ptsd Non-combat Ptsd

[Rick]

The local VA rep told me I can't file a claim for ptsd because I wasn't actually in combat. I was a hospital corpsman at the Naval Hosptial in DaNang. I had so many patients die I can't even remember some of them. But I remember many of them. Especially the kids. I have been diagnosed with ptsd at the VA hospital. I have only recently been able to keep from flying into rages when something sets me off. I've been in AA for 7 years now, so I don't combine rage and drunkenness anymore. But my life for over 30 years has been really screwed up by what I carry with me. When the rep told me I couldn't have ptsd I fled from the office so I wouldn't do anything really dumb. Now I'm afraid to go back there. I don't want to lose my control and I also don't want to be humiliated again. Especially by a civillian who's never had blood on her hands. Or her face. I stutter when I try to answer questions about what went down in Nam. I sound like an idiot. I hate it. Can I somehow submit a claim without having to grovel in the local office? Appreciate any advice. Thanks.

[Berta]

That is right USN 308-

The VA can attempt to blame any vet's current PTSD problems on their childhood-if they feel they can-

Since they say that vet has to be fit for duty- to be enlisted -then in my opinion-

the serviceperson was fit and they should not attempt to blame ones childhood for SC problems.

It is a much different situation if say a man or woman tells them of an existing documented condition and then they are enlisted anyhow and serve and this condition is then aggravated by service.

I know a widow who lost any potential DIC because she brought up to her husband's shrink too much about how he was prior to service.He died leaving three small sons as well.Highly decorated combat vet but the VA ruled his death was not service connectable at all - and they were right.

[sixthscents]

Like I said in another thread I am handleing a claim right now where the guy has been diagnosed BY the VA with PTSD. And still denied because we cant prove the stressor.... yet. We will, its just a matter of tracking down his unit... but I have handled claims of PTSD stemming from assault, etc. and not directly related to combat at all. We won, and won hard so.. it can be done.

[BoonDoc]

BoonDoc,

A VA rep I think in this case is a Service Officer from one of the many veterans organizations.

Also, the VA isn't 'telling' theses reps only half of the regulations, those regulations are out there for everyone to see and its not like §4.16 is so long that sub paragraph ( b ) would get missed in the text some where. If VA really didn't want veterans applying for IU without meeting the schedular requirements noted in subparagraph (a), don't you think they would have put that somewhere on the VA Form 21-8940?

To be honest with you, when a veteran askes me to do an IU claim, I tell them both the stipulations in subparagraph (a) and ( b ). Then, I also tell them that there's a snowballs chance in hell that it will be approved under subparagraph ( b ), but I explain to them that an application for IU also acts as a claim for an increase, and once VA receives it, they first evaluate the veteran to see if he/she can be increases to meet the schedular requirements of IU. If the veteran does meet those requirements, then the issue of IU is considered. If the veteran does not meet the schedular requirements of IU, then the RVSR must be convinced in his or her own mind that the veteran is still unable to obtain and maintain a substantial gainful occupation due to the current rating of the service-connected disability at isue. This very, very, very rarely happens, and one reason why that happens is the rating schedule is set up to where if a certain condition becomes so bad to possibly hinder someone from working, then there's gererally a rating percentage for that disability that would then qualify the veteran under subparagraph (a). Once I had a veteran that lost his current job because of his service-connected back (it was rated at 20%). He applied for IU, and on his C&P exam he had a limited range of motion of something like over 55 degrees. The VA came back and continued his 20%, but denied his IU because, first, he didn't meet the schedular requirements of IU, and because they determined with that range of motion he could do some type of light work! Think about it, if you have a back problem and can bend forward that far, then you sure as hell can find some type of light work. Needless to say, the veteran bitches because the VA "screwed" him.

The VA isn't intentionally telling veterans and their reps only half of the regulation. For what its worth, the CFR 38 can be found on VA's website!

Vike 17

Why are so many remands from the BVA coming back to the RO for correction.

Having the law books open for all to see doesn't prove anything...it's how the law is being interpreted at the RO level that seems to have a flaw, or the BVA wouldn't be sending back so many claims...the BVA remands are also open for all to see.

I have to say that I do respect, and appreciate your contributions here on Hadit.com, but I disagree with you on this one.

Boondoc

[Vike17]

Boondoc,

As far as the "so many remands from the BVA coming back to the RO for correction," it actually represents a small portion of the over all number of claims being subitted to VA. Even if the number of remands were 50% of all the claims before BVA. It's funny how everyone jumps on all the remands and says this is general VA practice. Why doesn't anyone comment on the all the BVA cases that are pretty much laughed out of there, or their decision affirms the RO's decision? Also, just look at all the cases before BVA that were granted after the claimant submitted additional evidence during the appeal. If those aditional evidence were before the original decision maker, the odds are the claim would have been granted then at the RO level!

"Having the law books open for all to see doesn't prove anything...it's how the law is being interpreted at the RO level that seems to have a flaw"

Actualy, I think it proves quite a bit. If the VA was trying to hide rules and regulations so as not to have to pay benefits, then why would they be posted on their website?? And to be honest with you, in all the years I've been helping other veterans with their claims, it isn't so much the VA misinterpreting the regulations as it is the veterans not understanding the basic rules and regulations or not wanting to understand them and then scream bloody murder and rant "Appeal, Appeal, the VA jacked me around!" Just look at the issue of IU. If you were to browse through the CFR 38 with an open mind, you would see how heavily slanted the regulation are in favor of the veteran. Some are just plain amazing!

"I have to say that I do respect, and appreciate your contributions here on Hadit.com, but I disagree with you on this one"

I'm glad you appreciate my insight. I'm not trying to get into a pissing contest with you or anyone else. I'm just trying to get everone to see the whole picture. Sure, the VA isn't tthe poster child of diasbility compensation and they make their share of wild mistakes, but to say they intentionally hide the regulations so they don't have to pay any compensation is just a little stretch.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree!

Vike 17

Edited January 26, 2007 by Vike17

[Pete53]

I have a high regard for Vike17 but I think that there are far to many remands and that VARO's for the most part do not do good work on claims.

[Stretch]

I don't have CIB, Combat action ribbon, and I don't even have an MOS. With these requirements all Navy, Waves, Air Force, and Coast Guard did not participate in Combat, nor could they have possibly had or have PTSD. This could even mean that only Army participated in the theater 1154 {B}. Even a stressor, for other than army service-person, is very hard to prove 1154 {A}. Many VSO's have canned claims, in past years, because VSO's did not think that these claims were Viable.

There are so many rules, for so many different situations, that some times VSO's believe that the Military is made up of Army Only. I think that VSO's are on the way out, because they are fouled and tainted. There are no hard and fast rules, although some think that there are.

What works for one person might not even work for another. That is why it takes all of us, on hadit, and not just a few individuals.

MOS is not Determinative. 1154 {B} This could go the way of Haas.

COMBAT_STATUS.doc