Need Information

[JustThinking]

I am working on a project to get some REAL help for my fellow veterans.

I tried to post a 9 question survey on Craigslist, but found out that there was no way to do it anonymously.

As my intention is NOT to get contacts or email address, I had to find another way - and I did.

Could you PLEASE at least look at the survey at the following link and fill it out if you are comfortable with it.

http://www.questionpro.com/akira/TakeSurvey?id=754790

or

<A HREF="http://www.questionpro.com/akira/TakeSurvey?id=754790" >

Click Here to take the survey

</A>

My point for doing it is:

I don't think our veterans are getting the help they need (based on conversations and experience) AND

I intend to do SOMETHING about it.

Thanks. Let me know if you have any trouble getting to or doing the survey.

[JustThinking]

There are some lawsuits around too that could provide some info you need -just thinking-

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/law/07/23/veter...t.ap/index.html

This is the suit by Iraq vets as to the VA delays etc.

Then again the gov itself has documented all of the problems in the claims system today anyhow-

IG report (2005), BVA Chairman's report Jan 2007 for FY 2006, and Knight Ridder News.

I havent accessed the survey link yet-

but have asked Cong Filner to amend one VA reg and feel that reform of the VA has to start with amending the regs that they are to abide by but don't-in a way that puts the onus onto the ROs as well as vet reps themselves to make sure a claim has been legally adjudicated.

Also I dont see the need for a fund to pay lawyers-under the new lawyer for vets regs- they get paid out of any retro.It is a contingency type of representation.

The VA pays them.I think it is 20%.

I think veterans need an IMO fund- funded by vet rep salaries they can save by firing lousy reps and putting their salaries into an interest bearing account.

Then again who could decide who gets the benefit of the IMO fund and who doesn't.

The best scenario of all would be in my opinion- to get my amendment passed on the VCAA- and that will prevent a lot of needless denials and remands- and then to ask for an amendent (next on my list to do) to make the vet reps take the same test that the lawyers have to-in order to rep vets under the new attorney for vet regs.

And then to get a new Secretary with goonyats who will take command presense and action against VAROs who fail to comply with basic VA 101.

I think the new lawyer for vets regs should be amended too-

I already griped to VACO DC about them.

They emailed me I would receive a response- that was months ago-

The new regs prevent and discriminate against thousands and thousands of vets and widows whose NODs were filed prior to June 21, 2007.

These claimants were the most needy of direct legal expertise in handling their claims issues yet have been denied this new reg.

The proposed reg-and I griped about this in particular-was available for public comment at the Fed Regis web site-

I didnt comment on it because I thought it was fine-

the regulation however-unlike the one they proposed-contained the condition of applying only to claimants whose NODs filed AFTER June 21, 2007-

nothing in the proposed reg said that!

This is a disparity that should be amended-

it would not only give lawyers a lot more claims to reap benefit of legal fees on- it would allow every claimant the same rights as only those with NODs filed after June 21, 2007 -have now.

I just got a 3 page letter from Senator Clinton yesterday. I actually forget what it was I had griped about to her about.

She said she had given great attention to the statements I had made about the claims process.

Good- now I will ask her to do something about my letter when I dig it out.

I agree with Pete that it is very hard to unite veterans for any specific cause.I have been reading about the disgraceful way veterans were herded out of the camps in Washington when they asked for their war bonuses in the 1930s.

Congress had promised Adjusted Compensation Certificates to these veterans and they reniged.

almost 17,000 veterans camped out at the Capitol in protest- only to be driven off by the US Army under the command of General Mac Arthur.

Since then numerous veterans groups have attempted to organize veterans-

the internet has made it by far easier for vets to unite and to complain to their Congressmen/women and Senators....all are reachable by a few clicks away at the VA web site-

Even the Task Force issued an invitation to all veterans and families of vets to contact them----

thousands did but many thousands did not.

PS I just clicked on the survey link- and it is geared solely to War vets-

I am a civilian so I didnt access the whole thing.

QUOTE not seperated for some reason...

Reply from JustThinking:

Yea, the organization of Vets and the pushing of agendas is surely made easier (maybe even possible).

Veterans have by nature of their experience, one of the potentially tightest communities on the planet. A force to recon with if organized well behind a strong purpose.

Forcing the gov't to do anything takes a monumental effort - unless it suits their agenda - but change can happen.

I have learned of other areas of mental trauma that Vets have underwent as a result of the survey (Thanks for all the imput - everyone).

I am interested in the opinions of War/ Non War Vets as well as people who have observed, in their friends Mental trauma, - relating to military (not necissarily combat) service.

Thanks again!

PS- I may slightly modify the survey to reflect additional information gotten from it (no new questions, just broading one or two).

JT

[Johnny K.]

There are some lawsuits around too that could provide some info you need -just thinking-

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/law/07/23/veter...t.ap/index.html

This is the suit by Iraq vets as to the VA delays etc.

Then again the gov itself has documented all of the problems in the claims system today anyhow-

IG report (2005), BVA Chairman's report Jan 2007 for FY 2006, and Knight Ridder News.

I havent accessed the survey link yet-

but have asked Cong Filner to amend one VA reg and feel that reform of the VA has to start with amending the regs that they are to abide by but don't-in a way that puts the onus onto the ROs as well as vet reps themselves to make sure a claim has been legally adjudicated.

Also I dont see the need for a fund to pay lawyers-under the new lawyer for vets regs- they get paid out of any retro.It is a contingency type of representation.

The VA pays them.I think it is 20%.

I think veterans need an IMO fund- funded by vet rep salaries they can save by firing lousy reps and putting their salaries into an interest bearing account.

Then again who could decide who gets the benefit of the IMO fund and who doesn't.

The best scenario of all would be in my opinion- to get my amendment passed on the VCAA- and that will prevent a lot of needless denials and remands- and then to ask for an amendent (next on my list to do) to make the vet reps take the same test that the lawyers have to-in order to rep vets under the new attorney for vet regs.

And then to get a new Secretary with goonyats who will take command presense and action against VAROs who fail to comply with basic VA 101.

I think the new lawyer for vets regs should be amended too-

I already griped to VACO DC about them.

They emailed me I would receive a response- that was months ago-

The new regs prevent and discriminate against thousands and thousands of vets and widows whose NODs were filed prior to June 21, 2007.

These claimants were the most needy of direct legal expertise in handling their claims issues yet have been denied this new reg.

The proposed reg-and I griped about this in particular-was available for public comment at the Fed Regis web site-

I didnt comment on it because I thought it was fine-

the regulation however-unlike the one they proposed-contained the condition of applying only to claimants whose NODs filed AFTER June 21, 2007-

nothing in the proposed reg said that!

This is a disparity that should be amended-

it would not only give lawyers a lot more claims to reap benefit of legal fees on- it would allow every claimant the same rights as only those with NODs filed after June 21, 2007 -have now.

I just got a 3 page letter from Senator Clinton yesterday. I actually forget what it was I had griped about to her about.

She said she had given great attention to the statements I had made about the claims process.

Good- now I will ask her to do something about my letter when I dig it out.

I agree with Pete that it is very hard to unite veterans for any specific cause.I have been reading about the disgraceful way veterans were herded out of the camps in Washington when they asked for their war bonuses in the 1930s.

Congress had promised Adjusted Compensation Certificates to these veterans and they reniged.

almost 17,000 veterans camped out at the Capitol in protest- only to be driven off by the US Army under the command of General Mac Arthur.

Since then numerous veterans groups have attempted to organize veterans-

the internet has made it by far easier for vets to unite and to complain to their Congressmen/women and Senators....all are reachable by a few clicks away at the VA web site-

Even the Task Force issued an invitation to all veterans and families of vets to contact them----

thousands did but many thousands did not.

PS I just clicked on the survey link- and it is geared solely to War vets-

I am a civilian so I didnt access the whole thing.

[font=Franklin Gothic Medium]Dear Berta,

Your advice to me about prepping for the DRO was outstanding. After a one hour tape recorded meeting we were told we "did a good job" at the hearing. After reading the quack psychiatrist's report contradicting five other psych professionals, the DRO conceded my service related PTSD as a Paramedic and for my role in attending to burned, amputated, crushed, and otherwise mauled, mangled returning troops from SE Asia in 1972.

She was good enough to leave the "door open" now to pursue the claim based on two new factors: I am now SERVICE CONNECTED for PTSD; I am now at least rated, even though its only 0%- it is a starting point. Thanks to you and Pete and all the othes who continue to help. I will keep you posted!

Thanks so much,

[Berta]

I am shocked that the rating is "0"-

have you gotten their formal statement yet as their their" rationale" for this rating?

[Lindell]

Okay PTSD is the hardest to prove but easiest to recieve with papers bye doctors espically military mental health or special medications only taken bye people who have really bad mental problems and police reports because you snapped, But family Statements in Support of your claim are good and even better unit statements are the best, you need creditabality that's the name of the game so Family, Doctor, Military, and Outside medical eval are the way to get approved. Trust me i know it's like this Va said no because of lack of evidence. Get papers from buddies in your unit who have it, then get some from people you know have it too, plus family, and Va doctors and outside va doctors, and lastly police reports from drinking to much or hitting kids because you get angry add all this up and the Va Mental doctors one statement which IS the reason your claim was zero will roll over cause you then have what's called the shock effect of Medical Facts. You take the Va Mental Doctors 1 messed up statment and drown it in other Medical statments in your favor. It's not what you know brother it's what you can prove as Medical Facts.

Goodluck Buddy

Lindell

Edited September 21, 2007 by Lindell