Jump to content



Search



Toggle shoutbox Shoutbox Open the Shoutbox in a popup

@  coriemboh : (19 November 2014 - 08:29 AM) Hold Time For Peggy Was Approximately 1 Minute. That Was 17 Minutes Ago. They Really Need To Change This Hold Music.
@  Tbird : (17 November 2014 - 02:42 PM) Stretch Thanks For The Extra Contribution To Our Fundraiser This Month.
@  maxwell18 : (16 November 2014 - 09:04 PM) I Still Have To Bitch About The Navy Hosp Cutting My Meds By 2/3 On My Norco. I Contacted Customer Service Or What Ever You Want To Call It Who In Turn Contacted The Navy Hosp Pensacola Commander Who In Turn Did Nothing. Thanks To All The People That Are Affair Of There Jobs And I Feel That Medical Malpractice Should Come Into Place. I Guess Just Do What Ever They Want To Because They Can, But Don't Give A Sh T For The Vets That Suppose To Being Supporting From All The Military  organizations. This Is Not The Way They Have Been Trained And Promised To Do. 
@  carlie : (16 November 2014 - 11:26 AM) Delayed Onset Tinnitus - Ref To Va Training Letter 10-028 - Link - Http://veteranclaims.wordpress.com/2014/05/06/single-Judge-Application-Va-Training-Letter-10-028-Delayed-Onset-Tinnitus/
@  carlie : (16 November 2014 - 11:03 AM) Here's A Good Tinnitus Link To Check Out From M21-1 Change Dated Jan 10,2014 - Http://veteranclaims.wordpress.com/tag/section-B-Duty-Military-Occupational-Specialty-Mos-Noise-Exposure-Listing-Fast-Letter-10-35-Tinnitus-Hearing-Loss-Vbms-Rating-Decision-Tools/
@  Asiadaug : (16 November 2014 - 02:08 AM) "rolled" Not Ruled! :)
@  Asiadaug : (16 November 2014 - 02:07 AM) Thanks. I Have Seen The Fast Ltr 10-35 And Have Seen Cases Where The Va Has Apparently Agreed That Tinnitus Can Have Delayed Onset. I Did Not In Looking Over The Fast Ltr See Where They Had Ruled 10-028 Into That. And, I Am Not Sure In The Vas Issuance Of ‘policy’ Type Letters How They Might Roll In Previous Instructions Into Newer Ones. Maybe There Is Some Intranet Traceability Capability? I Was Just Curious As There ‘appeared’ To Be Conspicuous Absence Of That 10-028. I Am Assuming 10-028 Was Written In 2010. But It May Be I Should Not Assume Anything.
@  carlie : (15 November 2014 - 05:56 PM) Asiadaug - You Might Be Looking For Fast Letter 10-35, Http://www.hadit.com/forums/topic/40962-Va-Fl-10-35/ Also Check Out This Link To Links For Delayed Onset Tinnitus - They All Refer Back To Fast Letter 10-35, Https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=Chrome-Instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=Utf-8#q=Tinnitus, Delayed Onset, Va Fast Letter
@  Tbird : (15 November 2014 - 07:50 AM) Asiadaug Searched All Over For Va Training Letter 10-028 But No Luck So Far.
@  Asiadaug : (15 November 2014 - 02:12 AM) Several Cases I've Run Across Mention Va Training Letter 10-028 With Apparent Discussion About Delayed Onset Of Tinnitus. I Have Been Unable To Locate That Trng Ltr. Any Suggestions?
@  Tbird : (12 November 2014 - 05:56 PM) Stretch Thanks For Contributing To Our Fundraising Campairg
@  Tbird : (12 November 2014 - 04:01 AM) Atomicwidow Thank Your For Donating To Our Funding Campaign.
@  Tbird : (11 November 2014 - 07:00 AM) Veterans Day 2014 - Veterans Thank You For Your Service And Your Sacrifice.
@  Tbird : (10 November 2014 - 07:19 AM) Semper Fi Marines
@  USMC_HVEQ : (10 November 2014 - 01:11 AM) Happy Birthday Marines!
@  Tbird : (09 November 2014 - 05:41 PM) Veterans Affairs Secretary Interview On 60 Minutes Sunday, Nov. 9 At 7 P.m. Et - Cbs.com
@  Burt : (09 November 2014 - 01:33 PM) Http://www.hadit.com/forums/topic/59165-C-P-Results-Knee-Back-Hip-Hearing-And-Tinitus-Any-Thoughts/
@  Tbird : (08 November 2014 - 03:06 AM) Thank You Judith W. For Your Contribution To Our Funding Campaign.
@  cruiser07 : (07 November 2014 - 10:00 PM) Champva
@  Notorious Kelly : (07 November 2014 - 02:20 PM) Deals

Photo

Wings Claims My Contentions Are Wrong

forced abortion ptsd mst

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

#1 mysticcherokee usn vet

 
mysticcherokee usn vet

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 188 posts
 

Posted 01 March 2012 - 10:02 AM

I have been looking at claims and almost immediatly came upon one that mirrors my complaint. Yet Wings you claim that Im accusing our military (ya know the one that a lot of people are saying they got screwed by) of being like NAZIS, in forcing women to get abortions. That YOU represent the entire forum in your opine of my dilemmma.This appellant was in almost exact years I was, and has exact same complaints.:BUT IM A LIAR WINGS. You give yourself to much credit , with sticking your head in the sand ostrich like, and swearing the whole forum is down there in the sand with you. Jeez, can I get a little love here sister friend! Mystic

http://www.va.gov/ve...es1/9801361.txt

INTRODUCTION

The veteran served on active duty from April 1978 to June
1979. The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional
Office (RO) denied benefits sought, and the veteran appealed.
The Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) remanded the case to
the RO in March 1995. Thereafter, the RO granted two of the
service connection claims which had been remanded, and now
increased rating appeals have since been perfected and are
currently before the Board for the two disabilities for which
the RO granted service connection.



CONTENTIONS OF APPELLANT ON APPEAL

The veteran contends that she was raped in service, became
pregnant, and was forced to have an abortion against her
wishes and beliefs, and that as a result, she began abusing
alcohol and developed psychiatric problems. Therefore, she
asserts, service connection is warranted for a chronic
acquired psychiatric disability. The representative
maintains that if this claim is not allowed on the basis of
in-service incurrence, it must be remanded to the RO to have
the RO address the presumption of soundness on service
entrance examination.

THIS IS A GREAT POST!

#2 Wings

 
Wings

    HadIt.com Elder

  • HadIt.com Elder
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12762 posts
 

Posted 01 March 2012 - 10:54 AM

I have been looking at claims and almost immediatly came upon one that mirrors my complaint. Yet Wings you claim that Im accusing our military (ya know the one that a lot of people are saying they got screwed by) of being like NAZIS, in forcing women to get abortions. That YOU represent the entire forum in your opine of my dilemmma.This appellant was in almost exact years I was, and has exact same complaints.:BUT IM A LIAR WINGS. You give yourself to much credit , with sticking your head in the sand ostrich like, and swearing the whole forum is down there in the sand with you. Jeez, can I get a little love here sister friend! Mystic

http://www.va.gov/ve...es1/9801361.txt

INTRODUCTION

The veteran served on active duty from April 1978 to June
1979. The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional
Office (RO) denied benefits sought, and the veteran appealed.
The Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) remanded the case to
the RO in March 1995. Thereafter, the RO granted two of the
service connection claims which had been remanded, and now
increased rating appeals have since been perfected and are
currently before the Board for the two disabilities for which
the RO granted service connection.



CONTENTIONS OF APPELLANT ON APPEAL

The veteran contends that she was raped in service, became
pregnant, and was forced to have an abortion against her
wishes and beliefs, and that as a result, she began abusing
alcohol and developed psychiatric problems. Therefore, she
asserts, service connection is warranted for a chronic
acquired psychiatric disability. The representative
maintains that if this claim is not allowed on the basis of
in-service incurrence, it must be remanded to the RO to have
the RO address the presumption of soundness on service
entrance examination.

THIS IS A GREAT POST!



x
x
x

MODS (Carlie), Unless this thread gets real HOT, please don't lock it. Let's see if me and my sister can reach an understanding ;-)

Mystic, Let me read and respond. Please give me a few moments to compose myself ... ~Wings

Edited by Wings, 01 March 2012 - 10:55 AM.


#3 Bonzai

 
Bonzai

    E-6 Petty Officer 1st Class

  • Chief Petty Officers
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 341 posts
 

Posted 01 March 2012 - 10:55 AM

If you want to fight with another member - do not do it in posts. Read the rules of the Board - Personal attacks are not tolerated.

Much goes on in the military that should not, we all know that.

#4 Wings

 
Wings

    HadIt.com Elder

  • HadIt.com Elder
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12762 posts
 

Posted 01 March 2012 - 11:21 AM

If you want to fight with another member - do not do it in posts. Read the rules of the Board - Personal attacks are not tolerated.

Much goes on in the military that should not, we all know that.


x
x
x

I'm not going to fight with Mytic. I need a couple of hours to reflect, before I respond. ~Wings

#5 carlie

 
carlie

    Moderator/Admin/HadIt.com Elder/SVR Radio Panelist

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 22280 posts
 

Posted 01 March 2012 - 11:22 AM

I have been looking at claims and almost immediatly came upon one that mirrors my complaint. Yet Wings you claim that Im accusing our military (ya know the one that a lot of people are saying they got screwed by) of being like NAZIS, in forcing women to get abortions. That YOU represent the entire forum in your opine of my dilemmma.This appellant was in almost exact years I was, and has exact same complaints.:BUT IM A LIAR WINGS. You give yourself to much credit , with sticking your head in the sand ostrich like, and swearing the whole forum is down there in the sand with you. Jeez, can I get a little love here sister friend! Mystic

http://www.va.gov/ve...es1/9801361.txt

INTRODUCTION

The veteran served on active duty from April 1978 to June
1979. The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional
Office (RO) denied benefits sought, and the veteran appealed.
The Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) remanded the case to
the RO in March 1995. Thereafter, the RO granted two of the
service connection claims which had been remanded, and now
increased rating appeals have since been perfected and are
currently before the Board for the two disabilities for which
the RO granted service connection.



CONTENTIONS OF APPELLANT ON APPEAL

The veteran contends that she was raped in service, became
pregnant, and was forced to have an abortion against her
wishes and beliefs, and that as a result, she began abusing
alcohol and developed psychiatric problems. Therefore, she
asserts, service connection is warranted for a chronic
acquired psychiatric disability. The representative
maintains that if this claim is not allowed on the basis of
in-service incurrence, it must be remanded to the RO to have
the RO address the presumption of soundness on service
entrance examination.

THIS IS A GREAT POST!


And it goes on to state :


"It has been contended that this case should be remanded for
the RO to consider the presumption of soundness at induction.
38 U.S.C.A. § 1111 (West 1991). Although the RO has
apparently not considered this presumption, the veteran is
not prejudiced by this failure.

First, the representative’s
argument shows that the veteran and representative have had
an opportunity for argument and hearing on this point. Where
there has been such an opportunity, it is not prejudicial for
the Board to consider a question in the first instance.

Curry v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 59 (1994) cert. denied 48 F.3d
1237 (1995).
Second,

the result in this case does not turn
on the presumption of soundness but on the lack of competent
evidence of a nexus between current disability and service.

Additionally, where, as here,

the Board has denied the claim
on the basis that it is not well grounded, whereas the RO had
considered it on the merits, there is no prejudice to the
veteran, as the RO accorded her claim more consideration than

it was entitled. Id. The benefit of the doubt doctrine does
not apply, as the claim is not well grounded. 38
U.S.C.A. § 5107; Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49, 55
(1991). "

Edited by carlie, 01 March 2012 - 11:23 AM.
size


#6 mysticcherokee usn vet

 
mysticcherokee usn vet

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 188 posts
 

Posted 01 March 2012 - 11:23 AM

No attack, merely a constitutional right. For the accused to face their accuser. Court of law is good enough for me.

Heres yet another claim of forced abortion, and mind you they won.

http://www.va.gov/ve...es2/1016362.txt



This isnt meant as an assault, truth be told, just countering what I felt was an assault on my honor.
You might feel the same in my position, ut since ya dont, nobody is forcing you to read this, with all due respect. Mystic

#7 mysticcherokee usn vet

 
mysticcherokee usn vet

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 188 posts
 

Posted 01 March 2012 - 11:26 AM

Carlie, the denial was for allegies and such. However there were two items noted in the beginning that were approved, and I dont know for sure what they were, but I know what she claims. Nowhere does it state that her claim of rape and coercion to abort were denied or dismissed, remanded or any other thing, so it must have been approved. Mystic

#8 mysticcherokee usn vet

 
mysticcherokee usn vet

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 188 posts
 

Posted 01 March 2012 - 11:30 AM

Besides Wings claimed that my very contetion of rape and coercion from the military was ludicrous, and accused me of comparing the military to the Gestapo. The last of that is ludicrous and Ive proven my contentions are real and not at all unbelievable, as evidenced in these(rightoff the top) case scenarios.I win,shes a loser,imo. case/Thread closed

#9 Tbird

 
Tbird

    Founder HadIt.com established 1997

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 133 posts
 

Posted 01 March 2012 - 11:35 AM

Please put each other on your ignore list if you can't be civil. I don't know and don't care how or who or what got this started just take it off the board.