Zero-experience Ambassador Richard Grenell picked to run entire US intelligence system

This just can't be good, all politics aside. Ambassador Richard Grenell has been named Director National Intelligence.

That's an important job, full stop! That's a "keep the world from exploding today" kind of job. However, it is also apparently one where zero intelligence or military experience is considered useful. I disagree.

Why? Reporting to him and requiring masterful supervision are sixteen agencies with tens of thousands of staff all around the world that comprise the US National Intelligence Community. Ambassador Grenell hasn't even visited a quarter of them, much less mastered the intricacies of serving the President as the nation's spy chief.

There are many other loyal, as well as better qualified, leaders in the US government who could have stepped forward to serve. The Ambassador, although blessed with a solid advanced education plus 19 years in government service, has never managed any organization half the size of the smallest agency now reporting to him. I wish this gentleman the very best luck, because anything less is going to hurt America. A lot. 

Because he had Senate confirmation to his earlier post of ambassador to Germany, he won't face any challenge from senators of either party concerned with his lack of professional experience...and many have already expressed their worries. Republican congressional and media voices mainly praise his anticipated loyalty rather than his talents. Loyalty is cited as his chief job qualification.

Hello?? Loyalty isn't cited as the qualification needed to fly airplanes, repair
computers, paint houses, do taxes, pull teeth, teach students, drive trucks, direct orchestras, print newspapers, write poetry, fry eggs, clean bathrooms, weld steel, or anything other than, as with Mr. Grenell, keeping America, our allies and the world from exploding. All while losing as few lives as possible in a hostile international setting. Sorry for the run-on sentences.

This mistake is like assigning some hyper-loyal buddy with a farming background to be Surgeon General or Attorney General. These are obviously illogical selections because of the professional qualifications actually needed. In the very real case of Mr. Grenell as our spy chief responsible for preventing wars and more 9/11 disasters, his assignment to head the National Intelligence Community has much greater potential to harm the nation.

Wish our new spy chief all the luck...we'll need it.

Depending on Mr. Grenell's leadership and professionalism in guiding their operations are:

Sixteenth Air Force, United States Air Force

Intelligence and Security Command, US Army

Central Intelligence Agency

Coast Guard Intelligence

Defense Intelligence Agency

Office of Intelligence and Counterintelligence, Department of Energy

Office of Intelligence and Analysis, Department of Homeland Security

Bureau of Intelligence and Research, Department of State
Office of Terrorism and Financial Intelligence, Department of Treasury

Office of National Security Intelligence, Drug Enforcement Administration

Intelligence Branch, Federal Bureau of Investigation

Marine Corps Intelligence Activity Corps

National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency, DOD

National Reconnaissance Office, DOD

National Security Agency/Central Security Service, DOD

Office of Naval Intelligence, United States Navy

New legislation eliminates SBP-DIC annuity offset for eligible surviving spouses

     Congress included a phased elimination of the SBP-DIC offset in the 2020 National Defense Authorization Act, titled "Phase-Out of Reduction of Survivor Benefit Plan Survivor Annuities by Amount of Dependency and Indemnity Compensation."
     Defense Finance and Accounting Service officials have a new webpage called “SBP-DIC News” where they will post information on the status of the implementation of this new law. Officials are working on analyzing the change and making plans for the implementation. They will not be able to answer questions about the full effect of this change in the law until they obtain legal interpretation of the changes and identify all of the impacts on policy and procedures.
     Based on the NDAA, spouse SBP annuitants will see the first change in the SBP annuity payment they receive Feb. 1, 2021. Spouses do not need to notify DFAS that their SBP payment is affected by this change in the law. DFAS officials advise that the most important action SBP annuitants can take at this time is to ensure their annuity account information is up-to-date and includes their correct mailing address so DFAS can contact them, if needed. Also, if annuitants are not using myPay online, they can set up a profile now and add their email address. To create an online myPay account, visit https://mypay.dfas.mil/ and click on “Start here” next to the Create your myPay Profile heading on the lower right-hand side of the page. DFAS officials are unable to provide individual estimates of the upcoming changes in spouse SBP annuity payments because of this change in the law.
     Officials ask SBP annuitants not to call the DFAS Customer Care Center to request an individual estimate. The webpage also states that spouse annuitants who previously received a refund of SBP premiums paid because of the SBP-DIC offset won’t need to pay back that refund because of this change in the law.
     The "Repeal of Authority for Optional Annuity for Dependent Children" and "Restoration of Eligibility for Previously Eligible Spouses" in the NDAA only affect those spouses and children of service members who died on active duty when the surviving spouse previously elected to transfer the SBP annuity to a child or children. It does not affect previous or future SBP elections by retirees or SBP annuities for a retiree's beneficiaries.
     SBP provides a monthly income to eligible survivors of Airmen upon their death while DIC is paid to survivors of Airmen who die from a service-related injury or illness.

VA Just Revised Publication "C-123 AIRCRAFT AGENT ORANGE EXPOSURE CLAIMS – AIR FORCE SPECIALITY CODES AND UNITS."

Reference:
 "C-123 AIRCRAFT AGENT ORANGE  EXPOSURE CLAIMS – AIR FORCE
SPECIALITY CODES AND UNITS."
VA corrected the dates for Westover's C-123 years, but more importantly 

has broadened the range of acceptable evidence they'll accept for all Reserve

C-123 units, and perhaps geographically separated units as well.

Our expectation, having pointed out the previous discrepancies to VA, is that our old

AFSCs will be acceptable rather than the contemporary ones VA mistakenly 

printed. Further, we identified several units not listed on their publication, and the

language on the fourth page of this publication has been very broadly expanded.

VA commits to accepting "any relevant evidence showing the required regular and

repeated contact." While not yet naming units that had C-123 duty, VA here agrees

that they'll accept most sources of official proof to support disability claims for AFSCs
and, hopefully units not yet specified.
=================================================================

US Air Force Specialty Codes (AFSCs) 1969-1986 

This is a listing of AFSCs that potentially identify former USAF Reservists and active duty personnel with regular and repeated contact as flight, medical, or ground maintenance personnel associated with post-Vietnam Operation Ranch Hand C-123 aircraft. Code numbers during the operational time frame generally consisted of four digits (with additional number/letter suffix) and many were officially changed during the time frame of operations. As a result, VA will accept any relevant evidence showing the required regular and repeated contact.

Another VA Publication Error: Wrong Dates on C-123 Eligibility

Will it ever stop? Another error has been spotted on VA web pages and publications that slams the hopes of C-123 veterans hoping to quality for Agent Orange exposure benefits.

This time the error is with dates: A VA web page titled "Agent Orange exposure" specifies the dates for C-123 exposure eligibility as "On C-123 airplanes: Between January 9, 1962, and May 7, 1975." Their error, of course, was using the dates for general Vietnam War eligibility and not our post-Vietnam C-123 service dates of 1972-1986.

The mistake has been pointed out to them but this morning I repeated myself by filing another VA Inspector General report...the fourth so far asking VA to clean up their publications.

Here's a clip of their error:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Rlco4Rptc-7SphAcQst8MB4Q1WMv54wG/view?usp=sharing

VA & DOD Release 2019 List of Agent Orange Sites (outside of Vietnam)

VA has released an updated Department of Defense list of locations outside of Vietnam where tactical herbicides were used, tested or stored by the United States military. The last list was released in 2006, and its flaws plagued vets these last fourteen year.

We tried to get DOD or VA to update their list, but both agencies said it wasn't theirs. I found the key USAF official in charge of installations, but LtGen Fedder declined to do anything to add C-123 aircraft to Dr. Alvin Young's 2006 waste of taxpayer dollars.

VA continued describing their new llst: “This update was necessary to improve accuracy and communication of information,” said VA Secretary Robert Wilkie. “VA depends on DOD to provide information regarding in-service environmental exposure for disability claims based on exposure to herbicides outside of Vietnam.”

Thorough review

DOD conducted a thorough review of research, reports and government publications in response to a November 2018 Government Accountability Office report.

“DOD will continue to be responsive to the needs of our interagency partners in all matters related to taking care of both current and former service members,” said Defense Secretary Mark T. Esper. “The updated list includes Agents Orange, Pink, Green, Purple, Blue and White, and other chemicals and will be updated as verifiable information becomes available.”

See the full list of locations at https://www.publichealth.va.gov/docs/agentorange/dod_herbicides_outside_vietnam.pdf.

Veterans who were exposed to Agent Orange or other herbicides during service may be eligible for a variety of VA benefits, including an Agent Orange Registry health exam, health care and disability compensation for diseases associated with exposure. Their dependents and survivors also may be eligible for benefits

A Small Success: Stopping "Weekend Warrior"

In 2018 I complained about VA use of the phrase "weekend warrior." Many of us Reservists or National Guards consider this slur both pejorative and inaccurate. Even Google defines it as "a person who participates in an activity only in their spare time." Doesn't sound much like what we did, does it? The phrase works against us and had to stop.

I'm happy to say that VA has stopped using the phrase, at least by the Board of Veterans Appeals. In 2019 the phrase wasn't used a single time vs. more than a hundred times in recent years. I can see how it got started by reading old citations....one judge used it in a decision and than others did also not by any initiative on their part but because of the all-too-easy habit among VA's administrative law judges to simply clipboard each other's work.
The problem is that a judge is like others...words matter, and to have a mental image of "weekend warrior" while deciding whether that particular warrior is deserving of disability benefits is just too prejudicial!

Is this what YOUR BVA judge thinks?

BVA Appeal Decisions Reference Wrong AFSC Codes for C-123 Agent Orange Eligibility

Here is one more example of how well-meaning VA folks have let benefits-related publications be used to deny veterans' perfectly valid C-123 Agent Orange exposure claims.

First: Kudos to the VA: I'm very happy that our effort to get exposure benefits for C-123 post-Vietnam veterans has led to seven active duty bases' personnel also considered for entitlement. But that doesn't make up for the harm done our Reserve veterans in the way VA spelled out eligibilities.

Look carefully at the second paragraph below. Notice the AFSC codes....do any of them look familiar to you? Probably not, because the Air Force "modernized" their codes a few years after most of us left service, and our old AFSC is nothing like the current one. Click here for the old Officer AFSC codes. Click here for the old Enlisted AFSC codes.

Example: the old AFSC for aircrew life support specialist was 92250, and the VA is set to deny anyone without the current AFSC they show below, 1220-1229. The example below is from an appeal denied by the Board of Veterans Appeals, meaning even if the veteran or his claims advisor spots the technical failing of AFSC codes, that poor vet is stuck with another years-long wait to appeal, this time to the US Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. Maybe he'll get lucky there. Disability awards shouldn't have to depend on luck!

So we're given a real disaster is when a regional office or the Board of Veterans Affairs denies one of our claims because we provided on our DD-214, AF Form 623 or other official document the old AFSC.  It conflicts with the VA's publication that honors only the new codes.

I've already written about VA's failure to include the 67th Aeromedical Evacuation Squadron, the 905th CAMS, and the VA not listing anything about enlisted aeromedical evacuation technicians and their 902XX AFSC.

I guess that means another VA IG complaint that they'll either ignore or, at best, pass along to the next unsuspecting associate to also ignore.

VA has published a list of military units who had regular and repeated exposure to contaminated C-123 aircraft.  The affected reserve units and dates of service for affected crew members are as follows: Pittsburgh International Airport, Pennsylvania (1972-1982), Westover Air Force Base and Hanscom Field Air Force Base, Massachusetts (1972-1982), and Lockbourne/Rickenbacker Air Force Base, Ohio (1969-1986). The affected active duty units and dates of service for affected crewmembers are Hurlburt Auxiliary Field, Eglin Air Force Base, Florida (1970-1973), Langley Air Force Base, Virginia (1962-1963, 1970-1973), Luke Air Force Base, Arizona (1970-1973), Tainan Air Field, Taiwan (1969-1970), Howard Air Force Base, Panama (1970-1973), Osan Air Base, South Korea (1970-1973), and Clark Air Force Base, Philippines (1969-1970).
VA has also published a list of specialty codes for military personnel who had regular and repeated exposure to contaminated Operation Ranch Hand (ORH) C-123s, used to spray Agent Orange in Vietnam, as flight, maintenance, or medical crew members. Those codes for enlisted personnel are flight engineer/aircraft loadmaster (1130-1149), aircrew life support specialist (1220-1229), and aircraft maintenance specialist/flight technicians (4314-4359). See https://www.benefits.va.gov/compensation/docs/AO_C123_AFSpecialityCodesUnits.pdf.
In order to warrant a presumption of exposure based on contact with a C-123, a veteran must have had duties at one of the above listed places during the time frame specified, and the veteran must also have had a duty which entailed that he or she regularly and repeatedly operated, maintained or served onboard C-123 aircraft.

President's Statement on Military Injuries Following Iran's Missile Attack

(28 Jan 2010: Update on the injuries the President dismissed as 'headaches": 
Fifty US military personnel have now been diagnosed with concussions and traumatic brain injuries following the Iranian missile attack on US forces in Iraq earlier this month, according to a statement Tuesday from the Pentagon.
That's an increase on 16 from late last week when the Pentagon said 34 cases had been diagnosed.)

In his press conference this morning from Davos, Switzerland, the President was asked about American troops hurt during Iran's missile attack. I feel he spoke (or hopefully only misspoke) of their injuries as something unworthy of his consideration.

I'm deeply disappointed in his response. I am a 100% service-connected totally disabled paralyzed war veteran, and so messed up the VA tossed me into something called "catastrophically disabled." But I would never dismiss TBI as "not very serious" compared to my injuries or those referred to by the President. 

I am not political, but I take a stand here: TBI is a lifelong threat to health. TBI is more serious than youthful bone spurs that somehow disappear without treatment.

The President said:

"I heard that they had headaches, and a couple of other things, but I would say, and I can report, it's not very serious, They told me about it numerous days later, you'd have to ask Department of Defense. I don't consider it very serious relative to other injuries that I've seen. I've seen what Iran has done with their roadside bombs to our troops. I've seen people with no legs and with no arms. I've seen people that were horribly, horribly injured in that area, that war. No, I do not consider that to be bad injuries, no."

Separately, and with somewhat more perspective on the medical issues facing the injured, a CENTCOM spokesman has informed reporters nineteen injured troops have been evacuated to Germany, from a current estimate of at least 34 blast injuries 

Read more about TBI from the National Institute of Health and the Department of Veterans Affairs. Serious attention has been given since President Obama began an annual $100 million effort to address military TBI. The effort has continued with similar funding in the present administration. Since 2003 nearly 400,000 veterans have suffered moderate to severe TBI, typically blast injuries from ever-more lethal IEDs.

TBI, and indeed every military injury and illness, is worthy of our president's concern, respect and careful attention. Read here about DOD guidance for award of the Purple Heart for TBI injuries. That gets my respect.

Perhaps the administration should forward its new "not very serous" guidance to Building 3737 at Landstuhl Regional Medical Center (LRMC, ) the hospital's Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) & Rehabilitation Clinic. Blast injuries get serious respect there!

C-123 VETERANS ASSOCIATION FILES ANOTHER VA IG COMPLAINT ABOUT VBA PUBLICATIONS AND WEB PAGES

Several months ago we brought several problems to the attention of VA staff regarding their publications. Problems like not listing C-123 units, or enlisted AFSCS, but specifically not properly describing eligible veterans.

Today, because of their inaction, we've filed an IG complaint. Typically the VA IG won't get involved in something like this but just as often, they'll forward the issue to responsible officials to resolve.  L:et's hope for the best here, because we're all tired of C-123 claim being denied by regional offices, or even the Board of Veterans Appeals, by VA citing their own inaccurate literature as justification.

Today's specific complaint deals with "C-123 Airplanes and Agent Orange Residue" published by the Veterans Benefits Administration. VBA has a terribly misleading paragraph towards the end of the document:

Both points in this paragraph are false. The VA's own manual VA M21-1MR as well as 38 CFR § 3.307 (Presumption of Herbicide Exposure and Presumption of Disability During Service for Reservists Presumed Exposed to Herbicides) makes clear that EVERY C-123 veteran who served in a squadron known to have had C-123 aircraft after Vietnam is considered presumptively exposed and need not prove anything except the unit assigned to, and presence of an Agent Orange illness. And there is no "case-by-case' evaluation any different than any other Agent Orange claim, other than the fact all of our claims have to be directed ONLY to the VA St Paul Regional Office That's in their regulation also!

C-123 Veterans Association Challenges VA to Correct Agent Orange Exposure Publications

Our C-123 Veterans Association has identified numerous errors by which VA denies our aircrews and maintenance veterans earned Agent Orange benefits.

So, we today submitted a 68-page detailed analysis of these errors to as many VA managers for whom we have email addresses.

Here's what we've addressed about VA's C-123 literature:

OUR REPORT

1. 905 CAMS maintainers cross-trained on the C-123 at Westover and should have their exposure claims honored.
2. Rickenbacker's 67th Aeromedical Evacuation squadron flew their base C-123s between 1972-1986 and their exposure claims should be honored.
3. VA has failed to specify enlisted medical crew AFSCs and has for five years simply denied most of their applications, even when submitted with ample evidence.
4. Certain aerial port units at the three C-123 bases should have claims honored, particularly for ramp and fleet service staff.
5. VA failed to see the 911th AES at Pittsburgh IAP was previously named the 33rd AES, and has let the confusion lead to denied veterans benefits.

VA has had most of this sent their way for two years and has failed to act. Perhaps there is hope this time. Worth the try!

White House again delays decision on new Agent Orange diseases; is decision delayed for "late 2020" election impact?

Comment: To me, this decision, promised since the Obama administration and repeatedly promised by the Trump VA, seems timed to the election. Mulvaney seems to have even raised the bar for coverage. Previously, VA acted when Institute of Medicine studies revealed a statistical impact for Agent Orange on a disease: Mulvaney now demands "compelling evidence" for VA to act. Or...to avoid acting at all? And why wait until the election?

The clear problem is his term compelling = conclusive, convincing, decisive, effective, forceful, persuasive, satisfying, strong." That's a new, much higher standard. Science and medicine will find it almost impossible to establish "compelling" proof. Very few other exposures have "compelling" evidence for diseases. Tobacco, asbestos, radiation, perhaps only exposures like these fall into that category. The original 1991 laws for Agent Orange exposures forced VA to act when IOM showed an increase for the statistical odds of a disease. Mulvaney wants more. Very, very much more.

by Patricia Kime,

The day President Donald Trump signed a funding bill including a provision ordering VA to announce its plans to add four conditions to the list of Agent Orange-linked diseases within 30 days, VA Secretary Robert Wilkie said the decision wasn’t likely to come until at least “late 2020.”

In a letter to Sen. Jon Tester, D-Montana, dated Dec. 20 and obtained by Military Times, Wilkie said he would not make a decision until the results of two long-awaited studies are submitted to or published in scientific journals.

In March, VA officials told members of Congress that the decision would be announced within 90 days.

Then Wilkie said he was just awaiting the results of the studies — the Vietnam Era Health Retrospective Observational Study, or VE-HEROES, and the Vietnam Era Mortality Study — expected in 2019.

But the requirement that the results be analyzed, peer-reviewed and in the publication pipeline could add months to the process. VE-HEROES results are currently “being analyzed,” while data from the mortality study is “expected to be available for peer review and publication in late 2020,” Wilkie wrote in the letter.

It’s unclear whether VA plans to comply with the new law that requires it to announce its plans on a decision within the 30-day requirement.

For the 83,000 veterans with one of three conditions under consideration, including bladder cancer, Parkinson’s-like symptoms or hypothyroidism, as well as an unknown number of Vietnam veterans with high blood pressure, the wait continues.

VA Fails Another C-123 Veteran's Claim

Veteran's VA Experience

Not again!

But yes, VA has screwed yet another C-123 claim beyond all recognition. In this case, an aeromedical evacuation technician from Pittsburgh's 33rd AES died while his claim was in process, so his widow continued the application.

It took quite a bit of detective work, but enough documentation was uncovered to establish the veteran's AFSC, his unit, and flying status with the 33rd during the years the C-123 was in service at Pittsburgh. I had the opportunity to provide a supporting statement, the VA Form 41-2138 to explain enough of the facts that the claim should have succeeded.

But that was not to be. For some reason, the regional claims office disregarded all the veteran's supporting documentation and also disregarded my own input, calling it "unqualified lay input."

We were lucky in this case to get support from the National Veterans Legal Services Project, and they rebuilt the claim for submission to the Board of Veterans Appeals. Once again, VA pretended everything in the claim was inadequate to satisfy their critical eye. BVA denied the widow's claim on two reasons. The judge wrote that the veteran was assigned to the 33rd AES, but VA forms explaining the C-123 program only specified the 911th AES.

Somehow, it got past these "experts" that the 33rd is the same as the 911th! Some years after the C-123 era, the squadron's name was updated to the 911th.

The other thing that got past the "experts" was the veteran's AFSC of 90210 and 90250. VA's various C-123 publications failed to list enlisted aeromedical evacuation technicians' AFSCs, and had only flight nurses listed. Ordinarily this isn't a problem because all C-123 claims are supposed to be processed by the VA St. Paul office where experts can drill down to the real facts.

Unfortunately, this claim drifted to some other regional office and there, was denied, and then prepared for resubmission the the Board of Veterans Appeals. The BVA also denied, and we found about it by reading the monthly BVA decision summaries.

The BVA errors were obvious and fatal to the claim. It was wrongly denied, for the two reasons named above. The last few days we've tried to alert every contact we know at VA to see if reason can prevail, to get the claim reconsidered without having to await the next higher level of appeal, the US Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims.

Will it work? There's a chance, and we've succeeded before when VA's mistakes were so glaring. NVLSP has continued their involvement and won't let this go unchallenged. We sure could use help from Pennsylvania's legislators to pressure VA to reconsider the denied claim and to update the publications that caused these problems.

Stay tuned!

I'm troubled by the attack on Iranian General Qasem Soleimani

     Was it assassination for American drones to target and kill Iranian General Qasem Soleimani? I hope not, but I'm very troubled and trying to learn and understand more. Was this combat, or crime, or somehow both?
     As a student of history, particularly World War II, I read with concern about the shoot-down of Japanese Admiral Yamamoto by US Army Air Forces. Knowing the enemy's flight plans, American flyers conducted an extremely challenging mission ("Operation Vengeance") and shot down the Admiral's aircraft over the Solomon Islands on April 18, 1943.
     Writing about it, some historians called it an assassination, questioning the morality to intentional targeting even of combat leaders. Tellingly, Navy Secretary Knox himself had to give permission for an attack he considered morally questionable in targeting an individual, and in this case he knew it was both for vengeance and for tactical advantage. Rather than the legality of it, Knox questioned the insult to American morals He was swayed by the military considerations of eliminating the Japanese naval mastermind. Researching it, Knox concluded that, under the laws of war at that time, the mission to kill Yamamoto was a legal act of war. But not necessarily a moral act; Knox was forever troubled by the injury done to American values with his attack order.
     Avoiding targeting of opposing leaders isn't just a modern moral or legal question: even at Waterloo, Wellington stopped his artillery firing upon Napoleon.
     So the American drone targeting a specific Iranian general (a legal visitor to Iraq and a military officer from a nation with whom we are not at war) certainly has invited questions and even direct challenges, especially because our moral and legal foundations have evolved over the years since 1943, in part influenced by serious and appropriate self-questioning about the Yamamoto mission. For instance, assassination has been illegal per American law since 1981. It is clear that the morality of war changes with time. Let's hope that's for the better.
     For me, the most serious question comes about because of recent years and clear legal prohibitions against CIA and other intelligence assassinations.
    Generally-accepted morality and the laws of war do not prohibit the targeting of generals and admirals; in fact the killing of soldiers is nearly always permissible, unless they lay down their weapons in which case it is always illegal. In fact, the underlying concept in the laws of war is military necessity, meaning that even those things prohibited by the laws of war, such as the unintentional killing of civilians, can be argued as permissible if they are a matter of military necessity.
     It is the motivations of the decision makers that dictate the morality of the mission, for targeting military leaders solely for the purpose of revenge is in fact unethical and immoral – lethal revenge is best left to legal processes, if possible! If we accept what has been reported about General Qasem Soleimani's actions in Iraq, he was actively targeting American and allied interest and conducting terror campaigns, and thus himself became a legitimate target.
     The 2001 Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Terrorists, a congressional resolution, seems to grant the president the power to use “all necessary and appropriate force” against terrorists with impunity. Thus, nobody should expect to be completely safe (physically, morally or legally) from an overhead MQ-9 Reaper armed with a Hellfire missile when actively plotting the deaths of Americans and our friends.
     While US officials have determined that Soleimani is a terrorist, he was also a ranking general in a sovereign government, so targeting him tempts war with Iran in a new way.
     I don't expect nations in the Middle East will see it our way, especially with administration speaking points focusing more on the general's death to prevent vague future operations against us, or as retaliation for suspected bad acts in the past...because those excuses sound more and more like an illegal revenge assassination.

END OF THE UNFAIR DOD/SPB – VA/DIC "WIDOWS' TAX"

BY: Jennifer Barnhill December 20, 2019

‘Widow’s Tax’ finally axed when the President signed the National Defense Authorization Act for FY 2020.

As the President signed the National Defense Authorization Act Friday night, a 40-year battle to repeal the military “widow’s tax” came to an end.

Surviving families joined forces with advocates and lawmakers to pass nonpartisan legislation, with Congress putting actions in front of words and dollars in the hands of those who paid the ultimate price. The “widow’s tax” was a longstanding policy oversight that affected over 65,000 military survivors. When a service member dies while on active duty or from a military-related illness their families may be eligible for both the Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP) & Dependency and Indemnity Compensation (DIC). Because of concurrent receipt laws (provisions to avoid double-dipping in government benefits), for every dollar paid out via the DIC, one dollar was deducted or “offset” from the SBP insurance payment. This offset cost families roughly $11,000 annually. Not only have these families lived through the nightmare of losing a spouse or loved one, they have had to fight to stay afloat both emotionally and financially.

In 2013, Gold Star widow Kathy Prout started the Military Widows: SBP-DIC Offset Facebook Group as a way for survivors to share their concerns about the offset and related legislation. What began with six members grew to over 2,000 today.

“With privacy laws you can’t find anybody. You can’t find another widow unless somebody says ‘I know somebody,’” Prout said. Over time — and with the power of social media — this group grew in number and purpose.

Prout, who is a teacher, used lesson plans to create a plan of the week with assignments to call representatives who were on the fence.

“Everybody in the [Facebook] group was responsible for calling their own congressmen and senators weekly to remind them about the issue and to keep this on the front burner,” she explained.

One key focus of their effort was coupling consistency with kindness. When cosponsors signed on to support the repeal of the offset, she instructed members to write thank you letters. No one was to be shamed for not signing. Instead, they were to be educated. They didn’t take out frustrations on congressional staffers, who they now knew by name. They helped make supporting their cause easier.

“We provided all the information. Staffers have too many issues [to research] … there is no time in the day,” Prout said.

By speaking the language of government in addition to telling their own authentic stories these survivors became an unstoppable force.

Key players:
As intentional as surviving families were, they needed an advocate, someone to champion their cause. While there were many supporters, Senator Doug Jones, D-Ala. made passing this legislation a main priority. According to Jones, including the repeal of the offset in the 2020 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) demonstrates “our commitment to our veterans, our military service members and their families because they are the ones making the sacrifices for us. We have got to do more than just give this lip service and talk about the support for our military and throw money at modernizing our military. This is for families. This is for human beings.”

Jones emphasized the need for consistency and maintaining momentum. Because of the lack of understanding and high price tag associated with this legislation, “it wasn’t something that you could just file and make a speech on. You had to constantly work at it. That is what we did and it made a big difference,” Jones said.

His personal investment in the cause was evident as he emotionally recalled hearing from a widow in an Alabama press conference who said, “‘now my husband can finally rest in peace knowing that his commitment to me has been fulfilled.’ That was incredibly gratifying,” Jones says.

Advocacy groups:
Another resource that made 2019 more successful than the previous two decades was the unified message presented by a coalition of military service organizations, including Tragedy Assistance Program for Survivors (TAPS), VFW, National Military Family Association, Gold Star Wives of America, MOAA and others. Because of the groups’ familiarity with government along with connections to elected officials, they provided guidance and leadership to the widows-turned-activists.

“The most significant thing this year was the grassroots advocacy effort from the impacted spouses themselves. It was stellar. That is really what has been missing in the past,” Candace Wheeler, policy director for TAPS, said.

Alongside military survivors and political leaders, these organization emphasized that this was not a partisan issue. It was not even a bipartisan issue. It was a nonpartisan issue that needed to be corrected.

What’s next:
There is still work that still needs to be done. Defense Finance and Accounting Services (DFAS) will now begin to calculate what is owed to these families, an undertaking that will likely require a significant amount of work and time. There will be a phase-in process to receive this SBP benefit starting in 2021. DIC benefits will remain the same. Details:
January 1, 2021: ⅓ of owed SBP, SSIA
January 1, 2022: ⅔ of owed SBP, SSIA
January 1, 2023: full benefits, child-only option phased out & those whose children “aged out” can start to receive benefits

QUESTIONS?
Updates to the SBP-DIC Offset can be found on online or contact TAPS at policy@taps.org.

Don’t forget the ‘kiddie tax’:
Whenever there is “bad” legislation, like the offset, there are workarounds. In this case, many spouses with dependents chose to transfer SBP payments to their children to avoid the offset reduction. However, the 2017 Trump tax law moved these surviving children into a higher tax bracket, in the same category with wealthy trust-fund kids, costing survivors thousands more in taxes each year. This penalty is called the “kiddie tax.” This oversight has also been corrected with the inclusion of the Rep. Elaine Luria’s (D-Va.) Gold Star Family Tax Relief Act in another appropriations bill.  Affected families are now eligible to amend last year’s tax returns.

90,000 Sailors Owe John Rossie the World's Biggest "THANK YOU!"

For years John Rossie of Colorado Springs was the principal fighter for Agent Orange benefits he felt due Navy veterans of the Vietnam War...the Blue Water Navy.
On January 1, under pressure from Congress and veterans' organizations, VA will finally begin honoring Agent Orange exposure claims from the approximately 90,000 former sailers, providing they evidence one of the recognized Agent Orange illnesses.
I did the work for our C-123 veterans, but we number only around 2,100. John's work has a potential to impact 90,000 veterans...truly a staggering victory. John had to pursue his distant victory for four more years after we won ours.
Congratulations!
John and the sailors he served in his years-long mission give me the thought, "shipmates forever," though most will have never met John. That's dedication! Every veteran he has served so doggedly must thank him for never giving up, for years of brilliant ideas, crafty schemes and down-right unflinching target-oriented hard work. Not for himself, but for shipmates, their families and survivors.
God Bless.
    Wes Carter, Major, USAF Retired
    Chairman, The C-123 Veterans Association

VA extends Agent Orange benefits to Blue Water Navy Vietnam Vets January 1, 2020

Law also affects survivors of Veterans, certain dependents and Veteran homebuyers 

WASHINGTON – The U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) begins deciding Blue Water Navy Vietnam Veterans Act of 2019 claims, Jan. 1, 2020, extending the presumption of herbicide exposure that include toxins such as Agent Orange, to Veterans who served in the offshore waters of the Republic of Vietnam during the Vietnam War.

Prior to the measure, only Vietnam War Veterans who served on the ground in Vietnam or within Vietnam’s inland waterways were eligible to receive disability compensation and other benefits based on a presumption of herbicide exposure. (CORRECTION: certain post-Vietnam War C-123 veterans are also entitled to a presumption of exposure to Agent Orange.)

Signed into law June 25, the law specifically affects Blue Water Navy (BWN) Veterans who served as far as 12 nautical miles offshore of the Republic of Vietnam between Jan. 6, 1962 and May 7, 1975, as well as Veterans who served in the Korean Demilitarized Zone (DMZ) between Jan. 1, 1967 and Aug. 31, 1971. These Veterans can apply for disability compensation and other benefits if they have since developed one of 14 conditions that are presumed to be related to exposure to herbicides such as Agent Orange. Veterans do not need to prove that they were exposed to herbicides. The specific conditions can be found by searching Agent Orange on www.va.gov.

“For six months, VA worked diligently to gather and digitize records from the Naval History and Heritage Command in order to support faster claims decisions,” said VA Secretary Robert Wilkie. “These efforts will positively impact the claims process for Veterans filing for these benefits.”

Qualifying recipients, in addition to affected Veterans still living, are certain survivors of deceased BWN and Korean DMZ Veterans.

Survivors can file claims for benefits based on the Veteran’s service if the Veteran died from at least one of the 14 presumptive conditions associated with Agent Orange. The law also provides benefits for children born with spina bifida if their parent is or was a Veteran with certain verified service in Thailand during a specific period. The Blue Water Navy Act also includes provisions affecting the VA Home Loan Program. The law creates more access for Veterans to obtain no-down payment home loans, regardless of loan amount, and the home loan funding fee is reduced for eligible Reservists and National Guard borrowers who use their home loan benefits for the first time. Certain Purple Heart recipients do not pay a funding fee at all. VA’s website describes these and other benefits. 

Veterans who want to file an initial claim for an herbicide-related disability can use VA Form 21-526EZ, Application for Disability Compensation and Related Compensation Benefits or work with a VA-recognized Veterans Service Organization to assist with the application process. Veterans may also contact their state Veterans Affairs Office.

BWN Veterans who previously filed a claim seeking service connection for one of the 14 presumptive conditions that was denied by VA may provide or identify any new and relevant information regarding their claim when reapplying. To re-apply, Veterans may use VA Form 20-0995, Decision Review Request: Supplemental Claim. As a result of the new law, VA will automatically review claims that are currently in the VA review process or under appeal.  

For more information about the Blue Water Navy Act and the changes that will take effect visit https://www.benefits.va.gov/benefits/blue-water-navy.asp.

Flight Nurse Wins Unique C-123 Agent Orange Claim

The VA Board of Veterans Appeals recently published their decision on a Westover C-123 veteran's Agent Orange claim, and it granted full benefits. There was no question about this veteran's eligibility for Agent Orange benefits but the disability claimed was not one VA presumes associated with exposure. The claim was submitted in August 2015, denied in October 2015, and finally won on appeal effective retroactive to the date first submitted.

Winning a claim for a disability VA doesn't associate with Agent Orange exposure is difficult. I won my claim for, among other things, avascular necrosis, and here VA accepted a type of cancer not on their list. It can be done but requires persistence and lots of skillful argument.

Congratulations are due here for the years this veteran invested in pursuit of the justice due C-123 veterans for our Agent Orange exposure!

Rickenbacker vet CMS Ray Maxwell has passed

Sad word from Tom McVey and the "Buckeye Wing" of the passing of veteran Ray Maxwell. Ray died on Veterans Day, November 11, 2019, and arrangements are uncertain thus far.

CCK Law Firm Releases Excellent Agent Orange Review, including C-123 details

Here's a good review of Agent Orange issues, including our C-123 veterans.

SITREP: C-123 Vets' Agent Orange Claims as of September 2019

Over $20,000,000 in benefits won thus far by C-123 veterans!

That's great, but the best part of our gaining VA acknowledgement for Agent Orange exposure is medical care, always our primary objective for the estimated 2100 C-123 aircrew, aeromedical, life support and maintainers.

Last week's news included a flight nurse's appeal won for squamous cell carcinoma, and a widow's claim for her husband's Dependents Indemnity Compensation (DIC.) Her late husband died twelve years ago, well before the VA date of 19 June 2015 for recognizing our exposure, but VA accepted the fact of his lung cancer as an Agent Orange illness. I've contacted the few widows I could reach and they've also won DIC benefits (about $1300/month tax-free) but I'm afraid most have never heard of their entitlements. Can you help get the word out?

Other welcome successes include a couple Rickenbacker maintainers' claims honored by VA. I've seen some Pittsburgh veterans' claims being honored but as a group, these folks have been invisible to us...no communication other than one senior NCO. And no help from them, either, but it would be so very welcome to help get their folks informed. If ever they need a seminar on Agent Orange and the C-123 issues, all they have to do is ask!!

So far, out of about 2100 potentially eligible C-123 veterans, about 210 have had their VA Agent Orange claims honored. Sadly, as time goes along, more and more of us develop one or more of the Agent Orange presumptive illnesses and add to this number. Some retroactive awards have been well over $150,000, and our military retirees have also benefited from either Combat Related Special Compensation or Concurrent Receipt of Special Compensation.

Let me  know if I can help with anything. I'm looking forward to joining with other old 74th Aeromedical Evacuation Squadron members at our October 12 dinner in Springfield, MA. Care to join us??

Meanwhile, loving my Tesla Model 3 electric vehicle...best car I've ever had! I'm proud that the USA can invent, build, market and support a car that has earned Tesla the top safety award, goes 315 miles between "fill-ups," and is so cool.

Maude DeVictor has passed; helped begin struggle for Agent Orange care and benefits

Maude Esther Elmore-DeVictor, 79 of San Mateo, CA passed away peacefully on Sunday, May 12, 2019.

Born March 24, 1940 in Lovejoy, Illinois, she was the birth daughter of the late Mary V. King-Glass and the adopted daughter of the late John T. Elmore and Earlie M. Elmore.

She is survived by her son Vincent DeVictor and his wife Monica of San Mateo, CA.

A Navy veteran, she went on to careers in the U.S. Postal Service, the Veteran's Administration, San Mateo County Deputy Public Guardian, Drug Rehabilitation Counselor, Investigator for the Chicago Dept. of Child and Family Services and finally working 30 years for the U.S. Census Bureau, up until the onset of her illness.

Known as the "Mother of Agent Orange", when employed as a Veteran's Benefits Counselor for the V.A. in Chicago, she investigated and made public the link between the use of the defoliant Agent Orange in the Vietnam War and its effect on the veterans that served there. This resulted in forcing the V.A. into changing its policies to include exposure to Agent Orange as a service related illness/disability. She received many accolades for her courageous and determined actions, including the American Legion Unsung Heroine Award. In 1986 the movie "Unnatural Causes" starring John Ritter and Alfre Woodard debuted, chronicling these events of her life.

Guided by her Buddhist faith and always an activist, Maude volunteered for many community programs throughout her life. Her favorites included, U.N. Election Observer in Nicaragua, Library Commissioner for the City of Richmond, CA, a reading mentor for disadvantaged children and election poll worker.

Her lists of accomplishments were not ones that necessarily benefited her in this lifetime but they were ones that benefited her community and the world.

Memorial Services will be conducted at 1:00pm, June 15, 2019 at Nichiren Shoshu Myoshinji Temple, 2631 Appian Way, Pinole, CA 95464.

In lieu of flowers the family respectfully requests donations be made to the charity of the givers' choice in memory of Maude Elmore-DeVictor.

Finally Official: Blue Water Navy Veterans Get Agent Orange Benefits!

It is the biggest news since our own C-123 Veterans Association won benefits in

2015, and by far this news eclipses C-123 Veterans in the sheet numbers of veterans affected...perhaps as many as 90,000 Vietnam-era vets can now access vital benefits and health care.
The decision by U.S. Solicitor General Noel Francisco ended months of uncertainty for tens of thousands of former service members or their survivors who may now be eligible for benefits stemming from exposure to Agent Orange. The benefits have been estimated to cost the Department of Veterans Affairs more than $1 billion over 10 years.
 “I am thrilled that the solicitor general has determined not to seek certiorari review,” said Mel Bostwick, a partner at Orrick Henderson & Sutcliffe who represented veteran Alfred Procopio pro bono. “While I have every confidence that the Supreme Court would have upheld the Federal Circuit’s sound decision, the choice by the solicitor and by Secretary [Robert] Wilkie to enforce the court’s ruling now means that deserving Vietnam veterans will not have to endure further delay or uncertainty before obtaining the benefits that they were promised decades ago.”
In January, the so-called “blue water” Navy veterans, who served on ships within the 12-mile territorial sea of the Republic of Vietnam, secured a long-sought victory in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The full court, ruling 9-2, said the Agent Orange Act of 1991 includes those veterans.
Until the ruling by the full Federal Circuit, those veterans had been denied the presumption of Agent Orange exposure during the Vietnam War. The Justice Department, supporting the Department of Veterans Affairs’ interpretation, had argued that the Agent Orange Act covered only those veterans who served on the ground or inland waterways of Vietnam.
This great news almost makes me forget about our new Tesla...finally we are all-electric!

Colonel Frederick Lindahl laid to rest at Arlington

Dr. Fred Lindahl, Colonel USAF Retired
"The Perfect Warrior"

Fred was laid to rest at Arlington National Cemetery on April 18, 2019, in a moving ceremony of full military honors. His wife Liz and family were comforted by the company of Dr. Lindahl's Georgetown colleagues and many Air Force friends.

"Fred honored the flag in his lifetime of service.
Now, the flag honors Fred."

Skillful Independent Medical Opinion re: Agent Orange & USAF Line of Duty

Here's a terrific independent medical opinion (IMO) written to argue that a post-Vietnam War C-123 veteran should be given a USAF line of duty determination (LOD.)
Why the LOD? Because the VA requires itself to recognize military records when considering a veteran's disability claim. DD-214, OJT records, TDY orders...all these are service medical records establishing a veteran's eligibility for benefits. The LOD is almost as pivotal as the DD-214.
My hope is that the Air Force Board of Correction, or the Federal Circuit Court, will investigate this veteran to determine whether an LOD is warranted. If so, my objective will have been met. I want an example for all post-Vietnam C-123 veterans to anchor their exposure disability back around 1980, so that denies Agent Orange-related VA disability claims submitted between then and now can be reconsidered.
Nothing is certain, even if the AFBCMR issues an LOD. But the example of one C-123 vet getting a retroactive LOD can help everyone else!

Last WWII ‘Doolittle Raider’ dies at age 103

Retired Air Force Lt. Col. Richard "Dick" Cole, the last surviving member of World War II’s Doolittle Raiders, died Tuesday in Texas at the age of 103. The president of the Doolittle Tokyo Raiders Association told The Air Force Times that Cole died in San Antonio on Tuesday morning with his son and daughter by his side.

Cole, originally from Dayton, Ohio, was mission commander Jimmy Doolittle's co-pilot in the 1942 bombing attack less than five months after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.The bold raid on Japan is credited with providing the United States with a morale boost and helping turn the tide of the war in the Pacific.

"I think the main thing was that you had to go in with a positive attitude," Cole said in September of the against-the-odds mission. "I really didn't worry about it. It was our job, and we knew what to expect."

In 2015, the Raiders, including Cole, were honored with the Congressional Gold Medal for their "outstanding heroism, valor, skill and service to the United States."

Cole parachuted to safety, and he and other Raiders were helped by Chinese partisans. But seven crewmembers died – three were killed during the mission; three others were captured and executed, and one died in captivity.

In 2015, Cole’s book about his service called “Dick Cole’s War: Doolittle Raider, Hump Pilot, Air Commando (American Military Experience)” was published. Proceeds from the book go to a scholarship fund in Doolittle’s name for students in the aviation field,.

Acting Secretary of Defense Patrick Shanahan tweeted Tuesday:

“Our Nation has lost a legend. Our thoughts are with the family of Lt. Col. Dick Cole, the last of the Doolittle Raiders, who passed away at age 103. He was a true trailblazer, and his selfless legacy of service lives on in our Airmen of today and tomorrow. Lt Col Dick Cole has slipped the surly bonds of Earth & reunited w/his fellow Doolittle Raiders. We offer our eternal thanks & condolences to his family.We will proudly carry the torch he & his fellow Raiders handed us. May we never forget the long blue line...it's who we are."

A memorial service is being scheduled at Joint Base San Antonio. Cole will be buried at Arlington National Cemetery.

BLUE WATER NAVY VETS WIN AGENT ORANGE BENEFITS!

By NIKKI WENTLING | STARS AND STRIPES
Published: March 26, 2019

WASHINGTON — Department of Veterans Affairs Secretary Robert Wilkie recommended the Justice Department not contest a federal court ruling that could extend benefits to Vietnam veterans who served on ships offshore during the war, he announced Tuesday.
The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled 9-2 in January that “blue water” Navy veterans are eligible for benefits related to the chemical herbicide Agent Orange. The decision could pave the way for disability compensation for tens of thousands of veterans who served aboard aircraft carriers, destroyers and other ships but had been deemed ineligible for the same disability benefits as those who served on the ground and inland waterways.
The Justice Department and the VA, which disputed the veterans’ eligibility for the benefits, could challenge the decision before April 29 by seeking a review of the case from the U.S. Supreme Court.
Wilkie said publicly for the first time Tuesday that he opposed a Supreme Court review. The announcement came during his testimony to the Senate Veterans’ Affairs Committee.
 “Is it true, Secretary Wilkie, that the blue water Navy court decision isn’t being challenged?” asked Sen. Johnny Isakson, R-Ga., the chairman of the committee.
Wilkie replied, “That would be my recommendation from VA.”
His stance differs from last year, when Wilkie fought efforts in Congress to extend benefits to blue water Navy veterans. At the time, he cited high costs and insufficient scientific evidence linking the veterans to Agent Orange exposure.
Since the court ruling in January, some lawmakers and veterans organizations have urged Wilkie and President Donald Trump to end the court battle.
Wilkie announced during his testimony before the Senate Veterans’ Affairs Committee on Tuesday that he recommended the Justice Department not pursue the case.
Sen. Mazie Hirono, D-Hawaii, asked him to “use your persuasive powers to make sure that happens.”
“I think your recommendation will be key,” said Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn. “I would express … that the recommendation be adopted and endorsed heartily by this committee to bring fairness and justice to our blue water Navy veterans. It would culminate a bipartisan crusade.”
Some veterans have fought for years to secure the benefits.
The subject of the Court of Appeals case was Alfred Procopio Jr., 73, who served on the USS Intrepid during the Vietnam War. Ten years ago, the VA denied his disability claims for diabetes and prostate cancer.
At issue in his case was interpretation of the current law, which allows easier access to disability benefits for veterans who “served in the Republic of Vietnam” and suffer from any illness on a list of those linked to Agent Orange. The herbicide has been found to cause respiratory cancers, Parkinson’s disease and heart disease, as well as other conditions.
The court determined that territorial seas should be included in the definition of “Republic of Vietnam” — a point the government disputed.

Retiring Veterans Court judge calls VA appeals system a 'tragedy'

(Note: Appeals to the VA Board of Veterans Appeals now take between three and seven years. The Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims can take another three or more years to hear a case. Most often, cases decided in the veteran's favor are returned to regional offices where more delay eats up yet more time.)

By NIKKI WENTLING | Stars and Stripes | Published: March 12, 2019

WASHINGTON — The retiring chief judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims told lawmakers Tuesday that the Department of Veterans Affairs appeals system is “ancient” and “inefficient” and in need of drastic change.

While testifying before a House Appropriations subcommittee, Chief Judge Robert Davis said the pressure on VA employees to get through a large backlog of benefits claims leads to poor decision-making and a high number of appeals. Davis, a Navy veteran, has held a seat on the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims for nearly 15 years. The court, often referred to as “Veterans Court,” provides veterans an impartial review of decisions made by the VA Board of Veterans’ Appeals.

“I think it’s a tragedy, the way the system operates currently,” Davis said. “I think we’ve been tied to a structure that is ancient and inefficient. The sooner Congress and all of us in this area look at this system from a 50,000-foot level and say, ‘We need to make these kinds of adjustments,’ the sooner we’ll be able to meet the needs of our veterans in a much better way.”

Davis has been critical of the VA system. The topic was brought up Tuesday by Rep. Matt Cartwright, D-Penn., who cited an August article by the Wall Street Journal in which Davis criticized the appeals process as “horribly flawed.” “We can’t ignore that when you come here to testify, chief judge,” Cartwright said.

‘Cautiously optimistic’ about new law

Davis elaborated Tuesday on his comments to the Wall Street Journal. He said he remains skeptical of a new law implemented last month that VA officials promised would allow veterans to receive decisions on their benefits claims in days or months, instead of years.

The new law, titled the Veterans Appeals Improvement and Modernization Act, was approved by Congress in 2017 and went into effect Feb. 19. It involves multiple avenues for veterans to appeal their claims, including an option to get a review from a higher-level adjudicator or go directly to the Board of Veterans’ Appeals.

Under the old system, veterans waited three to seven years to reconcile their appeals. The new one could get veterans through the process in as few as 125 days, VA officials vowed. Officials also said the new system would help cut down the backlog of appeals, which included 402,000 cases as of last month.

“I’m cautiously optimistic that this modernization act may help the system, but in my view, congressman, it is tinkering around the edges, when a larger fix is needed,” Davis said. “And it’s a fix that might be viewed as radical by some.”

When pressed for specifics, Davis suggested using mediation to negotiate a settlement between the VA and veterans or providing them general pensions. He said there were “a lot of possibilities” that he believed should be discussed with the VA secretary.

Once he retires from the court, Davis agreed to discuss the issue further with Rep. Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, D-Fla., who is chairwoman of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Military Construction, Veterans Affairs and Related Agencies.

Court experiences a ‘second surge’

Davis appeared before the subcommittee Tuesday to discuss the court’s budget request for fiscal year 2020, which totals $35.4 million. The proposed amount — released Monday as part of President Donald Trump’s budget plan — didn’t increase from the fiscal year 2019, though Davis said the court experienced a surge of work in 2018.

The court had its first surge in 2009, when its case load increased from about 2,000 cases each year to more than 4,000. That year, Congress temporarily approved two more judges to join the court, bringing it from seven judges to nine.

Davis described a “second surge” last year, during which the case load rose from about 4,000 to more than 6,800.

The VA touted last year that the Board of Veterans’ Appeals had worked through a record number of cases – about 85,000, up from 52,000 cases the previous year. Davis attributed the surge at the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims to the board’s increased pace.

He warned appropriators Tuesday that the court might soon need congressional approval for an additional two judges, bringing the total to 11. Of the nine judges now on the court, two – including Davis – are scheduled to retire at the end of their 15-year terms in December 2019.

“We’re watching our numbers carefully to track the very real possibility that nine judges may not be sufficient to keep pace with this growth trend,” Davis said.

wentling.nikki@stripes.com
Twitter: @nikkiwentling