Jump to content



Search



Advertise Here

 

Toggle shoutbox Shoutbox Open the Shoutbox in a popup

@  Tbird : (23 October 2014 - 05:07 PM) Correction Jan 20. 2015 Will Be Hadit.com's 18 Year Anniversary
@  Tbird : (23 October 2014 - 11:38 AM) Jan 20, 2015 Will Be Hadit.com's 19 Year Anniversary, That's Amazing.
@  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

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This topic has been archived.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!

Advertise Here

 

#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
  • 22178 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
  • 105 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.




Advertise Here