BVA-Circular file

Posted on September 28, 2011 by asknod

     This is yet another tragic example of a VSO and, by extension, the service officer assigned, to understand the rules and regulations and their application to a claim for benefits. One must have evidence of an injury or disease, or, in the alternative, documented risk factors that point to possible injury or disease in service. Where Agent Orange claims are involved, the Vet must have proof of assignment to the RVN during his military service. There are a few cases that have been won involving Vets assigned to Guam, Okinawa, the Philippines, Korea and Thailand. These are very limited in scope and provide no precedence for the vast majority of Vets so we won’t go into that here. For a Vet with no record of assignment to the RVN between Jan. 9, 1961 to May 7, 1975, the chances of winning a claim for Diabetes, Type 2 on a presumptive basis 40 years after discharge are astronomical. If you didn’t have it in service and you come down with it in 2006, all it proves is that you are grossly obese,  have an incredibly poor diet or were genetically predisposed to it anyway. Every service officer employed by accredited VSOs and trained in the art of helping Vets should know this. They learn this stuff in Claims 101 or are supposed to. 


     Vietnam Vets are presumptively assumed to have been exposed to the herbicides and therefore are automatically granted service connection for a large number of diseases and cancers they manifest later in life. Veterans with no duty or visitation to the RVN during the aforementioned window of time are not afforded this presumption and therefore are not eligible for  this consideration. 

     So the question we pose is why is this Vet (with a host of other negative problems in service) before the BVA with a claim that is bound for denial? We commiserate with the gentleman and feel sorry for his poor life choices, but our sympathy is tempered by his and the VSO’s wasting of valuable judicial time better spent on claims with some merit. Every dog must have his day. Now, with that said, why don’t VSOs, during their training of service officers, try to teach them to counsel Vets about the chances of winning claims which are severely compromised? Worse yet, it appears that not all service officers are well versed in what the meaning of “is” is. We have reports of SOs telling Vets that tattoos will not be considered an HCV risk factor and that contraction of STDs in service is considered willful misconduct, and therefore not grounds for service connection for HCV. The most egregious example we have come across was the SO that handed a Vet claimant an application for TDIU who wasn’t rated for anything yet.  We cannot emphasize the importance of confirming what passes for good advice from someone who is not a lawyer. VSOs are a wonderful invention but the weakest link in the chain can often be the SO who is woefully inept at his profession.  So, from New York City, meet the Vet with the worst case we have come across in years…
Unknown's avatar

About asknod

VA claims blogger
This entry was posted in AO, Frivolous Filings and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.