Nearly 90% Of Iraq /afganistan Vets

[Berta]

Last night the very notable Prof. Linda Bilmes of Harvard University was the special guest at SVR radio.

Not only has Prof Bilmes been before Congress and in HVAC hearings on veterans issues- she has written many important papers and a book that are well researched as to the long terms affects of the war in the cost of sacrifice.

Her January 2007 paper on "Soldiers Returning from Iraq and Afganistan"

revealed that " nearly 90 percent of claims are appproved." She had to leave the show before I could get a clarification on that-but I assume she certainly means the claims specifically from Iraq and Afganistan veterans.

What this figure, nor the paper reveals however is that I would guess close to 90 % of the awards might well be wrong.

It seems to me that the VA is certainly awarding many many Iraq/Afganistan vets either "0" % or 10% -

and as the news I posted here yesterday shows-

0 to 10 can get you a re-deployment-

and obviously the Iraq veteran at VA WAtchdog story-

who was awarded an unconscionable "0" % should have been at 100% SC plus SMC.

Since it is apparent that many Iraq and Afganistan veterans might well get low balled just as many of you here have been-this means that they too will be continuously in the system fighting for the proper rating along with thousands and thousands of veterans-

as our grateful Nation has assured they too will become of the overwhelming backlog which grows by the day.

If you received a legal VCAA letter on your claim-it told you exactly what they need in order to award.

If they said you have to Prove your nexus- than you have to Prove it-

If they obtain a VA medical Opinion that denies your claim-then only a medical opinion that supports the claim will help award it.

I have seen some claims at the BVA that go on and on- with lists of disabilities that should not even have been claimed.

Others are denied at the BVA because-in all of the time the claim took to get to the BVA-where no miracles happen-

the veteran still failed to send the VA want they asked for.

Some claims result in a long argument over how the evidence was weighed-yet only a doctor can professionally argue over medical evidence.

Worse yet are claims in the system that have no nexus and the vet has done nothing to find proof of the nexus.

I foresee that things will get worse before they get better-or they might never get better.

But if a vet can send to the VA what they specifically ask for in the VCAA letter-they have a much better chance obviously-of seeing their claim resolved-in their lifetime.

The VA has suggested that the influx of claims from newly returning disabled men and women has caused them to get further behind.

That simply does not hold up as a legitimate reason-

A combat disabled veteran's claim should be a no-brainer-

those claims are moving fast- the bad part is that those ratings are often totally wrong- thus the claim gets into the appellate state-into the stacks of our long standing claims.And the backlog continues to grow.

A VCAA letter or an SOC after a denial-will state clearly what is lacking in the claim.

A response to an SOC is not the time for a long argument-

it is the time to state you have satisfied the evidence they said you needed and you have enclosed it.(or that you need more time to get it)

If they keep ignoring it-just keep sending it.

and by ignoring it- I mean that the VA has never considered it at all.

[spike]

A few things.....(here is where I probably make enemies)- M21 is the Veterans Affairs interpretation of the USC 38 and the Title 38. If you really think about it, with all the problems with the rating decision problems what weight do you REALLY want to put in the M21. Just like anything else, the VA can "change their interpreation".....in handling claims, this is just me...CFR 38, and USC 38 (USC is the actual law).

I really would like someone to show me some factual report on the vets getting rating 90% of the time. I seemingly don't have any factual evidence to indicate that at this time. So I'd like to educate myself.......

[Hoppy]

rentalguy,

I feel your pain. It is possible that I had a psychotic episode and had homicidal ideations of killing a rehabilitation representative who manipulated some reports and then told me I would lose my workers comp benefits if I did not work at a job that would kill me. I had been in an ER 30 times prior to meeting this rehab guy. He manipulated the reports so he could get a pay check for rehabilitating me and finding me a job. The problem is the job he wanted me to do would kill me. After that I decided that I would rather drop out than wind up in jail. It really did not matter because when my attorney found out I had angioedema he took me out of voc rehab and told me to apply for Social Security.

I was treated for angioedema when I was in the military. I was discharged and told the disease was hereditary or developmental and could not be service connected. 26 years later I got a computer and went on line to learn about my disease. What I learned is that the form of the disease I had was considered by workers comp courts as an industrial illness. WOW, then I file to have the angioedema service connected. The claim was denied because they said I was not treated for angioedema in the military. Either they do not know how to read or they don't look up the big words. I was treated for the condition in the military. Then after I appeal and they realize I was treated in the military they deny the claim again saying that there was significant evidence in the file that my angioedema was the result of post service employment. They did not cite the specific evidence. The only evidence found in my file for a post service condition was different and unrelated to my VA claim. My claim was awarded by a DRO based on a stack of post service ER reports and one nexus letter I got from the head of immunology at my local RO using the 2000 directive. The RO refused to schedule a C&P even though I had requested one.

About the time of my first denial I found hadit. It took the RO 6.5 years to award a slam dunk claim. I learned from the old pros, most of them are no longer with us. During which time I read all the M-21, 100's of BVA cases, Case laws, changed SO's. During this time I was homeless sneaking onto a 20 foot boat with no enclosed cabin to sleep at night. I did not drive a car for five years. I was used to spending money and by the time the VA botched my claim I was flat broke I claimed bankruptcy because I made 50 grand a year working for one of the nicest cities in the world prior to being thrown out of my comp lawyers office because he was of the opinion there was NO job I could do and I could not work under labor law because I had to work in a protected environment and no employer was certified or trained to provide the protections I need. Then I lost my appeals under the ADA. By the way I had several friends who were paraplegics and went to work everyday. According to the labor law lawyers, legally I was in worse shape than they were. .

I could not care less about the VA's statistics. The VA is very good at manipulating stats. When Mr. Thompson testified to the senate in 2000 he made a statement as to the oldest claim in the system. At that time my claim was 2 years older than the claim he cited as being the oldest. I went to the RO and complained. I was told by some guy sitting at the desk that they change the claim dates on the computer to make it look like they are getting things done faster. He told me not to worry because when they award my claim they will get the claim date back to where it should be. Also, there are different types of claims. The types of claims filed at discharge could easily be less complex than the types of claims that veterans will file at a later date. Most of the claims we find on hadit for initial service connection are for the types of claims that are complex.

I am very pissed that I had to become knowledgably enough to figure out that my first SO was nothing more than a BS artist and to beat some awfully corrupt decisions made by a few under trained or criminal raters.

Prior to all this VA BS I was injured in a car accident at work when some negligent driver t-boned a work truck I was a passenger in. After surgery and the doctor’s opinions that I had career ending injuries I got a lawyer. The lawyer explained to me that because I was injured at work by a negligent party other than my employer my case was a third party subrogation. This all seemed complex to me. However, I never was denied, I never joined a web board for people injured at work and I never read any case law or other decisions. The system used by labor law attorneys makes the Service orgs and the VA look like little league. I know this is a pretty general statement. However, it would take me hours to explain.

Plumbers do not and should not have to become experts on work injuries to win an industrial injury claim. The fact that both you and I had to learn what we did about the VA rating system is evidence enough that the VA is hurting. If you ask me the VA should not only provide a C&P they should pay attorneys for an initial consultation when a veteran meets the minimum VCAA requirements for duty to assist. I had very good experience with attorneys in my lfetime. Most of the SO's I have met did not impress me.

[Berta]

Thanks Rentalguy-

I think my point was lost in that post-

I certainly am an A # 1 griper when it comes to the VA-

but I also could turn into an big griper here too- when I see claims that are failing because claimants are NOT taking the good advise they are getting here-

The reality is that I see many many claims that are continually in the system-

that require the vet to either find proof positive of their nexus- or to get an independent medical opinion.

Some claims even need both.

Logic and common sense or a long rendition of why someone should be service connected does not give any rater the rationale they themselves need to support their decision to award service connection.

If I worked for the VA as an adjudicator or rater -DRO-etc -I would want enough medical evidence in the c file of any claimant-to support any decision I make to award SC -in case some VA supervisor down the road questioned my work-then I -as a VA employee- could support my decisions on claims.

We have to try to think like they do-

also the VCAA letter-if you get a legal one-

is the exact and non negotiable statement of what the VA needs from you.

They cannot modify or alter the statements they make in the VCAA letter.

It will tell you exactly what you need to succeed.

It might be the question of a buddy statement-

that can take many weeks or months to acquire-but never impossible.

They might state that they need medical evidence to show your disability is directly related to your service.

If a VA doctor cannot make that determination in your favor- then you need to obtain an Independent Medical Opinion.

If the VCAA letter you received isnt legal and in full compliance with the VCAA--raise Hell with your vet rep or the VA about that.

Unfortunately the VA does not specifically spell out to you what a legal VCAA letter is.

I have posted numerous topics on VCAA available under the search-

thousands of veterans ( the first 2008 BVA decisions I read show what I mean)

continue to get VCAA letters that are deficient enough to have BVA remand the claim for a Re DO- if what should have been done by the ROs in the first place.

This is why it is impotant to make sure the letter you got was appropriate to your claim.

THOUSANDS of vets DO get legal VCAA letters-by far more then the ones who dont.

These letters will tell you what you need to get in order to succeed.

We can only suggest here how to get that evidence.

I have a vet friend who absolutely needs an IMO and also a lawyer.

He doesnt want to spend the IMO money and he doesnt want a lawyer to get 20% of his potential award.

He has received diddly squat in comp from the VA for many many years.

Because he doesnt have an IMO or a lawyer.

In my opinion he has made a conscious choice to settle for diddly squat, and spends his time griping about his claim and the VA, since that is easier for him to do-rather than starting to come up with some money for an IMO -which a lawyer would tell him to get anyhow.

Although this is a good personal friend of mine- I no longer allow him to piss away my time with his claims renditions-

because he not willing to do what he needs to do in order to succeed in his claim.A Very valid claim.

But without the specific medical evidence they need in order to award it.

[spike]

Please do not take this as an attack against any vet who uses the M21. The M21 is written by the VA, for the VA, and in the intereptation of the USCS in the best interest of the VA. It is just my personal opinion and the opinion of MANY that it isn't worth the paper it is written on.

Like I said this is just soley my personal opinion. If your basing your assistance for veterans claims based on the M21 than your doing the veteran a disservice.

[luvHIM]

Rentalguy1, I respect your stand. But, I must agree with Hoppy's post. I should not have had to "educate" myself to the degree I've had to do just to be awarded an increase for a condition that was service connected back in 1979.

Berta's point may have been lost. But her thread covered a lot. However, it opened up with reporting stats that suggest 90% of claims coming from OIF/OEF vets are being awarded. She herself stated that they were probably lowballed. Many of the posts were commenting to that end of her thread.

This whole issue of "not being able to change or fix the problems at the VA" is not even an issue. Frustration is real. It can either motivate you to press on or send you into a depression. However, most of the people coming to this forum are driven to win their claims. Venting, from time to time, may serve no valid purpose in your world. But it feels good in the moment.

What is my point? It is that I have spent the past five years reading through the CFR, USC, M21, and BVA/CAVC archives reviewing case after case that has any remote resemblance to my own. And, I have to disagree that spending my time to learn a system that is flawed, backlogged, and corrupt is going to make all the difference.

I received a C&P when I filed for increase, which was favorable and supported by radiographic evidence. End of story. Oh...but no...in the meantime (while VA was dragging out the time to award my increase), I get a referral to rheumatology. VA rheumatology doc diagnosis an "additional" condition. Please note "additional." I get a denial for increase of my sc condition based on this "additional" condition. The VARO began to treat my claim for increase as if it were a claim for service connection. They wrongly adjudicated the claim. Period!!

I filed a claim for the same thing they denied my sc increase claim on. I have been service connected for the "additional" condition. What the heck!!?? Five years later... It's there money and I should be happy, right? Wrong. It cost me lots in the meantime and that cannot be replaced.

I totally agree with you that it matters how we present. If we misrepresent then a denial is in order. But my claim was not what you are talking about. And you must remember that everybody complaining (including Berta) is not the example of someone who submits a claim without the evidence to support it but still gets shafted by the RO.

Edited April 18, 2008 by luvHIM

[Berta]

"Please do not take this as an attack against any vet who uses the M21. The M21 is written by the VA, for the VA, and in the intereptation of the USCS in the best interest of the VA. It is just my personal opinion and the opinion of MANY that it isn't worth the paper it is written on.

Like I said this is just soley my personal opinion. If your basing your assistance for veterans claims based on the M21 than your doing the veteran a disservice."

I am not a vet but didnt read this as though you were attacking widows-

I do take exception to what you stated here.

The National Veterans Legal Service Program strongly suggests to all veterans advocates-

to use 38 CFR, 38 USC, M21-1,Pres Ops from the OGC, US CAVC decisions, etc etc along with their annual VBM (which they dont make any money from- they are a Non profit veteran's organization full of TOP notch lawyers ) to properly provide advocacy to veterans and widows for their VA claims.

Since I have had to sort through 20 years of VA stuff for a lawyer-

I added up today some of the errors that VA made in my past awards- (which I won all of them)

Due to M21-1 and 38 CFR I recovered to my astonishment almost $60,000 from 1998 to 2004 by sending VA letters -NODs only in some cases- telling them that they were wrong.

These were not errors due to SOCs or denials-they were errors due to Awards.

They involved my Chapter 35 award , my CHAMPVA which I have no idea of the value of that if I had lost CHAMPVA)

my DIC award, my DIC offset award, their correction of my offset award, a major pension error which didnt matter as I was eligible for DIC anyhow,but caused a pension denial-

and a potential error I just found in my award for 2 years 100% SC due to me as an accrued benefit.$37,192.00- that is what they sent but I think that too "more than likely" is wrong.

I have used M21-1 and 38 CFR for every personal claim I won , for the amount I obtained due to these administrative errors,and my lawyer just loved the M21-1 citations I used for my SMC CUE claims.

Apparently you might feel I have done a disservice to veterans because I have accessed M21-1 hundreds and hundreds (maybe thousands)of times here before I post a reply to a veteran or widow.

And I will continue to do that.

The fact that the complete M21-1 is readily available on the net and at the VA web site- updated as updates occur-

as well as 38 USC and 38 CFR, etc etc etc means we all have -mere clicks away-all of the weapons we need to fight on the paper battleground of the VA.

But of course for claims without a proven or estabished service nexus- then it won't be worth the paper it is written on---- for those claimants.