College Roommate VA Disability Max'd Up to 100%!

Yesterday my college roommate Paul heard from VA that his supplemental claim for disability has been approved. He's now backdated 100% to December 2020! Great news, following the first claim being approved earlier for hearing loss at 40%. My strategy helping him was to tie certain current problems to his hearing loss as secondary issues. VA has agreed, following an appeal that reversed their initial denial.

Now, he will get a better disability compensation, medical care for himself and family, some state benefits and, if and hen needed, nursing home or other such advanced care.

These are earned entitlements which he has been denied for the past half-century. Denied VA medical care, GI home loan, every state benefit withheld. There's no catch-up for what he's been refused.

Remember: this is a good outcome but it really is an immense VA failure! Paul first applied for VA disability benefits when he was released from active duty in 1969. He lived with his disability and forgot all about the VA claim which, decades later, was finally found in his Army dental records. The VA never found this critical document: It took his attorney Katrina Eagle a couple hours. Perhaps...VA don't give a damn?

A veteran has a reasonable beef with the VA when they take half a century to resolve a claim, meanwhile denying all federal and state benefits. Paul has a beef, but right now he's simply glad things have gotten straightened out.

The VA tried. Dragged it out fifty years, and if only the process had taken a bit longer, until Paul had passed, VA could cancel his claim altogether because when the vet dies, so does the claim. Too bad, VA. At least you made it into your disgusting "Claim Ignored 50 Years Club."

C-123 Work in DC: June 19-21

Thanks to generous burden sharing by other C-123 vets on the travel expenses ($1731) involved, I was able to meet for two days with the VA Advisory Committee on Disability Compensation in Washington DC.

This committee reports directly to the Secretary of Veterans Affairs. Even if items not specifically on their agenda are being discussed, getting our information into the minutes of their meetings is a way to directly inform the Secretary of our issues.I call this my "grain of salt" trip.

My speech was prompted by an article in ProPublica published on June 12. In it, the manager of the VA Agent Orange desk spoke negatively about me and about our C-123 issues. I felt he needed correction so I had an appointment with the Committee to make presentations on Tuesday and Wednesday.

I began by placing one-pound Morton salt bags at each end of their conference table. I said they would be wise to take anything the VA said with a grain of salt. But the containers are sealed this morning and they should stay sealed because everything I say is as truthful as I can make it...We don't pick and choose the facts to support our arguments, and we tell the whole truth.

VA, on the other hand, has carefully selected facts and figures to support their policy and disregards everything else. That's why I said at the beginning of my talk and at the end, the committee would have to take everything the VA says with that grain of salt plus a healthy amount of skepticism.

But that is totally wrong! We need to be able to trust VA to give the complete and balanced presentation about an issue plus their conclusion. However, at the March 7 meeting of the committee, VA told a completely distorted and misleading story about Agent Orange and the dangers to veterans.

My point was made to the committee when I reviewed how the VA on March 7 told them the "hysteria" about Agent Orange was due only to an opinion from "some Harvard scientist or somebody" and "hardly anybody bought that," VA said.

Actually, the speaker knew perfectly well that In addition to the Harvard scientist, the CDC, US Public Health Service, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, NIH, and dozens of university medical schools and schools of public health had already informed him four years earlier in 2011 that our aircrews and maintainers were exposed and harmed by duties aboard the C-123s. 

But cheating a little to make his point, the VA Agent Orange

subject matter expert opted to avoid mentioning all that pro-veteran and vital scientific information to the committee. Simply put, he was deceptive, and for that, the committee needed "a grain of salt"...needed to listen with skepticism rather than the trust one would hope to offer a government "expert."

The VA fellow had described Agent Orange to the committee as nothing more than – his words – hype and hysteria. He exhibited once again the VA tendency to ignore evidence supporting veterans' claims and instead construct his own negative view on their claims.

That was Tuesday's talk, and on Wednesday I had the opportunity to discuss VA ethics. They've been in free-fall for quite some time. I offered examples where our medical information had been shared inappropriately and our claims discussed sarcastically.

Interesting: Before the committee began work on Wednesday, a letter of apology from the VA Agent Orange Desk manager about his statements in March 2017 was read aloud.

I was privileged to give these presentations on behalf of our C-123 Association, the Vietnam Veterans of America and Colorado's 460,000 members of the United Veterans Committee. The Wednesday presentation on ethics had not been discussed with these other organizations and thus I spoke solely as a member of the C-123 Veterans Association.

After getting my appointments with ACDC, on Monday once I'd arrived in DC I asked the other groups if they would lend their voices to mine for greater impact...a helpful last minute idea. I spoke representing nearly a million veterans.

We're coming to the view that one individual in VA has been an extremely negative impact on our years of Agent Orange claims. This person, VBA's Agent Orange Desk manager, can be fairly considered anti-veteran. We find him unacceptable as a key decision maker on our claims and we must bring to the Secretary’s attention his many shortfalls. This fellow was the principal roadblock between 2007-2017, and even on some of our remaining issues.

When I finished, I asked if anyone on the committee felt my presentation and handouts needed "a grain of salt" or if they believed me. The salt bags remained closed, so I guess they trusted me.

On Tuesday morning I had a meeting with Katrina Eagle, the prominent veterans legal representative. That was followed by a meeting with Perkins Cole, the national law firm providing us pro bono assistance on our lawsuit against the Air Force where we seek a line of duty determination covering our exposures back before 1982.

A busy three-day trip!

Working with your Veterans Service Organization Representative

Many vets have the misunderstanding that the various veterans service organizations (VSO) which represent veterans before the VA are responsible to the "grand design" of a claim for service connection.

While some VSOs may indeed offer that assistance, not all do, as in the case of Oregon's Department of Veterans Affairs. Oregon staffs their counties with state-affiliated, VA-authorized service officers as well as teams in Portland and the state capital, Salem. These officers offer a broad range of advice and interface with community-based services, but in Oregon veterans are responsible for submitting their own claims and creating, from their own resources, a basic strategy.

Oregon's role, as explained to me late last month by their Portland staff, is to focus on strategizing the vet's appeal only once the claim is denied. The service officers are notified by the VA shortly after the award or denial decision is made, and they then swing into action to help a veteran determine the next steps.

For many, the best approach will be a "notice of disagreement" (NOD) or alternately, a request for a local review by a senior VA rating officer not previously involved in the claim, a decision review officer (DRO.) That is the first important level of strategy where the service officer is able to help, because specifics of the claim can make one approach better than another.

After that, that, a vet's principal concern will be the amount of time required simply waiting in line, because appeals or DRO reviews can take years to be heard. When the big day finally rolls around, the service officer will present the VA with the facts of the case, the errors made by the VA, and the justification for an award in the vet's favor.

This entire process, and the inherent threat of years of delay working a denied claim, places a significant value in the veteran's initial claim being as complete, accurate, comprehensive, persuasive and error-free as possible. The veteran must hope for a positive response from the VA rather than a denied claim, wasting years and continuing to be denied VA medical care and other benefits. This means a vet needs to select a VSO carefully, especially if you feel unqualified to manage your own claim prior to the VA denial.

How to best approach this yourself with some hope of success if your VSO isn't set up to mange the initial claim for you? The very first step is to notify the VA in some form of your intent to file. All benefits are based on the date you first inform them of your wish to make a claim...and you can do this with a simple letter listing every possible boo-boo you have, or you can begin the process on-line at their web site.

Then, Attorney Katrina Eagle offers her "Dirty Dozen," thirteen tips of things NOT do do, and that's a great place to start– begin the process by not stepping on any minefields. Next, gather all your papers and have them scanned into digital form, because eventually you'll want to submit a "Fully Developed Claim" which is done on-line. Why? Because the VA processes those fastest, and because in many instances the VA even can back-date benefits a full year to motivate us to us that electronic process.

Next, file a a Freedom of Information Act request with the VA and with your military service to insure you've got all official documents on-hand. This may take months to get completed, so file early in your claims process. Then scan all those documents also, especially your DD214, any Line of Duty determinations, and medical records.

The VA will arrange a physical for you to address your claimed illnesses or injuries, but a faster route is the Disability Benefits Questionnaire (DBQ) which your own physicians' can complete and submit. Your doctors can expand further in a letter, but you and they should be aware of phrases the VA is attuned to. For instance, "may" to the VA means "no" and "more likely to than not" means yes. A physician simply saying your broken back may be due to your airplane crash is dismissed by the VA. A physician saying your broken back "is more likely than not" due to your airplane crash is accepted by the VA (usually) as credible support for your claim. We've noticed that physicians' stating their qualifications, or medical references in their veterans letters are generally more useful to the vets.

Beyond this, one of the veterans' claims self-help books is probably of greater value to a veteran preparing a claim than anything which can be typed here. There are many Internet resources and many, many veterans' web sites offering excellent advice. The point is: Tell the truth, assert your interests firmly, if something hurts (range of motion, etc.) say so instead of toughing it out, and don't quit.

We're Not Alone!

Leave your lawyer jokes somewhere else because here come "the good guys."

At the suggestion of Connecticut's Commissioner for Veterans Affairs Dr. Linda Schwartz, we discussed the needs of our C-123 veterans with the Yale Veterans Legal Services Clinic. No details here, but Yale has reviewed our situation and has concluded they'd like to help us find pro bono representation to the illegal VA and USAF responses to our C-123 FOIAs, which must be handled by the US District Court in Washington, or the US District Court in Portland for the Air Force FOIA. Although the Clinic is on summer schedule they hope to prepare an in-depth legal analysis of our eligibility for Agent Orange service connection, possibly ready in the early Fall. PLEASE: do not contact at the Clinic as they'd appreciate some time to get into more detail and to work with their own staff on what can be done to help our veterans. We'll publish everything they provide as soon as it is available.

We have also been receiving expert and generous advice regarding Agent Orange claims from San Diego attorney Katrina Eagle, a private attorney first referred to us by the State of Colorado Veteran Affairs director

who emphasized Ms. Eagle's aggressiveness and solid grasp of complex veterans issues. Ms. Eagle has spent months investigating our C-123 contamination and aircrew exposure issue, and the claim we veterans have under current law - and she feels we have "a righteous cause!" She has special insight now into the various letters from VA Compensation Services and the legal errors so readily apparent in them.

As a small firm, she's unable to help us on a pro bono situation, but is ready to apply her extensive background in veterans law and her recent careful examination of the C-123 issue in helping individual veterans. This isn't our sales pitch for her, but it certainly is our pitch that veterans seeking expert legal advice in submitting claims to the Board of Veterans Appeals should consider her. Ms. Eagle wrote:

As discussed, I would honored for you to provide my information to your members.  My website has all information and FAQ's but it is worth reminding your members that I do not charge for my assessment of any veteran's denied claim.  My initial procedure is fairly straightforward in that I ask for the veteran to send the most recent VA decisional document to me before I have a substantive conversation with the veteran.  I require that document so that I can confirm that VA has issued a decision that is still able to be appealed. As noted on my website, I do not charge a fee to review, nor do I charge an upfront retainer fee.  I am paid if and only when VA grants past-due benefits that I have litigated on the veteran's behalf.  My contingency fee is 20 percent, and I am never paid any portion of a veteran's current or future VA compensation.

Veterans appealing a denied claim can continue to have representation from an experienced veterans service officer from one of the veterans associations, and those services are always free. Selecting a VSO or an attorney to represent you claim is your own decision - both approaches have merits but in my situation, I'd be grateful for the services of an attorney like Ms. Eagle or an equally qualified lawyer specializing in veterans law. One of the reasons in my mind is the difficulty I've seen veterans having getting enough time from the overloaded VSOs, in some cases taking months to communicate, not developing strategies but "going with the flow," caving to VA statements, etc. An attorney walks out of the BVA a winner or a loser, just like the veteran, and fights hard because no win = no fee. 

VA Defies FOIA - Hides Documents from Senate & C-123 Veterans with "Don't Exist" Claim

"FOIA - a vital part of our democracy" The Department of Justice (but not the VA)

"They are honorable" Marc Antony, Julius Caesar, Act 3, Scene II)

FOIA-requested materials concealed from C-123 veterans. Documents don't exist? Well, they certainly DID until our FOIA was filed a year ago! But given the issue so important to C-123 veterans and in light of their team's preparation and participation in meetings on the issue of C-123 Agent Orange exposure, and the dedication they show to making sure it is never conceded, we can understand their preference to keep their materials under cover. And as Marc Antony said, "They that have done this deed are honorable."

C-123 veterans, joined by scientific experts and Senator Burr's Senior Policy Advisor, Mr. Brooks Tucker, conducted two meetings, one in 2011 and one in 2012, with representatives of the Veterans Administration to discuss C-123 Agent Orange exposure concerns. One meeting was a teleconference and the second, a gathering hosted by Mr. Tucker at the Hart Senate Building.

Extensive preparation went into these meetings on the part of the veterans and

scientific advisors, and VA representatives participated with perfect familiarity with the subjects discussed and also arrived at the Hart meeting with proposals to submit some issues to the Institute of Medicine for a special project. This makes clear that the VA representatives were prepared, and we certainly saw notes with more notes being taken. Last year, veterans submitted a broadly-cast FOIA net for all materials used by the VA for preparation for the meetings, and notes taken during that meeting, and other materials.

At first, the request was denied by the VA. Then the request resulted in an estimated $4700 fee, appealed by the veterans. Finally, the VA responded that no such materials exist. No memos. No emails. No briefings. No reports to superiors. No nothing. Yes, I know that a double negative, because there certainly was material, just not which they were willing to submit in response to the law.

"The law" you ask? Right...you remember...that thing which veterans are obliged to obey and which the VA flaunts. The law, which we, and they, were all sworn to protect and defend. The law. The foundation of our society and upon which we depend to compel government by, and not OF the people. Doesn't matter - big laws or small, one veteran or a thousand. Law is law - it must reign supreme, otherwise we are to expect (or beg) for our veterans' benefits from the whims of  a capricious and hopefully benevolent administrator.

But among others, VA disregards the Freedom of Information Act. Hello...neat word...freedom. Previously, considered important in American-style democracy. Here, VA even has their general counsel helping us to understand that these materials "have gone missing" in response to our FOIA. And as Marc Antony said, "They that have done this deed are honorable."

Really now, are we to believe that employees did nothing regarding Agent Orange, failed to send emails, didn't use references or correspond,  were hired without qualifications being noted, haven't published professionally, and addressed issues of contaminated aircraft and vehicles without research or conclusions, other than voicing them at the meetings with veterans? Did they beam down and back up again without documents? 

The VA claims in its online publications and correspondence with Congress that it conducted "scientific research" by its scientists and physicians, but it cannot account for that in any way, other than the internet pages. But that undocumented "scientific research" seems to have been enough to deny Agent Orange exposure benefits to C-123 veterans, and in the face of other federal agencies such as the EPA, NIH, CDC/ATSDR and US Public Health Service claiming the C-123 veterans were exposed. VA, by claiming no such materials exist, must have simply sat down and started typing at a computer with the only work product being the online pages about the C-123 veterans magically being spared Agent Orange exposure. Right. Uh-huh. 

VA, by responding in the negative here, doesn't even have copies of the Air Force test results, the materials provided by other federal agencies and universities...nothing.

How could the VA conclude it would charge us $4700 to collect and duplicate materials which, on 11 March 2013 and a year after the FOIA submission, VA reports the items don't even exist? How could mid-level mangers from the VA's VBA and VHA organizations not prepare, not take notes, and not generate work product following a meeting such as this? Attending for the VA were physicians, scientists and managers such as Director Post Deployment Health and Deputy Director. 

Why is VA hiding these materials? Why are they even hiding the ones already published on their web sites? 

Can you please help? 

And remember, Marc Antony assuring us "They that have done this deed are honorable" men and women, as indeed they are. And, "If you have tears, prepare to shed them now." (Julius Caesar, Act 3, Scene II)