Second-signature review on SMC claims?

[mbl22885]

My claim is currently at pending decision approval. I talked with my VSO from the VFW today and it told me it was "Under review for a second-signature." I looked around the web and saw stuff mostly saying a second-signature is required in bigger back payments, but I also found an OIG report stating " VSC management has a policy requiring second-signature review of rating decisions involving higher levels of SMC." So is a second-signature in my case just normal procedure or should I start to get excited?

[mbl22885]

Read the linked article, Macklem.  I dont claim to give legal advice. While  VA has "done away" with EAP, they pretty much do the same thing, put lipstick on the pig and take her to the dance.  VA can call the pig "Miss America's Sausage and eggs" but, she still looks like a pig to me.

What you described sure sounds like an EAP to me.  

Before you cut that pig up into pork chops, lets give her the "once over".

1.  HOusebound is currently about 347 per month.  If you figured you were awarded housebound, SMC S, it would amount to "about" 25k retro if you were awarded back to "about 2008 or 2009".   So, look at your records and see if an effective date of 2009 or earlier makes any sense.  Remember, you dont have to apply for SMC S, its inferred when you meet the criteria.  Did you get a "single" 100 % rating in 2009 or earlier?  Or, did you get rated "100 plus 60" in 09 or earlier.  If so then maybe you can have bacon and eggs.

However, if a SMC back to 2009 or earlier is not likely, then your retro is likely less than 25 k.  The old EAP was 10 years OR 25k.  Believe me, when VA pays you a 25,000 dollar or more check, they check that over pretty thoroughly.  You just wont know there were 2 signatures.  2.  Other SMC's will give a different retro, but you can figure them up, too. 

My advice is to simply do nothing but WAIT.  But, you could EMAIL your VSO and "ask" him for an explanation as to why 2 signatures.  Then save his response "just in case".    If he is a snake, he will get suspicious, but if he is dumb, then he will likely explain.  I think that VSO is either ignorant, or a snake out to bite you.  

       BUT...there are good VSO's who work hard, but just dont quite really understand the VA regs.  And those guys are good people too, not everyone needs to be a rocket scientist to fill out a 21-4138 or other forms and get the right address to mail them to VA.  You dont need to tell em that you were born at night but not last nite.  

    Chances are good you get your benefits, but I have found over and over, with Va its best to CYA.  So just keep a record..what VSO said, when he said it, whether it was by phone, and his name plus time of call.  (This is why I love email, I have been emailing my VARO director.  Now, there is a record of every word he told me.  I asked him to do this because I am hard of hearing, which is true, it just happens to be an "extra benefit" that I can HOLD HIM Accountable to every word he writes in an email.  I love that!  

    Keep a great record, and wait for your decision.  THEN, when you appeal, if its in your best interest, you can allege a Macklem violation and CUE, if necessary.  

Will do. Thank you for the replies.

 

[mbl22885]

This is what I wrote the VSO.

"My claim is at prep for notification now, but ebenefits is showing a request for a form to be completed and returned with the form not specified. I've attached a screenshot to show what I'm seeing on my end."

This is what he wrote back.

"Not sure if I explained it to you before but ebenefits is not updated accurately. The information is incorrect. Your claim is under review for a second signature and should be completed most likely today with the notification letter going out tomorrow. You have nothing to do but try and be patient for another couple days."

No idea what to think now. I've read before about ebenefits not being accurate, but it's always been pretty accurate in my experiences.

 

 

Edited October 6, 2015 by mbl22885

[mbl22885]

I agree with the VSO here.  Ebenefits has been wrong multiple times for me, personally.  There is one thing that is reliable on ebenefits, however.  Its the AB8 letter.  The VA does not want to have you print out a letter that you are 100 percent if you are only 40.  One thing, tho, even about AB8 letter.  It will only go back to December of the previous year, so people think that is there effective date, when that really means there was a Cola adjustement on Dec1 of each year, even tho the Cola is often zero. 

Thanks for the info. He just wrote and said the second-signature is due to me filing for hardship.

I'm just super leery because the last OIG report for my VARO dinged them pretty hard on SMC. It makes me think it's something even the raters aren't that proficient on.

http://www.va.gov/oig/pubs/VAOIG-15-00001-436.pdf

[mbl22885]

I spoke to someone from my VARO and they informed me I'm going to be granted SMC L. They're using the effective date from when I initially applied for SMC specifically. This was 6 months ago. I've been 100% since a reconsideration was granted a year ago. When my local VARO granted me 100%, they did not infer SMC. Do I have cause to file a NOD on the SMC effective date based on this?

[broncovet]

Sure.  After you get the envelope with the effective date, you can appeal the effective date, because you dont need to apply for SMC, you get it whenever you meet the criteria.  

Edited October 7, 2015 by broncovet

[mbl22885]

Thanks again.