Government Money Not Yours Personally

[lamontino]

I keep hearing about vets this and vets that. LOok at the employees that work for the system. SOme of them could care two cents about you. In fact, they figure they only making alittle money why should you be granted being set for life (so they think). SO what do they do they make it hard for you like its their money.

And they should make a law against Government employees that commit fraud on real veterans of benefits rightfully theres. Changing files around, adding little notes on the files to destroy the claim, requiring vets to go to numerous doctors exams when there is suffcient evidence there in the c file to grant an award, than if they really dont like you and the examinator connects the dot and they dont like his decision they send you for another exam etc.....They just get a slap on the arm for denying a vet many many years of benefits rightfully their.

There is a such thing as "Time Served Prejudice".What I mean is, that there people out here whom think so what if you got hurt if you didnt make it out of basic training you shouldnt get a dime. They could even be the very vets that is suppose to be helping you.

Than they want to excuse someone of trying to get over on the system when the system got over on the vet.........lol.........Its real funny tho. How a person can laugh and grin in your face and pretend to want to help you but is destroying you in the background. I remember hearing a RO say to another Rater ""I rate base on what Side of the Bed I got out on"".

I think employee, trainers, RO, etc.....whom Tampers a clearly rightfully claim for benefits should be charge with FRAUD. I might even suggest that To my congressMan

Edited October 10, 2007 by lamontino

[carlie]

I don't think the 180 days went in effect until 1979 or 1980.

Can someone post more on the Reg prior to 1980.

Also, to my knowledge, a service member discharged in under the 180 consecutive day rule, would still be eligible for benefits if it was a HARDSHIP DISCHARGE.

Please, anyone correct me if this is incorrect information.

Thanks,

carlie

[kent76]

Here is one reason I feel a veteran is a veteran at enlistment for bennifits purposes.

I know a kid right now that is emotionally unstable but has enlisted in the marines. The marines KNOW he is unstable as he was hospitalized for attempted suicide while in the delayed entry program. He was admited to a mental health ward. The recruiter visited him while he was recieving care. They are going to put him in service.

Obviously this is a pre-existing condition. Obviously he is not fit for duty. He will fail, I promise.

Once he begins training he belongs to the DOD. Let's look at it like buying a car. The DOD needs cars (soldiers). In this case they have knowingly bought a faulty car (because new cars [soldiers] are hard to find). In my view, they bought it, they own it.

This kid has hid nothing. He has tried to opt out but they lie and tell him he must go.

When he returns in much worse shape, I will do everything I can to ensure he recieves benifits. They bought him, they can pay for repairs.

I started a thread on this kid some time ago. Some may remember it. I got some really good advice from a couple of board members. Unfurtunatley, to these friends of mine, I am a friend, but they see the recruiters as having authority. Who do you think they listen to? They listen to the recruiters that threaten jail. So the DOD bought a faulty car with their lies and will have to be accountable for it.

Time

I think that this is happening much more than many of us realize! Alot of young people are entering the service who are bound for failure because when they have problems in their lives, they run into the recruiter's office and many buckle under the pressure to follow through with their visit and sign papers enlisting them into the military!

Many kids do not realize that they are suffering from mental disorders and anxiety and will find out later that they are not capable of following through after the papers are signed. Many will disclose things not mentioned during the enlistment process with the sole intent of being discharged but many will be forced to honor their commitments. The military at this time takes full responsibility by not discharging them.

If at a later time these kids find themselves seeking compensation for depression and anxiety, the military will likely diagnose them as having a personality disorder or worst yet, saying that they fraudulently enlisted thus ineligible for benefits.

I just don't see how a person with a mental disorder can be held accountable for seeking compensation for injuries and pre-existing conditions when the military either fail to or refuse to impliment safeguards to ensure this problem is corrected.

Now if a service member happens to make it through these safeguards then he/she should be entitled to all benefits because that means that they were obviously well enough by the service standards and completely qualified!

[Ron II]

Re: Kent76's comment: "I just don't see how a person with a mental disorder can be held accountable for seeking compensation for injuries and pre-existing conditions when the military either fail to or refuse to impliment safeguards to ensure this problem is corrected."

If an enlistee did not know of their pre-existing condition and passes all the MEPS tests, that is a case

where compensation should be paid in my opinion. If a person hides and/or lies about a pre-existing condition, that is an entirely different matter in my opinion. Adults are accountable for their actions--if they were not, we would have unprosecuted 18-year old murderers, AND by the way, I am not comparing murderers with military personnel.

[Wings]

I don't think the 180 days went in effect until 1979 or 1980.

Can someone post more on the Reg prior to 1980.

Also, to my knowledge, a service member discharged in under the 180 consecutive day rule, would still be eligible for benefits if it was a HARDSHIP DISCHARGE.

Please, anyone correct me if this is incorrect information.

Thanks,

carlie

Discharge Regulations by Chapter

http://www.objector.org/helpingout/dischar...egulations.html

See DoD Directive 1332.14, ENLISTED ADMINISTRATIVE SEPARATIONS

Search here http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/

Or See Attached

1332.14.pdf

Edited October 12, 2007 by Wings

[kent76]

Re: Kent76's comment: "I just don't see how a person with a mental disorder can be held accountable for seeking compensation for injuries and pre-existing conditions when the military either fail to or refuse to impliment safeguards to ensure this problem is corrected."

If an enlistee did not know of their pre-existing condition and passes all the MEPS tests, that is a case

where compensation should be paid in my opinion. If a person hides and/or lies about a pre-existing condition, that is an entirely different matter in my opinion. Adults are accountable for their actions--if they were not, we would have unprosecuted 18-year old murderers, AND by the way, I am not comparing murderers with military personnel.

I guess that I have a problem with this rule! I have know people fired from their civilian jobs for "lying" on their applications about things that shouldn't apply at all! Let me give you an example, a friend of mine had several unpaid traffic tickets from 5 years ago but was fired from a good job that he recently accepted! Was he obligated to disclose this information? Heck, most of us can't even remember back that far!

Getting back to the pre-existing conditions, most people don't know the extent of their problems therefore the question becomes an opinion! If the question is- Have you ever been treated for or hospitalized for depression, and the person only checked themself into a clinic seeking help but left without treatment because they couldn't afford treatment, they could honestly answer no to the question thus there is no fraudulent intent involved!

I know what you are implying but without any medical evidence to contradict this statement, there can be no legal case for the VA to pursue!

Manitou, you are obviously an intelligent person so I am just saying that everyone can't be measured using the same standards! This may sound like a strange statement but trust me here, you have servicemembers on active duty right now who can not rationalize the reasonings you expressed earlier! I guess what I am saying to you is this, some adults are not accountable for their actions because they have a mental illness and their perception of right and wrong is distorted!

I work in this type of environment so I know that if there is an altercation, I am subject to disciplinary actions and not them!

Yes, they are in the military but that's doesn't make them any less mentally ill!

[Ron II]

I guess that I have a problem with this rule! I have know people fired from their civilian jobs for "lying" on their applications about things that shouldn't apply at all! Let me give you an example, a friend of mine had several unpaid traffic tickets from 5 years ago but was fired from a good job that he recently accepted! Was he obligated to disclose this information? Heck, most of us can't even remember back that far!

Getting back to the pre-existing conditions, most people don't know the extent of their problems therefore the question becomes an opinion! If the question is- Have you ever been treated for or hospitalized for depression, and the person only checked themself into a clinic seeking help but left without treatment because they couldn't afford treatment, they could honestly answer no to the question thus there is no fraudulent intent involved!

I know what you are implying but without any medical evidence to contradict this statement, there can be no legal case for the VA to pursue!

Manitou, you are obviously an intelligent person so I am just saying that everyone can't be measured using the same standards! This may sound like a strange statement but trust me here, you have servicemembers on active duty right now who can not rationalize the reasonings you expressed earlier! I guess what I am saying to you is this, some adults are not accountable for their actions because they have a mental illness and their perception of right and wrong is distorted!

I work in this type of environment so I know that if there is an altercation, I am subject to disciplinary actions and not them!

Yes, they are in the military but that's doesn't make them any less mentally ill!

I guess we might just agree to disagree. In closing, I would like to emphasize that my remarks involve ethical issues; the fact that cases are, "...without any medical evidence to contradict.." is immaterial.

Anyway, I appreciate having the opportunity to comment on this issue.

Cheers!