Question On Relaxed Rules For Stressor Validation

[carlie]

If a claimant's unit has received the

Navy Presidential Unit Citation, will it be accepted

as along the lines of a CAB/CIB/CAR, as proof of the claimant

being a combat veteran, thereby relaxing the rules for

combat vet already having proof of stressor due to the unit's

Navy Presidential Unit Citation ?

Thanks for all replies.

carlie

[Berta]

Carlie -has the vet you are helping accessed his unit or attempted in any way to get buddy statement's?

Would any family member have received letters from him mentioning the stressor?

Has he fully checked his unit history in Vietnam to see what ops they were involved in the same time he was in unit (or in support of another unit)?

Has he attempted to gain a copy of any inservice Morning or After Action reports?

[Hoppy]

I agree with John. I'm pretty sure that the requirement to back up a proof of stressor has already been relaxed for Vietnam veterans. If the stressor is specifically related to rocket or mortar attacks and bombing attacks that are known to have been in an area where a Vietnam veteran was stationed then the stressor is presumed. I am pretty sure anywhere on land in Vietnam was including for the presumption of the stressor.

Now if the stressor does not involve aerial attacks and is related to terrorist activities of the indigenous people in a city or rural area that was not known for combat yet occasional acts of terrorism were reported, then the veteran may wind up needing to rely on the newer relaxed regulations.

[Berta]

When Secretary Shinseki announced the new proposed reg-

neither the VA or the dozens of commentators on the reg at the Federal Register site could imagine or had any idea of the potential occurence of recent events at Fort Hood.

The proposed regulation reads in part:

"Under the new rule, VA would not require corroboration of a stressor related to fear of hostile military or terrorist activity if a VA psychiatrist or psychologist confirms that the stressful experience recalled by a Veteran adequately supports a diagnosis of PTSD and the Veteran's symptoms are related to the claimed stressor."

I wonder if veterans or any active military who experienced the major stressor at Fort Hood days ago will fall into

'fear of hostile military or terrorist activity' criteria in the new regs.

It wasn't deemed terrorist activity but he was a Military Officer- a hostile military officer

Edited November 8, 2009 by Berta

[Philip Rogers]

I seriously doubt anything has been relaxed for VN vets. This rule was just a way to process those w/current war service, while still screwing the VN vet. They still need proof of stressor.

pr

I agree with John. I'm pretty sure that the requirement to back up a proof of stressor has already been relaxed for Vietnam veterans. If the stressor is specifically related to rocket or mortar attacks and bombing attacks that are known to have been in an area where a Vietnam veteran was stationed then the stressor is presumed. I am pretty sure anywhere on land in Vietnam was including for the presumption of the stressor.

Now if the stressor does not involve aerial attacks and is related to terrorist activities of the indigenous people in a city or rural area that was not known for combat yet occasional acts of terrorism were reported, then the veteran may wind up needing to rely on the newer relaxed regulations.

[Berta]

Agree!!!!

[broncovet]

I agree with PR and Berta, and add that since we all know the VA only follows the regulations when they want to anyway, "relaxed" requirements especially for VN Vets, probably wont be followed either. I think they have already "relaxed" many of the requirements for "new" Vets anyway. Remember "new" Vets get priority over VN Vets, and there is no doubt in my mind that generations of Veterans pitted against one another is all part of the VA's plan to divide and disorganize Vets so that we are unable to launch a serious threat to the total VA dominance over Veterans, at the expense of Veterans.

I think that VA Execs getting millions in bonuses while Vets get zero Cola is a great example of just how badly Vets are loosing the war against the VA. As long as the VA can violate the regulations with the the only penalty being paid by the Veteran (usually delays, denials, and lowballs), they will continue doing just that. The VA needs to pay the penalties for violating regulations, not the VEteran.