Jump to content



Search



Advertise Here

 

Toggle shoutbox Shoutbox Open the Shoutbox in a popup

@  britton : (23 October 2014 - 08:14 AM) I Got It Tbird Thank You
@  Tbird : (22 October 2014 - 05:26 AM) Britton Sent You A Pm
@  britton : (21 October 2014 - 10:05 PM) Tbird, I Sent A Donation To Hadit Via Pay Pal...i Hope You Got It?
@  raven316 : (21 October 2014 - 01:59 PM) Glasses
@  iceturkee : (20 October 2014 - 06:50 AM) Good Luck Plum
@  Notorious Kelly : (19 October 2014 - 06:32 AM) I Wish You All The Best With That, Plum!
@  me.plum : (18 October 2014 - 01:09 PM) Hearing For Bva 11-19 At 8:30 Wow!!! Thanks Everyone!!!
@  Tbird : (18 October 2014 - 12:30 PM) Buckeye46 Thank For Contributing Our Fund Raiser
@  Notorious Kelly : (17 October 2014 - 02:11 PM) Impressive Site, Kimmy. I Bookmarked. Thanks! :)
@  Kimmy : (17 October 2014 - 08:31 AM) I Recently Discover The Site. It Is Very Detailed With Info On Conditions And Ratings.
@  Kimmy : (17 October 2014 - 08:28 AM) Has Anyone Here Been To This Site? Http://www.militarydisabilitymadeeasy.com/
@  Tbird : (17 October 2014 - 08:06 AM) Snake Eyes Thank You For Remembering Us. Congratulations On Your Retro.
@  Snake Eyes : (16 October 2014 - 07:04 PM) Thinking Of Donating A Portion Of My Retro On Next Claim. Smaller Amount Coming Beginning Of November. Thanks For The Good Work!
@  britton : (13 October 2014 - 06:13 AM) Hi There T Bird Shout Backatcha
@  Tbird : (13 October 2014 - 06:04 AM) Britton Ahoy There Matey Give You A Shout Out Back
@  Tbird : (13 October 2014 - 06:00 AM) Thank You Michael M For Your Contribution To Our Funding Campaign
@  Tbird : (13 October 2014 - 05:57 AM) Thank You Elliot K For Your Contribution To Our Funding Campaign
@  Timothy11 : (12 October 2014 - 05:58 PM) Retro Pay
@  britton : (12 October 2014 - 10:10 AM) Hey Everyone!!!......i Give A Shout!!!.......:)
@  Notorious Kelly : (11 October 2014 - 04:18 PM) Hey- There's Britton Right On Top Of The Dealy Bobber!

Photo
- - - - -

Award Letter


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
16 replies to this topic

#1 Berta

 
Berta

    HadIt.com Elder/SVR Radio Panelist

  • SVR
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 28824 posts
 

Posted 14 May 2009 - 01:54 PM

hours ago I irised VARO Buffalo to remind them I won 6 claims issues under Nehmer-I wanted to do this hopefully before the award letter came .

I just got the award letter in the mail-

They awarded me SC death but forgot to mention the money!!!!!
And they skillfully completely ignored that this is now a death directly due to AO.

I am calling up NVLSP- I am livid -

They also said they enclosed a pamphlet as to additional benefits I am entitled to but the pamphlet wasnt in the envelope.

And then they sent a separate statement that my CUEs are still on appeal-
but my award should render them moot and they still have to decide SMC.

They cannot do a single thing right- the BVA decision clearly states I an entitled to offset FTCA refund as well as other ancillary benefits- what a bunch of DOPES!

I will re send my Iris as a complaint and then maybe I will get respond from someone there who is literate

Advertise Here

 

#2 Berta

 
Berta

    HadIt.com Elder/SVR Radio Panelist

  • SVR
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 28824 posts
 

Posted 14 May 2009 - 02:05 PM

sorry for double post- I irised them and it felt good to send as complaint-

I referred them to my Iris of a few hours ago-I did their work for them-
I told the VSCM ( Looks like a shuffle has occurred there on the past VSCM-she is not VSCM anymore) that if he reads my prior Iris he can write a proper award letter-
as I wrote it for him- the dope

#3 john999

 
john999

    HadIt.com Elder

  • HadIt.com Elder
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 22262 posts
 

Posted 14 May 2009 - 03:09 PM

Can they be that dumb on purpose?

#4 Testvet

 
Testvet

    HadIt.com Elder

  • HadIt.com Elder
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2478 posts
 

Posted 14 May 2009 - 03:49 PM

John they regularly do stuff like that to me so the answer is YES they can and do things like this DUMB all the time even after it seems like they know they have been caught and it's time to quit playing, yet the games continue so it has to be on purpose who is going to hold them accountable?

#5 Berta

 
Berta

    HadIt.com Elder/SVR Radio Panelist

  • SVR
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 28824 posts
 

Posted 14 May 2009 - 04:03 PM

They owe me almost a 6 figure award- it will be over 6 figures when I figure out the accrued SMC .

They do this deliberately-

I called the VSCM at his desk phone and left message for him and I filed Iris complaint-

I think when they stall for so long ( this all took over 6 years but they had all the evidence in 2003 and 2004-the same evidence the BVA awarded on -on April 29th)
they know the retro is a biggie-

I could not send them a letter last week-PC problems- but I have the evidence attached to the letter as prove of what they owe me-
and I listed it all in my iris complaint- of course they have all this in the c file anyhow-

They will have to CUE themselves on both decisions I just got.

But what great evidence I have now for the next Sub COmmiittee hearing in June (oversight/investigations) to prove how incompetent they truly are. :unsure:

Unless they fix this fast.The BVA award covers all of my 6 pending issues.

I got Rod Peace with Honor-so I dont mind playing their little war game for the money-

But it gets me that many widows out there would not have a good rep or be able to handle a award letter like this themselves.That is a Travesty.

#6 Quint7

 
Quint7

    E-6 Petty Officer 1st Class

  • Senior Chief Petty Officer
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 394 posts
 

Posted 14 May 2009 - 05:22 PM

Berta, I don't know if you remember a few weeks ago when Buffalo sent me a decision letter telling me that my knee had always been rated at 20% and would continue to be rated at the level, even though it was going from 10% to 20% that I had requested a DRO hearing on. I had sent an IRIS about it and never got a reply. A week or so later I got a decision letter telling me that my knee had been approved for 20% (along with my IVDS/DDD). Long story short, I already got my retro a week and a half ago and whadda ya know, 2 days after that I get a reply to the IRIS about the first decision letter saying "that was a typo, please ignore that letter, your knee is rated at 10% pending the DRO hearing results".

Stay on them! I think that we have Buffalo scared. I was going to drop my possible CUE for a EED for my knee, but ya know what, $12000 or so in retro sounds good to me so I think I'm gonna file it after all. they seem pretty willing to apply the law fairly right now.

Sorry for the set-back, but you will win!

#7 allan

 
allan

    Content Contributor

  • HadIt.com Elder
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13030 posts
 

Posted 14 May 2009 - 05:50 PM

They are jacking you around Berta. Lawless ratfinks.

This is how they treat the widow of a Vet they killed. They play with them like a sadistic game.

#8 Wings

 
Wings

    HadIt.com Elder

  • HadIt.com Elder
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12762 posts
 

Posted 14 May 2009 - 08:06 PM

x
x
x

Berta, Would the General Counsel assist you? Who is responsible for paying you; which VA Office has the authority, would that be the Finance Office in Austen, Texas? ~Wings

#9 Stretch

 
Stretch

    HadIt.com Elder/SVR Radio IT

  • SVR
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1932 posts
 

Posted 14 May 2009 - 09:58 PM

Sometimes you get lucky and the new VSCM is better than the last one. It just takes a while for them to get up to speed when they first step into the job.

#10 luvHIM

 
luvHIM

    E-7 Chief Petty Officer

  • Senior Chief Petty Officer
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 632 posts
 

Posted 14 May 2009 - 10:00 PM

Berta, we all know that if anyone can get them straightened out...it is you...sorry for all the hassles they seem to still be putting you through. It will all be over soon.

Six figure retro is definitely worth the pursuit.

#11 Berta

 
Berta

    HadIt.com Elder/SVR Radio Panelist

  • SVR
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 28824 posts
 

Posted 15 May 2009 - 05:52 AM

What gets me the most
(every single award letter I ever got since 1996 was wrong and I had to fight them but it didnt take long to correct them-to include Chap 35, CHAMPVA -every single one)
is that this claim was filed due to Agent Orange.

is that the BVA decision stated that Rod's AO exposure caused his misdiagnosed diabetes and also his death since it was never treated.

The VARO never mentioned this at all in the award. The reasons and bases does not account for the nexus to AO at all.That is an insult to my husband.

(and of course they never mention I proved the additional malpractice).

But they do grant direct SC death.

Wings- good idea- I am calling the regional counsel up here-instead of in DC because he is the one who awarded my CUE some years ago-a CUE claim both VARO and BVA denied and I didnt pursue to CAVC.

They sent this out so fast they did not realise they have to get a hold of him for the offset refund anyhow.

I love the lawyers who work for VA.They speak the same lanquage we do here- 38 CFR-
and understand it intimately-
unlike the VARO employees who do piss poor work and get paid wonderful GS level salaries.

This is exactly what many VAROs did a decade or more ago- they withheld Millions of dollars in retro that should have been paid to AO vets and widows

They must think we are so dumb we will allow them to get away with that again.

I will get this squared away

#12 free_spirit_etc

 
free_spirit_etc

    E-9 Master Chief Petty Officer

  • Master Chief Petty Officer
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1966 posts
 

Posted 17 May 2009 - 12:59 PM

Can they be that dumb on purpose?


I do believe they can be that dumb on purpose.


§ 3.54 Marriage dates. states:
A surviving spouse may qualify for pension, compensation, or dependency and indemnity compensation if the marriage to the veteran occurred before or during his or her service or, if married to him or her after his or her separation from service, before the applicable date stated in his section.

© Dependency and indemnity compensation. Dependency and indemnity compensation payable under 38 U.S.C. 1310(a) may be paid to the surviving spouse of a veteran who died on or after January 1, 1957, who was married to the veteran:

(1) Before the expiration of 15 years after the termination of the period of service in which the injury or disease causing the death of the veteran was incurred or aggravated, or


(2) For 1 year or more, or

(3) For any period of time if a child was born of the marriage, or was born to them before the marriage.
(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 1304)

My husband retired from the Air Force in October 1998. (Served from 1970 - 1998) We were married April 2, 2006. That is CLEARLY within 15 years of his termination from the period of service in which the injury or disease was incurred.

My latest letter from the VA denies benefits because the law states you have to be married to the veteran for a year or more.

§ 3.54 is very clear. It is not hard to read. There are only 3 categories. Actually, being married within 15 years of the termination of service is the FIRST category. If you do NOT fall into THAT category, THEN you are only eligible if you are married for more than a year or have child with the veteran.

However, the VA was able to be "dumb on purpose" enough to IGNORE the FIRST category of entitlement for a widow, and make a determination that focused on the SECOND one.

This is not a matter of not looking hard enough to discover if I am eligible. They had to skip over the first category to read the second one.

And though I know they are often pressed for time, it seems like it would have taken LESS time to actually read all THREE sentences in § 3.54 (or even the FIRST sentence) than it took them to write a bogus denial letter based on bogus interpretations of the law.

Taking it one step further, the letter was actually a denial of the claim for HELPLESS CHILD benefits.

Though my son is is developmentally disabled, was disabled prior to the age of 18, and was LEGALLY ADOPTED by my husband - the VA determined he can not be entitled to helpless child benefits because *I* was not married to my husband for over a year before he died.

Yes, they can be that dumb on PURPOSE.

"....and for his widow, and his orphan"

Free


#13 Berta

 
Berta

    HadIt.com Elder/SVR Radio Panelist

  • SVR
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 28824 posts
 

Posted 18 May 2009 - 06:03 AM

I am still reeling over their decision on my daughter's Chapter 35-
They awarded her one month of Chapter 35!!!!She is a veteran.

The dopes could not apparently read her application where it specifically asks for any military service period nor could they read her DD 214 attached to it.

I prepared her NOD and worded it very tough-and I attached the exact Chapter 35 regs they were too dumb to read.Actually they were same regs they had attached to the one month award letter-

Three weeks later she got the proper Chap 35 award -7 more years of
educational benefits due to 7 years of military service- I wonder how many times they got away with crap like that when a veteran is also eligible under deceased veteran's record for Chapter 35.

Only my accrued award letter of 1996 seemed to be proper -but now they have to send me one more year of accrued under Nehmer- I sure am glad I saved everything from them.

These errors are either deliberate, or these raters are under such extreme pressure that they cannot possibly make proper awards-
as you all know many more VARO employees are dropping dimes on them these days-as to their working conditions-
and the VA some time ago hired newbys to help reduce the backlog-which is worse than ever-

A few training sessions mean nothing when it comes to VA case law- it takes years of experience to learn all this stuff and no one knows it all-not even the veteran's lawyers

#14 deltaj

 
deltaj

    HadIt.com Elder

  • HadIt.com Elder
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 734 posts
 

Posted 24 May 2009 - 05:19 AM

I do believe they can be that dumb on purpose.


§ 3.54 Marriage dates. states:
A surviving spouse may qualify for pension, compensation, or dependency and indemnity compensation if the marriage to the veteran occurred before or during his or her service or, if married to him or her after his or her separation from service, before the applicable date stated in his section.

© Dependency and indemnity compensation. Dependency and indemnity compensation payable under 38 U.S.C. 1310(a) may be paid to the surviving spouse of a veteran who died on or after January 1, 1957, who was married to the veteran:

(1) Before the expiration of 15 years after the termination of the period of service in which the injury or disease causing the death of the veteran was incurred or aggravated, or


(2) For 1 year or more, or

(3) For any period of time if a child was born of the marriage, or was born to them before the marriage.
(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 1304)

My husband retired from the Air Force in October 1998. (Served from 1970 - 1998) We were married April 2, 2006. That is CLEARLY within 15 years of his termination from the period of service in which the injury or disease was incurred.

My latest letter from the VA denies benefits because the law states you have to be married to the veteran for a year or more.

§ 3.54 is very clear. It is not hard to read. There are only 3 categories. Actually, being married within 15 years of the termination of service is the FIRST category. If you do NOT fall into THAT category, THEN you are only eligible if you are married for more than a year or have child with the veteran.

However, the VA was able to be "dumb on purpose" enough to IGNORE the FIRST category of entitlement for a widow, and make a determination that focused on the SECOND one.

This is not a matter of not looking hard enough to discover if I am eligible. They had to skip over the first category to read the second one.

And though I know they are often pressed for time, it seems like it would have taken LESS time to actually read all THREE sentences in § 3.54 (or even the FIRST sentence) than it took them to write a bogus denial letter based on bogus interpretations of the law.

Taking it one step further, the letter was actually a denial of the claim for HELPLESS CHILD benefits.

Though my son is is developmentally disabled, was disabled prior to the age of 18, and was LEGALLY ADOPTED by my husband - the VA determined he can not be entitled to helpless child benefits because *I* was not married to my husband for over a year before he died.

Yes, they can be that dumb on PURPOSE.

"....and for his widow, and his orphan"

Free

I agree with you on the wording of the regulation that the word or is significant. I've got a few ideas for you. Look to the bottom of the regulation in Code of Federal Regulations and see if it lists the authority found in Title 38 U.S.C. Perhaps V.A. is interpreting this regulation contrary to the law it was enacted under the authority of. Next go to the website of the U.S. Court of Veterans Appeals and search cases under 3.54 to see if there are any similar cases that can help you craft your notice of disagreement with V.A.'s decision.

#15 gdsnide

 
gdsnide

    E-7 Chief Petty Officer

  • Senior Chief Petty Officer
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 556 posts
 

Posted 24 May 2009 - 09:23 AM

John they regularly do stuff like that to me so the answer is YES they can and do things like this DUMB all the time even after it seems like they know they have been caught and it's time to quit playing, yet the games continue so it has to be on purpose who is going to hold them accountable?


T.....I have to say what the VA is doing is far from dumb.
As I have stated on here before ....I read some where that only about 8% of Vets ever file a NOD so the VA is coming out way on the high side.
Also, if one doesn't know of a site like this one, they have no idea what the ultimate goal of the VA is & my opinion ( Not very smart but I can have an Opinion HA) is that the VA does all this to frustrate the VET & they will just give up or miss a due date of which the VA has none.
Or maybe just maybe the Vet will die & no one will have any idea they could still pursue the case.
The best thing the US (VA) could do is stop being in so damn many wars & then there wouldn't be so many Vets messed up by the incompetance that runs amuck in the VA/& or military.
I also read the Military was using Agent Orange at 600 times it's stated amount to get the result they desired
As all of these stupid things that are done come to light I would say the majority of Veterans are not even aware they are eligible for an award or figure it was so ong ago it wouldn't do any good any way to apply.
What the VA ought to do is send a shredder to each Vet that applies & tell him/her to put their claim in there & that is the new way claims are being handled. HA
Also, I believe these Raters figure they have a GS Rating so they are not worried about being fired & the person who runs these RO's don't want to lose their job by approving to many claims.
Thank U for reading my thoughts
GARY


#16 broncovet

 
broncovet

    E-9 Master Chief Petty Officer

  • Master Chief Petty Officer
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3666 posts
 

Posted 24 May 2009 - 01:13 PM

I agree with Berta but add they always do those dumb things in their favor but rarely in the Veterans favor.
CBS News, several years ago, did a report on stores scanning errors. The store argued that it was impossible to keep track of hundreds of thousands of items, and that a small percentage of errors was expected and permissible.

However, they kept track of how often the scanning errors were less than the actual price and how often they were more, because, statistically, the scanned error should be less half the time and more half the time, as you are just as likely to enter a lower price than a higher price.

They found out the overpriced scans outnumbered the under priced scans by 95%. In other words, only 5% of the scanner errors were lower, 95% of the time the customer was overcharged.

Some groups are considering class action lawsuits over this..
In a similar way, the VA makes errors, of course, but the vast majority of the errors go against the Veteran, leading us to believe the errors, at least part of the time, were deliberate.

#17 free_spirit_etc

 
free_spirit_etc

    E-9 Master Chief Petty Officer

  • Master Chief Petty Officer
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1966 posts
 

Posted 25 May 2009 - 12:43 PM

I agree with you on the wording of the regulation that the word or is significant. I've got a few ideas for you. Look to the bottom of the regulation in Code of Federal Regulations and see if it lists the authority found in Title 38 U.S.C. Perhaps V.A. is interpreting this regulation contrary to the law it was enacted under the authority of. Next go to the website of the U.S. Court of Veterans Appeals and search cases under 3.54 to see if there are any similar cases that can help you craft your notice of disagreement with V.A.'s decision.


The US Code Reads the same:

§ 1304. Special provisions relating to surviving spouses
No dependency and indemnity compensation shall be paid to the surviving spouse of a veteran dying after December 31, 1956, unless such surviving spouse was married to such veteran—
(1) before the expiration of fifteen years after the termination of the period of service in which the injury or disease causing the death of the veteran was incurred or aggravated; or
(2) for one year or more; or
(3) for any period of time if a child was born of the marriage, or was born to them before the marriage.

Good idea on looking up Court of Veteran Appeals cases. I haven't done that yet. But - I don't think this is about actually interpreting the law. It is about leaving the part of the law that makes me eligible out of the decision.

There is not much to interpret. The law is clear. Was I married to the veteran within 15 years of the termination of the period of service in which he incurred the disability? Yes.

There is a difference between misinterpreting the law, and ignoring it.
That is why I say the VA is often "dumb on purpose."

They know better than to take the law and try to misinterpret it in this case. The law is too clear. So they just IGNORE that part of the law. They fail to mention it. They remain silent on that part of the law.

SSA did the same thing with my son's claim for Survivor Benefits. He was my husband's legally adopted child. Being his legally adopted child, he was eligible for benefits on my husband's record. Did they misintepret the law and state why he wasn't eligible as a legally adopted child? No. They merely informed him of all the reasons he was not eligible under the OTHER categories - and didn't mention the legal adoption.

Even wehn we specifically asked them to make an initial decision in regard to my son's eligibility as a legally adopted child - they failed to. We had to take it to the Hearing level. The decision was easy. He is the number holder's legally adopted child. He is eligible.

But until the Hearing level, SSA remained "dumb on purpose." They knew he was eligible as a legally adopted child, so they just left that part out. I think this is different than interpretation of the law. It is ignoring specific parts in order to deny benefits.

Pay close attention to the issues and the parts of the law they continually side-step. They intentionally side-step those to be "dumb on purpose."

Free




Advertise Here