Receiving Dic Approved Commissary But Can't Get An Id Card Or Deers

[PamelaQ]

The VA and DAV treated my late husband and I really well. I am now receiving DIC after his passing due to Agent Orange.

The VA sent me a letter saying I was approved for commissary and exchange. They told me to go to a RAPIDS/DEERS facility to get a card and get entered into DEERS. I need my DEERS record in order to access ebenefits.

But the RAPIDS facility won't enter me or issue me a card! They were nice about it but won't do it w/o a marriage license or common law marriage in my state. My state is not a common law state.

So the VA recognizes a common law marriage but the RAPIDS people don't.

Does anyone have any advice for me?

Does the VA run any RAPIDS offices where I could get entered? I don't understand how I can receive DIC but can't get into DEERS. Is it like the RAPIDS office said and I am "just out of luck"?

thanks for your time, I just found this forum when googlng my question, hope to contribute to it at some point.

[PamelaQ]

VA case law is clear on this issue:

“VA defines a

"marriage" as a marriage valid under the law of the place where

the parties resided at the time of marriage, or the laws of the

place where the parties resided when the right to benefits

accrued. 38 U.S.C.A. § 103© (West 2002); 38 C.F.R. § 3.1(j).”

http://www.index.va.gov/search/va/view.jsp?FV=http://www.va.gov/vetapp10/Files6/1043780.txt

Berta I read this case, I believe this was not service-connected DIC, which is why the marriage was invalid.

[Philip Rogers]

PamelaQ - please don't get me wrong, I don't think you'll lose your DIC, it's just that even w/marriage documents the VA doesn't usually move that quickly, so I would think they'd really need to prove the common law marriage. Sorry I didn't intend to make you worry!

The ID is for use on federal property, so I see no reason for them to deny you, especially since they awarded DIC. Again, I'm sorry for any distress I may have caused.

pr

[PamelaQ]

PamelaQ - please don't get me wrong, I don't think you'll lose your DIC, it's just that even w/marriage documents the VA doesn't usually move that quickly, so I would think they'd really need to prove the common law marriage. Sorry I didn't intend to make you worry!

The ID is for use on federal property, so I see no reason for them to deny you, especially since they awarded DIC. Again, I'm sorry for any distress I may have caused.

pr

No Philip, I appreciate your input. The way I quoted you makes it look like my post was directed at you. The first part yes, but i think you're right to recommend caution.

It's hard to know whether to trust the big gov powers or not!

Sorry I wrote my post to look like that. I hardly ever use the internet or even email.

As far as the rest of it, I'm also glad that Berta got me researching a little bit. I feel more comfortable this morning that I was right about getting the DIC. Not just that I was worried about it being taken away, but I needed to be sure that what I applied for and was given was lawful.

I feel now like it was and I'll give the VARO a call today then maybe look into the other person suggested, depending on what they say.

I know we got a little bit off topic but I guess it's all related. The VA is such a maze to work through.

[Berta]

I too certainly don't want you to needlessly worry Pamela.

The case I posted was because of the DIC and common law regulations in it.

The widow in this case (state law controls common law for VA purposes)

did marry the veteran.

However

 “Additionally, the Veteran and the Appellant 
were only married for approximately ten months-unfortunately for 
her claim, this rule specifically requires at least one year of 
marriage at the time of death.  Moreover, there is no contention 
or evidence of record that she and the Veteran had any children 
together.  Therefore, the Appellant does not meet the 
requirements of 38 C.F.R. § 3.54(c) as a surviving spouse 
eligible for DIC based upon her marriage to the Veteran in 
November 2005.”
Since the VA could not grant DIC on common law status, if the claimant and the veteran had been married 
for a year or more, the VA would have granted DIC since this veteran's death had been service connected.
http://www.index.va.gov/search/va/view.jsp?FV=http://www.va.gov/vetapp10/Files6/1043780.txt

Establishing legal entitlement to a benefit, as a dependent or survivor, is only one part of a DIC claim.

"Berta I read this case, I believe this was not service-connected DIC, which is why the marriage was invalid."

No, it means this:

“The Appellant is seeking recognition as the Veteran's surviving 
spouse for the eventual purpose of establishing her entitlement 
to DIC. 
 The Board notes initially that records show the 
Veteran's two dependent children, from an earlier dissolved 
marriage, have been granted derivative death benefits (including 
compensation for the cause of his death) as his beneficiaries.”
This was a service connected death , and the veteran's two dependent children were already receiving
 a DIC benefit.I certainly believe by 'derivative benefits' here, the BVA means CHAMPVA and Chapter 35.

If the marriage had been deemed as valid,this widow also would have received a DIC award as
  “the eventual purpose of establishing her entitlement”
I am sorry for all the legalize we claimants have to delve into.
A few years after I became a widow I took the same legal courses from NVLSP that vet reps and NSOs
 like the DAV service officers take.

I would have never won my claims without studying many many regulations,not only for my own DIC 
claims but many other issues involving my dead husband.

PR here took the same courses too and he is a brilliant advocate for claimants.

We don't want you to worry. Our experience however has caused our concerns.
If you get email from Scott from the OSA as the contact person, feel free to tell him 
Berta Simmons from hadit.com  recommended  the OSA VA site to you . I remain very grateful 
for his help in my past ordeal with VA Central and glad that after many decades , we survivors finally 
have the VA OSA link.
I sure hope he can pull some strings with the DOD.

[PamelaQ]

I too certainly don't want you to needlessly worry Pamela.

The case I posted was because of the DIC and common law regulations in it.

The widow in this case (state law controls common law for VA purposes)

did marry the veteran.

However

“Additionally, the Veteran and the Appellant

were only married for approximately ten months-unfortunately for

her claim, this rule specifically requires at least one year of

marriage at the time of death. Moreover, there is no contention

or evidence of record that she and the Veteran had any children

together. Therefore, the Appellant does not meet the

requirements of 38 C.F.R. § 3.54© as a surviving spouse

eligible for DIC based upon her marriage to the Veteran in

November 2005.”

Since the VA could not grant DIC on common law status, if the claimant and the veteran had been married

for a year or more, the VA would have granted DIC since this veteran's death had been service connected.

http://www.index.va.gov/search/va/view.jsp?FV=http://www.va.gov/vetapp10/Files6/1043780.txt

Sorry Berta, I guess I didn't read it closely enough.

But I still agree with BVA that the marriage in this case was invalid.

The 10 month marriage invalidates any common law marriage.

I know this is true because when my husband was sick we considered getting officially married. But I was told then by DAV that he would have to live a year after an official marriage for me to get DIC.

So that is why we didn't do it.

As with most people here I have spent a lot of time studying. But I didn'y take an official class.

What do you think of what I posted about theVA not deeming marriages valid only based on state law, but on their own regulations?

Thanks for giving me the contact, I guess maybe I will wait to contact him until we agree on whether my marriage is valid. I don't want to open up a can of worms.

[Berta]

"What do you think of what I posted about theVA not deeming marriages valid only based on state law, but on their own regulations?"

There are many VA regulations that do not seem fair.

Usually they can only be changed with an amendment to Title 38.

At that point it means an amendment or change to 38 UCS has been proposed to Congress and the Senate (as Blue Water Navy has done.....lots of work on their part )and then the proposed amendment (if enough congressional people sign off on it )is offered to the public for comments at the Federal Register site.

Unfortunately the VA itself can and does propose their own changes to 38 USC as well.

I am still upset at the new PTSD regs of 2010. over 600 or 800 of us advocates, lawyers, vet reps, and disabled veterans themselves argued over the amendment to no avail.

Our position in general was that it did help our OIF OEF vets and that was wonderful, but it hindered all other vets claiming PTSD, depending on the date and circumstances of their PTSD claim.

There a vets who pay child support and fight over the fact that it is a part of their SC checks. The problem there as well as the VA DIC regs, is that state courts control those issues.

But Title 38 is what it is. I like the fact that we do have a solid legal criteria to meet, because the VA has to meet that criteria too.

"I guess maybe I will wait to contact him until we agree on whether my marriage is valid."

Do you mean the DAV who handled your claim as the "we"?

.