VA domiciliary offers aid to troubled vets

VA domiciliary offers aid to troubled vets

by Janice Gibbs | Medical Writer
Published: June 22, 2009
The struggles of wounded warriors are well documented. There are veterans who carry their injuries on the outside, while others’ injuries are not readily apparent, but equally traumatic.

Many of those who carry their wounds internally turn to drugs and alcohol to quiet their inner turmoil, a way of life hard to sustain.

When the veteran is ready for help there are VA programs in place to assist. The domiciliary at the Olin E. Teague Veterans’ Center has several residential treatment programs to help the veteran who is trying to find his or her footing in a world turned upside down.

“There aren’t a lot of barriers that would exclude veterans from the programs, other than availability,” said Dr. Fred Willoughby, psychologist at the domiciliary. “Most of the programs have waiting lists. We can’t guarantee same-day access.”

Programs at the domiciliary include a Substance Treatment Employment Program that provides assessment and treatment services to veterans with substance abuse problems. The vocational aspect of the program works with the veteran to find employment, housing, transportation and reintegration into the community.

The Rehabilitation and Reintegration Treatment Program focuses on rehabilitation of medical and mental health problems, and reintegration into the community.

The Women’s Trauma Recovery Center provides residential treatment for the effects of military sexual trauma.

Domiciliary residents get into the treatment programs in a number of ways, including VA homeless social workers, the Waco VA psychiatric unit and VA hospitals. The residents come from across the country.

The domiciliary has 400 beds and is the second largest in the country.

The population of the domiciliary depends on the weather and the time of the year - winter being the busiest time, said Richard Tremaine, domiciliary administrator.

“We’ll prioritize those people who are waiting . . . do they have family they can stay with, versus someone who has nowhere to go,” Tremaine said.

Those who do participate in a program have to be mentally and medically stable and be able to take care of their living space, take showers and get to the cafeteria for meals.

The average age of the domiciliary resident is about 50, with the youngest probably 21 and the oldest 85.

The needs of the younger veterans are somewhat different from other residents, because they aren’t all that familiar with the VA, said Bobby Zimmerman, domiciliary administrative officer. Most assimilate well because the support system at the VA - the medical and professional staff and the older veterans - work to make the domiciliary the younger veteran’s home.

“Some, both men and women, are coming directly from a combat zone,” Zimmerman said. “They’re having problems adjusting and their world just spins out of control. They need all the support we can offer.”

Dr. Gerald Darnell, chief of psychology services, agrees younger veterans have different problems and issues.

“They’re at a different stage of life, wanting to return to family and understand what’s going on in their marriage and their relationships with their children,” Darnell said. “What’s great about the VA is that we have programming that meets that spectrum of needs.”

Even though the issues for post traumatic stress disorder are more out in the open, admitting one needs help is difficult, he said. However, since more information is out there, a spouse, girlfriend or boyfriend can more readily identify signs of a problem.

When the veteran leaves the domiciliary, the VA will make arrangements for aftercare, Willoughby said. Those with mental illness can enter the Mental Health Intensive Case Management program and will be introduced to their case manager before leaving the domiciliary.

“The veteran stays at the domiciliary until goals established in the treatment plan are reached . . . it’s individualized to the needs of the veteran,” Darnell said.

There is no magic number for length of stay, Willoughby said.

“If they relapse along the way we don’t kick them out,” he said. “If they develop some other mental health problems along the way that changes the length of stay.”

There are studies indicating veterans who stay four to six months in residential treatment programs are the most successful, with the veteran better able to maintain housing and jobs, Willoughby said. Those who stay less than that timeframe don’t do as well and those who stay longer don’t do significantly better and in some cases do worse.

The domiciliary programs are based on a more integrated model now, he said, addressing problems simultaneously - employment and substance abuse.

The VA offers job training in housekeeping and laundry, nutrition and food. There are outside contracts with Temple’s parks and recreation department.

The Compensated Work Therapy program offers jobs to veterans who mow the yards and maintain the shrubs on VA grounds.

“It gives the veterans work experience to use when they apply for jobs and gives them an advantage if they apply for a job at the VA,” Zimmerman said.

The program benefits the domiciliary resident in a number of ways, including offering work experience and the opportunity to save and learn budgeting skills, Darnell said. It also provides a boost to the resident’s self-esteem.

//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

I don't know when or if the VA has changed their policy towards drug abuse or alcoholism, but unless the veteran has been clean they are not usually allowed into the domicillary. I am given prescription pain killers by the VA and I was denied a bed in the domicillary for the inpatient PTSD program, this was in 2003, I realize things change, but I have never heard of this change until this article, so pretend I am from Missouri and "show me" I know what the VA has been doing when did they change their policy?

Sphere: Related Content

Good Morning Congressman Filner, While I appreciate your efforts…Congress is not doing enough.

18 June 2009

02:57 EST



(Deny until they are all dead!)



Good Morning Congressman Filner,



While I appreciate your efforts…Congress is not doing enough.



Congress is not only not doing enough but Veterans and their families would say they are doing and have done nothing to stop the Veterans Affairs Abuse of Veterans/Widows/Offspring. It cannot be considered anything less.



I posted a recent article on what is a daily familiar and repetitive event that takes place at Veterans Affairs Benefits with the obvious mandate to deny…deny…deny until the Veteran dies. This seems to be particularly common to Agent Orange Dioxin Issues as well as Gulf War Issues. What makes it even more sinister in one context is the enemy these men fought was not the causation of death/disability but our own United States Government.



Not addressing those issues/causations that should be addressed but those issues that are already presumptive to the Veterans Service to this Nation.



http://www.2ndbattalion94thartillery.com/Chas/denyuntiltheydie.pdf



Yes, we watch the hearings which are a joke in the context of presumptive disorders of how many days it takes for Veterans Affairs to do the claims. Most of it is nothing but lies by Veterans Affairs but it seems Congress swallows these lies of how they are trying to reduce the number of days. Then give you examples of how they are doing in performance which is also put into some context of claims being settled rather than just requesting more information which in fact it is in reality. By reports we know that at least 50% of these claims they say they are completing are denied but then in a few years are either approved by BVA or remanded by VA but this also is a separate issue of just intentional horrible performance. Regardless of what the union leader says time after time in the hearings of how more training is required one should consider that integrity has to be part of the process. No different than you cannot test in quality in products; you cannot assume integrity within the Department of Veterans Affairs processes as well as the studies done which is a waste of taxpayer money and violate federal laws in many cases.



How can anyone in Congress to include the Secretary of Veterans Affairs justify a presumptive disorder ‘government created’ looming Veteran’s death which requires the verification of four simple data points taking more than just a few weeks? To not only approve the claim but to get the financial resources to the family. I would also add that one piece of paper (DD-214) verifies at least two of those data points required for approval.



One of the other data points is: Is the disorder on the presumptive list? This is also a no brainer as far as meeting the requirements for immediate approval. I would also add the stalling of all these presumptions which is clearly documented over the last four decades by our own government has denied tens of thousands of Veterans their benefits they earned in fighting for this nation. Can you or any member of Congress ask more of a citizen?



So we have three of the data points required documented and as you can see these are almost a given…no complex decision to be made.



The fourth data point of course must be: does the Veteran have a diagnosis of the presumptive disorder? But still this is not a complex medical decision or is it a complex medical decision as to has all the criteria been met.



I can relate to the link I have posted because within my own Battalion Members and my Marines I have watched the same thing go on as they died with their presumptive disorder claims not being approved. My guys actually being diagnosed by VA doctors in a VA hospital so the fourth part of this seemingly insurmountable Veterans Affairs task should have also been a given data verifiable point. Of courses this stalling practice results in their widows having to get back to the rear of the longest line and in order to get the family the financial resources and benefits that are also by law in perpetuity entitled to in a timely manner. This constitutes a direct conflict of interest between the dying Veteran/the soon to be widow…and our Veterans Affairs.



In addition; just in case you or any Congressperson even bothers to ask why or how this can be; even the rating guide lines for these cancers do not require a compensation and pension (C & P) exam. With these cancers it is an automatic six months at 100% with either a C & P at the end of that time period for residuals or if the Veteran and family are still fighting the cancer an automatic extension.



It does not take a Mensa member to figure up how much money Veterans Affairs is saving the United States Government by this intentional lack of performance and abuse each year. Nor does it take a mental giant to look at the process and conclude a definite conflict of interest between Veterans Affairs and its power and our Veterans exists. Veterans Affairs processes that reward stalling until the death of the Veteran because that money is not recoverable by the Veterans Family. Earned money that should have been paid within no longer than a month of submittal. A direct conflict of interest in Veterans Affairs practices and definition does exist and has existed and Congress does nothing to investigate or to stop this abuse.



For Heaven’s sakes and the sake of National Security stop the abuse beginning at least in this one area and mandate that the Veterans Claim remains alive from the time it is submitted regardless if he or she dies during the process. This would give our wonderful Veterans Affairs no excuse for stalling since the money now would be to the date of submittal to the family should the Veteran perish in the indefensible time it takes for Veterans Affairs to do anything other than stall. This would also stop this abuse of the now Widow having to get back in at the longest line since that benefit is also a benefit in perpetuity.



Congressman Filner these automatic presumptive disorders could be handled on a 3x5 index card with the few data points that are required and probably done better by high school sophomores. No offense to the high school students.



When I listened to the committee and the head fellow of the Board of Veterans Appeals (BVA) and how he concluded they did claims triage I had to laugh it was so ridiculous and misleading. Yet, no one asks us only those that are empowered to do these nefarious acts against us. Yes, even protected against prosecution it seems even when lying under oath. I wonder if Congress would so forgiving if a Veteran knowingly lied under oath to a congressional committee. I doubt it!



I hope you will continue your efforts.



Once again, until I see on the House and Senate floor the same enthusiasms for Veterans/Widows Rights as they do defending Terrorists Rights; my hope is I live long enough to see the day when no one will serve in our military no matter how many sign-up bonuses or retention bonuses (bribes) are given out.



This subject and the posted link is just one of the many issues if perspective military members and wives were told the truth this nation would have no military and would indeed become a National Security Issue.



Give me one good reason why anyone should serve knowing they will be told half the truth of how they will be treated and how their citizen rights guaranteed by our constitution are set aside by our own Congress because of that honorable and in many cases “valorous service”.



Would you serve knowing how you would be rewarded by a runaway federal agency given sole power over an entire segment of society? A sole power that incorporates congressional, executive branch and judicial power all in one federal agency; which one should consider would be unconstitutional. But we have been shredding up the constitution for decades now at least in my opinion no different from documented Veterans Affairs shredding files and evidence or changing time stamps to deny or stall the Veteran’s/Widow’s claim. Veterans Affairs and the power given to a single federal agency was only the beginning decades ago. As I have stated in the past if the government will do this for our Veterans segment of society which segment is next. I will give examples later of how Senator Arlen Specter tried to do this with the asbestos issues and those victims.



Until that time when I see some semblance of action against Veterans Affairs; I will not vote for any incumbent and I urge all Veterans/Spouses/Widows/Offspring of Veterans to do the same. RE-ELECT NO ONE! Eventually we may get some congressional officials that match their words with deeds.



It seems when our government creates the Veteran; indeed his citizen rights are then set aside and then open to government sponsored fraudulent activities against them at many levels of government.



Just as a passing comment it was probably not a real good idea to contract with QTC to do C & P exams to the tune of millions of dollars a year since two of the more recent Secretaries of Veterans’ Affairs both held high level executive positions within QTC. With the lack of integrity within Veterans Affairs itself this looks like just more corruption. I had a C & P from QTC and it was a joke as far as my disability rating versus what the C & P doctor told me in person was affected.



Thank you for listening.



Charles Kelley

Snellville, GA

///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

It is time for the Congressional snow job to end, and veterans and their surviving families actually get the assisstance of the "PROMISE" all politicians call a "sacred trust" the only thing "sacred" about it, is the fact that most veterans get no access to it, so it is not a "sacred trust" as much as it is a "scarce trust".

If this Veterans Committe in the House and senate can't fix it, maybe we need to target these members for primary contenders and fund and promote the replacements until we get a "fair and balanced" committee that will keep the "PROMISE" all of the veterans and their surviving families deserve, DIC and CHAMPVA.


Lincoln’s Second Inaugural Address

In the speech’s final paragraph, the president delivered his prescription for the nation’s recovery:

“With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation’s wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow, and his orphan, to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations.”

With the words, “To care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow, and his orphan,” President Lincoln affirmed the government’s obligation to care for those injured during the war and to provide for the families of those who perished on the battlefield.

Today, a pair of metal plaques bearing those words flank the entrance to the Washington, D.C. headquarters of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). VA is the federal agency responsible for serving the needs of veterans by providing health care, disability compensation and rehabilitation, education assistance, home loans, burial in a national cemetery, and other benefits and services.

Lincoln’s immortal words became the VA motto in 1959, when the plaques were installed, and can be traced to Sumner G. Whittier, administrator of what was then called the Veterans Administration. A document on VA medical history prepared for the congressional Committee on Veterans’ Affairs and titled, “To care for him who shall have borne the battle,” details how the words became VA’s motto. “He (Whittier) worked no employee longer or harder than himself to make his personal credo the mission of the agency. What was that credo? Simply the words of Abraham Lincoln, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow, and his orphan. To indicate the mission of his agency’s employees, Mr. Whittier had plaques installed on either side of the main entrance.”

President Lincoln’s words have stood the test of time, and stand today as a solemn reminder of VA’s commitment to care for those injured in our nation’s defense and the families of those killed in its service.

With the words, “To care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow, and his orphan,” President Lincoln affirmed the government’s obligation to care for those injured during the war and to provide for the families of those who perished on the battlefield.

Congress and the VA have failed to care for ALL of the widows and children and the ones who have borne the battle and were harmed by it, why?

Sphere: Related Content

HUD and VA announce $75 million for HUD-VASH program

Secretaries Shinseki and Donovan Host First Meeting of the United States
Interagency Council on Homelessness under the Obama Administration



Secretary Donovan Elected New Chair of the Council



HUD and VA announce $75 million for HUD-VASH program

to provide rental housing and support for homeless veterans



WASHINGTON (June 18, 2009) - The United States Interagency Council on
Homelessness (USICH) met today for the first time under the Obama
Administration. U.S. Secretary of Veterans Affairs Eric K. Shinseki
chaired the meeting, at which U.S. Housing and Urban Development
Secretary Shaun Donovan was elected rotating Chair for the upcoming year
and U.S. Labor Secretary Hilda Solis was elected Vice Chair. U.S.
Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius and Melody Barnes,
Director of the White House Domestic Policy Council, attended the
meeting.



The mission of the USICH is to coordinate the federal response to
homelessness and to create a national partnership with every level of
government and the private sector to address homelessness in the nation.




"It is simply unacceptable for individuals, children, families, and our
nation's Veterans to be faced with homelessness in this country," said
President Obama. "I am confident that the Interagency Council on
Homelessness, under Secretary Donovan's leadership, will have a renewed
focus on coordinating efforts across federal agencies and working
closely with our state, local, community-based, and faith-based partners
to address these serious issues."



"Ending the continuing tragedy of homelessness demands thoughtful and
focused leadership," said HUD Secretary Shaun Donovan. "President Obama
and I are committed to working through the USICH, the agencies it
represents and our state, local and non-profit partners to build a
thoughtful and compassionate response to this crisis. The bottom line
is that through our combined efforts every man, woman and child in this
nation should have access to a safe, affordable place to lay their head
at night."



Secretaries Donovan and Shinseki also announced the allocation of $75
million to local public housing authorities across the 50 states, the
District of Columbia, Puerto Rico and Guam to provide permanent
supportive housing and dedicated VA case managers for an estimated
10,000 homeless Veterans. This innovative joint initiative is called
Veterans Affairs Supportive Housing Program (HUD-VASH). This funding
will provide local public housing agencies with approximately 10,000
rental assistance vouchers specifically targeted to assist homeless
Veterans in their area. Public housing authorities, that administer
HUD's Housing Choice Voucher Program, work closely with Department of
Veteran Affairs medical centers to manage the program. In addition to
the rental assistance, VA medical centers provide supportive services
and case management to eligible homeless Veterans.



"It is shameful that after serving our nation so well, some of our
Veterans leave their military life only to fall into homelessness," said
Donovan. "Working closely with the Department of Veterans Affairs, we're
able to offer a permanent home, along with critically needed supportive
services, to the very people to whom we owe so much."



"No one, especially Veterans who have faithfully served our country
should become homeless," said VA Secretary Eric Shinseki. "This
council's work is critical to providing for those at risk and on the
streets. This interagency partnership allows us to leverage our
resources, programs, talent and experience to create viable solutions
that will eliminate homelessness."



"With new service members returning home every day and the economy
sputtering, we must step up our efforts to provide all Veterans with
housing and the dignity that comes with it," said Senator Murray,
Chairman of the Senate Housing Appropriations Subcommittee. "For too
long homeless Veterans have been forgotten heroes. HUD-VASH grants are
making a real difference in ensuring that those who have sacrificed for
our nation are not coming home to sleep on our streets."



Under HUD-VASH, HUD will provide housing assistance through its Housing
Choice Voucher Program (Section 8) which allows Veterans to rent
privately owned housing. The VA will provide to eligible homeless
Veterans clinical and supportive services through its health care system
across the 50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico and Guam.
VA addresses the needs of the more than 100,000 homeless Veterans who
access VA health care annually.



The USICH is an interagency council made up of members from federal
agencies, including the Department of Housing and Urban Development,
Department of Veterans Affairs, Department of Agriculture, Department of
Commerce, Department of Defense, Department of Education, Department of
Energy, Department of Health and Human Services, Department of Homeland
Security, Department of Interior, Department of Justice, Department of
Labor, Department of Transportation, Corporation for National and
Community Service, Social Security Administration, General Services
Administration, and United States Postal Service.

Sphere: Related Content

Disabled veterans need mortgage Insurance

Dear Mr President and First Lady, You both have spoken out on helping this nations veterans, and I appreciate this. I am but one of the many disabled veterans of this nation.

I imagine you will be as surprised as I was to learn that disabled veterans can NOT get mortgage insurance from the Veteran Administration, or thru commercial agents even if our disabilities are service connected. How am I supposed to insure my home so that my wife and son and grand children and my step daughter, not lose our home when I pass away.

I will have a place to go, the new National cemetary at Fort Jackson, South Carolina, but when I die, my veterans benefits will stop, and my wife will get less than half of our current income, and then be forced to sell our family home, why?

I am willing to pay the premiums for mortgage insurance, but the VA refuses to make it available, is there any way to change these rules, to modernize the benefits available for todays veterans and their families.

Back when the military and Veterans insurance was set at 10,000 dollars a home was what 4-5,000 dollars? Times have changed and we need insurance products available to disabled veterans, I am refused insurance by private comapnies due to my service connected PTSD, and my heart problems, hypertension, Coronary Artery Disease, Congestive Heart Failure, what are veterans like myself supposed to do?

Can you tell Secretary Shinseki to aithorize the changes to mortgage insurance or will it take and act of Congress, do I need to go to my Congressman Joe Wilson, or either of my Senators Lindsey Graham or Senator No, Demint?

I have not had much help from the republican elected officials in South Carolina, and I don't think I will live long enough to see a Democratic elected official in the 2nd Congressional District of SC, and I can't remember the last time we had a democrat Senator.

Can you please help us find a way to protect our families, and let them keep their homes when we disabled veterans die, it's not right that we are refused mortgage insurance.

Thank you for your time.I realize with all the real important issues you are dealing with, this should be solved at a lower level, but it hasn't andas Commander in Chief, I am hoping you can fix it, for my wife and kids.

Sphere: Related Content

President Obama on March 19,2009

Veterans

"For their service and sacrifice, warm words of thanks from a grateful nation are more than warranted, but they aren't nearly enough. We also owe our veterans the care they were promised and the benefits that they have earned. We have a sacred trust with those who wear the uniform of the United States of America. It's a commitment that begins at enlistment, and it must never end. But we know that for too long, we've fallen short of meeting that commitment. Too many wounded warriors go without the care that they need. Too many veterans don't receive the support that they've earned. Too many who once wore our nation's uniform now sleep in our nation's streets."

-President Obama, March 19, 2009

Sphere: Related Content

If your GWI claim has been denied

If your GWI claim has been denied. You should print out this and give to your Claim service officer or attorney..

http://www.uscourts.cavc.gov/documents/Gutierrez_01-2105.pdf

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR VETERANS CLAIMS

No. 01-2105

James P. Gutierrez, Appellant,

v.

Anthony J. Principi,

Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Appellee.

On Appeal from the Board of Veterans' Appeals

(Decided December 23, 2004 )



Nancy L. Foti and Barton F. Stichman, both of Washington, D.C., were on the brief for the appellant.

Tim S. McClain, General Counsel; R. Randall Campbell, Assistant General Counsel; Brian B. Rippel, Deputy Assistant General Counsel; and Kathy A. Banfield, all of Washington, D.C., were on the brief for the appellee.

Before GREENE, KASOLD, and HAGEL, Judges.

GREENE, Judge: Veteran James P. Gutierrez appeals, through counsel, a September 12, 2001, Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) decision that denied his claim for service connection under 38 U.S.C. § 1117 for undiagnosed illnesses incurred during the Persian Gulf War. Record (R.) at 1-19. This appeal is timely, and the Court has jurisdiction under 38 U.S.C. §§ 7252(a) and 7266. Because the Board failed to provide an adequate statement of reasons or bases for its decision, the decision will be vacated and the matter remanded to the Board for further action. See Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 49, 52 (1990).

I. FACTS

Mr. Gutierrez served honorably on active duty in the U.S. Army from May 1987 to July 1991, including service in the Persian Gulf for which he was awarded the Southwest Asia Service Medal. R. at 64, 92. Upon entering service, Mr. Gutierrez's physical condition was normal. R. at 21-26. His service medical records (SMRs) indicate that he was treated for lower-back pain in June 1990. R. at 27, 44. In March 1991, Mr. Guteirrez suffered a "Jones fracture" of his left foot. R. at 51. A Jones fracture is defined as a "fracture of the fifth metatarsal." Dorland's Illustrated Medical Dictionary 662 (28th ed. 1994). In 1991, he was awarded service connection for residuals of the Jones fracture, and assigned a 10% disability rating. R. at 76.

During a July 1996 VA Persian Gulf Registry medical examination, Mr. Gutierrez complained that since July 1991, he had experienced a loss of energy, inability to "work out," dizziness, and light-headedness. R. at 105-11. He also stated that since October 1991, he had experienced aching in his muscles and joints. R. at 106, 108. Mr. Gutierrez further related that since June 1994, he had noticed a loss of his ability to concentrate and a loss of memory. R. at 106. He also reported that he and his wife had been trying to have a child and that he had been told that he had "slow sperm." Id. The medical examiner reported that Mr. Gutierrez's most severe symptom during the examination was fatigue and that muscle and joint aches, memory loss, and inability to concentrate were all currently present. R. at 352. The examiner did not diagnose any cause for those symptoms. See R. at 105-11. He referred Mr. Gutierrez to outpatient care, but a specific reason was not noted in the examination report. R. at 354.

In March 1997, Mr. Gutierrez filed with a VA regional office (RO) a claim for service connection for "Gulf War Syndrome" as manifested by symptoms of joint and muscle pain, dizziness, fatigue, and decreased vision. R. at 79. An April 1997 radiology report showed that he had widespread spinal stenosis and protruding discs at L3-L4 and L4-L5. R. at 197. Dr. David Caldwell, a private orthopedic surgeon, opined that Mr. Gutierrez's episodic lower-back pain and complaints of left-foot numbness were probably related to the L4-5 disc protrusion. R. at 198. The report from a September 1997 VA general medical examination reflects Mr. Gutierrez's assertion that, while he was in the Persian Gulf, he had been exposed to oil-fire smoke and took nerve-gas pills every day. R. at 125. The report also records his complaints of muscle and joint pain, fatigue, a back disorder, light-headedness, and foot difficulties. R. at 125-27. There were no diagnoses made during that VA examination. Id. Additionally, medical records dated September 1997 from a VA Persian Gulf War Clinic reflect that Mr. Gutierrez was suffering from mild fatigue, aches and pains in his joints, and blood in his urine, but provided no medical etiology for these maladies. R. at 332, 367-68.

In October 1997, the RO denied Mr. Gutierrez's claim after concluding that his symptoms were not incurred in or caused by his service in the Persian Gulf. R. at 137-141. The RO found that his complaints about his claimed conditions were first made during the Persian Gulf War Registry examination in July 1996 and that his SMRs were negative for fatigue, dizziness, and joint and muscle pain. R. at 138. Mr. Gutierrez appealed to the Board and argued that he began suffering from his claimed symptoms within a year after his discharge from service and that they were now more constant and persistent. R. at 145-46, 191-92.

During an appeal to the Board, Mr. Gutierrez submitted statements from his wife (R. at 150), a friend (R. at 202) ("[I] have noticed a decline in his general health. He has [not] been as active as [I] am used to seeing him."), and his father (R. at 203). His wife stated: "I have noticed a decline in his general health. He does [not] seem to have as much energy, tires quickly, complains of aches [and] pains throughout his body, and seems to forget information easily." R. at 150. Those statements provided individual and personal observations of Mr. Gutierrez's declining health. Additionally, a February 1998 VA vision examiner diagnosed Mr. Gutierrez as having compound myopic astigmatism with hysterical visual fields. However, no cause for this defect was provided. R. at 154-55. That same month, Mr. Gutierrez was given a VA spinal examination but no diagnosis was made for any specific illnesses causing his complaints of joint and muscle pain, fatigue, dizziness, memory loss, or loss of concentration. R. at 157-59.

While being examined in March 1999, Mr. Gutierrez again complained of easy fatigability, decreased vision, and foot and back pain. R. at 227-29. No cause for his fatigue was determined. Medical records from a Gulf War Clinic, dated November 15, 1999, also revealed that he had reported having painful and aching joints. R. at 329. In May 2000, the Board remanded to the RO Mr. Gutierrez's claim for readjudication. The RO was ordered to first obtain results from VA's Gulf War Study Program and additional medical records that had been identified by Mr. Gutierrez. R. at 319. In August 2000, the RO issued a Supplemental Statement of the Case (SSOC) confirming the denial of Mr. Gutierrez's claim. R. at 383. He appealed to the Board and submitted VA medical records dated April 25, 2001, that indicated that he had complained of problems with sleeping, concentrating, and low energy, and that he had advised the examiner that he felt irritable, nonsocial, and unmotivated. R. at 426-27. VA medical records dated from March through December 2000, documented Mr. Gutierrez's continued complaints of fatigue, low energy, poor concentration, and sensitivity to loud noises, and recorded his concern that he may have arthritis in his left leg related to his claimed symptoms. R. at 327, 423-25. These records also reflect that Mr. Gutierrez complained of having trouble sleeping. Id.

After reviewing the evidence, the Board, in the September 12, 2001, decision on appeal, denied Mr. Gutierrez's claim. The Board stated: "The Board does not believe that [Mr. Gutierrez] has had fatigue, dizziness, memory loss, and a loss of concentration since his discharge from active service." R. at 17. The Board specifically found that "there is no competent evidence of an undiagnosed illness manifested by joint and muscle pain, fatigue, dizziness, decreased vision (other than the use of glasses), memory loss and loss of concentration associated with the veteran's active service" and concluded that Mr. Gutierrez's complaints of these conditions over an extended period of time were "not credible" and purely subjective. R. at 3, 17. The Board stated further:

The only evidence of record before the Board specifically linking [Mr. Gutierrez's] current alleged disabilities to his service or Gulf War [S]yndrome consist of the veteran's own evidentiary assertions. Such evidence is of limited probative weight. While the veteran is competent to describe manifestations perceivable to a lay party, he is not competent to diagnose himself with disabilities and then associate those disabilities with his active service or with any form of Persian Gulf [S]yndrome.

R. at 16. In conclusion, the Board found that "the preponderance of the medical evidence fails to indicate that these disabilities are related to service or illness associated with service." Id. Mr. Gutierrez appealed to the Court.

On appeal, Mr. Gutierrez contends that the evidence of record establishes that he has undiagnosed medical illnesses resulting from his service in the Persian Gulf that entitle him to service connection. Appellant's Brief (Br.) at 7-10. He maintains that he satisfies all requirements of section 1117 and VA regulations because he is a Persian Gulf veteran, and that his symptoms demonstrate objective indications of chronic disabilities that are not attributed to any known clinical diagnoses. Id. Mr. Gutierrez contends that a remand is not required to provide him with another VA medical examination and that reversal is the appropriate remedy.

The Secretary argues that reversal is not supported by the evidence of record. Secretary's Br. at 8. Rather, he contends that the matter should be remanded because (1) VA failed in its duty to assist by not obtaining a current VA medical examination that provided an opinion as to whether any of Mr. Gutierrez's symptomatology was attributable to a specific ongoing disease process or to an undiagnosed illness (Br. at 11-12); (2) VA failed in its duty to notify Mr. Gutierrez of evidence needed to substantiate his claim as required by the Veterans Claims Assistance Act of 2000 (VCAA), Pub. L. No. 106-475, 114 Stat. 2096, now codified in part at 38 U.S.C. §§ 5102, 5103, and 5103A (Br. at 7, 14); (3) the Board made a medical determination independent of the medical evidence, in violation of Colvin v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 172 (1991)( Br. at 7, 12-13); and (4) the Board did not provide an adequate statement of reasons or bases for its decision (Br. at 12-13). In reply, Mr. Gutierrez waives consideration on appeal of any violation of VA's duty to notify and assist him. Reply Br. at 8-9.

II. APPLICABLE LAW

The Board's determination of service connection is a finding of fact subject to the "clearly erroneous" standard of review set forth in 38 U.S.C. § 7261(a)(4). See Rose v. West, 11 Vet.App. 169, 171 (1998); Horowitz v. Brown, 5 Vet.App. 217, 221 (1993). A "finding is 'clearly erroneous' when, although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed." Gilbert, 1 Vet.App. at 52 (quoting United States v. United States Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364, 395 (1948)).

Service connection may be established for a disability resulting from personal injury or disease incurred in or aggravated by active service. See 38 U.S.C. § 1110, 1131 (2004). Service connection may be established directly or through a statutory presumption. For direct service connection to be awarded, there must be (1) medical evidence of a current disability; (2) medical evidence, or in certain circumstances, lay evidence of an in­service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) medical evidence of a nexus between the claimed in­service disease or injury and the present disease or injury. Hickson v. West, 12 Vet.App. 247, 253 (1999). Alternatively, under certain circumstances service connection may be presumed when the veteran meets the requirements of the presumptions established by statute and regulation. See Winters v. West, 12 Vet.App. 203, 209 (1999) (en banc) (service connection awarded automatically on presumptive basis where the veteran served in Vietnam and has one of the enumerated diseases listed in 38 C.F.R. § 3.309), vacated and remanded on other grounds sub nom. Winters v. Gober, 219 F.3d 1375, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2000); Brock v. Brown, 10 Vet.App. 155, 162 (1997); see also 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.307, 3.309 (2004).

Section 1117 of title 38 of the U.S. Code provides for entitlement to compensation on a presumptive basis to a Persian Gulf War veteran who complains of having an undiagnosed illness or illnesses that are 10% or more disabling during the presumption period established by the Secretary. 38 U.S.C. § 1117(a)(1)(A) and (B). Pursuant to section 1117(d)(2), the Secretary has promulgated 38 C.F.R. § 3.317, which provides, in pertinent part:

(a)(1) Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, VA will pay compensation in accordance with chapter 11 of title 38, United States Code, to a Persian Gulf veteran who exhibits objective indications of a qualifying chronic disability, provided that such disability:

(i) Became manifest either during active military, naval or air service in the Southwest Asia theater of operations during the Persian Gulf War, or to a degree of 10[%] or more not later than December 31, 2006; and

(ii) By history, physical examination, and laboratory tests cannot be attributed to any known clinical diagnosis.

. . . .

(3) For purposes of this section, "objective indications of chronic disability" include both "signs," in the medical sense of objective evidence perceptible to an examining physician, and other, non­medical indicators that are capable of independent verification.

. . . .

(b) For the purposes of paragraph (a)(1) of this section, signs or symptoms which may be manifestations of undiagnosed illness or medically unexplained chronic multisymptom illness include, but are not limited to:

(1) Fatigue

(2) Signs or symptoms involving skin

(3) Headache

(4) Muscle pain

(5) Joint pain

(6) Neurologic signs or symptoms

(7) Neuropsychological signs or symptoms

(8) Signs or symptoms involving the respiratory system (upper or lower)

(9) Sleep disturbances

(10) Gastrointestinal signs or symptoms

(11) Cardiovascular signs or symptoms

(12) Abnormal weight loss

(13) Menstrual disorders.

38 C.F.R. § 3.317 (2004) (emphases added); see also 38 U.S.C. § 1117(g). When promulgating this regulation, VA provided, inter alia, the following explanatory statement:

The regulation does not require that physicians make such a diagnosis [of an undefined disease]. Physicians should simply record all noted signs and reported symptoms, document all clinical findings, and provide a diagnosis where possible. If the signs and symptoms are not characteristic of a known clinical diagnosis, the physician should so indicate. This conforms with the usual standards of medical practice.

Some veterans may present with purely subjective symptoms, which, nonetheless, establish a basis for a valid claim under the provisions of this rule. We believe, however, that it is not only fair but also in keeping with Congressional intent to require some objective indication of the presence of a a chronic disability attributable to an undiagnosed illness before awarding compensation.

Ordinarily, an objective indication is established through medical findings, i.e. "signs" in the medical sense of evidence perceptible to an examining physician. However, we also will consider non-medical indications which can be independently observed or verified, such as time lost from work, evidence that a veteran has sought medical treatment for his or her symptoms, evidence affirming changes in a veteran's appearance, physical abilities, and mental or emotional attitude, etc. Lay statements from individuals who establish that they are able from personal experience to make their observations or statements will be considered as evidence when VA determines whether the veteran is suffering from an undiagnosed illness.

60 Fed. Reg. 6,660-63 (February 3, 1995). Manifestations of undiagnosed illnesses are presumed service connected unless there is affirmative evidence that an undiagnosed illness was not incurred in service or was instead caused by a supervening condition. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.317 (c)(1)(2).

Thus, in order to establish service connection under 38 U.S.C. § 1117 and 38 C.F.R. § 3.317, a claimant must present evidence that he or she is a Persian Gulf veteran who (1) exhibits objective indications; (2) of a chronic disability such as those listed in paragraph (b) of 38 C.F.R. § 3.317; (3) which became manifest either during active military, naval, or air service in the Southwest Asia theater of operations during the Persian Gulf War, or to a degree of 10% or more not later than December 31, 2006; and (4) such symptomatology by history, physical examination, and laboratory tests cannot be attributed to any known clinical diagnosis. 38 U.S.C. § 1117; 38 C.F.R. § 3.317(a).

The Board is required to consider all evidence of record and to consider, and discuss in its

decision, all potentially applicable provisions of law and regulation. Schafrath v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 589 (1991); Weaver v. Principi, 14 Vet.App. 301, 302 (2001) (per curiam order). Further, the Board is required to provide a written statement of the reasons or bases for its findings and conclusions on all material issues of fact and law presented on the record; the statement must be adequate to enable a claimant to understand the precise basis for the Board's decision, as well as to facilitate review in this Court. See 38 U.S.C. § 7104(d)(1); Allday v. Brown, 7 Vet.App. 517, 527 (1995); Simon v. Derwinski, 2 Vet.App. 621, 622 (1992); Gilbert, 1 Vet.App. at 57. To comply with this requirement, the Board must analyze the credibility and probative value of the evidence, account for the evidence that it finds to be persuasive or unpersuasive, and provide the reasons for its rejection of any material evidence favorable to the claimant. See Caluza v. Brown, 7 Vet.App. 498, 506 (1995) aff'd, 78 F.3d 604 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (table); Gabrielson v. Brown, 7 Vet.App. 36, 39­40 (1994); Gilbert, supra. Where the Board fails to meet this obligation, the Court is precluded from effectively reviewing the adjudication. See Meeks v. Brown, 5 Vet.App. 284, 288 (1993). Generally, when the Board's statement is inadequate, the matter will be remanded. See Hicks v. Brown, 8 Vet.App. 417, 422 (1995).

III. ANALYSIS

A. Mr. Gutierrez's Credibility

The Board determined that Mr. Gutierrez's subjective assertions regarding his claimed symptoms were entitled to no probative weight. R. at 16. The Board concluded in its findings of fact: "Joint and muscle pain, fatigue, dizziness, decreased vision, memory loss[,] and loss of concentration were not evident in service and the preponderance of the medical evidence fails to indicate that these disabilities are related to service or illness associated with service." R. at 3. When addressing this issue, the Board stated:

[T]he veteran has complained of these disabilities only sporadically. He appears only to complain of these difficulties during VA examinations or when his back and foot bother him. However, during these same examinations, objective medical evidence indicating these disabilities [was] not found. In evaluations of the veteran's service-connected foot disorder, the veteran makes little reference to the disabilities at issue. A review of both the private medical records and outpatient treatment report fails to indicate the alleged disabilities at issue. The veteran's own spouse fails to note many of the veteran's alleged chronic disorders.

. . . .

In this case, the Board finds that the veteran's initial claims for VA compensation, the initial VA evaluations, and the veteran's initial statements to the VA following his discharge from active service (in which he fails to mention any disability associated with joint and muscle pain, fatigue, dizziness, decreased vision, memory loss, and loss of concentration) provides affirmative evidence that the undiagnosed illnesses were not incurred during his active military service. It further fundamentally undermines the veteran's credibility in that it is his central contention that he has had these disabilities over an extended period of time following his discharge from service. If this was the case, the Board finds no rational reason to believe that there would not be at least some evidence or indications in support of the veteran's contention or that the veteran would not have noted these difficulties earlier or during his initial examinations. The Board finds that these facts do not support the veteran's case.

The only evidence of record before the Board specifically linking the veteran's current alleged disabilities to his service or to Gulf War syndrome consist[s] of the veteran's own evidentiary assertions. Such evidence is of limited probative weight. While the veteran is competent to describe manifestations perceivable to a lay party, he is not competent to diagnose himself with disabilities and then associate those disabilities with his active service or with any form of Persian Gulf syndrome.

R. at 14-15 (emphasis added). If this were a claim for direct service connection, a nexus between Mr. Gutierrez's disabilities and his period of active service would be required. See Caluza, supra. In this case, however, evidence is not required "specifically linking" Mr. Gutierrez's disabilities to his service or the Gulf War. See Brock, supra. Congress has decided as a matter of policy, stemming at least in part from difficulty of proof, that, even though a Persian Gulf War veteran's symptoms may not at this time be attributed to a specific disease, the symptoms may nonetheless be related to conditions in the Southwest Asia theater of operations and, for that reason, are presumed to be service connected. See 38 U.S.C. § 1117; 38 C.F.R. § 3.317 (a)(1)(i). Thus, Mr. Gutierrez was not required to provide evidence linking his current conditions to events during service and the Board erred by imposing such a nexus requirement. Further, as stated above, section 1117 and § 3.317 require that undiagnosed illnesses become manifest to a degree of 10% or more during the presumption period that ends on December 31, 2006. See 38 C.F.R.§ 3.317(a)(1)( i). Accordingly, the Board erred by failing to account for that, as well as the other factors discussed below, in determining that Mr. Gutierrez's complaints were not credible because he had not sought treatment for these conditions earlier or did not complain about them during his initial medical examinations. The Board also found that, although Mr. Gutierrez had complained of joint and muscle pain, fatigue, dizziness, and loss of concentration, the objective medical evidence failed to show any such disabilities. R. at 15. The evidence of record reveals that Mr. Gutierrez consistently complained during VA medical examinations about fatigue, muscle and joint pain, neurologic signs or symptoms (loss of concentration and memory), and sleep disturbances. See R. at 98, 106-108, 125-28, 228-29, 329, 348-53, 423, 426-27. These symptoms are specifically identified by VA in its own regulation as possible manifestations of an undiagnosed illness in Gulf War veterans. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.317(b). Objective medical evidence is not required for an award of service connection under section 1117. Rather, only competent evidence is required with "signs in the medical sense of objective evidence perceptible to an examining physician, and other, non-medical indicators that are capable of independent verification." 38 C.F.R. § 3.317(a)(2); see also 60 Fed. Reg. 6,660-63 (February 3, 1995). In finding Mr. Gutierrez's subjective complaints not credible, the Board stated: "He appears to only complain of these difficulties during VA examinations or when his back and foot bother him." R. at 14. However, the Board then states: "In evaluations of the veteran's service-connected foot disorder, the veteran makes little reference to the disabilities at issue." Id. These are inconsistent findings, and such contradictory analysis undermines the reasoning of the Board's decision. The Board, however, determined that Mr. Gutierrez's lack of complaints regarding his joint and muscle pain, fatigue, dizziness, and loss of memory and concentration during VA medical examinations for his service-connected foot disorder was evidence against his claim. R. at 14. The Board failed to discuss adequately this evidence of record in support of his claim. Accordingly, the Board's decision contains flawed reasoning and lacks an adequate statement of reasons or bases.

B. Competency of Lay Persons to Provide Evidence of Symptoms

The Board found that the lay statements by Mr. Gutierrez's wife, father, and friend, were "neither competent nor probative of the issues in question." R. at 16. The Board stated:

The Court has made clear that a lay party is not competent to provide probative evidence as to matters requiring expertise derived from specialized medical knowledge, skill, training, or education. Espiritu v. Derwinski, 2 Vet.App. 492, 494-95 (1994). Consequently, the veteran's lay medical assertions to the effect that he has certain subjective disabilities and that these disabilities are related to his Persian Gulf service is neither competent nor probative of the issues in question. While the veteran is competent to testify regarding events that are alleged to have occurred, he is not competent to diagnose himself with disabilities and then diagnose the etiology of these alleged disabilities.

R. at 16. For purposes of evaluating his claim under the presumption statute and regulation, Mr. Gutierrez, as well as his wife, father, and friend, are competent to testify because his alleged symptoms of Persian Gulf War illness are capable of lay observation. See Caluza, supra (holding that where determinative issue does not require medical expertise, lay evidence alone suffices); see also Layno v. Brown, 6 Vet.App. 465, 469­70 (1994) (lay evidence is competent to establish features or symptoms of injury or illness). Contrary to the Board's finding that Mr. Gutierrez's wife "failed to note many of his alleged disorders" (R. at 14), Mrs. Gutierrez did describe her observations of her husband's symptoms (see R. at 150). She reported that she had observed a "decline in his general health" and stated that "he doesn't seem to have as much energy, tires quickly, complains of aches and pains throughout his body, and seems to forget information quickly." Id. The Board did not address this objective description when making its credibility conclusions. Indeed, those facts directly contradict the Board's finding regarding his credibility. Mrs. Gutierrez provided evidence of symptoms capable of lay observation. Accordingly, the Board's failure to address this correctly leaves its statement of reasons or bases inadequate. Gilbert, 1 Vet.App. at 57.

C. Erroneous Application of Standard for Establishing

Service Connection for Gulf War Syndrome

Under § 3.317, Mr. Gutierrez's claimed symptoms "by history, physical examination, and laboratory tests cannot be related to a known clinical diagnosis." 38 C.F.R. § 3.317(a)(1)( ii). In its decision, the Board stated:

Rather than supporting the veteran's claim, the medical evidence obtained due to his treatment fails to support [his] case. Laboratory tests and studies have been essentially normal and the medical evidence cited by the veteran during his hearing before the Board fails to indicate an undiagnosed illness manifested by joint and muscle pain, fatigue, dizziness, decreased vision, memory loss [,] or a loss of concentration.

R. at 15. Indeed, the medical evidence of record shows that Mr. Gutierrez complained of joint and muscle pain, fatigue, dizziness, sleep problems, and loss of concentration, but no medical examiner ever provided a medical etiology for these illnesses. As the Board correctly noted, the record on appeal does not contain evidence that Mr. Gutierrez's alleged symptoms were related to any current diagnosed disabilities or had a known etiology. R. at 1-452. However, his claimed symptoms by history, physical examination, and laboratory tests cannot be related to any known clinical diagnosis for compensation to be awarded under section 1117. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.317 (a)(1)(ii). Therefore, the Board erred by concluding that the failure of the laboratory tests and studies to diagnose an illness was evidence against Mr. Gutierrez's claim.

Mr. Gutierrez argues that reversal is appropriate; however, reversal is the appropriate remedy when the only permissible view of the evidence is contrary to the Board's decision. See Johnson v. Brown, 9 Vet.App. 7, 10 (1996). Where the Board has incorrectly applied the law, failed to provide an adequate statement of reasons or bases for its determinations, or where the record is otherwise inadequate, a remand is generally the appropriate remedy. See Falk v. West, 12 Vet.App. 402 (1999). In this case, the Board has made clearly erroneous findings as to certain facts relevant to the determination of service connection and has provided an inadequate statement of reasons or bases for its decision. See 38 U.S.C. § 7104(d)(1). The Court cannot, however, conclude from the evidence before it that the only "permissible view" is a finding of service connection. See Johnson, Allday, Simon, and Gilbert, all supra. Thus, the decision will be vacated and the matter remanded. See Gilbert, 1 Vet.App. at 57; Fletcher v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 394, 397 (1991) (remand is meant to entail critical examination of justification for decision; Court expects that Board will reexamine evidence of record, seek any other necessary evidence, and issue timely, well-supported decision).

IV. CONCLUSION

Based upon the forgoing analysis and the record on appeal, the Board's September 12, 2001, decision is VACATED and the matter is REMANDED for further action consistent with this opinion. On remand, the Board must provide an adequate statement of the reasons or bases for its findings and conclusions on all material issues of fact and law presented on the record, including what objective indications are lacking if it determines that Mr. Gutierrez is not suffering from a Persian Gulf War disability manifested to a degree of 10% or more in satisfaction of section 1117. See 38 U.S.C. § 7104(d)(1); see also Allday, 7 Vet.App. at 527; Simon, 2 Vet.App. at 622; Gilbert, supra. The Board must analyze the credibility and probative value of the evidence, account for the evidence that it finds to be persuasive or unpersuasive, and provide the reasons for its rejection of any material evidence favorable to Mr. Gutierrez. See Gabrielson, Caluza, and Gilbert, all supra. On remand, Mr. Gutierrez is free to present additional evidence and argument, including those arguments raised in his brief to this Court, and the Board must address them. See Kay v. Principi, 16 Vet.App. 529, 534 (2002); Kutscherousky v. West, 12 Vet.App. 369 (1999) (per curiam order).

Sphere: Related Content

Number of VA claims poised to hit 1 million

My note: Promises..promises..they have been going to lower this for more than 10 years.

Doesn’t matter who is in charge.. the VA does what they want, in their own Lil world. Govt starts a war

And makes no plans for those that are going to come home..ignore, deny til they die

Number of VA claims poised to hit 1 million

By Kimberly Hefling, Associated Press

Published: Thursday, June 18, 2009 7:34 a.m. MDT

WASHINGTON — This isn't the same as getting a free duffel bag for being the millionth person to go through the turnstiles: The Veterans Affairs Department appears poised to have hit the 1 million milestone on claims it still hasn't processed.

This unwelcome marker approaches as the agency scrambles to hire and train new claims processors, which can take two years. VA officials are working with the Pentagon under orders from President Barack Obama to create by 2012 a system that will allow the two agencies to electronically exchange records, a process now done manually on paper.

Meanwhile, veterans, some of whom were severely wounded in Iraq and Afghanistan, continue to endure financial hardship while their claims are processed. They wait more than four months on average for a claim to be processed, and appealing a claim takes a year and a half on average.

Adding to the backlog are factors ranging from the complexity of processing mental health-related claims of Iraq veterans, to a change that made it easier for Vietnam veterans exposed to the Agent Orange herbicide to qualify for disability payments. The VA says it's receiving about 13 percent more claims today than it did a year ago.

The VA's Web site shows the department has more than 722,000 claims and more than 172,000 appeals it currently is processing, for a total of about 900,000. That is up from about 800,000 total claims in January, according to the site.

Since early 2007, the VA has hired 4,200 claims processors and with that has seen improvements in the number of claims it's processing. It's also working to modernize its system.

Last year, Congress passed legislation that sought to update the disability rating process. A hearing Thursday by a House Veterans Affairs subcommittee will look into whether the law's changes are being implemented and whether the VA will be able to handle a million claims.

Veterans advocates acknowledge there have been improvements in the claims process, but say it still is too cumbersome. They say some injured veterans from the recent wars are paying bills with credit cards, pending their first disability payments, at a time when it is challenging enough to recover from or adapt to their injuries.

"They keep talking about a seamless transition, but I can tell you I haven't seen it being very seamless," said John Roberts of Houston, who is national service director for the nonprofit Wounded Warrior Project, which helps veterans such as David Odom, 29, of Haleyville, Ala.

Odom, a former Army staff sergeant who did three tours in Iraq, said he suffers from post-traumatic stress disorder. With symptoms such as anxiety and anger, he finds it difficult to work. He said he's waited months to learn the outcome of an appeal that would give him higher compensation.

"It's added quite a bit of stress because I don't know what's going to happen. I want to know either way so I can figure out what my next step is," Odom said.

Former Marine Cpl. Patrick Murray, 25, of Arlington, Va., who was severely burned and had his right leg amputated after a roadside bomb explosion in 2006, considers himself fortunate. He got a job once he was discharged from the military, making for an easier wait as his case is processed.

"For someone that gets out of the military and doesn't have a job lined up, they have no income," said Murray, who works for a construction company. "They are sitting there making zero money, either racking up credit card bills or taking out loans, whatever it may be, all the while waiting."

Murray said the first claim he filed was lost. The second ended up at a VA office in Colorado, and the third was finally processed after a couple of months. It was mind-boggling, he said, to have spent 11 months in Walter Reed Army Medical Center and in outpatient care with stacks of medical files, only to find out he had to mail his records to the VA to prove he was injured.

"The biggest disappointment, I guess, is that it should be unnecessary," Murray said.

Ryan Gallucci, spokesman for the veterans group AMVETS, said his organization supports a law change that would make it less burdensome for a veteran to prove that an injury was from his time in war service. He said that may help with the claims process.

Rep. John Hall, D-N.Y., who is chairing Thursday's hearing, said he's confident the claims process eventually will be improved.

"Veterans who are currently waiting, it can't come soon enough to them," Hall said.

Number of VA claims poised to hit 1 million

///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

Meanwhile, veterans, some of whom were severely wounded in Iraq and Afghanistan, continue to endure financial hardship while their claims are processed. They wait more than four months on average for a claim to be processed, and appealing a claim takes a year and a half on average.

This is optimum processing in most cases these dates are not a reality, many veterans are waiting nearly a year on having their claims adjudicated, and that is if they only have one or two medical issues, butmany compensation claims can involve as many as ten-15 medical issues, which complicate the processing of the claims, to figure out if the issues are "pyramiding" where the issues are really related to one organ like brain issues and mental health and TBI, how do you seperate PTSD and memeory issues caused by IED blasts? Even though most people would think there should be 2 seperate ratings, the VARO raters award the highest percentage allowed for the worst injury to the brain in most cases it would be the percentage awarded for PTSD. But this can take months of tests, and decisions by the rating team.

Then if you have to appeal the claims to the Board of Veteran Appeals (BVA) this can take several years just to get to the point of having a hearing scheduled, then it can be another 6 months before the Judge who hears the case can make a decision and get the award letter sent to the veteran, then the file has to be sent back to the Regional Office that is handling the claim and then it can be another 4-6 months before the raters award a percentage to the claim if the Judge grants the claim.

At this point the VARO can still award a percentage lower than the veteran feels is appropriate and then it has to go thru the entire procedure again, the veteran files a Notice of Disagreement (NOD) and explains why they do not feel the percentage is appropriate, the RO will have the Decision Review Officer (DRO) look at it, and they again will deny the higher award in 99 out of 100 cases, and again the veteran has to appeal the award to the BVA, again waiting 2-3 years, and then wait another 6 months for the Judges decision and another 6 months for the VARO to implement the Judges decision so a veteran can spend 10 years fighting the Department of Veteran Affairs for what they feel is a fair award (the infamous hamster wheel, as veterans call it) many die during this procedure and if the veteran is victorious thru this procedure, the VA does not pay interest on the money they have deprived the veteran of for the past decade of harassment.

I have seen veterans lose their homes, cars, and their families due to the VA compensation claim problems, marriages fall apart under the stress of the veteran not being able to work, there is no safety net, while they go thru this protracted battle with the nation that sent them to war, or preperation for war, when the military person was either injured or was medically stricken to the point of being unemployable.

The famous "PROMISE" is you are either killed or injured while in service to your nation, we will care for you and your family. No one ever said it would be easy to collect on that Promise, if young people coming out of sghool knew the problems they would face if they become injured on active duty, the all volunteer military would end, and the nation would be forced to restart the dreaded draft. Who in their right mind would volunteer to serve their country, if they knew the end result could be a loss of your family, your home and your vehicles?

One million reasons not to join the military can be found right here in this story....and that is a sad sommentary and who is repsonsible, the VA or Congress or the President? you decide.....

Sphere: Related Content