mssoup1

Don20906, Thanks for the explanation. I do have a question. Is "ready to be signed off" and "DRO has the claim" essentially the same thing? If so, what happens next? Thanks, mssoup1

According to CBS news tonight in an interview with cardcops.com, there has been a 158% increase in SS indentity theft since the first of May. The FBI has been notified about this and they are supposedly going to look into this, even though it appears the FBI doesn't think that the two are connected at this time. Didn't want to pass on this type of information, but it looks as though we are going to have to look after ourselves more and rely less on the government to inform us. mssoup1

Several months ago, we had a landowner who placed some ashes out in the back of his yard and ended up catching part of the National Forest and other private property on fire. The costs of putting out this fire and the cleanup was well over $500,000. They are going to hold this property owner responsible for the costs incurred, even though he did not intentionally mean to set this fire. Well, if they are holding a regular citizen responsible for the costs in something like this, maybe, the government employee responsible for the theft of these veterans records, along with Nicholson and his staff should bear the costs of fixing this problem for the veterans and not the taxpayers. Maybe that would rear some heads up in government and make them a little more responsible. mssoup1

I listened to the segment they had on C-Span this morning at 9:00 EST. Sounds to me like the veterans are basically on their own. Also, the guy who took the files seems to have committed a breach of a VA regulation, he didn't necessarily break the law. HA HA If you or I would have done something like this, we would be under the jail. They quote him as being a long time employee, very upstanding, very smart and someone who would never do something that was wrong. Yeah, we believe that. How many high ranking officials within the government lately have been involved in law breaking activities who most people would have stated the same facts about them. mssoup1

VETERANS' DISABILITY BENEFITS COMMISSION Pub. L. 108-136, div. A, title XV, Nov. 24, 2003, 117 Stat. 1676, provided that: "SEC. 1501. ESTABLISHMENT OF COMMISSION. "(a) Establishment of Commission. - There is hereby established a commission to be known as the Veterans' Disability Benefits Commission (hereinafter in this title referred to as the 'commission'). "( Membership. - (1) The commission shall be composed of 13 members, appointed as follows: "(A) Two members appointed by the Speaker of the House of Representatives, at least one of whom shall be a veteran who was awarded a decoration specified in paragraph (2). "(B) Two members appointed by the minority leader of the House of Representatives, at least one of whom shall be a veteran who was awarded a decoration specified in paragraph (2). "© Two members appointed by the majority leader of the Senate, at least one of whom shall be a veteran who was awarded a decoration specified in paragraph (2). "(D) Two members appointed by the minority leader of the Senate, at least one of whom shall be a veteran who was awarded a decoration specified in paragraph (2). "(E) Five members appointed by the President, at least three of whom shall be veterans who were awarded a decoration specified in paragraph (2). "(2) A decoration specified in this paragraph is any of the following: "(A) The Medal of Honor. "(:( The Distinguished Service Cross, the Navy Cross, or the Air Force Cross. "© The Silver Star. "(3) A vacancy in the Commission shall be filled in the manner in which the original appointment was made. "(4) The appointment of members of the commission under this subsection shall be made not later than 60 days after the date of the enactment of this Act [Nov. 24, 2003]. "© Period of Appointment. - Members of the commission shall be appointed for the life of the commission. A vacancy in the commission shall not affect its powers. "(d) Initial Meeting. - The commission shall hold its first meeting not later than 30 days after the date on which a majority of the members of the commission have been appointed. "(e) Meetings. - The commission shall meet at the call of the chairman. "(f) Quorum. - A majority of the members of the commission shall constitute a quorum, but a lesser number may hold hearings. "(g) Chairman. - The President shall designate a member of the commission to be chairman of the commission. "SEC. 1502. DUTIES OF THE COMMISSION. "(a) Study. - The commission shall carry out a study of the benefits under the laws of the United States that are provided to compensate and assist veterans and their survivors for disabilities and deaths attributable to military service. "(B) Scope of Study. - In carrying out the study, the commission shall examine and make recommendations concerning the following: "(1) The appropriateness of such benefits under the laws in effect on the date of the enactment of this Act [Nov. 24, 2003]. "(2) The appropriateness of the level of such benefits. "(3) The appropriate standard or standards for determining whether a disability or death of a veteran should be compensated. "© Contents of Study. - The study to be carried out by the commission under this section shall be a comprehensive evaluation and assessment of the benefits provided under the laws of the United States to compensate veterans and their survivors for disability or death attributable to military service, together with any related issues that the commission determines are relevant to the purposes of the study. The study shall include an evaluation and assessment of the following: "(1) The laws and regulations which determine eligibility for disability and death benefits, and other assistance for veterans and their survivors. "(2) The rates of such compensation, including the appropriateness of a schedule for rating disabilities based on average impairment of earning capacity. "(3) Comparable disability benefits provided to individuals by the Federal Government, State governments, and the private sector. "(d) Consultation With Institute of Medicine. - In carrying out the study under this section, the commission shall consult with the Institute of Medicine of the National Academy of Sciences with respect to the medical aspects of contemporary disability compensation policies. "SEC. 1503. REPORT. "Not later than 15 months after the date on which the commission first meets, the commission shall submit to the President and Congress a report on the study. The report shall include the following: "(1) The findings and conclusions of the commission, including its findings and conclusions with respect to the matters referred to in section 1502©. "(2) The recommendations of the commission for revising the benefits provided by the United States to veterans and their survivors for disability and death attributable to military service. "(3) Other information and recommendations with respect to such benefits as the commission considers appropriate. "SEC. 1504. POWERS OF THE COMMISSION. "(a) Hearings. - The commission may hold such hearings, sit and act at such times and places, take such testimony, and receive such evidence as the commission considers advisable to carry out the purposes of this title. "(B) Information From Federal Agencies. - In addition to the information referred to in section 1502©, the commission may secure directly from any Federal department or agency such information as the commission considers necessary to carry out the provisions of this title. Upon request of the chairman of the commission, the head of such department or agency shall furnish such information to the commission. "© Postal Services. - The commission may use the United States mails in the same manner and under the same conditions as other departments and agencies of the Federal Government. "(d) Gifts. - The commission may accept, use, and dispose of gifts or donations of services or property. "SEC. 1505. PERSONNEL MATTERS. "(a) Compensation of Members. - Each member of the commission who is not an officer or employee of the United States shall be compensated at a rate equal to the daily equivalent of the annual rate of basic pay prescribed for level IV of the Executive Schedule under section 5315 of title 5, United States Code, for each day (including travel time) during which the member is engaged in the performance of the duties of the commission. All members of the commission who are officers or employees of the United States shall serve without compensation in addition to that received for their services as officers or employees of the United States. "(B) Travel Expenses. - The members of the commission shall be allowed travel expenses, including per diem in lieu of subsistence, at rates authorized for employees of agencies under subchapter I of chapter 57 of title 5, United States Code, while away from their homes or regular places of business in the performance of services for the commission. "© Staff. - (1) The chairman of the commission may, without regard to the civil service laws and regulations, appoint an executive director and such other personnel as may be necessary to enable the commission to perform its duties. The appointment of an executive director shall be subject to approval by the commission. "(2) The chairman of the commission may fix the compensation of the executive director and other personnel without regard to the provisions of chapter 51 and subchapter III of chapter 53 of title 5, United States Code, relating to classification of positions and General Schedule pay rates, except that the rate of pay for the executive director and other personnel may not exceed the rate payable for level V of the Executive Schedule under section 5316 of such title. "(d) Detail of Government Employees. - Upon request of the chairman of the commission, the head of any Federal department or agency may detail, on a nonreimbursable basis, any personnel of that department or agency to the commission to assist it in carrying out its duties. "(e) Procurement of Temporary and Intermittent Services. - The chairman of the commission may procure temporary and intermittent services under section 3109(B) of title 5, United States Code, at rates for individuals which do not exceed the daily equivalent of the annual rate of basic pay prescribed for level V of the Executive Schedule under section 5316 of such title. "SEC. 1506. TERMINATION OF COMMISSION. "The commission shall terminate 60 days after the date on which the commission submits its report under section 1503. "SEC. 1507. FUNDING. "(a) In General. - The Secretary of Veterans Affairs shall, upon the request of the chairman of the commission, make available to the commission such amounts as the commission may require to carry out its duties under this title. "(B) Availability. - Any sums made available to the commission under subsection (a) shall remain available, without fiscal year limitation, until the termination of the commission." mssoup1

I kinda thought the same thing. The way it is being stated it sounds like a laptop and one disk. Had to have been a lot more than that. Also, there initially was some conflicting statements being made. It was stated one place that only those that were discharged after 1976 could be affected. In another article, it stated this same thing and also that veterans that filed any claims after this time could also be affected. What are we to really believe? Why have a lot of veterans upset when they may not even be affected by this. I think that there still is a lot of information that is still being withheld from the veterans in the hope that these disks are found and then everything would be okay and the rest of the details would never have to be released. If we cannot even rely on our government to secure this type of data, what do we have to look forward to with our Homeland Security team. Very scary........ mssoup1

Well, if the thieves didn't know before what they had, they sure will know now. What could one person be doing that would require them to have this type of information on their laptop on every veteran at one time? We cannot even get the VA to give the veteran access to his own information, yet they allow one person access to take home this type of information on all veterans. I am totally astounded that the VA could even allow this to happen. Earlier this month, I was sent a new debit card from my bank, with a letter, stating that my account was being monitored due to possible fraud of some kind. They stated that there were certain accounts within the bank, along with certain accounts in a few other banks that were being monitored due to the possbility of fraud occurring on those accounts. I'm not a veteran, but I am a spouse of one. I don't think that there is any connection here with the stolen info from the VA, but it goes to show you never know what is happening behind your back. So far, as far as I know, there has not been any fraud activity going on with the old debit card number, but I will probably never know since I de-activated that card and now have a new one. Not enough in everyday life to have to worry about and now we have just had a monster dumped in our laps. mssoup1

I went into the commission's website this morning and looked at the bio's of each member. Interesting reading. I was surprised to find out that Rick Surratt was a DAV SO for 13 years in Roanoke, Virginia. He is also a life member of the DAV in Salem, Virginia. Both of these cities are not very far from where I live. I don't know anything about him, but do know quite a few people who are members of this DAV. I am going to ask around to see if anyone knows much about him. After all, he is one who voted on this SSDI review and this could essentially have an impact on my husband. Of course I don't want to jump the gun as he may be one of the 2 who voted against the review. I would really like to think that he was one of these 2. Again, I was just curious if others had actually read the bio's on these members. It's confusing to me how someone could be such a big part of a National Service Organization (like the DAV) who is totally against this review, yet they could vote for the review. Again, since no one seems to know who the 2 members were, it is speculation on anyone's part at this point. It sure will be nice if and when we do get the details on how each member voted. mssoup1

Tbird, Go to www.vawatchdog.org. There is a link there that will tell you more. mssoup1

May 17, 5:40 PM EDT Wis. Bill to Give Free Tuition to Veterans By RYAN J. FOLEY Associated Press Writer MADISON, Wis. (AP) -- Wisconsin veterans would be eligible for free tuition at University of Wisconsin campuses and the state's technical colleges under a bill Gov. Jim Doyle is expected to sign. The Wisconsin measure expands a program that started this school year in which the state pays half of tuition and fees for Wisconsin veterans and the full cost for spouses and family members of soldiers killed in action. Starting in fall 2007, many of the state's estimated 464,000 veterans will be eligible for full-tuition waivers at the state's 26 UW campuses and 16 technical colleges. At least two other states - Texas and Illinois - have similar programs, according to the Department of Veterans Affairs. The University of Wisconsin and the Wisconsin Technical College System warned they may have to charge other students higher tuition to cover the estimated $9 million annual cost. Scott Kruchten, 31, who was wounded in a roadside bombing that killed four fellow Marines in Iraq in 2004, is already using the 50 percent discount to study Middle Eastern studies and political science at UW-Madison. "For injured service members in Wisconsin, having the law cover 100 percent of tuition dramatically affects how much money we have to survive on when we go back to school," said Kruchten, who broke a leg, two ribs and a shoulder in the explosion. Doyle had been scheduled to sign the bill on Saturday at the Wisconsin Veterans Home in Union Grove, but the signing was delayed because the governor will attend a funeral for a Wisconsin soldier killed in Iraq, his office said. © 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed. Learn more about our Privacy Policy.

May 19, 9:27 PM EDT House Conservatives Cut $500M Off Vet Bill By JIM ABRAMS Associated Press Writer WASHINGTON (AP) -- House conservatives, rejecting protests from fellow Republicans who said they were depriving troops of needed support, stripped $500 million in military construction projects from a veterans spending bill Friday. Democrats blamed GOP-backed tax cuts and a tight budget passed two days ago for creating a fiscal crisis leading to the cuts, most of which were for new facilities at various military bases. The bill provides a 10 percent increase for veterans programs. "I don't know why they (the troops) should be stuck in the middle of a family squabble within the Republican Party," said Rep. David Obey of Wisconsin, top Democrat on the House Appropriations Committee. The conservatives, led by Rep. Jeb Hensarling, R-Texas, used parliamentary procedures to delete some 20 projects worth $507 million from the $94 billion spending bill for military construction and veterans programs in fiscal 2007, which will begin Oct. 1. The overall bill passed 395-0. Writers of the legislation, seeking to meet limits outlined in the just-passed budget, had taken the money for the projects from a $50 billion war reserve to fund urgent projects, a move characterized by both conservatives and Democrats as a budgetary gimmick. Rep. Jeff Flake, R-Ariz., a fiscal hawk, asked how $18.1 million for a bachelor enlisted quarters at Camp Pendleton in California or $102 million for a brigade complex at Fort Lewis, Washington, could be considered emergency spending. "The ink is not even dry on the budget and we are already attempting to violate it, and that's simply not right," said Hensarling. The conservatives also noted the bill contained some 66 other earmarks, or projects requested by individual members, costing the same $500 million. Latest News Wis. Bill to Give Free Tuition to Veterans Interactives Congressional Pensions But Rep. James Walsh, R-N.Y., chairman of the subcommittee that wrote the bill, slammed Hensarling, saying, "He does not understand that we are at war." "Please don't come out here and lecture us," Rep. Ray LaHood of Illinois, another GOP member of the Appropriations Committee, told the conservatives. "Pick another bill, not this one." Rep. Mike Pence, R-Ind., a leader of the conservatives, told reporters this would not be the last spending battle. "I think you are going to see an ongoing effort by House conservatives to see this Congress live within our means." Democrats also pointed out that, while the bill approves record levels of spending for veterans' and active duty health programs, it falls $735 million short because the House did not go along with a White House request for fee increases for military retirees eligible for Tricare, the Defense Department's health care system. Rep. Chet Edwards of Texas, top Democrat on the military quality of life and veterans affairs subcommittee, said that shortfall, coupled with $316 million in underfunding for base closings and the $507 million cut from construction projects, left the bill $1.5 billion short of what was needed. "This sends a terrible message to our troops here at home, in Iraq, and Afghanistan," Edwards said. Democrats proposed paying for the 20 projects, the $735 million for active duty health care and the $1.82 billion increase in veterans' health care by trimming tax cuts for those making over $1 million annually. The proposed amendments were ruled out of order. The White House, while expressing support for the legislation, issued a statement questioning some of its components. It criticized the use of war reserve funds for military construction projects, and urged Congress to eliminate the 66 earmarks that the administration had not requested. It also opposed cuts in spending to carry out the 2005 base closing act, and urged Congress to consider administration proposals to increase copayments and enrollment fees for higher-income non-disabled veterans and for military retirees under 65 using Tricare. The bill provides $25.4 billion for veterans' health programs, up $2.6 billion from the current fiscal year, and $21 billion for the Defense Department health program, up $1 billion. Some $5.5 billion is funded for base closing activities, $6.6 billion for military construction and $4 billion for family housing construction. --- The bill is H.R. 5385. On the Net: Congress: http://thomas.loc.gov/ © 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed. Learn more about our Privacy Policy.

mssoup1you can check terry apply to this issue why do you think i may be wrong? is it because it;s so simple to understand? Elizabeth Elizabeth, I don't know who you are and when you exactly came onto this board, but I resent your little snide remarks that you make to me and some of the others on the board. It seems to me that apparently you know everything, therefore, I will stop posting and allow you to use all of your experience and knowledge to help those that ask for it on the board. But I for one don't nor want your help. I am sorry to the others on this board for getting a little upset, but I had to speak my peace this one time. mssoup1

Elizabeth, I read an update yesterday on this and in it it was stated that no one, yourself or anyone else for you, can hire an attorney prior to the Court of Veterans Appeals if any payment to the attorney is involved. They can only represent you pro-bono and according to what I read that there are a lot of attorneys that will do this because they get credit for doing so. I know that it used to be that someone else could pay the attorney for you and th VA accepted that, but from what I read this is no longer valid. I will try to find where I saw this and post it. mssoup1

According to the current law, you or no one else can hire an attorney for you prior to going to the Court of Veterans Appeal. If you can find an attorney who will represent you pro-bono, then the attorney must sign a paper to that affect and cannot charge you for his services. mssoup1

Tbird, Thanks so much. Looks like the problem has been resolved. mssoup1

Try this link... www.vba.va.gov/pubs/forms/21-8940.pdf It came up fo me. mssoup1

Skipdawg, I am using Internet Explorer as my browser. Once I click on "View New Posts" and start viewing the current postings, someone may add a link to their post to get information on something. I click on the link and go to that website. I then click on the "Back" key to go back to the Hadit website. I look at another posting. Then when I click the "Back" key to go back to the list of the current postings to look at another post, this is when I get a white screen with the fatal error at the top of the screen. At this point, I have to exit out of the browser, get back on the internet and go back to Hadit. Everything works okay until I do the same thing that I stated above that caused the problem. Then it happens again. As long as I stay in the Hadit website, I don't have a problem. I just can't go back and forth from one website to another using the "Back" key. I then start the problem again. Again, this only happens when I am switching back and forth while in Hadit. I don't get this type of problem within any other website. I am using Nortons Antivirus which I constantly keep updated, so I know I don't have a virus. Also, I have scanned my computer and there was no problems detected. Again, this only happens within the Hadit website. Since Pete says this has happened to him too, then maybe the problem is somewhere within the Hadit website. Maybe Tbird can do some checking for us. Thanks, mssoup1

Since no one else has mentioned this problem, I am assuming it is just me. While I am within the Hadit website,, viewing postings, click on a link to look at another webpage someone posted, go back to the Hadit website, then try to use my "Back" function at the top, I get a "fatal error". This has only been doing this for about 3 or 4 days and only happens within the Hadit website. Am I doing something wrong or does the website have a problem. As I said before, I guess it is just me since no one else has mentioned having a problem. I just don't understand why all of a sudden this has started happening and only happens within this website. If you have any answers for me, I would appreciate it. Thanks, mssoup1

Would a veteran be at risk if he is drawing VA disability compensation and also SSD, but the SSD is not related to his military? Thanks mssoup1

Don, Thanks for your reply. Makes sense. mssoup1

You file a claim, then get an inadequate C & P exam. You get a copy of this C & P exam before a decision is made. You request another C & P exam, based on the first one being inadequate and you explain all the reasoning behind why you consider it inadequate. Well, apparently my letter for another C & P exam was not looked at because there was not a second one given. The decision was based on this inadequate exam. The RO should have received my letter in plenty of time before the decision came down. Is this considered a CUE claim since no second exam was given? Or would you just file a NOD based on this inadequate exam? Any help would be appreciated. Thanks, mssoup1

Thank you Terry for your support. I have been hanging in there with my husband since he was in Vietnam and have fought so hard to get him his current rating, that I can't and won't give up now. He does have a lot of problems and would gladly give back any compensation he currently gets if they could just find a cure for these problems. His skin problems at times (most of the time) is so unbearable for him that my heart breaks because I cannot do anything for him. He has begged the doctors for something for relief, but he has been prescribed everything on the market over the years and nothing has ever helped him for any period of time. So, yes I will continue the fight and hope I prevail. Again thank you mssoup1

Just wanted to let everyone know that there is another success story to report. We just received the envelope today giving my husband an increase from 60% to 80%. These issues are almost 2 years old. One issue that was denied I have evidence to appeal that one. Another issue was deferred waiting on my husbands C & P exam. We also have a couple other claims that are 8 years old that are on remand from the BVA that we did not hear about, but he did get C & P exams that really sound good in his favor on these. I understand that the new claims have to be resolved first before they can send out a decision on the remanded claims. We will call tomorrow to check on this. I don't do a lot of posting on this site, but I have logged in a lot and gained a lot of knowledge over time from everyone here by just reading what they have posted. I want to personally thank everyone for their help, guidance and knowledge in helping to get these claims approved. While we do have a SO, I have done all the work myself for my husband and it has really been a long haul. With your assistance, I was able to make this happen. As so many have stated here before, you must work your own claim and stay on top of it yourself in order to get better results on your claim. Again, thanks to everyone for your help and I only hope that we can hear of more success stories soon. mssoup1

Billyboy, You must have a doctor to write an opinion that your hypertension is due to your PTSD. Jstacy is correct. Since you are having difficulty with the direct service connection for hypertension, this may very well be the next route to take. But, again you need that doctor's opinion. mssoup1

Thanks Alex for your reply. I will try to call the SO tomorrow as he will be at the Vet Center and it may be easier getting him there. I also have another question. My husband is service connected for a skin problem. When the ratings changed in, I think 2002, it now states that if you have a skin condition on more than 40% of your body you can be increased to 60%. Well, I put in for an increase for him. He does have this skin problem all over his body and has been treated for years with it and nothing has ever helped except the steroid treatments, but he can't stay on these for very long. He was given a C & P exam. The examiner examined him and stated to him that he did in fact have it on more than 60% of his body. He went on vacation and never wrote up the opinion. We then stated that we wanted another C & P due to this C & P not being documented. Well, the examiner must have gotten a little angry. His associate did the exam, but only had him to take off a few of his clothes. She then wrote up that he had it on 20 to 40% of his body, which keeps him at his current rate. It was signed off by the original examiner who we had requested not be involved in the second C & P exam. After getting a copy of the C & P exam report, my husband spoke to his fee-basis dermatogists. He wrote up in his report that it was probably on 60 to 70% of his entire body. A couple of questions. How will the RO handle the word "probably"? Also, will this statement from his doctor who he has now been seen by for approximately 8 months make a difference? This claim has left the raters hands, so I am waiting on his denial and then I will file a NOD based on his doctors letter. I would think they would have to at least use the "benefit of the doubt" rule since the C & P report states one thing and his doctors opinion states another. But I am not sure. Again, thanks. mssoup1