http://www.veteranslawproject.org/home/ en-us Wed, 8 Sep 2010 10:34:45 -0500 Policlicks LLC The Department of Veterans Affairs presumes that specific disabilities diagnosed in certain veterans were caused by their military service. If one of these conditions is diagnosed in Vietnam Vet, VA presumes that the circumstances of his/her service (i.e. exposure to Agent Orange) caused the condition, and disability compensation can be awarded. This includes DIC education and CHAMPVA for spouses of veterans rated 100% or surviving spouses late-veterans that died from discussed medical problems. The following disabilities may be presumed for those who served in the Republic of Vietnam between 1/9/62 and 5/7/75: • chloracne or other acneform disease similar to chloracne* • porphyria cutanea tarda* • soft-tissue sarcoma (other than osteosarcoma, chondrosarcoma, Kaposi's sarcoma or mesothelioma) • Hodgkin's disease • multiple myeloma • respiratory cancers (lung, bronchus, larynx, trachea) • non-Hodgkin's lymphoma • prostate cancer • acute and subacute peripheral neuropathy* • type 2 diabetes • chronic lymphocytic leukemia Note*: Must become manifest to a degree of 10% or more within a year after the last date on which the veteran was exposed to an herbicide agent during active military, naval, or air service. [Source: County of Humboldt Veterans Service office 12 Oct 08 ++] http://www.veteranslawproject.org/home/126/ Sat, 18 Oct 2008 02:43:00 -0500 http://www.veteranslawproject.org/home/126/ You cannot file with both the Physical Disability Board of Review (PDBR) and Board for Correction of Military (or Naval) Records (BCMR/BCNR) asking both to review the issue of whether you should have received a higher rating. Assuming you do file in both places at the same time, the BCMR/BCNR case may be placed in administrative hold until the PDBR application is decided. When a case is placed on administrative hold, the case is not closed, but no action is taken on the case. The applicant will be notified in writing when the case is placed in this status. If you ask the PDBR to review that rating you may not subsequently ask your service BCMR to review that rating, but you can ask your service BCMR/ to review other issues such as whether you should have been rated for additional medical conditions. If you do not go to the PDBR, you can ask the BCMR/BCNR to consider all of the issues relevant to your separation including the rating awarded for your unfit condition. As an example assume you were found unfit for a back problem and separated at 10% for this condition. You also had asthma problems but they were not found to be unfitting and thus were not part of your disability rating. You may only ask the PDBR to re-evaluate your back injury rating. In contrast, you could ask a BCMR/BCNR to change your record to show you were found unfit for both conditions. If you do not go to the PDBR, you could ask the BCMR/BCNR to do both; if you have been to the PDBR, the BCMR/BCNR will not review the rating for the back, but will consider whether you should have been found unfit (and received an additional rating) for the asthma or any other medical condition. There is no easy or clear-cut answer as to which one to choose. Nor is there any government organization available to help you make the choice and the government will not pay for an attorney to assist you in your decision.. The choice is important and highly dependent upon the facts and circumstances of your case. The applicant should weigh all the factors and make a choice only after careful consideration. You can contact your local veterans' service organizations several of which provide excellent advice and service on these issues. If you filed with the BCMR/BCNR prior to 27 JUN 08 (effective date of the DoDI), you will not have to choose between the BCMR/BCNR and the PDBR review. You should understand there are several differences between the scope and the consequences of the two rating reviews. These differences are: • Panel Composition: BCMR/BCNR panel is 3 civilians in grade of GS-15 and above wheras PDBR panel consist of 3 military officers in grade of 05/06 (or civilian equivalents); Board president 06 or civilian equivalent. • Review Authority: Veteran may apply to BCMR/BCNR for review of military record within three years of error/injustice (may be waived in the interest of justice) whereas with PDBR veteran can only apply with a medical separation 20% or less where member did not retire finalized between 11 SEP 01 and 31 DEC 09. • Review Process: With BCMR/BCNR once application is submitted, medical, personnel or legal advisories are prepared and served on applicant who has a chance to comment before panel review and vote wheras with PDBR once application is submitted the case is summarized by PDBR medical member (or other experts) for presentation to PDBR before vote. Applicant can submit records from non DOD sources. Thus, the PDBR is a much more limited review than a BCMR/BCNR review. • Panel Outcome: With BCMR/BCNR you receive a recommendation or decision whereas with PDBR you receive a recommendation only. • Decision Authority: With BCMR/BCNR Director, Review Boards Agencies (Army, Air Force, Assistant Secretary of the Navy (M&RA) or Assistant General Counsel (M&RA) (Navy) whereas with PDBR Director, Review Boards Agencies (Army, Air Force), Assistant Secretary of the Navy (M&RA) or Assistant General Counsel (M&RA) (Navy). • Burden of Proof: With BCMR/BCNR veteran has the burden of proof to establish error or injustice. There is a presumption of regularity whereas with PDBR veteran need not allege anything, review is accomplished upon request. • Effective Date of Correction and Benefits Computation: With BCMR/BCNR benefits are retroactive to date of separation whereas with PDBR benefits forward only as of date of final decision. • Standards: With BCMR/BCNR panel will correct errors in records and/or remove an injustice whereas with PDBR your rating is reviewed for fairness and accuracy only. • Impact of Subsequent VA Rating: With BCMR/BCNR within discretion of the Board Will whereas the PDBR will compare VA rating with particular attention to one given within 12 months of separation. [Source: DoD Military Health System News 3 Nov 08 ++] http://www.veteranslawproject.org/home/125/ Sun, 7 Dec 2008 02:42:00 -0600 http://www.veteranslawproject.org/home/125/ The Disabled American Veterans (DAV) organization has issued a call to all service members and veterans who think they may have illnesses related to burn pits in Afghanistan and Iraq: "Anyone out there who thinks they may have had a long-term health effect ... needs to file a complaint" with the Department of Veterans Affairs, said Kerry Baker, DAV's associate national legislative director. They should also Contact DAV so they can collect data and look for trends. Noting that it took Vietnam veterans 20 years to gain benefits for exposure to the defoliant Agent Orange, Baker said, "We don't want to see these guys have to wait 20 years. We want to see Congress act right away." Service members/veterans should be alert for respiratory-related problems, such as allergies, sleep apnea, trouble breathing, asthma and lymphocytic leukemia, as well as skin diseases. Of the 300 to 400 disability cases Baker said he has personally reviewed since the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan began, he said 30%t potentially could be linked to the burn pits. He said he's amazed by the numbers of troops reporting sleep apnea. Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI) also has demanded an investigation in a 31 OCT letter to Army Gen. David Petraeus, the new chief of U.S. Central Command. "After years of helping veterans of the Vietnam and Gulf Wars cope with the health effects of toxic battlefields, we have learned that we must take exposures to toxins seriously," Feingold wrote. He asked Petraeus to inform him of pending investigations into the "prevalence of health care conditions among those potentially exposed to toxins and particulates," as well as why more incinerators are not taking the place of burn pits in Iraq. Pentagon officials say no long-term illnesses are associated with the burn pits. But Military Times has received more than 50 letters from troops responding to a 3 NOV story, expressing concern about the time they spent near the billowing black clouds emitted by open pits where the military has burned its waste — everything from plastic bottles, which emit dioxins when burned at low temperatures, to petroleum products that emit benzene. One Air Force bioenvironmental engineer, Lt. Col. Darrin Curtis, was so worried by the chemicals he thought were being released into service members' living and work spaces at Joint Base Balad, Iraq, that he warned: "In my professional opinion, the known carcinogens and respiratory sensitizers released into the atmosphere by the burn pit present both an acute and chronic health hazard to our troops and the local population." Troops say they coughed their way through their deployments; several said respiratory problems and headaches continued long after their deployments ended. Air Force officials say they had cleaned up the Balad burn pit as of JUN 08 by using two incinerators and recycling plastic bottles. A report shows that tests in 2007 reflected an "acceptable risk" for cancer-causing and other poisonous toxins from the pit. "It's a fantastic before-and-after story," said Army Capt. Lynn Thompson, waste management officer for Balad from March to October. "The contractor who runs the place is planning to build a tennis court about 100 meters west of the trenches." The burn pits are now "trench burners," which burn hotter and produce less smoke. Still, he said, "Trench burners are no substitute for zero-emission incinerators. They are not intended to be a permanent solution. It is the best we can do with the funding available." While that's good news for troops on future deployments, the burn pits in Balad and across Iraq and Afghanistan have burned since the beginning of the wars — initially managed by troops working directly inside the pits to keep them burning. Service members told Military Times that they have asthma that was diagnosed after they left Balad; that they have allergy-like symptoms for the first time in their lives; that an unusual number of people in their units have developed cancer; that they are failing the runs on their physical fitness tests because of breathing problems; and that their headaches still haven't gone away months after returning home. One Army officer reported a brain tumor. "The fact that DoD says it's safe just makes no sense at all," Baker said. "Dioxin was used in herbicides in Vietnam. Now it's a byproduct of the burn pits. But you don't just have dioxin — you have a list of other chemicals. We need to look at the combined effect of all these chemicals." John Bradley, a legislative consultant for DAV, said the group can look to see whether there is a positive association between a deployment and disease, and that can lead VA to presume those diseases were caused by this war. The proof shouldn't rest on the veteran, he said. Army Staff Sgt. Danielle Nienajadlo said her time in Balad led to a nightmare that will haunt her for the rest of her life. As a vehicle mechanic, she spent much of her time at the motor pool near the burn pit. Her living quarters, she said, were within a couple of miles of the pit, and when they ran for physical fitness training, they inhaled the fumes as they passed the plume. She said the smoke constantly hung over her living quarters. "We were always covered in ash and dirt," she said. "People got bloody noses and headaches." Before she arrived, she had a full physical, including a blood workup, because she wanted to become a helicopter pilot. But upon arrival at Balad, she started coughing and blowing out black stuff. Soon, she lost her appetite. She felt nauseated, was constantly tired and had trouble breathing. She went to sick call several times, only to be told she might be stressed out. One night, she stayed up all night with hot sweats and a fever; she went to the emergency room and begged doctors to draw her blood. They did. Her white blood cell count was over the top: She had leukemia. She believes the burn pit served as a catalyst for her cancer. "I know I got it out there," she said. The cancer took over her lungs, and she couldn't breathe. After a full course of chemotherapy at Walter Reed Army Medical Center, Washington, D.C., where she remains, she said she's doing better, though she will be checked every three weeks for the next five years to make sure it doesn't come back. "I'm in remission," she said. "I know I'm blessed. If I'd waited another day, I would've died." [Source: NavyTimes Kelly Kennedy article 14 Nov 08 ++] http://www.veteranslawproject.org/home/124/ Sun, 7 Dec 2008 02:41:00 -0600 http://www.veteranslawproject.org/home/124/ A high-ranking U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs administrator from Guilderland NY has been placed on paid leave in the wake of an investigation into his office. Joseph Collorafi was suspended last month as chief of veterans affairs at the New York City regional VA office, said Keith Thompson, acting director of the office. The investigation revealed that someone in the regional office intentionally entered claim documents from veterans with incorrect dates — called "backdating" — into an internal database, VA spokeswoman Alison Aikele said Wednesday. "They would make it look like they were processing claims faster than they really were," said Aikele, who works in Washington, D.C. Changing the dates made it appear that the management was not "severely underperforming," according to Aikele. She said the leadership of the office in Manhattan was replaced and the individuals who left would not be returning. She maintained that no veterans were affected by the backdating. The VA office in New York City serves 800,000 veterans living in 31 counties. Collorafi, 62, commuted on Amtrak from his home in Guilderland to his job, which pays about $135,000 a year. James O'Neill, the VA's assistant inspector general for investigations, said a subsequent investigation revealed the shredding of documents. "We're looking at a couple of facilities to determine whether the shredding that occurred was intentional or not," O'Neill said. Destroying or altering federal documents could be a criminal offense. O'Neill did not confirm nor deny whether Collorafi's leave was linked to that probe. Collorafi declined repeated requests for comment on this story. His attorney, Peter Noone, said the investigation was not related to Collorafi. "I'm not sure that has anything to do with him," Noone said. This week, two veterans groups filed a lawsuit in District of Columbia federal court claiming the VA takes too long to process disability claims by veterans. The agency averages at least six months per claim, the process can stretch to a year and appeals take up to four years on average, according to the suit filed Monday by the Vietnam Veterans of America and the Veterans of Modern Warfare. In recent weeks, 41 of 57 regional VA offices across the country have come under scrutiny over the possible shredding of supporting evidence in claims filed by veterans. Next week, the Democratic chairman of the House Committee on Veterans' Affairs, U.S. Rep. Bob Filner of California, will hold a hearing on the destruction of the records. In 1987, when he was a lieutenant colonel in the National Guard, Collorafi was investigated by the FBI amid accusations that Collorafi and another officer, William F. McIntosh, filed requests for training pay for training they did not receive. The alleged incident, which involved a total of $1,500, occurred when Collorafi was director of the New York Guard's recruitment program, a post he held from 1980-85. The outcome of that case was not immediately known. O'Neill said the investigation into shredding at the New York regional office in Manhattan could take months. [Source: Albany Times Union Scott Waldman article 13 Nov 08 ++] http://www.veteranslawproject.org/home/123/ Thu, 13 Nov 2008 02:40:00 -0600 http://www.veteranslawproject.org/home/123/ The Labor Department has written new rules to expand Family and Medical Leave Act benefits that represent a dramatic change in how National Guard and reserve members and caregivers responsible for seriously injured troops will be treated by employers. One benefit, which applies immediately, allows up to 26 weeks of unpaid time off without fear of losing a civilian job for spouses, parents, siblings, children or other blood relatives taking care of seriously injured or disabled service members. The one catch is that it only applies while the injured service member is still in the military, and ends after separation or discharge. A second benefit, which employers have 60 days to implement, allows families of mobilized Guard and reserve members up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave, with their job fully protected, for a variety of deployment-related reasons, including attending military briefings, handling legal or financial issues, emergency child care arrangements and even taking a vacation of up to five days if the service member gets mid-deployment rest and recuperation leave. Families of active-duty members are not eligible for the deployment-related time off because Congress did not authorize it, Labor Department officials said. Joy Dunlap of the Military Officers Association of America said the two additions to the Family and Medical Leave Act, known as FMLA, will be a great boon to families who are struggling with the demands of ongoing military operations. But blocking active-duty families from the deployment leave is something her association plans to challenge, she said. "They included a wide variety of things, and I think this is going to be very positive for the family members of those covered," Dunlap said. "This will help them to take care of important household matters and help them protect marriages, and will help retention of service members." Dunlap also cautioned that Family and Medical Leave Act benefits are not available to everyone. Generally, benefits are provided only to workers at companies with 50 or more employees who are full-time workers with at least a year on the job, she said. Victoria Lipnic, assistant labor secretary for employment standards, said the rules attempt to be as generous as possible under limitations of the law but acknowledged there are restrictions. "We were as generous as we could be," she said. Caregiver leave has been authorized under FMLA since January, but regulations explaining how companies are supposed to apply it have only now been finalized, Lipnic said. Under the rules, a caregiver can take up to 26 weeks of unpaid leave over one year, with the clock beginning on the first day of leave. The policy allows leave to be taken only once per injury, but more than one person in a family might be qualified. If there is a second injury or a subsequent diagnosis of a new problem, such as post-traumatic stress disorder, the benefit could be used again, Lipnic said. While FMLA applies to a limited group of immediate family members, military caregiver leave has a broader definition under which spouses, siblings, parents, children and next-of-kin — the nearest blood relative — could qualify. In extended families, more than one blood relative could receive the leave, Lipnic said. The deployment leave program, which applies to Guard and reserve families, is aimed at people whose lives are "turned upside down" and who "have a lot of issues to deal with," Lipnic said. There are several broad categories in which the leave can be used, she said. For example, unpaid leave could be taken if the Guard or reserve member must deploy with less than seven days' notice; attend military-related events like briefings; accommodate school activities or emergency child care; make financial or legal arrangements; attend counseling, which would not necessarily have to be provided by a health care provider; ot attend post-deployment events, such as arrival ceremonies and briefings. Regulations also have a catch-all clause that allows time off for other events not covered if the employer and employee agree, Lipnic said. In what may become one of the more controversial aspects of the new rules, unpaid leave could be used for up to five days of vacation if the service member received rest and recuperation leave while deployed. The five-day leave would be provided each time the service member receives R&R. Lipnic said the deployment leave provisions were worked out after discussions with military associations and the Defense Department. While regulations are being published now, employers technically do not have to provide deployment leave until JAN because they have 60 days to implement the regulations, she said. A key reason the rules are being expanded for military families was 2007 testimony before a House subcommittee by the wife of an injured Army sergeant. Sarah Wade, the wife of Army Sgt. Edward Wade, told a House panel that after her husband was injured by a roadside bomb in Iraq, she tried to hold on to her restaurant job in Chapel Hill, N.C., while making three trips a week to visit her husband, who was being treated 250 miles away at Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington, D.C. Wade said she was fired after about 15 months for being away from work too much and also was forced to drop out of college. [Source: ArmyTimes Rick Maze article 14 Nov 08 ++] http://www.veteranslawproject.org/home/122/ Fri, 14 Nov 2008 02:40:00 -0600 http://www.veteranslawproject.org/home/122/ Under pressure from Congress and following the Army's lead, the DoD has imposed a more rigorous screening process on the services for separating troubled members due to "personality disorder." The intent is to ensure that, in the future, no members who suffer from wartime stress get tagged with having a pre-existing personality disorder which leaves them ineligible for service disability compensation. Since the attacks of 9/11, more than 22,600 service members have been discharged for personality disorder. Nearly 3400 of them, or 15%, had served in combat or imminent danger zones. Advocates for these veterans contend that at least some of them were suffering from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) or traumatic brain injury but it was easier and less costly to separate them for personality disorder. By definition, personality disorders existed before a member entered service so they do not deemed a service-related disability rating. A disability rating of 30% or higher, which most PTSD sufferers receive, can mean lifelong access to military health care and on-base shopping. Over the last 18 months, lawmakers and advocates for veterans have criticized Defense and service officials for relying too often on personality disorder separations to release member who deployed to Iraq, Afghanistan or other another areas of tension in the Global War on Terrorism. A revised DoD instruction (No. 1332.14), which took effect without public announcement 28 AUG 08, responds to that criticism. It only allows separation for personality disorder for members currently or formerly deployed to imminent danger areas if: 1) The diagnosis by a psychiatrist or a PhD-level psychologist is corroborated by a peer or higher-level mental health professional; 2) If the diagnosis is endorsed by the surgeon general of the service, and 3) If the diagnosis took into account a possible tie or "co-morbidity" with symptoms of PTSD or war-related mental injury or illness. Sam Retherford, director of officer and enlisted personnel management in the Office of the Secretary of Defense, said adding "rigor and discipline" to the process when separating deployed members for personality disorder is "very important," considering what is at stake for the member. Last year several congressional hearings focused on overuse of personality disorder separation after The Nation magazine exposed apparent abuses in a MAR 07 article. It described the experience of Army Specialist Jon Town. In OCT 04, while Town stood in the doorway of his battalion's headquarters in Ramadi, Iraq, an enemy rocket exploded into the wall above his head, knocking him unconscious. When he came to, Town was numb all over, bleeding from his ears, and had shrapnel wounds in his neck. For two years he struggled with deafness, loss of memory and depression before the Army, in SEP 06, separated Town after seven years' service. He was separated for a pre-existing personality disorder and without disability benefits. Writer Joshua Kors suggested there might be thousands of veterans like Town, separated administratively to save the services billions of dollars in benefits. Last year, moved by this story and others, the Senate adopted an amendment to the fiscal 2008 defense authorization bill from now president-elect Barack Obama (D-IL), Kit Bond (R-MO) and Joseph Liberman (IND-CT). It directed Defense officials to report on service use of personality disorder separations, and the GAO to study how well the services follow DoD's rules for processing such separations. The Army meanwhile reviewed its own use of personality disorder separations for more than 800 soldiers who had wartime deployments. That review quickly found some "appalling" lapses, said an official, including incomplete files and missing counseling statements. A few months ago the Army tightened its own rules for using personality disorder separations. In JUN, the Defense Department reported to Congress that it would add rigor to its personality disorder separation policy, previewing the changes implemented in late AUG. The Navy strongly had opposed the changes because it frequently uses personality disorder separations to remove sailors found too immature or undisciplined to cope with life at sea. Requiring their surgeon general to review every personality disorder separation from ships deployed in combat theaters would be too burdensome, the Navy argued. But Defense officials insisted on the changes. The DoD report in JUN showed the Navy led all services in personality disorder separations. For fiscal years 2002 through 2007, the Navy total was 7554 versus 5923 for the Air Force, 5652 for the Army and 3527 for the Marine Corps. The Army led in personality disorder separations to members who had wartime deployments, with a total of 1480 over six years. The Navy total was 1155, the Marine Corps 455 and the Air Force 282. DoD said it found no indication that personality disorder diagnoses of deployed members were prone to systematic or widespread error. Nor did internal studies show a strong correlation between personality disorder separations and PTSD, brain injury or other mental disorders. "Still, the Department shares Congress' concern regarding the possible use of personality disorder as the basis for administratively separating this class of service member," the report said. In late OCT, GAO released its findings based on a review of service jackets for 312 members separated for personality disorder from four military installations. It said the services were not reliably compliant even with the pre-AUG regulation governing separations. For example, only 40 to 78% of enlisted member separated for personality disorder had documents in their files showing that a psychiatrist or qualified psychologist determined that their disorder affected their ability to function in service. [Source: Stars & Stripes Tom Philpott article 14 Nov 08 ++] http://www.veteranslawproject.org/home/121/ Fri, 14 Nov 2008 02:39:00 -0600 http://www.veteranslawproject.org/home/121/ A key lawmaker is urging President-elect Barack Obama to move slowly and cautiously on his pledge to grant all veterans medical attention at Veterans Affairs Department facilities, or else risk clogging they system and harming quality. Obama said repeatedly during the campaign that one of his first acts as president would be to sign an executive order permitting veterans with non-service-related disabilities to seek medical care within the VA system. These so-called "Priority Group 8" veterans make up the lion's share of living American veterans. Vets are designated as Priority 8 when their income exceeds a pre-set threshold, which varies from county to county based on the level of affluence in a given location. They are the most affluent category of vets, but some earn as little as $28,430 a year. Until 2003, these veterans were permitted to seek treatment at VA health facilities, but the department announced a freeze on new Priority 8 enrollments that year to alleviate a 300,000-plus patient backlog and quell a funding crisis. Chet Edwards, chairman of the House Appropriations Military Construction, Veterans' Affairs and Related Agencies Subcommittee, says that he will fight to fund VA health care for Priority 8 veterans but that he wishes to do so at a gradual pace. "Even if we had unlimited dollars, it would take time to hire all the doctors and nurses," said Edwards, D-Texas. "We don't want to double, triple, quadruple the wait times. I would urge the administration to maintain the goal but spread it out equally." This approach would involve continuing to raise the Priority 8 income threshold over a number of years to gradually include more and more veterans. Congress authorized $375 million in the fiscal 2009 Military Construction and Veterans Affairs spending measure (PL 110-329) to raise the Priority 8 income threshold and bring more of these veterans into health-care-eligible categories. But it is unlikely that the amount appropriated will do much to move the threshold to a significantly higher income level, according to a Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee aide. So far, the Obama presidential transition team has declined to disclose details on the implementation of his campaign promise, but it is certain to be expensive, however the new administration decides to do it. If Obama orders a plan to gradually raise the threshold to eventually cover all veterans, it would require Congress to continue to increase record funding for the VA year after year. Aides note that if he wants to make all Priority 8 veterans eligible at the same time, it would likely require an emergency supplemental spending bill that would total billions of dollars. With Congress already providing $700 billion to help bail out failing banks and other businesses, the government's capacity to provide another supplemental spending measure is questionable. Obama will have plenty of backers on Capitol Hill for his VA medical coverage plans. Rep. Bob Filner, chairman of the House Veterans' Affairs Committee, contends that there are actions Congress can take to bring all Priority 8 veterans into the VA health care system at once. For example, the VA currently has an inefficient system for recouping money from private health insurance companies when covered veterans go to the VA for treatment, said Filner (D-CA). Installing more effective tracking technology would reward the VA with billions of dollars, he added. "I have talked to people who have systems to do this, and they are telling me about several billion dollars, easy," Filner said. "I have seen $3 billion or $4 billion estimated." Filner also said Medicare should reimburse the department when Medicare-eligible veterans get treatment at the VA. "We are saving them money," he said. Sen. Patty Murra (D-WA), a potential chairwoman of the Veterans' Affairs Committee in the 111th Congress and a member of the Military Construction and Veterans' Affairs Appropriations Subcommittee, is also a strong proponent of giving Priority 8 veterans full VA health care eligibility. "While the VA health care system certainly has its share of problems, closing its doors to thousands of veterans who have served us is not the answer to fixing them," Murray said. "That means expanding access, but it also means providing the funding and resources to hire doctors and staff, invest in VA infrastructure, do research, and decrease the wait on benefit claims. We make a promise to all veterans when they sign up to serve that, regardless of their future income or health needs, they will receive VA medical care." Like Edwards, veterans' advocacy groups favor a more gradual approach. Their main concern is that opening up the VA's health facilities to at least 400,000 new patients could put the VA on the same faulty financial footing that plagued the department before 2003. They also say it is not just a matter of securing funding; they say the VA would need time to put the money to use by hiring new doctors and clinical staffers, building and leasing new facilities, and procuring new equipment. "If he just opens the gates wide open and says everyone is eligible now to enroll for VA health care, then we would find ourselves back in that same situation again," said Joseph Violante, national legislative director for Disabled American Veterans. "While the VA has gotten nice budgets the last two years, it will not be in a position to care for a large influx of new veterans," Violante said. "We would wind up getting rationed care for all the veterans that are in the system, including the service-connected disabled." Rationed care is a large concern at a time when thousands of service members are returning home from Iraq and Afghanistan with severe injuries. "We are concerned that adding more veterans into the system may take away priority for the service-connected wounded, especially the most severe service-connected," said Bob Wallace, executive director at Veterans of Foreign Wars. "They need to be taken care of before anybody else." [Source: CQ Veterans' Affairs Matthew M. Johnson article 18 Nov 08 ++] http://www.veteranslawproject.org/home/120/ Thu, 18 Dec 2008 02:37:00 -0600 http://www.veteranslawproject.org/home/120/ Effective 1 JAN 09, Tricare will reduce the rates for Tricare Reserve Select (TRS). Monthly premiums for TRS individual coverage will drop 44% from $81.00 to $47.51, and TRS family coverage will drop 29% from $253.00 to $180.17. The 2009 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), section 704, required Tricare to analyze Reserve Select costs from 2006 and 2007, and set new rates for 2009. "Now that TRS has been in place for several years, we were able to calculate premiums for 2009 from actual cost data obtained in earlier years," said Army Maj. Gen. Elder Granger, deputy director of Tricare Management Activity. "It is important to provide high quality and affordable healthcare coverage for our National Guard and Reserve families." Established in 2005, TRS is a premium-based health plan for National Guard and Reserve personnel available for purchase by members of the Selected Reserve who are not eligible for or enrolled in Federal Employee Health Benefit plans. TRS provides a health plan option to members of the Selected Reserve and their families when they are not on active duty status. The TRS plan delivers coverage similar to Tricare Standard and Extra to eligible members who purchase the coverage and pay monthly premiums. TRS also features continuously open enrollment. For more information about TRS refer to the Tricare Web site at http://www.tricare.mil. [Source: Tricare News Release No. 08-114 dtd 19 Nov 08 ++] http://www.veteranslawproject.org/home/119/ Tue, 18 Nov 2008 02:28:00 -0600 http://www.veteranslawproject.org/home/119/ Gulf War syndrome is real and afflicts about 25% of the 700,000 U.S. troops who served in the 1991 conflict, a U.S. report said 17 NOV. The report broke with most earlier studies acknowledging two chemical exposures consistently associated with the disorder -- one to the drug pyridostigmine bromide given to soldiers to protect against nerve gas and the other used (often overused) to protect against desert pests -- were cited as causes in the congressionally mandated report. "The extensive body of scientific research now available consistently indicates that Gulf War illness is real, that it is a result of neurotoxic exposures during Gulf War deployment, and that few veterans have recovered or substantially improved with time," according to the 450-page report presented to Secretary of Veterans Affairs James Peake. The report bolstered the hopes of thousands of U.S. and allied veterans who have struggled to have their varied neurological symptoms, including memory loss, concentration problems, rashes and widespread pain, recognized by the government. The government for years maintained that the symptoms manifested were because of stress or other unknown causes. The panel of scientists and veterans also called upon Congress to appropriate $60 million annually to conduct research into finding a cure for the disorder calling it a 'national obligation. The report, which went to Veterans Affairs Secretary James Peake on the 17th, said, "The Defense Department cut research money from $30 million in 2001 to less than $5 million in 2006. Both agencies have identified some of their research as Gulf War research even when it did not entirely focus on the issue. Substantial federal Gulf War research funding has been used for studies that have little or no relevance to the health of Gulf War veterans,' the panel concluded." The new report http://sph.bu.edu/insider/index.php?%20option=com_content&task=view&id=1579&Itemid=150 is the product of the Research Advisory Committee on Gulf War Veterans' Illnesses (RAC-GWVI), which was chartered by Congress because many members thought that veterans were not receiving adequate care. On the 15-member committee appointed in 2002, scientists made up about two-thirds and the rest were veterans. Some scientists were not convinced that the new report had found the long-sought smoking gun. "Even though we know that the DoD did ship pesticides, it doesn't mean that the people who were exposed to them were the ones who ended up having symptoms," said Dr. Lynn Goldman, a professor of environmental health sciences at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore who has worked on previous reports on the illness. "We felt that there needed to be better records of where people were, what they were exposed to and their prior health status going in." Several reports had already been issued by the prestigious Institute of Medicine, an arm of the National Academy of Sciences, blaming stress and other unknown causes for the soldiers' symptoms. There's something about going to the Gulf and serving in the Gulf that has caused something bad and persistent and real, but we have not found any evidence for a specific cause," said Dr. Harold C. Sox, chairman of a 2000 institute study and editor of the journal Annals of Internal Medicine. Veterans blame the institute's reports for the difficulties they've faced in getting treatment for their problems. According to RAC-GWVI, at least 64 pesticides containing 37 active ingredients were used during the war. They were sprayed not only around living and dining areas, but also on tents and uniforms, White said. There was less evidence to support a link to the U.S. demolition of Iraqi munitions near Khamisiyah, which may have exposed about 100,000 troops to nerve gases stored at the facility, according to the panel. The panel said it could not rule out a link between the illness and exposure to oil well fires and multiple vaccinations. But it could find no evidence linking it to depleted uranium shells, anthrax vaccine and infectious diseases. In addition to increased rates of memory loss, fatigue and pain, Gulf War veterans have higher rates of brain cancer and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, or Lou Gehrig's disease, the panel also noted. "The tragedy here is that there are currently no treatments," said panel chair James H. Binns, a former deputy assistant secretary of defense and a Vietnam veteran. "The tragedy here is that there are currently no treatments," said the panel's chairman, James H. Binns, a former principal deputy assistant secretary of Defense and a Vietnam veteran. Binns emphasized that the report was not written to yield recriminations about past actions. "The importance . . . lies in what is done with it in the future," he said. "It's a blueprint for the new administration." [Source: Los Angeles Times article 18 Nov 08 ++] http://www.veteranslawproject.org/home/118/ Thu, 20 Nov 2008 02:34:01 -0600 http://www.veteranslawproject.org/home/118/ The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) announced 17 NOV special procedures for processing claims from veterans, family members, and survivors whose applications for financial benefits from VA may have been mishandled by VA personnel. These special procedures come after an audit by VA's Inspector General found documents waiting to be shredded at some of VA's regional offices that, if disposed of, could have affected the financial benefits awarded to veterans and survivors. "I am deeply concerned that improper actions by a few VA employees could have caused any veterans to receive less than their full entitlement to benefits earned by their service to our nation," said Secretary of Veterans Affairs Dr. James B. Peake. "In rectifying this unacceptable lapse, VA will be guided by two principles – full accountability for VA staff and ensuring veterans receive the benefit of the doubt if receipt of a document by VA is in question," he added. VA worked with the six largest veterans' service organizations in developing these special new procedures. The procedures will assist veterans and survivors in establishing that an application or another document was previously submitted to VA, but was not properly acted upon by VA and was not retained in the veteran's records. The special procedures cover missing documents submitted by a veteran or other applicant for VA benefits during the 18-month period between 14 APR 07 and 14 OCT 08. VA will process any missing applications or evidence resubmitted under these special procedures as if the document had been originally submitted on the date identified by the claimant. Veterans and other applicants have one year, or until 17 NOV 09, to file previously submitted documents under these special procedures. Veterans not covered by these special rules who believe relevant material is missing from their files can submit additional documentation at any time. An award of benefits earlier than 14 APR 07, may be established if there is credible corroborating evidence supporting an earlier date of document submission. When this problem of mishandled documents was uncovered on 14 OCT 08, VA immediately ceased all shredding activities while it established tighter controls over all claims documents and conducted special training for all employees who process veterans' applications. All regional office shredding equipment and operations are now under the strict control of the facility records management officer. Every employee has been given a separate receptacle for papers appropriate for shredding. These receptacles are subject to review by supervisors and other officials. Before any claims document can be shredded now, it must now be reviewed by two people and the facility records management officer. VA's Inspector General is continuing to investigate a small number of cases where inappropriate shredding may be traceable to a specific employee. Legal and disciplinary action will be initiated to hold accountable any employee who has acted improperly. Veterans and others who are concerned about missing documents and want more information on the special processing procedures may call 1-800-827-1000 for assistance or go to http://www.vba.va.gov/VBA/specialprocedures_qa.asp . They may also send an e-mail inquiry through IRIS@va.gov or visit their local VA regional office. VA representatives will review VA's record systems to verify receipt of applications and supporting evidence and will assist anyone desiring to file a claim under the special processing procedures for missing documents. [Source: News Release 17 Nov 08 ++] =============================== http://www.veteranslawproject.org/home/116/ Mon, 17 Nov 2008 02:33:00 -0600 http://www.veteranslawproject.org/home/116/