Jump to content


HadIt.com Elder
  • Content Count

  • Donations

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Berta last won the day on December 23 2019

Berta had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

3,532 Excellent

About Berta

  • Rank
    HadIt.com Elder/SVR Radio Panelist

Profile Information

  • Military Rank
    PLEASE post questions in the main Forums
  • Location
    Beautiful hills of NY andwidow of  2 vets, 2 HD each and mother of USAF vet-my daughter, 7 years Top Secret Intel
  • Interests
    tactical warfare student- AMU
    Oriental home design
    organic cleaning tips
    Capt Adoph Von Shell-interested in any info at all!
    German Commander (WWI)lectured to the US Army after the war on warfare-- PTSD - tactics etc-and Leadership
    The Pullers-Chesty and Lewis (USMC)
    chocolate brownies
    anything at all regarding Vietnam
    the failure of the Maginot Line (WWII)
    Trench warfare
    anything amphibious

    WHITE SNAKE, Led Zepplin, Bob Dylan, Sting, Al Green, Mozart, Classical guitar,Moog synthesizer, Eminem,Janis Joplin,
    Michael Jackson, Teddy Pendergast, Mongo Santamaria,
    Cal Tjader, Miles Davis, AmerIndian battle chants,
    Hendrix,etc etc etc
    Pho and nuc mam dinners

Recent Profile Visitors

34,343 profile views
  1. I think I saw somewhere today that you are a retiree-meaning you sure might be eligible for CRDP or CRSC. CRDP is supposed to be automatic- meaning VA will send DOD the info.But it does take time. CRSC has to be applied for. Here is the skinny: https://www.dfas.mil/retiredmilitary/disability/crdp.html Congrats on your success!!!!! And maybe you already get CRDP or CRSC? I hope your EED ( earliest effective date) is correct. If you applied within one year after your discharge, your EED should be the day after your discharge.
  2. This link might help: https://themilitarywallet.com/join-guard-reserves-va-service-connected-disability-rating/
  3. This could be a DOD problem but it is unusual- The VARO ignored my letters requesting audits many times in the past. I asked the IG to do a recent audit, as well as two VARO directors and the VISN District Counsel. The audit is in process and being done by St. Paul- far from those two ROs where past error were made. I sent to all above a copy of an additional audit ofmy DIC and other issues, that revealed evidence of errors to the tune of more than 98 thousand they had thought they didn't have to pay me, but as this separate audit shows, they finally did pay. Shrekthe tank made a good point- I have been doing research for someone who might join the reserves- I will try to find out the VA comp requirements
  4. There are a few other BVA decision regarding the USS Bausell: This vet was denied for AO in a 2013 BVA decision, but has a chance now , if he is aware of the new BWN AO regulations, to succeed: https://www.va.gov/vetapp13/files4/1331614.txt These are the past type of cases the VA is supposed to have gone through, to see if a BWN vet, denied in the past for AO exposure, could be considered as AO exposed, now, due to the new law. Hopefully this veteran has become aware of HR 299 and Procopio. I do not believe the VA really does a stringent check of past denied, but now potential ,AO claims due to new regulations, such as the AO IHD claims in 2010. There has been little info available from VA to publicize the new BWN AO issue. I hope BWN vets and/or their survivors find out about it. It is slowly making it's way in small on line newspapers and nothing as far as I know on TV since Sec Wilkie mentioned it at FOX news this past summer. When you file your claim, make sure -if you were denied in the past for AO exposure, yet had a denial and rating on an AO presumptive,- that VA knows of that denial so that you can obtain the best and earliest Effective date possible.
  5. I just found, in mere seconds, more info on your ship: https://www.va.gov/vetapp19/files5/19139772.txt This is a recent BVA award of AO comp due to Procopio and HR 299 because: "Here, private treatment records show that the Veteran had a diagnosis of adenocarcinoma, status-post left upper lobectomy. Therefore, the first element of service connection is established. Turning to the second element, in-service incurrence of a disease or injury, the Veteran does not report, nor do his service treatment records identify, any complaints, treatment for, or diagnosis of lung cancer or symptoms indicative of lung problems. However, the Veteran’s military personnel records indicate that he served aboard the USS Bausell (DD-845) in May 1966. Furthermore, the March 2017 response from the Joint Services Records Research Center (JSRRC) reflects a determination that the USS Bausell’s deck logs place the vessel “in the coastal waters of Vietnam” on May 31, 1966. On that day, according to JSRRC, deck logs show that the ship was steaming in the area of Quang Ngai, South Vietnam, and “maneuvered close to the beach to 1,500 yards then commenced small arms fire at two Viet Cong swimmers about 500 yards from the shore.” The Board takes judicial notice that this response from JSRRC places the Veteran within the 12 nautical mile territorial sea of Vietnam during active duty. Monzingo v. Shinseki, 26 Vet. App. 97, 103 (2012) (allowing for taking of judicial notice of facts of universal notoriety that are not subject to reasonable dispute); Smith (Brady) v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 235, 238 (1991) (citing Fed. R. Evid. 201(b)). Thus, the Board finds that the Veteran meets the criteria for having service in the Republic of Vietnam, and he is therefore presumed to have been exposed to herbicide agents during service. Accordingly, as all of the elements for presumptive service connection for adenocarcinoma, status-post left upper lobectomy, as due to exposure to herbicide agent are met, the benefit sought on appeal is granted. 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.307, 3.309." As the BVA has started to state on the bottom of it's decisions: "The Board’s decision in this case is binding only with respect to the instant matter decided. This decision is not precedential, and does not establish VA policies or interpretations of general applicability. 38 C.F.R. § 20.1303." However ,regardless of the VA Ships list date of exposure, obviously your deck logs, and even the 'legal' statement of JSRRC in this case should help you.
  6. Your ship is on the most recent AO ship's list- I updated that above link as soon as I got the newer list -October 2019. USS Bausell DD 845 -Motorized whaleboats ashore Danang Vietnam, Nov. 27, 1968. Page 29 of 40 in the above link. If you were on this ship after the exposure date, and have an AO presumptive disability, you should file a claim ASAP , and hopefully you have your deck logs, to use as evidence.
  7. Dustoff is correct... a bad C & P does not warrant a CUE. If the results are the wrong diagnosis and/or wrong diagnostic code, to your detriment , then that can be a valid CUE. Fortunately there are more ways, nowadays, to fight a lousy C & P exam, which should be done ASAP. You stated: "If they can keep the veterans in the dark long enough, their appeal window will expire and then they can keep the money." That is true- but veterans with PCs are not as 'in the dark" as they used to be. I posted here some time ago the contact info for VES, QTC, and LHI, if you want to complaint about a lousy C & P exam. Many here have gotten better C & P exam results by complaining to the contractors who hired the C & P doctor. A WH Hot line complaint can help as well. ( 855-948-2311) I was able to complain directly to a VA doctor in 1996. But his actual posthumous exam (which he sent to me)was manipulated by the RO in the SOC. At that time I did not realize the benefit of 38 CFR 4.6, as the VA had withheld from him (as well as General Counsel- a 6 page autopsy that totally overruled his exam results.) He was angry at what the RO pulled on him- but there seemed to be no remedy I knew of then. That all worked out OK in time but in 1996 the internet was quite limited and I could have, if I had a copy of M21, cued them in a heartbeat. I didn't know any better in those days. ANY vet getting a lousy C & P exam these days should act fast to get it corrected or get a new exam.I believe if the WH Veterans hot line ,is in any way collecting complaints , specifically due to C & P exams, that in the long run maybe something will be done about this. Of course an IMO/IME can often overrule a bad C & P exam, but that can be so costly . The C & P examiners are also from the same contractors that are replacing VA doctors,nurses, etc etc with "Providers". VA "Providers" have limited liability if they harm or kill a veteran. There are Bills in Congress to hopefully change that. But the VA hates change.
  8. If you have read the Blue Water Navy Vietnam Veterans Act of 2019, some changes came with it regarding VA mortgages, that affect all veterans. http://www.mortgagenewsdaily.com/01152020_va_lending.asp
  9. To add this case at the BVA shows how this veteran, who claimed "The veteran maintains, in substance, that the 10 percent evaluation assigned for her chronic fatigue syndrome from January 25, 1990 to November 28, 1994, does not adequately reflect the severity of that disability for that time period. The veteran also asserts that this period of her disability should be evaluated using the Diagnostic Code for chronic fatigue syndrome, not brucellosis." in part: This case is before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (BVA or Board) on appeal from an April 1992 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office in St. Petersburg, Florida (RO), which assigned a 10 percent evaluation for chronic fatigue syndrome, effective from January 25, 1990. In doing so, the RO evaluated the veteran's chronic fatigue syndrome by analogy to brucellosis, pursuant to 38 C.F.R. Part 4, Diagnostic Code 6316 (1991). In addition, the veteran contends that the current 40 percent evaluation assigned for her chronic fatigue syndrome does not adequately reflect the severity of that disability. She contends that her chronic fatigue syndrome results in symptoms that wax and wane and result in periods of incapacitation of at least six weeks total duration per year. Therefore, a favorable determination has been requested. "ORDER Subject to the provisions governing the award of monetary benefits, a 30 percent schedular evaluation for chronic fatigue syndrome for the period from January 25, 1990 to November 28, 1994, is granted. Subject to the provisions governing the award of monetary benefits, a 60 percent schedular evaluation for chronic fatigue syndrome for the period beginning November 29, 1994, is granted." https://www.va.gov/vetapp98/files1/9801156.txt The veteran did very well ( and this was not filed as a CUE but could have been) in proving the VA had used the wrong diagnostic code, to her detriment in a past VA decision. A nice retro award!!!! I do agree with the advice above- that you need to get the diagnosis confirmed ( or it could possibly be a different diagnosis) and see if your SMRs will support an inservice nexus.
  10. If you are an incountry Gulf War Veteran, Brucellosis is one of the infectious diseases that can be claimed to GW service: "BrucellosisA bacterial disease with symptoms such as profuse sweating and joint and muscle pain. The illness may be chronic and persist for years. It must be at least 10 percent disabling within one year from the date of military separation. https://www.publichealth.va.gov/exposures/gulfwar/infectious_diseases.asp and as the VA link states the GW regs have been expanded to include those veterans who served " in Afghanistan on or after September 19, 2001." Do you have anything in your SMRs that could support the claim for brucellosis symptoms wise? There are 242 decisions at BVA for this condition and many, if not most were denied- but not all of them- this one is interesting because his symptoms were re characterized as arthralgias. "ORDER Entitlement to service connection for residuals of brucellosis, diagnosed as longstanding arthralgias, is granted." https://www.va.gov/vetapp08/files5/0840468.txt When were you diagnosed with this infectious disease?
  11. Yes, there is no reason you cannot CUE a CUE denial but I don't advise doing that- I feel you should request an HLR. Can you scan and attach the Horners criteria from the VA rating schedule used for the 1993 decision? Did you have at that time ( and did VA know it) that this disability caused you time off from work, within performance appraisals or anything of that nature? I feel something ( as evidence)produced the 2006 rating, that was missing ,as evidence, in the 1993 rating. As Vync said: "In your CUE submission, did you just point out an error and let them figure it out? Or did you spell out specific laws in effect at the time that were not followed?" Did you make a solid argument with the rating schedule of 1993 ,compared to the evidence they had, that would warrant the higher rating in the past? Was the correct diagnostic code used in the 1993 rating?
  12. Many BWN vets ( or their survivors) can check the most recent BWN AO ships list,to see if their ship was exposed to AO before they were on it.( in the AO forum-October 2019) Also many BWN vets can prove their exposure with their deck logs. This whole situation ticks me off, as to the lack of real national news on the BWN AO issue. If a BWN vet does not use a PC ( and they would have to search for Blue Water Navy AO) but why would they, if they have not heard of the new regulations, and if they do not learn of this from other vets , and since it really hasn't been on TV or in the nationale newspapers, they do not know what they need - such as their deck logs, unless they have them. If they find out today, for example, how log will it take for them to get their deck logs? VA claims they have gone through past BWN decisions to see if any of them were denied for what is now an AO comp claim, due to the regulations, to contact them.The VA said they did that in 2010 when the new Nehmer came out- but they probably missed many vets and their survivors. I have seen estimates of between 70,000 to 130,000 potential BVN vets ( and maybe that high amount includes their survivors) affected by the new BWN AO regulations.
  13. Thanks a lot! I posted a link to this in the AO forum some time ago but yours might work better!!!! The news of BWN AO is slowly moving around the net news sites-and that VA is working on those claims already.
  14. Grone was with the Undersecretary for Defense. Congressman Lane Evans, deceased, has numerous archived documents , and I have spent many days this past week, seeking what I need.Library of Congress archives etc etc etc But I might have found the 'needle' as I found Alvin Young's old email addy minutes ago, and the email I sent has not been returned, so that is a good thing. Then I also heard from BWN not to go crazy looking for this doc- but my research brought me to many articles that I hope the Guam advocates have found as well. There have been 4 vets so far who proved they were exposed to AO in Guam. The DOD ( Grone) told Representative Lane Evans in 2003 , that there was no AO used or stored etc,etc at Guam. Of course there was AO at Guam. But Grone's letter did seem to be what the VA used for their pdf on AO storage, use, etc, in many areas outside of Vietnam, here: https://www.publichealth.va.gov/docs/agentorange/dod_herbicides_outside_vietnam.pdf Thanks GBArmy- AO was truly a weapon of Mass destruction. Many of us advocates won't let the VA or DOD forget that.
  15. This search link might help provide some good info as well: https://www.google.com/search?q=OSA+due+to+rotating+work+schedules&rlz=1C1CHBF_enUS695US695&oq=OSA+due+to+rotating+work+schedules&aqs=chrome..69i57.10617j0j8&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
  • Create New...

Important Information

{terms] and Guidelines