have a dog in this fight are dampened by people who have their ratings up to 100% already. I for one had my ducks in a row with regard to VA claims and have been served well. As with another forum on the net there are those who chose to elicite agressive behaviors and comments from people who are reasonable people, but have their limits, there is a name for that type of behaviour. Support of those who are eligible for these benifits is truely appreciated. The President said what he said, true we will see. But this dumb,FNG has an acronym for those who choose to take cheap shots BM.

As you are a moderator I am wondering what constructive, informative value did you comment have and the contridiction involving the number of people involved is factless. If you have stats to share please do. This is supposed to be Vets serving Vets. No meaningless supposition.

The President signed into law today HR. 4899 the Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2010 see http://www.militaryupdate.com. Additionally here is a quote from aTom Philpot article dated July 29 2010. Title: 60 Day Countdown Near for Paying New "AO" Claims. "A sixty day countdown to the day that the VA can start compensating up to 86,000 veterans retroactively for the disorders will be when the VA publishes it's final implementing regulation which could be next week." And yes the letter Stillhere got is popping up all over, it's a canned letter. If Webb had a part in it he needs to brush up on procedural issues or just some Aid drafted it who also needs to brush up, it is flawed in terms of the procedure cited. The Secretary was under no obligation to run anything by Congress see Law 102-4, Febuary 16, 1991, the Agent Orange Act. If someone thinks the Secretary didn't have sufficient evidence as furnished by the IOM then bring on your experts of which Webb is not one. Benedict Arnold was a warrior and a partriot before he became a traitor to the people he served with!!! Hope this encouaging and helpful.

What is your factual base for your December prediction?

HR 4899 passed the House on Tuesday the 27th with the Sen. Webb admendment and the funding for the three new AO presumptives intact. The War funding bill is supposed to be presented to the President for signature Tuesday the 2nd of August as the deadline for funding of the war expires on the 7th. In another forum I found the text of an interview in June with Tom Philpot interviewing Webb on the topic of the new presumptives http://www.moaa.org. The interview is something I had not read and illustrates Webbs position. It is worth it to read the article and the comments, and to draw your own conclusions. Webb comes across as if their was no Institute of Medicine evidence to support the presumptives. He also questions the boots on the ground justification for presumption for everyone who set foot in Vietnam. This will be his tact at the September 23rd Hearing before the Committee. Again not to get hopes up because it is understood this means alot to eligible Vets; there was a post by a person that has been on target regarding the process. The post indicated that the VA had a meeting scheduled with OMB next week and the rule would be going back to the VA shortly thereafter. I hope this is accurate, but at least we know the process is moving along. Hope this is helpful. Of note that the debate over the bill was on CSpan and Rep. Chet Edward, 17th Congressional District, Texas spoke up on behalf of the Agent Orange issue, hats off to him!!!

Donna; Thanks for the udate on information you received from Senator Boren's office. From what has been stated on this website and other Forums and citations of process it would appear that the Aid is wrong about payment of claims during the Congressional Review Act period. Sen. Webb's Admendment invokes the CRA, but so does regulation/law involving and expenditure over $100,000 million. There are many many people monitoring OMB for Final Rule Status, publication of that Rule in the Federal Register, the Court for any possible influence, veterans websites for comments/facts/ideas on political slants, etc. The consensus of most is that we can look to sometime in December before payment could become a reality!! New developments can be dealt with by writing our duly elected legislators with hopefully positive impact. You are lucky you are getting updates from yours because most of us are being shined on or recieving some irrelavant canned letter. I read a suggestion from a Veterans Advocate Sage about the process and how to cope with it. He said file your claim to the best of your ability. Once it has been filed feel that you have done the best that you could have done, and let it run it's course. Get a copy of War and Peace, read it twice. Buy a large salt water aquarium, stock it with expensive fish, watch them gradually die off. Replace them and start the process all over. Your case will be adjudicated when it is adjudicated, not a day before!!! We just have to wait without letting it consume us. My cent and a half contribution!!! Regards

Thanks for your summary JRW as you did on the other forum, both are the most logical presentations on the subject matter. I found the rule at OMB before the proposed rule was published and it had been there since December, now we have it at OMB again. I could not find a double review in the process and wondered why court ordered time frames were not being adhered to then. The NVLSP proposed suit moved the rule to the proposed rule stage. Any thoughts?

Jim: Exactly why I swithched to my previous cardiologist even though I had a longer commute. The one I was using was of Hungarian descent and I got much the same rationale you did, his first words were X number of people have IHD/CAD and he had no concept of Agent Orange exposure. It would have been futile to persue the issue. Best wishes on your claim sounds like your record is pretty solid without a specific letter, just make sure the RO has the neccessary documentation.

Jim: I filed for IHD July 2009, along with PTSD was granted PTSD April 16, 2010 effective back to Aug 1, 2009. My IHD C&P was in February 2010. I had changed to my previous cardiologist that same month and asked for a letter that specifically contained the word ischemic. His statement began I am reintroducing myself to Mr. ---- for cardiology evaluation and management of his chronic ischemic cardiomyopathy. I have known Mr. ---- for quite sometime and he has a history of myocardial infarction, ischemic dilated cardiomyopathy status post coronary artery bypass grafting in 1994, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, etc. etc. (the graft to the damaged heart muscle is completely occluded as of two months after the bypass) Farther down he again states "He is a Vietnam veteran with a history of exposure to Agent Orange, and at this point clinically he does carry a history of ischemic cardiomyopathy, which is one of the disabilities listed for Agent Orange exposure in combat soldiers. I made sure I included the copy of the most recent (within six months) Thallium Stress Test which showed a left ventricular ejection fraction of 39%. Since the bypass surgery it has never been above 45% and should according to the rating guidlines be compensable at 60%. I JUST DIDN'T TAKE ANY CHANCES, BETTER SAFE THAN SORRY, HOPE THIS HELPS.

Jim: I have the same horse in the race and have a history of CAD/IHD, MI, Bypass surgery in 1994. I sent my medical information to the RO and provided a copy of my most recent Thallium Stress Test, past stress tests and private cardiologists letter indicating IHD. I also provided the same at my C&P in February. Sometimes there is a disconnect between the RO and the VAMC. I had an appointment last month for another purpose and the Counselor indicated that IHD was reflected on my record. I have the standard deferred till the rule is posted letter. All I can suggest is that you furnish the RO with the info you did at your C&P, many things go to who knows where.

Not certain what this means, however, I do know this is a second go round for the AO presumptives at OMB. I found the rule there in December of 2009. I am not certain but I believe the suit was filed because the VA was in violation of existing law and the time frames involved. The comment in the VA Watchdog article as quoted from a court observer is that the court had, had it with the VA and thus the unheard of short fuse imposed to publish the final rule in the Federal Register or an interium regulation, or explain why not. Will have to see how this washes out, but it would seem to me if the rule were published on the 19th, then the 60 days for the Congressional Review Act would begin from that date. This is speculation on my part and not to get peoples hopes up. Another poster on the Veterans Benifits Network had something similar formulated prior to this court order. Posting would prempt Webbs attempt to delay.

The twitter site for www.vawatchdog.org announced an hour ago that The US Circuit Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued an order July the 15th that requires the VA Secretary to publish the new rule or an interium rule by noon Monday the 19th. The alternative is to appear and explain why not. This suit was brought by the Paralyzed Veterans of America, the NVLSP, and three other advocacy organizations. Suggest interested parties read the full account at Vawatchdog. Let the fur fly!!!!

For What It's Worth: The best explaination I have found is a post on www.VeteransBenifitsNetwork Agent Orange section, Topic "September Agent Orange Hearing Set, page 3, Post #43 by Omega. This post preceeded the House passage of the bill. however, deals with the process and possibilities involved. There are other similar topics with conjecture and situational stories regarding need. I followed this regulation also and in December 2009 it was sitting in OMB, prior to the Proposed Rule being published in March 2010. The NVLSP suggested lawsuit seemed to move it out of OMB. Seems to me this is a second go round at OMB. Hope Omega's explaination of the process will be helpful.

Donna: Dittio on the thanks for your post!!! I had to deal with Senator Boren's office several times in my past Department of Justice life answering Congressional Inquiery Letter's. The dealings were always fair and responsible, even a thank you letter in response to one of my investigative reports. You went that extra mile after your initial request. I have gone the extra mile with Senators Mc Cain and Kyl and Representative A. Kirkpatrick in AZ, no response yet. I went to a Veterans Forum about six months ago sponsored by the Arizona Department of Veterans Affairs. The new Director spoke and in his second sentence stated that Arizona was last in the list of States in terms of Veterans Benifits and he came from Lousiana. Rep. Kirkpatrick was there also and after Col. Kirkland's remark she could not be found. Ditto the weasel comment from Pete. Mc Cain should hang his head in shame.

This Webb thing is going to get out of hand and is going to add to the VA Claims backlog. I was also Air force stationed at TSN for three months and walked by the Ranch Hand Planes to go to work as well as lived within a block and a half of their area on Charlie Row. I later made several brief trips to forward locations to assist in the operation at forward aristrips for Search and Destroy Operations. I spent seven months at Tay Ninh, the 196th Light Infantry Base Camp, Tay Ninh Provence, III Corps. I have a picture with Black Virgin Mountain behind me and that mountain alone received 118,000 gal of Agents Orange, White, Purple and Blue. The area within 5 to 20 miles of the base camp is completely Orange on the spray maps because of the Checko Report documented Ranch Hand Missions. I have a picture of a white banded barrel (you think anyone qued us in) we used in the construction of our bunker. The perimeter and assault chopper areas were defoliated and no record of those defoliations are available. I have pictures outside the perimeter where all trees are denuded in certain areas. As mentioned in another post AO deformed victims are still being born in the Tay Ninh Regional Hospital. I am 30 percent rated for PTSD (I have tried for two months to get VA help to no avail, and live 136 miles from the nearest center) and my stressors were conceeded stating that my 201 file indicated that I had participated in Combat Operations against the enemy while at Tay Ninh and there were numerous fatalities. My records were destroyed in the1973 NPRC fire and I am the one who provided all my orders as well as comprehensive After Action and Lessons Learned reports that could not be refudiated. What Webb does not understand is that many of us were boots on the ground and combat related. We were the ones who supported that small percentage out in the field and when they went out we had to defend the base camps, when they got clobbered as diversionary tatctics. We also cleaned up their messes to include the handling of human remains repeatedly and I figure I smelled and tasted the smell of over 145 KIA's. I have been treated for hypertension, anexity since the age of 24, and had a significant MI sometime prior to my bypass surgery at the age of 49. I have spent thousands of dollars out of pocket expense to keep me afloat. I have five other disorders that are secondary to Ischemic Heart Disease that I did not file for in October 2009. With a Cardiologist and thalluium verified stress test my Left Ventricular EF of 39% qualifies me for 60% compensation. I don't care who reads this or what they think, but it is my intent to file this month for the secondary conditions, one at a time. Should IHD be blocked I have already begun claims for IHD as secondary and the secondary issues to IHD to PTSD as there is a wealth of scientific connective data out there and I have a pending nexus letter from my cardiologist. I will NOD and appeal any decision that is not in my favor or low balled and will seek legal assistance and appeal under the proposed new appeal period of 180 days. In otherwords I will create a paperwork nightmare but a correct and within policy version. I chaired a Discipline Committee at a Fedarl Prision for three years sat across from the offender, pronounced the verdict, signed my name to the document and handed the inmate a copy. These VA raters hide behind some stamped administraters signature, grow a set of you know whats. This seems to some to be selfish, not rational , or playing poor baby, but I am going to get my issue one way or the other. I am tired of being a biproduct of an unpopular war, denegrated because I have no CIB, etc. I just hit the deck and returened fire without getting hit does that make me any less of a combatant that the turncoat. I suggest those of you who want to read about Webb go to Wikipedia, look at his denegrating comments regarding women when he was the Sec. of the Navy and gave an address at West Point using the analogy "thunder thighs" to describe women in the military. Also the comment that he only lasted a year in that position, before turning his regisnation. President Regans memours indicate he was only too glad to see him go. He was involved in the 9mm affair entering the Capitol Building and a staffer took the beef (I wonder why he packs, must be popular). I am doing everything I can to generate interests in our plight and as a Vietnam Vet who has experienced disgrace and discrimination I am not going down as a wuss without a fight. I have a former POW, Senator (or Staffers) who cannot manage a response indicating his position on this issue and he is up for re-election, guess what he was a POW for 5 years I have lived in this messed up body for 44 years, were even and it's time for a change.

Jax - I have found appellate cases do not have the case #'s, but you can look there in the VA website. Also found appeallate cases where CAD/IHD was awarded as secondary to PTSD. That will be my next option if this fails.

Thank's for your update seems like everything is up in the air`

If this is any consolation I contacted the American Legion, Legislative Branch in Washington yesterday by e-mail regarding Webbs amendment. I received a timely response today which in essence says that a letter from the American Legion protesting this amendment is on it's way to Webb's office. It further states that the National Commander will be making a public statement regarding the delay tactics and the diservice it does to Vietnam Vet's who were exposed to the use of Tactical Herbicides. Every little bit helps. The Vietnam Veterans of America have not responded yet. I have also given my Senator's McCain and Kyl fourteen working days to respond to why they posed no objections to this amendment. McCain is up for re election and he has been put on notice by at least ten of us. Time to quit playing niggy sob and get in the game folks.

Lorraine: The answer to your question is that the Admendment SA 4222 proposed by Senator Inouye for Senator Webb passed the Senate by Unanimous Consent on 5/27/2010.

Suggest you refer to Veterans Benifits Forum, AO Forum and read post 5-14-10 by LULA. It is a letter from the Secretaries office explaining the current status of the final regulation and a possible secondary process. It is entitled "Response to my E-mail to Secretary of the VA. It made my day.

Followed this process very closely from it's inception to the present state. July 2009 IOM notifies Secretary, Secretary makes announcement October 13, 2009. The proposed regulation sat with the VA until the end of December when it was referred and recieved at OMB and sat there until March 2010, and violated the 210 day period for publication. Then it moved ahead when the lawsuit was threatened. Now I read where another OMB review period of 60 to 90 days applies, it already sat there for 60 days. Plus the possibility of a Congressional review. I read the okie dok letter from the Office of General Council, have alerted NVLSP regarding this abortion, and hopefully they will help the pathetic dribble in the VA remember their Duty to Assist responsibility as well as expeditiously reconcile any legal disparities in the Veterans favor. Don't need any fat chance that will happen comments from the forum which usually flow freely from a select few who delight in insidious comments. Those comments should be made to the peckerw--ds in DC. . What they have done is pushed the date up and people like myself who retracted secondary conditions to IHD from their claims so that they would flow quickly are now forced to file for valid secondary conditions or lose that right because a year will have passed. Another flood of legitimate claims are going to flop at their door. Horses Mouth or Horses _____? 30% PTSD Awarded after 44 years, 60% IHD stacked and all elements completed pending resolution of this fiasco!

Finally someone has done something besides chew the cud.

After doing my own research I found where the new A&O presumptive rules are at presently. OMB - Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Rin 2900-AN54. The date noted as recieved from the VA is 12/28/2009. it took the jerks six months to get the issue to the OIRA and the date they should be ready for Proposed Federal Register posting is March 28, 2010. I also read where the American Legion has backed out of the proposed lawsuit to be filed. The Legion accepted a excuse from the Secretaries Office that they were moving as fast as the could. Six months to get this puppy to the first stage. They are in violation of the law and I hope the NVLSP will not back down for our sake.