Veterans Day: part four

part one
part two
part three

This is the final part of the speech I wrote in 2002 detailing how the veterans compensation system works. This section deals with official rules and cases that are a matter of public record.

To further draw your attention to how this system works, allow me to quote from the Board of Veterans Appeals publication Understanding the Appeal Process, VA Pamphlet 01-00-1, January 2000, p. 16-17:

IS THERE ANY WAY TO HAVE THE BOARD DECIDE MY CASE MORE QUICKLY?

38U.S.C. 7107(a)(2)
38C.F.R. 20.900(c)

If you believe your appeal should be decided sooner than the appeals of others who filed before you did, you can write directly to the Board explaining why. This is called filing a motion to advance on the docket.

Over the years, BVA has granted fewer than three out of every twenty requests for advancement on the docket. That's because most appeals involve some type of hardship, and the Board wishes to treat everyone fairly. You need to show convincing proof of exceptional circumstances before your case can be advanced. Some examples of exceptional circumstances are terminal illness, danger of bankruptcy or foreclosure, or an error by the VA that caused a significant delay in the docketing of your appeal.

Be sure to send us proof of your exceptional circumstances with your motion. For example, if you are about to lose your home due to foreclosure, send us a copy of the notice you received telling you that. If you have terminal illness, include a statement about that from your doctor.

This pamphlet was prepared by intelligent professionals, so please consider the following:

• Most delays in these cases originate with the VA, not with the veteran. But it is the veteran alone who suffers the consequences.
  
  
• The suggestion to send foreclosure papers to prove financial hardship, as the only listed option to prove that point, is irresponsible at best. By the time a veteran has received foreclosure papers, copied them, filed a motion to advance on the docket, had that motion heard, had their case advanced and heard, they might well be homeless.

Whoever, or whatever team, wrote this pamphlet surely was aware of that. Why is this advice being given to veterans? Is it because the VA truly doesn't care whether a veteran becomes homeless? Why are there no consequences to the VA system when that happens?

Now let's look at p. 29:

WHAT HAPPENS TO AN APPEAL IF THE APPELLANT DIES BEFORE A DECISION IS ISSUED?

38U.S.C. 7104(a)
38 C.F.R. 20.1302

According to the law, the death of an appellant generally ends the appeal. So if an appellant dies, the Board normally dismisses the appeal without issuing a decision. The rights of a deceased appellant's survivors are not affected by this action. Survivors may still file a claim at the Regional Office for any benefits to which they may be entitled.

These claims are processed and decided very slowly. If the veteran dies before the VA completes the processing of their claim, which again the Veteran has no or very little control or influence over, the veteran has suffered without that compensation, and their spouse and children continue to suffer. The claim dies with the veteran.

And again the veteran and the veteran’s family pays the price. There are no consequences to the VA system.

Maybe the taxpaying American public really does want to save money in this way, but I’d like to think not. After all, I volunteered to defend them, and want to believe the best about them. I think the public is totally unaware of how this system actually operates and affects veterans.

Last, I draw your attention to the website of the Department of Veterans Affairs. I began reviewing the archives of Board of Veterans Appeals decisions made earlier in 2002.

I dissociated after reviewing five cases and had to stop reading for now. The cases are heartbreaking, and I believe that all five of these veterans did deserve to be compensated. Here is a brief summary:

Case #1: Citation 0202111
Docket: 99-15 798
Decision date: March 6, 2002

This female veteran served from 1987 to 1992. In 1991, five years into her term of service, she was diagnosed with a situational adjustment disorder. Apparently she required a long time to misadjust to life as a soldier.

After her discharge,she was treated for mental health issues at a VA treatment center from 1993 through 1997. Her symptoms included nightmares, panic and anxiety attacks, depression and suicide attempts. The VA did not diagnose her with a personality disorder; instead she was diagnosed with PTSD and panic disorder. The VA clinician believed the veteran had suffered childhood sexual abuse, although she had evidenced no psychiatric symptoms until she was in the military, and continued to have symptoms after discharge.

In 1999 the veteran admitted that she had been raped. The VA found no record of the rape in her medical records, but did find that she had been treated several times for genitourinary problems while in the service around the time she said the rape occurred.

Incredibly, the BVA used her medical treatment for the condition to discredit her testimony that she was raped by saying that this provided her with additional opportunity to report the rape! This ignores the shame a soldier must endure in having to admit to being incapacitated in such a way, and the symptomology of acute stress disorder and cogntive function of being traumatized.

The veteran stated that she was a virgin at the time of the rape. Because she had been taking oral contraceptives at the timme, the BVA found this statement not to be credible. Of course, whether or not she was a virgin had no bearing on whether or not the rape occurred, but it may have added to her mental anguish.

Again, all I can say is that oral contraceptives are really a very logical medication for a female soldier to take. Why are female veterans being emotionally abused and discredited for taking a medication that makes so much sense for them to be on? Because the VA found no evidence of an in-service stressor. They refused to obtain a medical nexus opinion, and refused to order or review a psychiatric compensation exam.

I understand that the BVA contorted and used the rules of the system to fmd against the veteran. They used their rules very well to that end. But was justice done to this veteran? Was her claim handled fairly and impartially? I don't think so.

Case #2: Citation 02022880
Docket 95-38 932
Decision date: March 27, 2002

This case involves a female veteran who was raped in 1979 during VA hospitalization where she was being treated for a psychiatric disorder. The BVA allowed that the rape occurred during the veteran's hospitalization but concluded that she had not incurred further worsening of her symptoms as a result. Therefore she was not eligible for any compensations.

I am surprised to leam that rape has no negative affect on the mentally disabled. I would think that if a person already has a mental disability that rape would be another injury for them to deal with and recover from. I cannot imagine a rape that would have no consequences to the victim.

This same veteran’s records indicate that she began drinking alcohol while in the service. Also there is no record of this veteran experiencing psychiatric problems before her military service, only afterwards. A VA clinician did, however, link her mental health problems back to her childhood, and to her havingbeing born with a cleft palate! Her symptoms include non-assertiveness, passive/dependent personality traits, substance abuse, free-floating anxiety, and dissociation. She was not diagnosed with PTSD, but her symptoms all cross over to that diagnosis.

Case #3: Citation 0202249
Docket 98-06 477
Decision date: March 8, 2002

This is a case involving a female veteran who was on active duty from 1975 to 1977. She initially filed a claim for a service-connected mental disorder, but her VA health care provider had not diagnosed her with PTSD. In later treatment she was diagnosed with PTSD, and a 50% disability compensation claim was allowed.

Her appeal was to make the effective date of her claim the actual date of her initial claim, which had been denied. Her date of earlier disability was not allowed. Her first diagnosis was not PTSD, but all of her symptomology crosses over to that diagnosis, and she was later diagnosed with PTSD. Again the rules were used to disallow a legitimate claim.

Case #4: Citation 0202159
Docket 98-05 461
Decision date: March 7, 2002

This case involves a female veteran who was on active duty from 1966 to 1968. She was stationed in Saigon, Vietnam, in an administrative position. During her tour of duty she was in a combat area and directly witnessed combat, including explosions and death. She was also raped in service.

According to the military rules of that time, she was not officially categorized as being on combat duty. Consequently, the assumption of PTSD connection due to combat was denied to her. This denial is based on a rule she had no control over, rather than on the reality of her tour of duty.

Moreover, other than her own word, she had no supporting evidence that she was raped. She became pregnant as a result of that rape, and was discharged from the service due to that pregnancy.

Her claim was disallowed. So here is a veteran who served in a combat zone, honorably, without the benefit of combat classification. She was raped by a fellow soldier. The rape led to an unplanned pregnancy which resulted in her discharge from the service.

I can't even imagine her pain and suffering.

I understand the need to follow the rules, but what are we to do when the rules lead to so much injustice and further suffering? This soldier served her country honorably, risked her life, and was dishonored and not supported upon her return.

Case #5: Citation 0202078
Docket 96-15 047
Decision date: March 4, 2002

This case involves a male veteral who served two tours of duty: first from 1969 to 1977, and then from 1980 to 1982. His second tour of duty ended in an administrative discharge, and he has been denied VA benefits.

During his period of active service, he reports that he was beaten and sodomized by at least two soldiers in one attack. His record shows evidence of acute stress disorder, in that after he was attacked, his behaviors changed radically. He became disoriented and began to drink alcohol and use drugs excessively. He attempted to commit suicide while in service, which is documented in his records.

Considering the amount of time this veteran served his county honorably it is clear to me that his problems originated while he was in service. Again, maybe he doesn't present himself to be a very attractive, likeable person to the VA staff, but consider his experience, trauma, and mental disorders. If his behavior was adaptive to civilian life, and his appearance normal, he wouldn't need help, or have a well-grounded claim. How can he improve his quality of life without appropriate medical and mental health treatment, and financial support?

Should all claims be allowed? No. Some claims are not well-grounded or legitimate. But many of them, perhaps most of them, are, and yet all veterans are being treated as frauds, cheats, and fakers. For veterans with mental disorders, this becomes particularly damaging. When our legitimate claims are delayed and denied, we are very vulnerable to further damage, which deteriorates our adaptability even more.

I've discovered that I love my country, my government, its military and its veterans enough to speak up and hope for change. Can you help the veterans receive the care they need and deserve?