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

[Hoppy]

I will guarantee you that over the years that the rules governing Vietnam veteran's have been relaxed. I have lived with Vietnam veterans who became totally disabled due to war related mental illness within three years after their discharge. These veterans were told their mental condition had nothing to do with military service and were given diagnoses that had no way of being service connected. As time went on these veterans who had been homeless and unemployed for over a decade were awarded benefits under changes in the VA system that now provide them with compensation and treatment for their conditions which was determined to be PTSD. Something you need to consider is that VA clinicians as a lobby have more control over the development of the DSM than any other single entity. VA clinicians are on all committees developing the DSM.

I have continued to interact with Vietnam veterans in the last decade. I know of cases whereby the veteran filled out a form at a primary care doctor appointment regarding how much they drink. The veteran's were referred to PTSD screening based on one answer to a question on the form given to them at a VAMC. Such PTSD screening resulted in service connection for PTSD the first time through the system. No such program was available the Vietnam veterans for decades.

I did not say the veteran's did not have to prove a stressor. I said the stressor would have to be related to aerial attacks. Previously, Vietnam veterans as well as any other veteran had to be able to prove they were in combat either by CIB's, purple hearts, MOS and other standard means. In the last year I have assisted veterans in obtaining service connection of PTSD who had transportation MOS’s, no CIP's, no purple hearts, etc. I cited case laws showing that a veteran need not prove that they were personally firing guns and dodging bullets. They won their cases at the RO level. The case law stated as John posted that if your unit was engaged in receiving hostile fire that anybody with any MOS within that unit was considered to have been in combat. At that time I also found the case law involving aerial attacks and Vietnam veterans. The courts determined that the Veterans Administration had interpreted the definition of combat to narrowly and expanded the manner in which combat was established. I have posted these laws previously on hadit. I guess I'm enough to have to dig them up and post them again.

With all this in mind I must admit that the veterans I helped were confronted with a rather absurd twists and turns and delays in their claim. However, at least they do have some more options to fight the system that they didn't have in years past. These new options provided by both the medical community and from the courts.

[carlie]

Bronco,

SC'd disabled vets not getting a cola has nthing to do with,

"how badly Vets are loosing the war against the VA".

Why the heck do you even bring the topic's of va giving

bonuses and cost of living adjustments into this thread ?

carlie

[broncovet]

I agree with Hoppy..he has been around helping Vets for a long time. I think the biggest "relaxation" of rules for Vets was the VCAA. If I understand it, prior to the VCAA in about year 2000, Vets had to prove their claim was "well grounded" before they could even proceed. Many/most of the Veterans could not even pass the "well grounded" test, and their claim was denied without ever really have been given a chance. I also think the "well grounded" requirement served as a "catch all" where they could deny and not have to give a reasons and basis, but instead could say that the claim was not well grounded. That is, they were saying....your claim is denied because we said so, and please dont whine that it was a valid claim because the appeals will agree that it is not well grounded, also. I even think the appeals process..BVA, and CAVC are relatively "new" within the past 30-40 years..and before that, back in the 50's they just denied you and that was it. Others may know exact years the BVA and CAVC began. Other things are like that also. Can you imagine, say, complaining that you were discriminated against because of your race in the 1920's?

[john999]

Under the new rule proposed by Shinseki for PTSD about every Vietnam vet would be able to relate some incident that scared them out of their wits during their tour. If you are in any combat zone there is fear of hostile action. It may never come to hand to hand combat, but you fear being shot or blown up. That is why they give you live ammo and an M-16. I know why the VA insists that the stressor be verified. They believe that given a chance every vet who ever served in a combat zone will claim PTSD just for the money. If you relate something that happened to you they are saying "We don't trust you. Prove it". If that were true every infantry soldier with a CIB would have already claimed PTSD and that has not happened. The VA is always there to try and pull the rug out from under you.

[carlie]

John,

You and I have the same understanding of the new proposed rule.

If a MH doc states the vet has PTSD due to active duty, there will

no longer need to be a stressor verification.

I do believe this will apply to ALL veterans.

jmho,

carlie

[sixthscents]

OK, but forgive if I am wrong but doesn't every veteran still have to get a DIAGNOSIS of PTSD from a physician? Doesn't the VA schedule C&P exams to verify these claims? The relaxed rules will help veteran with claims that have a diagnosis of PTSD. I cannot see how they would help a veteran without one.

So critics of relaxed rules may not like it, but the fact is I think that this "relaxing" is just something that will help expedite legitimate claims. It is also a fact that many "non-combat" MOS's AFSC's etc. are engaged in combat, or at least exposed to it. For instance, IEDs and truckdrivers, or mortar attacks upon our camps. Also, while I understand that a CIB was a "good thing" for a stressor, didn't the Army introduce a "non-combat" MOS related CIB? I remember reading about it a while back... basically a CIB for non-combat MOS troops who were engaged in combat.

It seems that to recognize this and introduce a badge etc. the Army is recognizing that there are many non-combat troops who are becoming exposed to direct or indirect combat. Further I have seen PTSD for issues that were not related to combat at all. I helped a vet file a PTSD claim in which he was attacked on-post by civilians. His SMC actually stated he was suffering from PTSD from the event (I was floored let me tell ya). The VA didn't even argue the claim, and awarded 40% I think.

In any case, the VA is going to have to start recognizing some of these non-combat MOS PTSD claims. They may not like it, but their eventually - yeah I know eventually gonna have to do it. If there is a diagnosis, and it is linked to service the VA has a duty to honor that. Period. They aint gonna like it, but too bad.

I think.. think in this I am agreeing with carlie and John.