Veteran Issues Digest Number 1732

[admin]

1. FW: Attn: AO Blue Water Veterans

Posted by: "Colonel Dan" colonel-dan@sbcglobal.net coloneldan1

Sat Jan 26, 2008 8:36 am (PST)

Pass to Navy Veterans and on board marines of Vietnam Era

send signed statements to: By Mail or FAX to:
Richard V. Spataro, Staff Attorney
National Veterans Legal Services Program
1600 K Street, NW, Suite 500
Washington, DC 20006-2833
Tel: (202) 265-8305 ext. 149
Fax: (202) 328-0063

Email: rick_spataro@ nvlsp.org

http://www.nvlsp. org/Information/ ArticleLibrary/ AgentOrange/ AO-VABattleBlueW
aterVets0407. htm

_____

From: BSim756679@aol. com [mailto:BSim756679@aol. com]
Sent: Saturday, January 26, 2008 9:34 AM
To: colonel-dan@ sbcglobal. net
Subject: Attn: AO Blue Water Veterans

from Berta Simmons, via Blue Water Navy Vietnam Veterans Association

Friday, January 25, 2008

Urgent
<http://vnvets. blogspot. com/2008/ 01/urgent- request-for- declarations- from.htm
l> Request for Declarations from Blue Water Sailors

We just received this urgent request from the National Veterans Legal
Services Program, the fine folks who argued the Haas case. Please help them
out if possible, and as soon as possible:

------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- -
----

As you all know, NVLSP is preparing our comment related to the VA's proposed
change of the M21-1 provision. One of the missing links we have is proving
that the distilling process used on the Australian ships is the same as that
used on the U.S. ships. It is basically common knowledge that the process
was the same, but I'm having trouble finding documentary evidence I can cite
to prove it. So, I'm trying to obtain the following declaration (with the
information in brackets filled in as appropriate) from as many BWN veterans
as possible, preferably those who worked in the Engineering Department, and
hoping you all could help me spread the word:

I, [NAME], served in the United States Navy from [date] to [date]. I was
awarded the Vietnam Service Medal for my service on the U.S.S. [name of
ship], which operated in the waters off the coast of Vietnam [from date to
date, or in 19XX, etc.]. I was a [rating or billet (for example Engineman
First Class, Auxiliaries Officer, etc.)] on that ship. I have firsthand
knowledge that, while at sea off the coast of Vietnam, the U.S.S. [name of
ship] used a flash-type distilling plant to produce the ship's potable
water. To produce this potable water, sea water was fed into an evaporator
where the water was boiled by a combination of heating and reduced pressure
(vacuum) and the vapor was condensed in the condenser from where it was
pumped into feed tanks.

I declare, under penalty of perjury, that the information set forth above is
true and correct to the best of my knowledge.

Date __________

Signature here ____________ _________ _________
[type full name]

Any BWN veteran should feel free to modify the statement if necessary to fit
their individual circumstances (for example, if a distilling plant other
than "flash type" was used on their ship). Here's the kicker though - I
would need them to be able to type up the above statement, sign and date it,
then either scan and email it to me, or fax it to my attention at
202-328-0063, by Monday, January 28th, the earlier the better.

Also, I still haven't heard from any Supply folks with firsthand knowledge
that food served on their ship originated in Vietnam, so if you know of
anyone fitting the bill, please direct them my way, or see if they are
willing to provide a declaration attesting to that fact, in a format similar
to the above declaration.

I know we're in the 11th hour, so thanks in advance for spreading the word.

Sincerely,

Rick

Richard V. Spataro

Staff Attorney
National Veterans Legal Services Program
1600 K Street, NW, Suite 500
Washington, DC 20006-2833
Tel: (202) 265-8305 ext. 149
Fax: (202) 328-0063
Email: rick_spataro@ nvlsp.org

_____

Who's never won? Biggest Grammy Award surprises of all time on AOL
<http://music. aol.com/grammys/ pictures/ never-won- a-grammy? NCID=aolcmp00300 00
0002548> Music.



2. Military Widows Go To Court, Jan 30th

Posted by: "Colonel Dan" colonel-dan@sbcglobal.net coloneldan1

Sat Jan 26, 2008 9:07 am (PST)

No other government job has this unfair offset of benefits. Any widow from
a government job, receives both benefits. It is ONLY the military widow who
has this unfair offset and it is called the WIDOWS TAX.

Explanation of DIC & SBP
http://www.military .com/benefits/ survivor- benefits/ dependency- and-indemnity-
compensation

More stories here: http://www.therealm artha.com/ SoldiersWidows/ index.htm

and
http://query. nytimes.com/ gst/fullpage. html?res= 9502E6DB153EF93A A2575BC0A9609
C8B63

Reprint from MOAA.org Legislative update
Military Widows Take On Uncle Sam
Next Wednesday, January 30, a group of military widows will get their day in
federal court, pressing their case that a December 2004 law change should
have awarded them full payment of military SBP annuities in addition to the
Dependency and Indemnity Compensation (DIC) they receive from the VA because
military service caused their husbands' deaths.

At the time, the House Veterans Affairs Committee believed its language
would not only restore DIC benefits to previously eligible survivors who
remarried after age 57, but would also end the deduction of DIC from SBP
annuities.Subsequen t government legal review indicated the 2004 law didn't,
in fact, make the latter change, but the difference of opinion hasn't
entirely gone away.

And now three widows are taking the government to court.When the case was
filed in September, the Department of Defense responded with a motion to
dismiss the case. The widows' lawyers filed a rebuttal, and now there will
be a hearing before the US Court of Federal Claims, 717 Madison Street, NW
in Washington, DC so the judge can make a decision on the DoD motion to
dismiss.

The oral arguments in the case will be open to the public at 9:30 am. A
specific court room won't be assigned until the morning of the 30th.Past
efforts to sue the government in this way have rarely been fruitful, but one
never knows how the courts might rule when legislative language is murky.
MOAA would like nothing better than to see a favorable court ruling in this
case and end the unfair offset experienced by SBP/DIC widows.



3. New Disability Severance Protection Not Retroactive

Posted by: "Colonel Dan" colonel-dan@sbcglobal.net coloneldan1

Sat Jan 26, 2008 10:28 am (PST)

Severance Pay Shield Not Retroactive, will apply only to combat-related
medical separations after the bill is signed into law
Tom Philpott | January 24, 2008
<http://www.military .com/features/ 0,15240,160658, 00.html>
http://www.military .com/features/ 0,15240,160658, 00.html

New Disability Severance Protection Not Retroactive

Former Army Capt. Hunter Smart of Phenix City, Ala., an injured veteran of
the Iraq war, expected to find new severance pay protection in the Wounded
War Act section of the new
<http://capwiz. com/military/ issues/alert/ ?alertid= 10643571& type=CO> 2008
defense authorization bill.

But when Smart took a close look this week he found a hole in the bill
rather than an extra $35,000.

Smart was pleased to read a few months ago that a provision in the bill
would help medically-separated veterans. If their disability was incurred in
a combat zone, or in combat-related operations, military disability
severance pay no longer will have to be recouped by the
<http://www.military .com/features/ 0,15240,160658, 00.html#> government before
the veteran begins to draw full disability compensation from the Department
of Veterans Affairs.

With this change, <http://capwiz. com/military/ home/> Congress is embracing
a recommendation of the Veterans' Disability Benefits Commission. When
veterans see their careers shortened by combat-related injuries, it said,
they should get to keep both their lump-sum severance pay and full monthly
VA disability pay.

But Smart was disappointed to learn this week that the new severance pay
protection will apply only to combat-related medical separations after the
bill is signed into law. That means VA compensation for Smart will be
reduced over time by $35,000 in severance pay he received from the Army when
he was separated as unfit last March.

"That this will not be retroactive is shameful," he said. "It should go back
to cover at least all of the Iraq and Afghanistan war veterans."

Lawmakers couldn't apply severance protection back to 2001, a congressional
staffer explained, for the same reason that 600,000 reservists who have
deployed since October 2001 are ineligible for early reserve retirement
under another provision of the bill, a circumstance explained in
<http://www.military .com/features/ 0,15240,160247, 00.html> last week's
Military Update. The culprit is "pay-as-you- go" budget rule that requires
added spending for entitlements to be covered by a bump in
<http://www.military .com/features/ 0,15240,160658, 00.html#> taxes or by
cutting other entitlements, actions Congress wasn't ready to take.

"We were afraid we would lose the provision if we got into that, explained a
Capitol Hill staffer involved in writing the legislation.

The defense policy bill now is
<http://capwiz. com/military/ issues/bills/ ?bill=10843671> HR 4986, renumbered
after some modest changes in response to the president's veto. The severance
pay language is in a section titled the Wounded Warrior Act, which is loaded
with new initiatives to help service members injured in war, and their
families.

It's "the greatest reform in the law, relative to medical care for our
troops, in more than a decade," said Sen.
<http://capwiz. com/military/ bio/?id=310& lvl=C&chamber= S> Carl Levin
(D-Mich.), chairman of the armed services committee. It attacks, he said,
substandard living conditions, poor outpatient care and bureaucratic
roadblocks and delays. It improves dramatically management of medical care,
disability evaluations and quality of life for members recovering from
illnesses.

One provision in the bill still could help Smart and veterans who already
have been separated as medically unfit. It requires the Defense Department,
within 90 days, to establish a board to review military
<http://www.military .com/benefits/ veteran-benefits /va-compensation -tables>
disability rating of 20 percent or less awarded since 9-11. The initiative
reflects another concern raised by the disability benefits commission: that
the services might have a cost motivate for holding down disability ratings.
A rating of 30 percent or higher, after all, qualifies a member for
disability retirement, which means an immediate annuity and lifetime access
to <http://www.military .com/benefits/ tricare> TRICARE, the military's
health benefit.

Smart, 26, regrets now that he didn't appeal the Army board's decision to
separate him with a zero-percent disability rating, after finding that a
back injury reduced his range of motion enough to make him unfit for duty.
The VA later awarded Smart a combined rating of 70 percent: 10 percent for
his injured back but it found seven other service-related conditions, from
shin splints to strained ankles and knees to chronic dry eyes.

Smart led an infantry platoon in Iraq with 3rd Brigade, 3rd Infantry
Division out of Fort Benning, Ga. In June 2005 he was in Bradley Fighting
Vehicle traveling "full speed" when the Bradley broke one of its tracks. As
vehicle commander, Smart was in the turret when the driver lost control.

"We did a double 360 [degree] turn and went off into a ditch," Smart
recalled. "I got thrown around. The gunner had to grab my legs so I didn't
fly out of the top."

His lower back hurt but he soldiered on that day. Later, as the pain
worsened, he sought treatment. He no longer could wear the heavy gear or
carry the ammunition of an infantryman. He completed his year-long tour in
Iraq behind a desk. Back at Benning, Smart said he was shocked when a
disability evaluation board confirmed that he was unfit but gave him only a
0 percent rating. He considered an appeal. By then, a scandal involving
neglectful conditions for wounded at Walter Reed dominated the news.

Smart said he couldn't find anyone to counsel him knowledgably on his
options. At the same time, he got an e-mail from his battalion commander, on
Feb. 16, 2006, pressuring him to separate quickly.

"If for some reason you are still around when we deploy [to Iraq again in
March 2007], we may take you to support us in Kuwait," he wrote.

"It was just very non-supportive, " Smart recalled, sharing a copy of the
e-mail. So Smart quickly concurred with the Army board.

"I decided to take my chances with the VA. Now I'm looking back and saying,
'Man, I wish I would have non-concurred, because of TRICARE. I missed out on
that."

Smart and other medically-separated veterans who have suffered
combat-related injuries since 9-11 will get a second chance when the new
Physical Disability Board of Review is up and running later this year.

To comment, e-mail <mailto:milupdate@aol. com> milupdate@aol. com, write to
Military Update, P.O. Box 231111, Centreville, VA, 20120-1111 or visit:
<http://www.military update.com/> www.militaryupdate. com.

How do you feel about this issue?
<http://capwiz. com/military/ issues/alert/ ?alertid= 10643571& type=CO> Let
your public officials know how you feel.
"Keep on, Keepin' on"
Dan Cedusky, Champaign IL "Colonel Dan"
See my web site at:
http://www.angelfire.com/il2/VeteranIssues/