74OA said:

---

You got caught cutting and pasting your old post and now you're all redfaced....

---

AgLaw02 said:

---

SquirrellyDan said:

---

I don't necessarily blame anyone who claims these types of injuries, but I think it says something about your character. The bigger problem is that vets can claim these things and aren't technically scamming the system. That needs to change.

Just wondering what others' thoughts are.

Rant over.

---

That's quite a rant. Since you invited a critique of your statement, I'll offer one. First, you disagree with a policy issue: how the VA administers the disability system. Part of your complaint is that VA rules offer enough flexibility for a veteran without integrity to scam the system. Your thoughts here could generate interesting dialog on whether there is a better way to determine whether an injury is service connected.

Your other allegation is that the very existence of a VA claim for certain ailments, "says something about your character." I find this statement, offered without qualification, patently absurd. I suspect you would too if you gave it much thought.

---

AllTheFishes said:

---

SquirrellyDan said:

---

92AG10 said:

---

If you had more than a year in Afghanistan I suspect you'd have a better understanding of the cumulative damage that place does to your body, especially over multiple tours.

I didn't have many complaints after my first tour either but things got progressively worse during and after the others. Did you every spend a winter in Kabul? The air quality there is so bad many of us have developed permanent respiratory issues such as asthma and..........sleep apnea! Several of our allied partners receive automatic disability percentages just for being stationed in the capitol.

---

Look, if your sleep Apnea developed because of time spent in AFG, then by all means claim it. I can guarantee you that well over half of Sleep Apnea cases tax payers are paying for are for service members who never left the country. The most common cause of Sleep Apnea is excess weight and obesity, and I would venture it's the cause of most of the sleep apnea the VA pays for.

---

You are wrong, I don't have time to explain it but you are using a lot of huge generalizations. There are a lot of reasons to not like the VA but getting upset because people are getting disability isn't one of them. It's the cost of being at war for 20 years and only utilizing 1.8% of your population to do the fighting.

---

Bodie Broadus said:

---

What about service members that sit on a ship or in a submarine? What are your thoughts.

---

DogCo84 said:

---

Then there are the tens of thousands (millions?) of us out here who have made legitimate service-connected claims--and been denied by the bureaucracy due to some administrative snafu.

In my case: shoulder injury from dropping a HMMWV on it's side into a 6' deep tank ditch while in blackout conditions at NTC (in 1986!). Result: initially denied because they couldn't find any medical records. Turns out that NTC had sent my records to 6th Army HQ instead of St. Louis--but that took an IG investigation to uncover. My case is still sitting out there. I wasn't looking for money, but did want the injury on my record if something debilitating developed as I age.

I doubt that I'm alone. Could it be that veterans of some service-eras--experience very different levels of acceptance from VA? Wonder how much they save by using wide-spread denial as a tool? And yes, I know I have to be my own best advocate--but the system demonstrably wears down even the most ardent fighter over time.

---

Zombie said:

---

I'd like to reply on this considering myself and my ex wife are both disabled vets. First of all, just because something did not happen down range does not make it any less of a disability. My ex was a medic and a first responder to accident that happened on post. Soldier was in his personal vehicle and was tboned by a striker. She pulled him out of a burning truck and in the process crushed two vertebrae. Over the past 12 years, she has had multiple problems that stemmed from it. The medications they had her on caused her teeth to essentially rot, so she had to have them all pulled and dentures put in. The back problems....don't get me started. These back problems also led to many other issues. And lets not forget about the seizures that one of her meds caused. From sleep issues, seizures, rotted teeth, etc, all of these caused from one back injury.

So yes, please don't assume just because the disability they are claiming did not happen down range that it wasn't caused by something else that happened during their time of service.

---

AgLaw02 said:

---

I understand what you are getting at, Dan, but it may be a practical impossibility to determine whether or not an injury was caused or exacerbated by work done in service to country. Consider:

- A vet has constant back pain and there is no definitive military related event that caused it. Was the back pain caused or made worse from years of pushups and ruck marches, or is it just from getting old?

- A vet smoked cigars occasionally and is diagnosed with lung cancer prior to retirement. Is the cancer caused by the cigars or by the burn pit he worked near?

- A personal example: My knees hurt all the time. It may be genetic. One of my parents always had bad knees. Docs have recommended I stop running on it when it hurts. Problem is, I have to pass a pt test. I also train and deploy (my job isn't physically taxing, but there are routine physical training requirements). So I run on it constantly. If at retirement a doc decides I have a compensable knee injury, there's no way the doc can definitively conclude whether it's purely genetic (ie, just the way my body was destined to turn out) or whether the years of military service aggravated or caused the problem.

With these basic and very real scenarios, how would the VA go about determining which injuries were caused or exacerbated by work done in service to country?

---

AgLaw02 said:

---

Fair enough. Let's talk about the scenarios you described for which you would like to remove benefits:


-SLEEP APNEA
-Injuries caused from a car accident
-Injuries caused from playing basketball, or skiiing, or doing any other activity that any other civilian would be doing
-Anything that isn't unique to the service of your country.

I'll skip sleep apnea because I'm not really familiar with it. Let's talk about injuries from a car accident. Dude gets rear-ended and has whiplash. Over the next 15 years of active duty service he develops cervical strain. It's impossible to determine whether it was from the car accident. It's just as possible it's from running around with a Kevlar helmet or something.

How about your example of a basketball injury. I was assigned at a schoolhouse training young officers in my career field. We would routinely play basketball in the base gym with them before work. It wasn't mandatory to play, but it was encouraged to get pt, increase esprit de corps, etc. Say a player breaks a leg. Should their injury be noncompensable because civilians also play basketball? What if the basketball game was mandatory? Surely that's compensable? How mandatory does it have to be?

Bottom line: There's always room to improve the system, and I applaud you for looking for areas to avoid unnecessary government spending. Maybe the compensation rates need to be tweaked. Maybe the VA should revise their standards for qualifications for certain ailments like PTSD or sleep apnea. But the fundamental principle of compensation for injuries occurred during a period of military service is sound.

---

CT'97 said:

---

SquirrellyDan said:

---

Here's another TRUE story I heard this week about a service member in my office:

-First year of his second enlistment (something like 5 years in)
-26 years old
-Being allowed to "medically retire from service" and will receive all retirement benefits
-90 percent disability rating

Why? Because he was diagnosed with diabetes. Service causes diabetes?

---

I don't believe you.

1st, the only way to get Diabetes Type 2 service connected is to be a Vietnam Veteran exposed to Agent Orange. 2nd, the highest disability rating available for Diabetes Type 2 is 60%. In order to get a 60% rating you have to be on multiple drugs, require regular hospital visits for treatment, more than 2 per month, and have other degenerative effects connected to the diabetes. Getting from 60% to 90% for someone with out other major issues is very hard. What you just described is impossible on multiple grounds.

I'm tired of your office rumor BS. Stop trolling this forum and get this crap out of here.

---

Quote:

---

If you developed diabetes mellitus (type II) and were exposed to Agent Orange or other herbicides during military service in Vietnam, you do not have to prove a connection between the disease and your military service to be eligible to receive VA disability compensation.

---

Quote:

---

The VA rates Type 2 diabetes on this same scale. It will rate your diabetes as 10 percent disabling if you can manage it with diet alone. You will receive a 100 percent disability rating if you require insulin more than once a day.

---

Quote:

---

7913 - Diabetes Mellitus
(1) The format published by the National Diabetes Group shall serve as the basis for classifying diabetes mellitus (DM). The severity of each case should be individualized taking into consideration the expected natural course of the disease variants. Insulin dosage is not a good indicator of severity and is only one factor to consider in the overall evaluation of the disease. Response to specific therapy, diet, activity, compliance, and time are all important. With adequate compliance, many diabetics are Fit with minimum restrictions. Young adults with type I DM (insulin dependent) are not a good risk for retention.

(2) If Unfitness derives, in part, from documented noncompliance with prescribed treatment, including diet and weight control, the assigned rating should not be higher than the disease would warrant if the member followed prescribed treatment.

(3) DM controlled by diet and oral medication, without a need for daily insulin , and that does not impair health or vigor, or cause significant limitation of activity, is considered to be mild, if unfitting.

(4) Ratings must reflect the severity of the DM, as such. Undue importance should not be given to early or questionable complications. That is particularly true in considering ratings of 60 percent or above. In most instances, a lower rating should be given. Complications such as vascular insufficiency, visual defects, pruritis, and neuropathies should be rated separately. The presence of early or questionable complications in otherwise less than severe DM does not automatically warrant a higher rating.

---