The VA sure doesn't follow the law

[kidva]

Well today during one of my Google VA law search. I find this 

 

This statement means that before the passing of Public Law 96-12, a Veteran could only qualify for the higher levels of Special Monthly Compensation (SMC) under 38 U.S.C. 1114(r)(1) and 1114(r)(2) if they were already receiving SMC based on the criteria outlined in 38 U.S.C. 1114(o), essentially requiring a more severe disability level to access the higher SMC rates. 

 

Key points to understand: 

 

• SMC:

  Special Monthly Compensation is a higher rate of disability compensation paid to Veterans with particularly severe service-connected disabilities that meet specific criteria. 

   

   38 U.S.C. 1114(o):
• This section of the law outlines specific criteria for SMC eligibility, which, before the enactment of PL 96-12, was considered a prerequisite for accessing the even higher SMC rates under 1114(r)(1) and 1114(r)(2). 

   
• PL 96-12:

  This piece of legislation likely changed the rules, allowing Veterans to qualify for the higher SMC rates under 1114(r) without necessarily meeting the full criteria for 1114(o). 

   

   

  Well it seem based on law a veteran no longer has to be smc o to get smc r or r 2.  Now if a veterans has smc l need of help . why isn't the VA addressing smc r based on the law 

[brokensoldier244th]

PL 96-12 has to do with invetigating Three Mile Island and was passed in 1979. Where did you find what you posted? 

 

If you are talking about Haskell v McDonough, that court case was ruled in Sept of 2024- last month. VA couldn't follow it because it a decision on the law from the CAVC didn't exist yet. 

[kidva]

I don't think public law and its even in the VA manual not make this up. Google the public law number and put smc r. It all pull up even the section of the VA manual pull up.

Public Law (PL) 96-12 changed the requirements for veterans to be eligible for Special Monthly Compensation (SMC) under 38 U.S.C. 1114(r)(1) and 38 U.S.C. 1114(r)(2). Before PL 96-12, veterans had to be eligible for SMC under 38 U.S.C. 1114(o) to be eligible for SMC under 38 U.S.C. 1114(r)(1) and 38 U.S.C. 1114(r)(2). 

 

I don't know were those cases came up you are talking about came from but base on public law  pl 96-12 the VA are not follow the law

 

[brokensoldier244th]

51 minutes ago, kidva said:

I don't think public law and its even in the VA manual not make this up. Google the public law number and put smc r. It all pull up even the section of the VA manual pull up.

Public Law (PL) 96-12 changed the requirements for veterans to be eligible for Special Monthly Compensation (SMC) under 38 U.S.C. 1114(r)(1) and 38 U.S.C. 1114(r)(2). Before PL 96-12, veterans had to be eligible for SMC under 38 U.S.C. 1114(o) to be eligible for SMC under 38 U.S.C. 1114(r)(1) and 38 U.S.C. 1114(r)(2). 

 

I don't know were those cases came up you are talking about came from but base on public law  pl 96-12 the VA are not follow the law

 

Of course they weren't following the law- the ruling was a month ago- there was no legal basis for it 1 way or the other until the Court finished litigating it. You are still quoting the wrong PL. 96-12 is Three Mile Island. 96-128 is SMC. LIkely a misprint in the manual text- that screenshot is the old manual before its been updated several times. 

 

(PL) 96-12

 

 

 

Edited October 18 by brokensoldier244th

[kidva]

Maybe I am wrong but right on there in state prior to pl 96-12 in is noted. so I ask when was pl 96-12 made law.

It wouldn't be in the VA manual if it happen last month. Pll 96-12 has nothing to do with blue water.  An I believe it should s been followed since 2012. Still looking 

[brokensoldier244th]

I know what it says. Look at the context it’s in the section 96–128.

I’m not trying to argue with you about this. I’m trying to make sure that what you’re posting is correct information so three years from now when somebody searches this thing up and finds it, they don’t go down some rabbit hole looking for something that doesn’t exist. Mostly what I’m asking is that if you’re going to post legal stuff post the actual links or screenshots don’t just hand type it out without some kind of citation pointing to it somewhere. Bad information is what gets veterans in trouble all the time with filing appeals and filing claims for things that ultimately don’t go their way because there’s no precedent behind it - but they read about it in a forum somewhere once so it must be true

 

[kidva]

Not try to say you wrong but nothing you are saying is addressing the note. In the manual or the change in the law.

So I guess the VA manual note and the Google search is all wrong and the pl 96-12 note in the VA manual isn't  law an is wrong also.