Buddy Statement Article

[Berta]

The writer is accredited with VA and a member of NOVA.He has contact info at bottom of the article.

http://www.vawatchdogtoday.org/Buddy_Statements.html

Buddy statements often are not enough to succeed with.Sometimes they could be.My daughter helped 5 vets based on one single buddy statement and another piece of evidence ( she did translation of a Vietnamese document.) They all got more awards on their DD 214s (215s) and one was awarded the Distinquished Flying Cross almost 4 decades after the incident so I am very proud she helped them.

But my point is they should be viewed as icing on the cake-

if the vet feels their evidence is good and within Relative Equipoise, then a buddy statement might tip those scales with no doubt at all.

I suggest buddys always give a detailed eye witness account and tell VA how their MOS put them at the same time and place of the veteran's statement of the incident.

There are countless ways these days to find buddys and even the VA might be able to help and I posted how they do that here before.

A Buddy should either have their statement notarized or state an oath that it is true and factual to their best belief and knowledge before they sign it and give the VA their contact info as sometimes VA will call the buddy up.

http://www.vawatchdogtoday.org/Buddy_Statements.html

[2E151]

Looks like these links are dead now

[Philip Rogers]

The only thing I have to add is that a notarized statement only means that the actual person making the signature is that person, not that the statement is true or that they made the statement. I highly recommend that the statement swearing and attesting be there and the notarized signature appear just below that.

Good post Berta!!

pr

[meghp0405]

Berta, the links are not working for some reason.

But, I did obtain Bob Segar tickets!!!

[Berta]

Great Meg!!...maybe this will help:

Tbird has some good info on buddy statements here:

http://www.hadit.com/ptsd_stressors.html

And this article might help …..called

How to Write a Winning Buddy statement:

http://www.veteranprograms.com/id1203.html

They make the Who, What,When ,where and how point and obviously a buddy would certainly be in the same unit as the veteran needing the statement was in too,to witness the event.

The BVA site has some excellent decisions in which they weighed buddy statements.

In this case the BVA weighed both lay and buddy statements, along with medical evidence to award the veteran an increase from 30% PTSD to 50%:

http://www.index.va.gov/search/va/view.jsp?FV=http://www.va.gov/vetapp12/Files5/1233362.txt

Buddy statements and medical evidence helped this veteran get a BVA remand, always better than a BVA denial:

http://www.index.va.gov/search/va/view.jsp?FV=http://www.va.gov/vetapp11/Files3/1120094.txt

This case, however, is unusual:

And I think I am going nuts as I read it and the BVA's order so I hope others chime in.

“The Veteran and his "buddies", as a lay persons, are competent 
to testify about injury or symptomatology where the determinative 
issue is not medical in nature.  See Falzone v. Brown, 8 Vet. 
App. 398, 405-406 (1995) (lay statements about a person's own 
observable condition or pain are competent evidence); Harvey v. 
Brown, 6 Vet. App. 390, 393 (1994) (lay person competent to 
testify of the observable series of events leading to an injury); 
Layno, supra (lay testimony is competent when it regards features 
or symptoms of injury or illness).  Indeed, the Veteran is 
competent to assert that he received in-service medical treatment 
for symptomatology relatable to a mental condition, to include 
insomnia and tension.  Likewise, the Veteran's "buddies" are 
competent to assert observed perceptions of the Veteran's 
psychiatric symptomatology.  However, once evidence is determined 
to be competent, the Board must determine whether such evidence 
is also credible.  See Layno, supra (distinguishing between 
competency ("a legal concept determining whether testimony may be 
heard and considered"") and credibility ("a factual determination 
going to the probative value of the evidence to be made after the 
evidence has been admitted")); see also Barr, supra.  As will be 
discussed below, the Board does not find the Veteran's statement 
concerning the in-service psychiatric treatment to be credible.”  
The VA determines what is competent yet also what is credible,based on the known facts.

I read this decision fast and felt the vet's claim, would be denied.
This part is awful:
In Part:
“For all the reasons detailed above - from internal inconsistencies in the Veteran's statements to outright 
falsehoods - the Board places reduced probative value on the 
Veteran's descriptions of the events that allegedly occurred 
during service.  See Cartright v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 24, 25 
(1991) [VA cannot ignore a Veteran's testimony simply because the 
Veteran is an interested party; personal interest may, however, 
affect the credibility of the evidence]. “
then : 
“ORDER

Entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric 
disorder.  “
http://www.va.gov/vetapp10/Files4/1039268.txt


??? 
I sure dont get it.
This case however makes the point that competent buddys and lay people can make competent statements,
 to the best of their knowledge, but still the statements must have factual  bearing on the actual circumstances the veteran, needing these buddy statements, was in.

Edited March 15, 2013 by Berta

[Stretch]

The links aren't working because this original post is 2 1/2 years old. Watchdog.org has changed ownership and gone through many changes in this time.