10-13-05

 

To:   The Veterans Disability Commissioners.

 

From:

Charles Kelley

2078 Eastwood Drive

Snellville, GA 30078

770-979-1863

DMZ Veteran 67-68

 

I was encouraged to see the e-mail address for the commission had changed and was not going through the DVA.  At least the perception is that Veterans statements and comments are no longer being screened by a totally adversarial federal agency with a “government conflict of interest.”

 

SUBJECT:  These are my responses to the commission on “Duty Service Connection” given out on September the 15th of this year.

 

 

Veterans’ Disability Benefits Commission

List of Potential Research Questions

 

 

Duty Service Connection Subcommittee

 

D1.  Should VA‘s definition for “line of duty“ change?  If so, how?

 

D1 Answer:

 

The answer is a definite NO!  Do not give the presidential directed DVA more legal opportunity to rear-end even more veterans.  If the Veteran is in the military and in good standing then any issue, outside of purposeful self-inflicted, is line of duty. 

 

D2.  Should the Benefits Package be restructured for those Veterans who have incurred a service-connected disability, and for their survivors?  If so, how?

 

D2 Answer:

 

The answer is YES!

 

·         The DVA needs to be held accountable for stalling even already associated mandated service-connected disorders that should take minutes, not a year and half or longer.

 

·         After the ping-pong match between the local DVA shop and the BVA for years going back in forth.  You might want to ask how it is that remands at the local DVA shop sit on someone’s desk for over five years while no one works it while the Veteran or his widow languish, give up, and quit fighting; as designed by this despicable federal agency.

 

·         The DVA needs to rescind the gate for the length of time that a Veteran must be service associated in order for the widows and orphans to receive the additional money granted them.  Toxic chemical cancers are not normal war wounds and the length of time for death or cancer cured on average is six months to three years, not eight years.

 

·         The DVA must rescind this stupid rule that when a Veteran dies his or her DVA deliberately stalled claim is now null and void and like Social Security should be made retroactive to the date of submittal.  This might eliminate some of the nefarious and criminal actions at the Department of the DVA and its Secretary directed by the “Oh so caring White House after White House” and their respective political parties.

 

Just one example of this recently is one my own was diagnosed with toxic chemical associated lung cancer in a VA hospital.   For eight months he could get no DVA help for his family as the family tried to fight this cancer with all their might while worrying about where the next mortgage payment might come from or the next family meal.   The DVA could not get money in his account before he took his dirt nap 8 months later.   That gentlemen is disgusting and unacceptable performance and maybe even intentional on behalf of the DVA and the presidents.  He also leaves behind a five year old but thanks to the DVA rules and gates that should not apply to toxic chemical cancers; she will not get the extra $300.00 a month that her father earned for her by giving his life for this corrupt government.

 

D3.  To what extent, if any, should VA policies relating to presumptive conditions be changed?

 

D3 Answer:

 

As it stands now the DVA and its Secretary, once again using nefarious and criminal actions, have mandated that our toxic chemical legacy issues be associated to the “dioxin TCDD only” and that “cause and effect methodology” be used to a p-value of 0.05.  This "world gold scientific standard" rules out any presumptions.  Even when these issues are found and the DVA and the White House decided not to pay for the damages, the taxpayer paid for bogus government studies are corrupted by the government all the way up to the White House.

 

So lets be clear here.  The DVA does not use “presumptive” as defined by Webster’s and the Congress of the United States and the intent of the Dioxin Act of 1984 thoroughly reviewed by a circuit court as to the intent of congress and found the DVA not in compliance and order them and the VACEH to comply.  (1) Which they have refused to do.

 

We do not need to specify which toxic chemical or group of toxic chemicals (synergy) caused the death or disability.  We do not need a linear dose response to the dioxin TCDD only and then totally disregard the “increased risk of incidence” or the “statistical increases” found in death and disabilities.  Only our presidents, the political parties, and the DVA seemed to be interested in this non-sense approach to “presumptive.”

 

There is such a thing as “presumptive to Service in Vietnam” regardless of which toxic chemical in Agent Orange, White, or Blue caused it. 

 

No different than the additional birth defects given to women Veterans not because of toxic chemicals but only Service in Vietnam.  This of course is just criminal in intent.  When comparing Ranch Hand Birth defects to this so-called Women service in Vietnam only study, they are almost identical in results and percentages.

 

Yet, because of the male Veterans not meeting some linear dose response to the dioxin TCDD only they are denied by this corrupt Federal Agency and corrupt DVA secretaries.  Obviously, a double standard used based on numbers affected, not medical or scientific facts!  Just as obviously, a political way to buy votes for the less than honorable presidents and garbage political parties.

 

Including that spina bifida is a neural tube defect and there cannot be a single teratogenic toxic chemical that causes a neural tube defect that the resultant will be only one of many issues related to a neural tube defect.  That gentleman defies medicine, medical science, and the laws of nature.

 

Yet, the DVA and its presidential appointed secretaries can overrule all of this based on what?  That they are some how more powerful than the laws of nature or maybe even God. 

 

Yes, congress has given the DVA just such powers!

 

But then as the Secretary of State stated in 1979 - Military men are just dumb stupid animals to be used as pawns in State Department Affairs.  I guess  Kissinger would include our damaged offspring also in that statement.

 

D4.  Should certain rating principles related to service connection be modified?

(See questions below)

 

            A.  To what extent should VA modify eligibility standards for compensation if data from certain categories of service-connected Veterans demonstrate little or no measurable loss of earning capacity and/or quality of life?

 

            B.  To what extent should eligibility standards change for disabilities that occur as part of genetics?

 

            C.  To what extent, if any, should the “age” factor into determining eligibility to the         following benefits:

 

                        1.  Individual Unemployables (IU)

           

                        2.  Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment

           

3.      Compensation

 

            D.  Should the benefit of the doubt rule be reconsidered or redefined?

 

            E.  Should service connection on a “secondary” basis be redefined?

           

F.      Should service connection on an “aggravation” basis be redefined?

 

 

D4a Answer:

 

The answer is none.  The DVA now gives out entirely too many “zero” compensations.  Do not give them carte blanch authority to make it even more prevalent.

 

D4b Answer:

 

You have got to be kidding?  We are now going to look for the perfect genetic warriors.  You cannot even fill the ranks now without calling up every Guard unit and Reserve unit in the country. 

 

How in the world would you prove that one way or the other?  Leave it up to the corrupt DVA or NAS/IOM to do it?  NO THANKS!!!!!!!!

 

You can have genetic defects that are totally inactive and would never manifest without some outside force acting on the body.  Such as dysregulation of B and T cells (autoimmune system disorders) caused by the dioxin TCDD and/or Service in Vietnam categorically and factually proven in studies.  (Which I provided you on Sep 15, 2005)  Yet, this fact of science and medicine is still denied by the less than truthful DVA and NAS/IOM.

 

In addition, this form of toxic chemical damages when the B and T cell homeostasis is disturbed can replicate many diseases and disorders that would be considered genetic.  Yet, the Veteran would have had no such predisposition; genetic or otherwise.

 

In fact, this disturbance of the immune homeostasis is more than likely one of the higher-level root causes of the B and T cell cancers Veterans are seeing.  I say higher level because no one knows what the actual dioxin root cause is as it modifies cells, hormones, enzymes, proteins, etc.

 

This committee had better walk softly in this matter, with an open mind, consider who the Veterans of the nation have to deal with and that they are omnipotent, and talk to someone else besides the DVA and the government contracted NAS/IOM looking for employment opportunities and tinker toy scientific projects to build a career.  

 

D4c 1,2, & 3 Answer:

 

Age should not be a factor in anything associated with the Veteran.  His disability and “his or her decisions” should speak for themselves; not some pinhead DVA adjudicator or corrupt DVA counselor being directed by White House philosophy.

 

D4d Answer: 

 

BENEFIT OF THE DOUBT RULE?  Again, this is a DVA/government joke!

 

Instead of asking should it be changed the QUESTION should be where is it applied and what is the matrix and formula it is applied in.

 

When I asked the VA liaison commissioner to your commission on Sep 15, 2005 this very question his answer was:  Well they (the DVA) will just tell you they give it to you (meaning the benefit of the doubt).  My response was that was not damn good enough!  A circuit court ruled they were not giving any benefit of the doubt. 

 

That should be your concern not should they do away with it.  In fact, should you deal the Veterans a death blow and recommend that the Benefit of the Doubt be modified or deleted you are now overriding a Congressional mandate decreed in 1984.  Yet, the DVA laughs at Congressional mandates like water off of ducks back.  They know they only answer to a president who is concerned about a budget not VETERANS!

 

Because I was cut short on my presentation, I was not allowed to address these issues as I would have liked and this was one of them.  I had reviewed many BVA decisions where no benefit of the doubt was given even when everyone agreed there was a 50/50 chance the veterans nerve damages were caused by his exposures.  Instead, the corrupt DVA just simply stated they gave more weight to the all knowing medically astute and corrupt I might add secretary of the DVA working on behalf of the president not the Veterans.  So much for this contrived Benefit of the Doubt.

 

This was an actual case involving a Marine in his appeal for polyneuropathy damages before this “trumped up VA court” congress established just for veterans to control veteran expenditures and deny claims.

 

Citation Nr: 0317458          

Decision Date: 07/24/03   

Archive Date: 07/31/03

 

Read that case and then tell the Veterans of the nation the DVA is giving any benefit of the doubt.  This case was decided by the Reagan/Bush White House directed philosophy in 1984 not the BVA in 2003.

 

After reading that case, then review the evidence I presented to you on Sep 15, 2005.

 

 

 

 

 

It was obvious that no one wants to hear from the real Veterans themselves.

 

I offered in hopes of the commission wanting to hear from a Veteran that is not politically tied to some party or is under the thumb of federal free-bees and can do and say nothing but no one it seems is interested.

 

I was certainly hoping that those commissioners appointed by congress and not the president would take me up on the offer to meet any where for a couple of days and go over some of these issues.  In my opinion, it was obvious who was appointed by the president and who was appointed by the congress.  That is sad!

 

Just who on this commission are representing the salt of the earth Veteran and/or his widow who has more experience with dealing with the DVA denials, stalling, and lies than any one of the commissioners?

 

Instead, you heard from the DVA pinhead that came down from the DVA gods for an hour and half and as a true politician said absolutely nothing in that waste of time.  Except to inform you, the DVA was in charge of the whole world as it relates to Veterans and it really did not matter what you recommended.  

 

D5.  Should there be a time limit for filing a claim for service connection?

 

D5 Answer:

 

Again, this is a joke, right?  The government can deny and lie to Veterans for 40 some years known toxic chemical issues.  Go out and buy up a whole town for the exact same toxic chemicals except the town was at exponentially lower number of dose rate than the exposures the Veterans saw and the DVA and our caring government is now looking for a time limit.  Damn how convenient would that be for this unscrupulous federal agency, government, and presidents?

 

So, we are going to give this federal agency that cannot be challenged at any level, the power to deny associations until the time runs out?  Christ almighty that is insane at best.  No different than D6 below and the DVA would do the same thing.  D6 allows the DVA to stall to the death of the Veteran to where the claim is null and void and now they want to be able to stall till the time limits run out on disabilities also???????  NO NO NO

 

Including that some doctors have tried to address that specific issues that the DVA secretary and the NAS/IOM have put on time limits of one year with examples of those specific issues that arose 60 years after exposures.

 

No thanks on this one. 

 

Do not give this president or any president and his “DVA appointed puppets” the power to put on time limits on any claims.

 

D6.  Currently, a pending claim terminates at the time of the veteran’s death even when dependents remain.  To what extent, if any, should this law be changed?

 

D6 Answer:

 

The current rule is not even logical considering the previous treatment of Veterans by our government and especially the DVA.  All the congress has done has given the DVA a monetary reason to stall to the death of the Veteran.  Of course endorsed by the so-called caring presidents and White House mandated budget philosophy.  A definite conflict of interest between the Veterans of the Nation and their commander and chief who could give a rats ass about the individual Veteran and only concerned with how much does it cost and using the entire power of the separate legal system provided to the DVA by the congress to control spending, not what is moral or just.

 

D7.  To what extent and how should the Commission evaluate the medical criteria used to assess and adjudicate VA disability?

 

D7 Answer:

 

I am not sure what that means.  If you are talking about the company doctors that work at the DVA, I think the words “company doctors” speaks for itself.  It has been my experience that they want to minimize all and admit to nothing, even though off the record they will admit toxic chemical damages.  More than likely as directed by the employer or the DVA hospital administrator.

 

The whole DVA biased process stinks to high heavens.  No different than all the government cover-ups on medical issues that would not be challengeable by anyone if they were automatically associated as they should be based on real science and statistics; not the “chief fox” the secretary of the DVA given the sole power to associate anything.  He certainly has a conflict of interest as well as the president who sits idly by in his counting house counting out his money saved.  If the truth were given out then this issue you are addressing for the most part would be non-existent. 

 

D8.  What recommendations, if any, should the Commission make in regards to Concurrent Receipt policies?

 

D8 Answer:

 

Lets call it what it is:  A Veterans Disability Tax.  This has gone on long enough and the whole damn thing should be killed and do away with this unconstitutional tax in total.  The government and the presidents have robbed our career Veterans for over 130 years.  That is long enough!  These are two separate discrete issues. 

 

One a separate contract to reach retirement and one a disability issue.  In many cases such as our toxic chemical legacy and more recent covered up Gulf War issues caused by an arrogant DoD and presidents that again are more interested in saving money than supporting Veterans who made this nation what it is; not the egg-sucking dog politicians.

 

How long do you think the civilian citizens would stand for a citizen disability tax?  Christ you would have rioting in the streets.  However, Veterans stand-alone and until they get over this political ideology, of which neither party gives a damn, and unite we get what we get; which is unconstitutional laws and the current DVA.

 

D9.  Should the Commission explore and recommend changes to the “duty to assist” law?  If so, how?

 

D9 Answer:

 

This also is a joke. 

 

Anyone that uses a DVA employee only is dealing with the government fox (DVA) guarding the government hen house (budget).  Including that many VSO reps are nothing but extensions of the DVA and the VSO organizations along with it.  They made their deal with the devil (DVA) back in the 1980’s for federal free-bees and sold their souls.

 

Therefore, the Veteran for all intensive purposes has no allies in this fight including the president and the congress that will do and say nothing.  The VAC in the senate and the house are a waste of time.  From listening to their meetings on CSPAN, it is obvious they do not want to hear the truth and only Secretary of the DVA lies and misstated facts count to them.  Lie to me so I can feel better!

 

The processes are so complicated that a second-year Harvard law student probably could not get through this insane on purpose DVA complicated process.

 

D10.  Should the Commission explore the Character of Discharge Standard?

 

D10 Answer:

 

This is a tough one for me as too many of my guys worked hard to serve with honor, valor, and dignity only to die from obvious toxic chemical damages covered-up by our caring government.  Therefore, I will reserve any comments until this is defined as to what levels this is meant to explore.

 

D11.  Should compensation payments be protected from apportionments and garnishments?

 

D11 Answer:

 

The Veteran’s disability should be sacred above all else in this world!  Not subject to anything.

 

D12.  In regards to Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), what policy changes need to be recommended?

 

D12 Answer:

 

This one I will not comment on as no one seems to be interested in the medical facts that 2,4-D; as well as 2,4,5-T have been proven to damage the central nervous system creating many levels and degrees of severity with regard to neuropsychological issues.  This is of course the way the DVA wants it, as then this becomes permanent physical disability damage to the central nervous system not just a mental disorder.

 

Read Glenda Kelley’s submitted statements and study evidence of Sep 15, 2005 for this concrete scientific and statistical evidence.

 

No doubt, that PTSD exists.  The point is; are the central nervous system damages exacerbating the memories or is it stand-alone.  Of course, the DVA would never admit such findings even as it was found in the non-combatant Ranch Handers and mental disorders found in the Army Chemical Corps workers (also non-combatants) to an increase in significant levels.  They cannot explain it but neither do they have to admit it.  (Evidence to this fact was submitted on Sep 15, 2005.)

 

 

(1) The 9th Circuit Court ruled the DVA was too stringent in their toxic chemicals (plural) associations.  The court ruled that the DVA go back and reconsider associations based on the courts rulings and what the court ruled was the congressional intent using “increased risk of incidence” or “significant increase.”

 

The court also ruled that the corrupt VACEH be mandated to go back and review their findings of associations based on the courts rulings of the evidence of fact not what the DVA considered evidence of fact.

 

The DVA’s response to this was to rewrite the 38 CFR and disband the VACEH so that no review as mandated by the 9th Circuit Court could be done.  Then use the NAS/IOM that is doing the exact same thing the VACEH did in using “cause and effect” and not the courts rulings.  I will be filing a summary of these despicable actions in the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals.

 

The DVA did not challenge the court rulings.  Instead, they just circumvented it as any good federal agency operating with its own legal system and at the behest of the president and congress would do to deny Veterans’ compensations for death and disablement directly caused by an arrogant government, DoD, and DVA.

 

 

Charles Kelley

 

Copies to:

 

House Veterans Affairs Committee 
Law firm of Morrison and Foerster
AO Group
VERPA
Khe Sanh Members
101st Airborne
MOAA
My Battalion Members
VVA
Vets for Justice
Veterans Party of America
Congressman Smith (New Jersey)
Congressman Evans
Congressman Sanders
Congressman Shays