Emotional Instability Reaction Term

[Josephine]

Emotional Instability Reaction _ code 460 - may not always be a " Personality Disorder"?

[

Citation Nr: 0302710

Decision Date: 02/12/03 Archive Date: 02/19/03

DOCKET NO. 99-19 695 ) DATE

)

)

On appeal from the

Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in No. Little

Rock, Arkansas

THE ISSUE

Entitlement to service connection for an anxiety disorder.

REPRESENTATION

Appellant represented by: The American Legion

WITNESSES AT HEARING ON APPEAL

Appellant and spouse

ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD

J. D. Deane, Associate Counsel

INTRODUCTION

The veteran served on active duty from August 1958 to March

1959.

This case comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) from a July 1999 rating decision of the North Little Rock, Arkansas, Regional Office (RO) of the Department of Veterans

Affairs (VA).

The Board remanded the veteran's claim in July 2001 for action consistent with the Veterans Claims Assistance Act of 2000 (VCAA), Pub. L. No. 106-475, 114 Stat. 2096 (2000) (codified as amended at 38 U.S.C.A. § 5100 et seq. (West Supp. 2001)). In August 2002, the Board further developed

the claim, ordering a VA examination to evaluate the veteran's disability.

The veteran had a personal hearing before the undersigned

Member of the Board in May 2001.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. All evidence requisite for equitable disposition of the veteran's claim for service connection has been obtained and examined, and all due process concerns as to the development

of the claim have been addressed.

2. The veteran has a current anxiety disorder, which was diagnosed as an emotional instability reaction during his military service.

CONCLUSION OF LAW

An anxiety disorder was incurred in active service. 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 1101, 1110 (West 1991 & Supp. 2002); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303 (2002).

REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION

Service connection is granted for a disability resulting from an injury suffered or disease contracted while in active duty or for aggravation of a preexisting injury suffered or disease contracted in the line of duty. See 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 1110, 1131 (West 1991 & Supp. 2002); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303

(2002). In general, establishing service connection for a disability requires the existence of a current disability and a relationship or connection between that disability and a disease or injury incurred in service. See 38 U.S.C.A. § 1110 (West 1991 & Supp. 2002); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303, 3.304

(2002); Cuevas v. Principi, 3 Vet. App. 542, 548 (1992); Rabideau v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 141, 143 (1992).

I. Entitlement to Service Connection for Anxiety Disorder

The veteran contends that he currently suffers from an anxiety disorder as a result of his active service, and that service connection for his psychiatric disability is appropriate. After a review of the evidence, the Board finds that the record supports his contention, and that service connection for an anxiety disorder is warranted.

Most of the veteran's service medical records are unavailable. The National Personnel Records Center reported that they did not have such records for the veteran, and that they had probably been accidentally destroyed in a 1973 fire at that facility. However, a January 1959 treatment record

states that the veteran complained of chronic anxiety reaction. Another report from January 1959 noted that the veteran was admitted to the hospital in a lethargic state after ingesting an overdose of pills. The February 1959 Medical Evaluation Board report lists a diagnosis of emotional instability reaction including symptoms of lability of emotions, suicidal gesture, lowered tolerance to frustration, difficulty in accepting authority, and somatizations when under stress.

The veteran has also submitted VA outpatient treatment records, statements from his wife, and his own statements to support his claim. VA outpatient records from 1997 to 1999 show treatment for a major depressive order, insomnia, and a history of substance abuse. In the May 2001 hearing

transcript, the veteran as well as his spouse described his symptoms during and after separation from service.

A December 2002 VA examination report lists a diagnosis of anxiety disorder. The examiner noted in his report that the veteran complained of chronic sleep impairment and anxiety during the examination. The examiner also stated that the veteran was casually groomed and cooperative with an anxious mood as well as exhibited limited insight and adequate judgment. No gross memory impairment, hallucinations or delusions were noted in the December 2002 examination report.

The examiner stated that the veteran had received a diagnosis of emotional instability reaction during service, a term that was no longer part of the diagnostic nomenclature. It was noted that the symptoms reported in service appeared to be the same as symptoms described by the veteran in the

examination report. The examiner opined that there appeared to be a nexus between the emotional instability diagnosed in service and the veteran's present symptomatology.

In brief, the record shows that the veteran's current anxiety disorder is related to his period of active service. The opinion contained in the December 2002 VA examination report establishes a link between the veteran's current anxiety disorder and the symptoms diagnosed as an emotional

instability reaction during his active military service. Service medical records reflect that the veteran suffered from an emotional instability reaction while in service. In the December 2002 VA examination report, the examiner specifically stated that the veteran's current disability is

attributable to his period of active military service. The Board finds that the veteran's claim for service connection of an anxiety order must be granted.

II. VCAA

A change in the law, on November 9, 2000, redefined the obligations of VA with respect to the duty to assist and included an enhanced duty to notify the claimant of the information and evidence necessary to substantiate a claim for VA benefits. See Veterans Claims Assistance Act of 2000

(VCAA), 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 5100 et. seq. (West Supp. 2002). Implementing regulations for VCAA have been published. See 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.156(a), 3.159 and 3.326(a) (2002).

Except for amendments not applicable, the provisions of the regulations merely implement the VCAA and do not provide any rights other than those provided by the VCAA.

As noted above, the Board remanded this appeal to the RO in July 2001 for action consistent with the VCAA. As this decision of the Board is a complete grant of the benefit sought on appeal - i.e., service connection for an anxiety disorder - the Board concludes that sufficient evidence to

decide the claim has been obtained and that any defect in the notice and development requirements of the VCAA that may exist in this instance would not be prejudicial to the

veteran.

ORDER

Service connection for an anxiety disorder is granted.

MARY GALLAGHER

Member, Board of Veterans' Appeals

IMPORTANT NOTICE: We have attached a VA Form 4597 that tells

you what steps you can take if you disagree with our

decision. We are in the process of updating the form to

reflect changes in the law effective on December 27, 2001.

See the Veterans Education and Benefits Expansion Act of

2001, Pub. L. No. 107-103, 115 Stat. 976 (2001). In the

meanwhile, please note these important

Josephine

[free_spirit_etc]

Free or anyone,

You said that you had read the complete remand. I know that I must be the most dumb person around, but to me this makes no sense.

This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a February 2004 rating decision by the RO of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), which denied reopening the veteran's service connection claim for chronic anxiety with depression. In an October 2004 statement of the case the RO reopened the claim based upon the receipt of new service medical records

and denied entitlement to service connection upon reconsideration. See 38 C.F.OR. § 3.156© (2005).

If the DRO did not open the claim for Anxiety with Depression, Why do I have a Statement of the Case with a Denial to which I filled out the Form - 9. I turned that thing in November 24, 2004. I never turned in a Form _ 9 for a Chronic acquired Psychiatric Disorder. I didn't get any reconsideration either. My claim stayed with the DRO for 14 months after I turned in the form - 9. I turned it in before I received either of the two C&P's.

I think what it is saying is that they denied your request to reopen the claim in Febraury. When they recieved the SMR's - they basically HAD to reopen the claim. But they reopened it in October and denied it - it looks like partially in October - to which you submited the appeal. But if they did the C&Ps AFTER that - the C&Ps must have been ordered by the DRO. The DRO does have the right to seek additional evidence while reviewing the claim, if any is needed. (Oddly enough they don't seem to seek it if the they need more evidence to grant the claim.)

They should have sent you a SUpplmental statement of case AFTER that. You had remarked how they said they put more weight on the psychiatrist report. That would have had to been AFTER the C&P. So did you get a supplemantal statement of case then?

I turned in the New and Material Evidence into Appeals June 1, 2004 and the DRO had this information long before he sent out this Statement of the Case.

October 7, 2004

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

WE have enclosed a Statement of the Case, a summary of the law and evidence concerning your claim. This summary will help you to make the best argument to the BVA on why you think that our decision should be changed.

WHAT YOU NEED TO DO:

To complete your appeal, you must file a formal appeal. We have enclosed a VA From 9, Appeal to the Board of Veterans Appeals, which you may use to complete your appeal. We will gladly explain the form if you have questions.

The benefit you want

The facts in the statement of the Case with which you disagree, and

The errors that you believe we made in applying the law

The Division Review Officer ) DRO) has completed a preliminary review of your file and has determined that, based on the evidence currently of record your claim cannot be granted. THIS IS NOT THE DRO'S FINAL DECISION.

We are sending you this Statement of the Case so that you can better understand your appeal. An examination is being scheduled at the VA Medical Center. The Va Medical Center will notify you about the date and time to report for the examination.

DECISION:

Service connection for chronic anxiety with depression is denied

REASONS AND BASES

The additional service medical records submitted from The National Personnel Records Center and the report form Dr. P dated April 2004, are considered to be both new and material and your claim for service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder is reopened.

Why didn't the DRO use those records before he denied me for anxiety with depression?

Can you make any sense of this?

You were seen for a psychiatric consultation in March 1964. You complained about being unhappy with the Navy since boot camp. Assessment was emotional immaturity, dependency, and instability which precluded futher military service. Your post treatment records show that you were diagnosed with anxiety in 1979 ( WHAT A JOKE, THEY WERE SITTING THERE WITH MY MEDICAL RECORDS FROM 1965 TO DATE) Dr. P reported that he reviewed your March 1964 psychiatric consultations and expressed an opinion that your current anxiety and depression began in service.

This shall be my last question. I shall let it rest.

Again. This one says it is not final. So I am thinking they are saying. We have new evidence to reopen the claim. - but your claim is still denied. But this is not a final decision. We are sending you for a C&P. Then we will make the final decision.

??? Not sure --but that is the best way it makes sense to me.

Thanks,

Josephine

[free_spirit_etc]

Finally, submitted was a statement from a pastor, Reverend

B.O.B. who reported having counseled the veteran during the

period from 1965 to 1978, at which time she relayed some of

the events in service on which she bases the development of

her psychiatric illness, specifically the "near drowning"

incidents, and "abuse" directed at her by physicians.

Obtaining a copy of these counseling records would be

beneficial in adjudicating the veteran's claim.

This is good. To me it says they are looking at his statements in a positive way for being able to establish in service incurrance.

It would be helpful if Dr. P.

would provide the basis for his opinion linking the onset of

the veteran's psychiatric disability to service, and whether

he has any specialized training or expertise in the field of

psychiatric illness.

This is good. Again, it is like they are saying -there is some evidence here - it would help if it was stronger.

7. After the above development has been

completed, the veteran's claims file

should returned to the board of VA

psychiatrists who participated in the

April 2005 examination for clarification

of the provided opinion. They should be

requested to review the record and

reconcile their opinion as to etiology in

light of the evidence added since their

examination of the veteran, including the

May 2005 statement of Dr. Brian C.

Campion and the January 2006 statement of

Dr. Michael Payne.

Key word here is RECONCILE - they were asked to look at the new evidence (especially the evidence that a doctor IN SERVICE admitted to treating you for anxiety - and the statement where YOUR doctor said that they based their opinion on the fact that your SMRs stated that you were treated for anxiety and depression by Dr. C in the service - that shortly after that you were seen by two psychitrists and got an early discharge - that you have been on medicince from 1967 for anxiety - treated by THEM since 1979 - and that they have maintained all your military and post service medical records.

So it looks like these two statements are being considered toward SC. So they asked the gruesome twosome to LOOK at those and RECONSILE their opinions IN LIGHT of those statements. (Reconcile -- to settle - to account for - to resolve the differences) So they were supposed to resolve those differences with their opinion. If their opinion said you had no problems in service - and that you were just unsuitable - then how do they settle - or resolve - that Dr. C treated you for anxiety - and trusted you with his children?

And as Pete said - even if you DID have a personality disorder - you can STILL have anxiety as a separate diagnosis. Even THEY gave you a diagnosis of anxiety.

But if you had to be treated for anxiety IN SERVICE - and discharged shortly thereafter - then how do they RECONCILE - or account for - saying ALL your problems are caused by this magically appearing personality disoder - and NOT the anxiety that may have been so bad that you had to be discharged early.

So they asked YOUR doctor and reverand for records or statements which would be HELPFUL.

They asked the C&P DOCs to reconcile their opinion now that more evidence is known.

I think Dr. P did a good job with saying that he / she maintianed your other medical records too.

If it is already of record (in your other records) most doctors aren't going to keep writing it down.

You had been on anti-anxiety medicine since 1964 - 1967. This doctor started treating you in 1979 - They were treating you for something that you had already been treated for a long time. They were NOT building evidence for a VA claim.

They were treating you as a patient. There wouldn't really be a NEED for them to document about your service experiences - or that it started in the service during all those years of treatment. What was important to them when they started treating you was that you DID have chronic anxiety and had it for a long time already.

So the lack of documentation about in service "stressors" is not unusual. It was not a big concern to your doctor in the scope of your treatment. They had no reason to document it.

But as your doctor pointed out - --Now that you ask - yes. I think it did start in the service. I reached that opinion because she has been treated for anxiety for a long time - it has been ongoing and chronic - and her records indicate the earliest treatment for anxiety was in the service by doctor C. No. I am not a psychiatrist - but I am an internist that is medically qualified to prescribe medicine for anxiety. And it is my opinion that as she DOES have chronic anxiety - and the first treatment for that was in the service - and then she needed an early discharge - it is reasonable to say that is where this whole problem started.

That isn't exactly the words doctor P used - but that it what I took it to mean.

Also on Dr. P not having documented in the records - Dr. P states they maintain your records -- i.e. they HAVE other records on you that they did not write. if it is in THOSE records - Dr. P most likely wouldn't have given them to the VA anyway.

Actually - Dr's are not SUPPOSED to re-release records. I have seen the military doctors do so - but NOT civilian doctors. They will send THEIR records - but NOT records that were sent to them from someone else. I imagine it is a HIPPA thing. Records are authorized to be released for a specific purpose. Records released TO them from somewhere ELSE are authorized to be released to them for TREATMENT purposes. They are NOT authorized to RE-release those records to someone else.

So if you sign a release for them to release THEIR records - they can release ONLY the ones THEY made on you - NOT ones that had been released to them from someone else.

On the other doctor noting in the record about not having problems with nerves in the service. It dosn't surprise me one bit.

My husband had cancer in his left lower lobe. People stuck it everywhere in their medical notes - right upper lobe, right lower lobe. I was totally amazed at ALL the inaccuracies in my husband's medical records.

Geez! When he first got his cancer surgery - they told him it was SMALL cell cancer - a rapid growing type. it is in ALL his medical records at the AF Base. Then - the doctor (a year later) read the pathology report and docemented that he had been misinformed - it was NOT small cell - it was NONsmall cell. That was when he talked to my husband and told him that his cancer had been in existance a long time because of how slow it grows.

My husband pointed that out in his FIRST letter to the VA. (I didn't file sooner because they told me my cancer was fast growing small cell - but now they inform me it was actually adenocarcinoma - and told me it probably started during the middle of my 28 year military career) He sent in the paper the doctor wrote out - the doctor notes that SAY "pt was misinfomred. NOT small cell. Adenocarcinoma. Important differences explained to pt." But they VA has not even addressed his claim that it STARTED in service. They just focused in on the asbestos part.

But still - a few years later - some of the med records are still calling it small cell lung cancer.

It ticks me off that people can be so careless - and report whatever - and then that info is chiseled in stone - as if it is a fact.

Free

[Josephine]

Free,

Thanks so much for your time. I shall let this case rest now. Hoping to have that answer in about 3 weeks.

Now that I have the advancement on the docket letter into the AMC.

I know that you mentioned that husband did have in his service records treatment for bronchitis.

He had to have more symptoms in service, that they are not allowing to come forward.

His cancer did not just come full blown right after his discharge.

He sent in the paper the doctor wrote out - the doctor notes that SAY "pt was misinfomred. NOT small cell. Adenocarcinoma. Important differences explained to pt." But they VA has not even addressed his claim that it STARTED in service. They just focused in on the asbestos part.

But still - a few years later - some of the med records are still calling it small cell lung cancer.

I have found that whatever they stick in your medical records becomes the gospel, whether it is the truth or not.

If the medical evidence helps you claim, then it is distorted, until one would not recognize the wording by the doctor.

Thanks so much, I shall let this one rest, as promished.

Always,

Josephine

Edited August 19, 2007 by Josephine

[free_spirit_etc]

Wishing you the most of luck! I really think the grusesome twosome VA psychiatrists let them down on this one.

They wrote up your report stating there was no evidence of anxiety problems in service. Dr. C's letter showed this was not true. The reverand's letters also showed significant problems - pinpointing the change to whatever had occured in the service.

And even if Dr. K said there was no problem with nerves in Service - Dr. C's statement showed there was. So Dr. K's notes showed ongoing treatment shortly after the service - AFTER treatment had begun IN Service.

So with the VA psychiatrists refusing to RECONCILE their report to EXPLAIN why they stated you had no problems in service with anxiety - DESPITE the fact a doctor who treated you in service wrote that the records show that you did, indeed , recieve treatment for such a condition in service - I don't think the VA could give thier report much weight.

1. It was a NEW diagnosis that doesn't match the diagnosis of any OTHER doctor who has treated you.

2. It was a very GENERAL dianosis (not otherwise specified means they couldn't even fit you into the framework of ANY of the stated personality disorder).

3. They ALSO diagnosed you with Anxiety.

4. They did not RECONCILE their opinion with the FACTS that were presented after their diagnosis. (i.e. Their diagnosis might have looked good when the facts were not known - but once other facts came to light - they needed to reconsile their opinion with THOSE facts - and they did not do so.)

Did you ever find out about Doris? As to whether she actually drowned?

I was thinking about that.

If they can't find a record that someone actually did drown in your training - they COULD try to use that against you - but I think that could easily be argued.

1. It is pretty common knowledge that the military did the "sink or swim" game to "teach" people to swim.

2. It is pretty common knowledge that for those who were terrified of swimming - the experience could be pretty traumatic.

3. As you were personally be traumatized during the event - it would be expected that you would be taking in the events in a terrified state.

4. You did see the people trying to resuscitate Doris.

5. You did NOT see that she was resuscitated.

6. You did NOT see her again after that.

7. In your own trauma you came to the conclusion that she had drowned based on the facts you DID see...and the fact that you did not recieve any facts AFTER that - that would have led you to believe different.

8. A normal person would assume that they would not have to ask - that if Doris was okay - that SOMEONE surely would have informed everyone that she was okay. The fact that no one informed you of anything different would lead a normal person to believe that she did, indeed, drown.

So whether or not she actually did drown - you ceratinly have a strong basis for believing she did drown at that time and for all these years.

Especially when it was coupled with your own trauma.

They won't be able to prove Doris did not drown. They may only be able to show that they didn't fina any evidence that Doris drowned.

So the fact that you thought she did drown should be enough.

Free

Free,

Thanks so much for your time. I shall let this case rest now. Hoping to have that answer in about 3 weeks.

Now that I have the advancement on the docket letter into the AMC.

I know that you mentioned that husband did have in his service records treatment for bronchitis.

He had to have more symptoms in service, that they are not allowing to come forward.

His cancer did not just come full blown right after his discharge.

He sent in the paper the doctor wrote out - the doctor notes that SAY "pt was misinfomred. NOT small cell. Adenocarcinoma. Important differences explained to pt." But they VA has not even addressed his claim that it STARTED in service. They just focused in on the asbestos part.

But still - a few years later - some of the med records are still calling it small cell lung cancer.

I have found that whatever they stick in your medical records becomes the gospel, whether it is the truth or not.

If the medical evidence helps you claim, then it is distorted, until one would not recognize the wording by the doctor.

Thanks so much, I shall let this one rest, as promished.

Always,

Josephine

[Josephine]

Free,

I did talk to my niece last night and she said that since I did advance on the docket, that I should have an answer in about 3 weeks.

I was so darn terrified in that water, that I can honestly say, I was thinking of how I was going to stay alive.

As far as Doris , if they wish to hold that against me, I always feel that it is best to tell the truth and let the chips fall where they may.

They have that darn remand so messed up, I don't know how to make it straight.

Seems that the DRO sent me a premature Statement of the Case. I am sure that he was under the asumption, that Dr. M would not find those medical records.

To me it was an obvious set up.

He used Dr. P's records to find the others. On my first visit with Dr. P he made note that I was in psychiatric care with Dr. K and Dr. S. and Dr. T.

He started with after 14 years of treatment.

When I saw him, my blood pressure was at stroke level. My EKG was not normal. Severe Migraine headaches and the list goes on and on.

Dr. P had had his hands full that he hasn't had time to discuss what did or didn't happen in service.

One day I will post what the Military doctor had to say about my heart when I was hospitalized for German Measles.

I have been told for years that I had Rheumatic Heart Disease.

I did go back and read that stupid Supplemental Statement of the Case and it says that although one is treated for an illness in service, it does not mean that they will be service connected.

I don't know what else is left.

When I wrote to President Bush, I told him just as it was.

The two Psychiatrist in service painted a pretty picture, but they did write down. In consulation for nervousnesss, headaches, irratability. She is dis-satified with working conditons and living in the barracks. Foul mouth people fiated her values.

Could not perform the most menial task.

I have a copy of a Service Administrative Record that I brought back with me from D.C.

I signed a form giving them permission to destroy my medical records in order to secure my discharge and it was signed by the Personnel Officer. The one that told me that I would be a disgrace if I left service. Some kind of counseling.

I have had that thing for 43 years.

I sent a copy of it to the BVA. They entered it into the record.

They must have meant to destroy them, but somehow, Dr. C told me that he sent them to the Archives for safe protection.

He sent me a letter after my discharge to help me secure benefits, but I never received it.

He thought that I had been receiving benefits all of these years.

He was and is a Wonderful Person. Wife is just as nice.

Not many like him around.

He and his wife kept me alive until I got out of the Navy.

I promished to close this one.

Darn it.

Josephine

Edited August 19, 2007 by Josephine

[free_spirit_etc]

You have actually done a pretty amazing job of tracking down all the evidence despite their efforts to destroy and hide it.

Amazing that they have people who are being discharged with pyschiatric problems sign papers agreeing to anything to "secure their discharge."

Yep. That "informed consent" at it's finest. We will traumatize you - and if you become damaged beyond repair from the trauma - we will make you sign papers agreeing to let us destroy all the records of such trauma if you want to escape.

Of course, when you can get SC for the anxiety - you will get secondary connection for ALL the secondary conditions it has created.

Free

Free,

I did talk to my niece last night and she said that since I did advance on the docket, that I should have an answer in about 3 weeks.

I was so darn terrified in that water, that I can honestly say, I was thinking of how I was going to stay alive.

As far as Doris , if they wish to hold that against me, I always feel that it is best to tell the truth and let the chips fall where they may.

They have that darn remand so messed up, I don't know how to make it straight.

Seems that the DRO sent me a premature Statement of the Case. I am sure that he was under the asumption, that Dr. M would not find those medical records.

To me it was an obvious set up.

He used Dr. P's records to find the others. On my first visit with Dr. P he made note that I was in psychiatric care with Dr. K and Dr. S. and Dr. T.

He started with after 14 years of treatment.

When I saw him, my blood pressure was at stroke level. My EKG was not normal. Severe Migraine headaches and the list goes on and on.

Dr. P had had his hands full that he hasn't had time to discuss what did or didn't happen in service.

One day I will post what the Military doctor had to say about my heart when I was hospitalized for German Measles.

I have been told for years that I had Rheumatic Heart Disease.

I did go back and read that stupid Supplemental Statement of the Case and it says that although one is treated for an illness in service, it does not mean that they will be service connected.

I don't know what else is left.

When I wrote to President Bush, I told him just as it was.

The two Psychiatrist in service painted a pretty picture, but they did write down. In consulation for nervousnesss, headaches, irratability. She is dis-satified with working conditons and living in the barracks. Foul mouth people fiated her values.

Could not perform the most menial task.

I have a copy of a Service Administrative Record that I brought back with me from D.C.

I signed a form giving them permission to destroy my medical records in order to secure my discharge and it was signed by the Personnel Officer. The one that told me that I would be a disgrace if I left service. Some kind of counseling.

I have had that thing for 43 years.

I sent a copy of it to the BVA. They entered it into the record.

They must have meant to destroy them, but somehow, Dr. C told me that he sent them to the Archives for safe protection.

He sent me a letter after my discharge to help me secure benefits, but I never received it.

He thought that I had been receiving benefits all of these years.

He was and is a Wonderful Person. Wife is just as nice.

Not many like him around.

He and his wife kept me alive until I got out of the Navy.

I promished to close this one.

Darn it.

Josephine