Greetings, fellow Veterans. John has invited me on to the show to discuss some of the not-so-well-known side effects of the new PACT Act. We’ll also discuss the Barry vs. McDonough decision and how that impacts §3.350(f)(3) going forward… or backward in terms of CUE or the improper construction of a regulation.

Remember way back in 2013 when Walker v Shinseki came out? Well, this is more of the same but it benefits Johnny Vet rather than depriving him of something. All these years we went sailing by §3.303(b) ignoring the fact it applied only to chronic diseases shown in service- §§33.307; 3.309. Suddenly, the Secretary decided to read it himself and was flabergasted to find out what ir really said.

In a nutshell, misconstrual of the regulation is on the author- not the benefactor. What the hey? You (VASEC) wrote it. It’s presumed you’re conversant in English. If you (VA) give me something ( e.g., service connection for PTSD), and then determine one of your gomers misread the regulation and CUE me to take it away, you might win. It depends on the individual case. There have been times that the VASEC has, how shall we say, fabricated regulations to sometimes read the way he’d prefer them to be read. With the revocation of Chevron deference, we’re in uncharted waters on each and every regulation and it’s real meaning.

But… if you deny me a benefit that the Fed Circus determines should have accrued to all Vets since 1945, that CUE is on you, Boo Boo. You can’t complain and say “but if we’re forced to make it right, it’ll bankrupt us.” I’m sorry. That dog won’t hunt. As for retroactivity, that is going to be another battle on a future day from what I gather. But shoot, let’s not spoil the Radio Show talking points.

Helio Courier with a broken leg. Tuy Hoa 1966.

Thursday evening at 1900 Hours on the East Coast and somehow magically on at the same time on the West Coast at 1600 Hours, the magic of the John’s electrons will prevail. Tune in or dial in.