Copied from www.cjonline.com @ TOPEKA KANSAS.
VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV
Letters to the editor
The Capital-Journal
Published Saturday, December 01, 2007
Shameful treatment

I hope our senator from Kansas, Pat Roberts, was hanging his head in shame on Veterans Day. He is not a friend of veterans, nor a friend of our troops in Iraq today.

He failed in his position as chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee to do due diligence before allowing President Bush to send our troops to Iraq. He continued in this position and failed to maintain proper oversight of the war.

He constantly votes to defeat measures that would help veterans when the duty of this country is to support them. He has continued to follow the Bush line on the war, and that to me, is tantamount to violating the Constitution.

My father fought bravely in World War II. He died in Colmery-O'Neil VA Medical Center. The care that he received there was substandard, to say the least. Every day, I would stop at the hospital to see dad on my way home from work. I found him lying in his own bodily waste more times than I can count. The afternoon of the night he died, though he was blind and couldn't feed himself, the staff left his dinner tray next to the bed.

Sen. Roberts, how can you sleep when you know the tragic conditions at our veterans hospitals? How can you justify veterans of our current conflict returning from this illegal war with horrible physical and mental wounds and not getting the care that this country owes to them? How can you defend your lack of oversight of the president and his minions?

Our veterans deserve better representation and better treatment. And our brave men and women need to be brought home from Iraq now.

Kansans need to send someone to the Senate who will live up to the duties, unlike the service Sen. Roberts has given us.

TURLEY K. HAYES, Topeka KANSAS

Dear Mr. Hayes;

As Abraham Lincoln spoke eliquontly, Mission, Vision, Core Values & Goals


Mission Statement

"To care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan."

These words, spoken by Abraham Lincoln during his Second Inaugural Address, reflect the philosophy and principles that guide VA in everything we do, and are the focus of our endeavors to serve our Nation’s veterans and their families.


Vision

We will strive to meet the needs of the Nation’s veterans and their families today and tomorrow by: (1) becoming an even more veteran-focused organization, functioning as a single, comprehensive provider of seamless service to the men and women who have served our Nation; (2) cultivating a dedicated VA workforce of highly skilled employees who understand, believe in, and take pride in our vitally important mission; (3) continuously benchmarking the quality and delivery of our service with the best in business and use innovative means and high technology to deliver world-class service; and (4) fostering partnerships with veterans organizations, the Department of Defense and other federal agencies, state and local veterans organizations, and other stakeholders to leverage resources and enhance the quality of services provided to veterans.(Va Goals).

My apology for your father's treatment at the va medical center. I HOPE you have contacted your elected representatives with your story, so appropriate measures can be taken, to prevent another veteran from receiving the same treatment.

Sincerely;
Mr. Bill Bowdoin(Veteran US Army)

I want to know has the laws changed were I will be able to get my money form early effective date I apply for my disability. I have been award my 100% disability check but they did not go back to the day I applied.


My early effective date of August 1, 1984 case has been in court for the past 10 years. I have been denied by Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in St. Paul, Minnesota and U.S. Board of Veterans' Appeals.

My understanding to date is/was the same as the resident experts here, and that was to the date the claim was filed. I can't answer your post with any "point of USC law certain" because your question is simplistic and thus leaves blanks I prefer to not fill with assumptions. If you would be kind enough to detail the what, when, where, who, why circumstances, I would be glad to reference it legally, and perhaps give you Case No & legal opinions rendered by the CAVC as well as Federal District/Circuit.
Wishing you the best and Godspeed.
Eres Tu!
Freddy

To my knowledge they have not changed the law. Please provide more information so we can help. I have never heard the term "early effective date" used before.

Did you file in 1984?

Did you receive a decision from that filing?

Where you awarded 100% at that time? Did you file an Appeal or NOD - Notice of Disagreement within 1 year?

Did you file for an upgrade some point after you received that decision?

Did the VA file CUE "Clear and Unmistakable Error" in your original decision?

If you have a case before the Court of Veterans Appeals, please provide the case information.

I see that you have filed 4 times with the CVA and that you have been denied 4 times. I have not had time to read more information, but Freddy you can find his cases using his last name in the CVA system.

AND HERE YOU GO....

GREENE, Chief Judge: The veteran, Previous Hit William Next Hit L. Previous Hit Hollman Next Hit, appeals,
through counsel, an April 29, 2003, decision of the Board of Veterans'
Appeals (Board) that (1) denied an effective date earlier than September
27, 1995, for his service-connected retinitis pigmentosa and (2)
determined that there was no clear and unmistakable error (CUE) in a
November 5, 1985, VA regional office (RO) decision that had denied him
service connection for that condition. Record (R.) at 1-24. ("Retinitis
Pigmentosa" is defined as "a group of diseases, frequently hereditary,
marked by progressive loss of retinal response, . . . retinal atrophy,
attenuation of the retinal vessels, and clumping of the pigment, with
contraction of the field of vision." Dorland's Illustrated Medical
Dictionary 1454 (28th ed. 1994).) Mr. Previous HitHollmanNext Hit argues for reversal of the
April 2003 Board decision on the specific grounds that the November 1985
RO decision was based on a misapplication of 38 C.F.R. 3.303(c) (1985)
and VA General Counsel Precedent Opinion 1-85 (Mar. 5, 1985) [hereinafter
G.C. Prec. 1-85], which then provided that congenital diseases could be
service connected. Appellant's (App.) Brief (Br.) at 11-18. Additionally,
he argues that under Stegall v. West, 11 Vet.App. 268, 271 (1998), the
Board erred by failing to comply with the terms of the remand granted by
this Court on January 17, 2002. Br. at 6-10. The Secretary argues for
affirmance of the April 2003 Board decision, stating that even if the 1985
RO had erred in its
application of law, the Board determined that "it was not the sort
of error which, had it not been made, would have manifestly changed the
outcome." Secretary's Br. at 11-18. On August 3, 2005, Mr. Previous HitHollmanNext Hit filed
a motion for expedited consideration of this appeal. Single-judge
disposition is appropriate. See Frankel v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 23, 25-
26 (1990). This appeal is timely, and the Court has jurisdiction over the
case pursuant to 38 U.S.C. 7252(a) and 7266. For the reasons that
follow, the Court will affirm the April 29, 2003, decision of the Board.


I can go all the way back to 1979, the appeals and subsequent decisions are similar. My personal thought on this topic is that I have researched all your claims, appeals and Board of Veteran Appeals, DRO reviews etc., barring a miracle or the United States Supreme Court, from what I have read and been able to ascertain is that you will NOT win. The 1984 Decision caps it by the court stating that your disability claim, filed, NOD,DRO and appealed and CUE'd. That while the court did state that the RO did make a CUE error in not stating it, nevertheless, you were denied because no matter the RO error, it would NOT have changed the outcome of the decision in that your condition was proven (To the Courts version of what was, what is) to be hereditary and unfortunately was shown to have existed before your entry in service, and documented as such. I did not bother posting the other decisions,they were mirror images in substance.
Wishing you the best and Godspeed.
Eres Tu!
Freddy

I need to add this small note:

While the resident experts as well a myself, make every attempt to assist, inform and offer insight and information to help you win your adjudications. There will be times when we will bear you BAD news, or not so good news, or terrible news, but keep in mind please that you expect help and truth from us, and that's what you get. This news was not good, I know. I don't relish in posting it and I even gave you my honest opinion, should you decide to go further as well. It was asked and it was answered.
Eres Tu!
Freddy

I just finished reading the case and the Docket history. Never going to happen. In fact, you are lucky to get anything based on this case. In fact, my readings are that you lied to the Army or the ARG druing your second and third attempts to enlist. I did not take time to count, but I think you served about a year during the 3 periods.

You list yourself as retired military. I can find nothing that says that is the case. Please correct it.

The GOOD thing between me and you Dave, is that I can selectively not comment on the points you brought up when I see them. You on the other hand have (I think, not sure) a responsibility to the veterans and Mil.com to point out what I can avoid. With a smile, Thanks Dave, you're a good man and friend.
Eres Tu!
Freddy

I have the freedom to decide sometimes. In this case, I felt that things where very wrong and I had to say my piece.