Mr. Strickland,
I have not written in quite some time. To be honest I am not even sure why I occasionally read your articles, as they are filled with slanderous tripe about hard working, well trained, extremely qualified service officers from the service organization for which I also work. I find that you fill your articles with as much self hype as you do with scorn for service organizations. Perhaps if you got down from your high horse and saw the good that the organizations do as a whole, your perspective would change.
One issue I have is your love of allowing attorneys to charge veterans for representation. I noticed in your mailbag #41, dated 4 June 2008, that one of these "all knowing attorneys" that you are in love with was asking you for assistance. You, the self -proclaimed advocate, not knowing either, turned to your secret " VA insiders", who in turn, must not be to far up the food chain if they had to go to a DRO. Now the question at hand was if there has been a precedent
setting case that may require more work on the VA's end.
Unfortunately for your readers, you and your "VA insiders" were incorrect. There has been a MAJOR precedent setting case with the CAVC. The case is Vazquez-Flores v. Peake. (I will include a copy of the DAD as an attachment for you to review). This case made it mandatory for the VA to greatly increase their VCAA procedures. This created a delay for quite some time as the VA Central Office had to decide on how to clearly set forth the procedures to the Regional Offices. The Fast Letter was finally issues June 2nd. (FL 08-16) (I will also include a copy of this for you as an attachment)
What is amazing is that an attorney was not aware of such an important CAVC decision. He is charging veterans money to represent them and is obviously ill-prepared. This is why we fought so hard to keep attorneys out of the VA process, except on a pro-bono basis. I hope you are very proud. All service officers of our organization are kept aware of changes in legislation and precedent cases and how they impact our clients. We have mandatory training on every facet of the claims and appeals process, can the same be said of them? You routinely complain of poor service officers in service organizations…looks like you got your attorneys, way to go.
(Signed)
Supervisor
Disabled American Veterans
National Service Office
Answer:
The above email was in response to my piece in the 06-04-2008 Mail Bag: Volume #41 For 2008 http://vawatchdog.org/08/nf08/nfJUN08/nf060408-4.htm
A lawyer had emailed me and said, “I'm an attorney practicing SSA disability and VA disability law.”
He goes on to tell me that he had been informed by a VBA employee that there is a “new law” that will slow down cases and preclude anyone asking for Decision Review Officer (DRO) process in a Notice of Disagreement (NOD) with a denial appeal letter.
The attorney said, “For instance on one of my cases I requested the file, filed a NOD and requested a DRO process. I was told not to waste my time requesting DRO or traditional appeal anymore because a separate letter has to be sent out from the VA asking what process the veteran wants. I told him I sent the form requesting the DRO and he said it does not matter because they have to ask first.”
I was immediately concerned. I routinely advise veterans that they should ask for DRO process as they write their NOD. In my experience the DRO process is a beacon of bright light in an otherwise gloomy landscape.
Those VBA employees who have the title of Decision Review Officer seem to be very thoughtful and well educated. During the DRO process I've often felt like it is the first time that any responsible person has read every word in the file and understood the meanings.
I haven't yet seen a single DRO process decision that wasn't adjudicated fairly. To not allow us to request this as a matter of routine didn't make sense to me. I contacted experts and asked that they address the issue. The experts, experienced and dedicated VBA employees agreed that a VBA call center representative likely had misinformed the attorney. That's hardly a surprise and I gave it no more thought.
Then came the letter and attachments from the DAV supervisor.
I've heard from this gentleman before. On 07/14/2006 he wrote to let me know, “I am very disappointed and upset at your recent string of articles...” and “I wish I could sum up into words my disappointment at you, and question where your title of 'veteran's advocate' comes from.”
Later, 07/27/2006 it was, “The way you can spout half-truths and conjecture to try and sway others to your point of view is to say the least sad.” He went on to let me know, “you have a strong political career ahead of you, or perhaps one in journalism, where half-truths and inaccuracies are rewarded.”
He wrote Larry on 08/25/2006 with an ultimatum, “Until you remove the columnist Mr. Strickland from your web-site, I will never again visit...and will encourage every vet I speak to of the same. We have enough problems facing our comrades than to have some pompous, ignorant fool belittle a VSO that spends every day fighting for vet's rights and benefits, while he just sits on the sidelines and criticizes.”
In response to the VAWatchdog's position that veterans should not respond to the survey of the VDBC our DAV friend advised, “The recommendation from DAV is to complete the survey...”. This is a frequent response, whatever the DVA asks for, DAV would appear to believe we should just do it.
Later he told me, “I know you receive letters that are pro-DAV and other service organizations, how come they never see print? I guess they wouldn't allow you to look good to your loyal readers.”
His angry letters deserve a well thought out response. I don't do anger much any more. I've learned that anger clouds the vision and disrupts rational thinking and wastes a lot of valuable energy. As I approach my 60th year, I don't have a lot of energy to spare and a calmer approach appeals.
I do my best to be fair. I print reader's letters when they praise a VSO. It's unfortunate that I don't get many letters telling me how hard the VSO is working for the veteran. I don't manufacture letters either pro or con. I don't have the time nor an inclination to do that.
So...in fairness to my DAV reader, please write to me to tell me your success story. I'll print them all. Thanks.
So...was I right or wrong? Did he hit a home run when he said, “Unfortunately for your readers, you and your 'VA insiders' were incorrect.”
I've been wrong before. VAWatchdog readers are an exceptionally sharp bunch and my mistakes are jumped on with the ferocity of a hungry wolf pack. I don't get much slack and between readers and Larry, if I print something that isn't precisely factual. I hear about it in seconds. That's what I like...it tells me you're paying attention.
The lawyer had a single core issue...whether or not he and his veteran client could ask for DRO review in the original NOD. The VBA employee told him he could not. The DAV supervisor wrote me to agree with the VBA employee. I investigated and concluded that the VBA employee answering the lawyer's call was wrong.
The DAV supervisor used 2 pieces of evidence to support his claim. A “Fast Letter”; FL 08-16 and a “Decision Assessment Document”; Vazquez-Flores v. Peake, January 30, 2008, No. 05-0355.
These documents address a Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) decision regarding claims for increased compensation. In a summary, the DAV warns that the, “Impact on VBA: Significant. A fast letter will be issued concerning VBA’s response to the Court’s holding and instructions regarding the changes to VCAA letters in claims for increased compensation.”
I read and reread the Fast Letter and the Decision Assessment Document to try to see the relation of any of this to my earlier email and response to the lawyer. In my writings I had addressed the issue of a DRO request with an appeal NOD. These 2 documents addressed changes to VCAA letters in claims for increased compensation.
I began to see visions of apples v. oranges.
Trying to sort it all out and while keeping an open mind, I wrote the supervisor and asked for clarification. Amongst many other comments, he informed me that in regard to the lawyer's email; “You will note that the actual question has nothing to do with the appeals process specifically.”
I went back again to read that the lawyer said, “I was told not to waste my time requesting DRO or traditional appeal anymore because a separate letter has to be sent out from the VA asking what process the veteran wants.”
By now, I couldn't let this go without another set of eyes having a look. I asked for the opinion of a DVA employee who has decades of experience and is seriously dedicated to his job in the DVA as well as his mission to serve veterans. He is one of the many fine DVA staffers who give me hope that the system can and will do better...if Congress ever appropriately funds them.
He replied, “The instruction in Fast Letter 08-16 came out two weeks AFTER you responded to the question. No RO in the country was taking any Vasquez actions prior to that date.”
I hadn't noticed that. In fact, the lawyer's email to me was received about 8 weeks before the publication of that Mail Bag article...there's a lag time between my reading email and it making it to the VAWatchdog site. Good call.
He goes on to tell me, “Like so many VSO's, he uses 'case law', 'regulations', 'Laws' etc. as an excuse to do nothing. Why didn't DAV file an Amicus Curae brief in Velasquez pointing out that more VCAA verbiage would only delay otherwise worthy claims?”
Finally he reaches the simple conclusion I'd come to earlier; “What does additional VCAA documentation have to do with the issue of the timing of a De Novo review request?”
To support my answer to the attorney that I believed correct, I went to the Fast Letter. There lies the final answer. The Fast Letter says, (Page 3 'Notice of Disagreement') "If the appellant elects the DRO process in the NOD, send the appeal cure notice and allow 30 days for a response."
The information you receive from VAWatchdog is carefully vetted. Larry Scott founded VAWatchdog with a guiding principle that he carefully adheres to today...and he is careful that I do too. The principle is simple, when you come here you'll get the facts. To the best of our ability, you'll find nothing here that is slanted or biased.
When I write of issues of Veterans Service Officers, it isn't any personal dislike that motivates me. I write what readers tell me, I use my personal experiences and I research for facts.
You aren't going to hear me using a tone or words like, “ 'all knowing attorneys' that you are in love with...”, or, “your secret 'VA insiders', who in turn, must not be to far up the food chain...” and “your articles...are filled with slanderous tripe...”.
If I tried to use such as that in my writing, you'd soon be wondering what happened to my columns. Larry wouldn't stand for it and it's not my style.
If the VSO supervisor who wrote to tell me how wrong I was is reading your file and comprehending it the way he read my piece and then interpreted the “evidence” he presented, God help you. You're going to need one of those lawyers he holds in such disdain.
Jim Strickland's Mailbag: Volume #51 for 2008
NOTE: Letters in my mailbag are reprinted just as they come to me. Spelling and grammar are left as is and only small corrections are made to improve readability, ensure anonymity or delete expletives that may offend some readers. This is not legal advice. You should always seek the advice of an attorney who is qualified in Veterans' law before you make any decisions about your own benefits.
06.30.08
