[ Post a Response | Vipers Vietnam Veteran Message Board ]
Posted by william h. heino sr. In a letter, dated 7/27/05, from the Board of Veterans’ Appeals my request for early adjudication, because, as they suggested, of severe financial hardship, was denied. I made no such claim! My 6/20/05,request for advance, I wrote, “My claim, VA violation of 38 USC 1722a, involves 1.1 million veterans’ co-payment over-charges. It is evident that a clear and unmistakable error’ based on RO ’statement of the case’, i.e., “interpretation of law of general application effecting other claims,” and “sufficient cause shown” has occurred. Subject to Sec. 7107(2) motion for early consideration. MY REPLY Dear Mr. Hogeboom; Re:0141NT/13 The BVA went against my docket advance request, and their own criteria. As you had explained to me, in part, “Interpretation of law of general application. This exception contemplates a situation where the interpretation of a question of law in your case would affect other claims and is of widespread interest and application…a motion submitted under this exception should clearly identify the specific legal question presented and explain why a board decision on this issue would affect the claims of other appellants.” You read, because I had requested that illegal over-charges in violation of 38 USC 1722a, be returned to me. You then denied my request, because of ‘severe financial hardship’. I did not say in my request, or indicate, I had a severe financial hardship. I said, “Upon a favorable decision, I request all monies secured, in the violation of 38 USC 1722a be returned to me.” I was asking that money taken from me, illegally, be returned. You made it a severe financial hardship! I had no idea when a favorable decision would be made? After which, in my 3rd paragraph, I then asked that my case docket be “moved forward as to a decision, for the following reasons.” Violation of law, i,e., an infraction or breach of the law; a transgression. Is this not a question of law? A interpretation of law issue? “..a situation where the interpretation of a question of law in your case would affect other claims and is of widespread interest and application…” If someone accused me of a violation of law, the first thing I would do is look up the law, and see if they know what they are talking about. Federal Register 9/12/03, 38 CFR part 20. (c.) “Advancement on the Docket. (1) Grounds for Advancement…Involves interpretation of law of general application affecting other claims,.. severe financial hardship.. shall include.. administrative error resulting in a significant delay in docketing the case of advanced age of the appellant. For the purpose of this rule, ‘advanced age’ is defined as 75 or more years of age. This paragraph does not require the Board to advance a case on the docket, in the absence of a motion, of a party to the case or the party’s representative.” First of all, I am not seriously ill. And not, contrary to your ruling, under severe financial hardship. Not, at the advanced age of 75 years, yet. This case is a question about a violation of law. Second, this is about 1.1 million veterans affected by this violation. The problem is, a favorable VBA ruling, regarding the mis-appropriation of illegally collected co-pay over-charges of 1.1 million veterans, would be a victory for veterans. Of this 1.1 million veterans’ affected by this claim before the VBA, how many seriously ill veterans, would be affected? How many with a severe financial hardship? How many veterans of the advanced age of 75, or more years? It must be assumed there are many. Is this “other sufficient cause shown”? We know that there may not be veterans that do not fall under these considerations, but they are all affected by a violation of law. Law, as explained and referenced in Black’s Law Dictionary, “All law is the law of a group of individuals or of groups made up of individuals. No one can make a law purely for himself.” Does law mean,.. all individuals (veterans)? If I bring up, a violation of law, any law, this is not just about one persons law. This is in everybody’s ‘widespread interests’. A law basically includes, or is ‘general application‘. Does it not? Which the VBA refuses to recognize. You chose to ignore, the illegal co-pay charges affecting the ‘widespread interests’ of 1.1 million veterans. It is obvious why this is, and not hard to figure out. I’ve been at this for over three years, all the while the VA has fought against, but forced finally, allowing me to bring this to appeal. If it was about me, I would have given up long ago. Add 1.1 million veterans to the VA claims backlog. Veterans have a right to their benefits law. You state, “While these criteria are strict, please remember that there are other appellants waiting for the Board to issue decisions in their appeals..,” I agree. You must also agree, there is the possibly many, of the 1.1 million veterans, that fall under this criteria. They will have to wait, and be purged. And this is exactly what the VA counts on, either the veteran gives up, or the death of the veteran, in order to expedite and purge the huge backlog of claims. I want to know why, you substituted ‘severe financial hardship’ as my claim, and why ’interpretation of the law of general application affecting other claims’ was not considered. Sincerely; William H. Heino Sr. P.S. Where I said, I would have given up long ago, that was a lie. Cc: Senator Durbin
on 9/3/2005, 6:48 pm
172.161.221.7
8/4/05
With regard to your veterans benefits, my claim, (search)VA violation of 38 USC 1722a, I had asked, the Board of Veterans’ Appeals, in accordance with the Code of Federal Regulations, 38 CFR 20.900 “(c) Advancement on the docket. (1) Grounds for advancement..A case may be advanced on the docket..may be granted only if the case involves interpretation of the law of general application affecting other claims...appellant is seriously ill..severe financial hardship..other sufficient cause..administrative error resulting in significant delay in docketing the case or the advanced age of the appellant…defined as 75 or more years.”
Mr. Charles Hogeboom 8/20/05
Deputy Vice Chairman
Board of veterans Appeals
810 Vermont Ave. N.W.
Washington DC 20420
If the BVA were concerned with ‘Interpretation of law of general application’, you would have read my entire letter. I mentioned the, “..alleged violation of VA law, pigeonholed while penalizing thousands of veterans in illegal co-pay over-charges, which continue to this day. Over-charges many veterans can ill-afford, in the years awaiting a decision. Over-charges that may not be recoverable.” This you avoided, or ignored, and failed to consider! But you invented, ‘severe financial hardship’. Having nothing to do with my request. In a follow-up letter, I wrote, “..involves 1.1 million veterans’ co-payment over-charges. It is evident that a ‘clear and unmistakable error’ based on RO ‘statement of the case’, i.e., ‘interpretation of law of general application affecting other claims’ and ‘sufficient cause shown’ has occurred.” Is this not ‘sufficient cause’?
Senator Obama
Rep. Gutierrez
Veterans file
file
Message Thread:
« Back to thread