[ Post a Response | Vipers Vietnam Veteran Message Board ]
Posted by william heino sr. --Previous Message-- Regarding VA violation of 38 USC 1722a, I filed with the Board of Veterans Appeals. This should bring you up to date. After asking the Board to advance, the Board of Veterans Appeals turned down my docket advance request. In other words they don't care if this involves 1.1 million veterans who receive prescriptions for pill splitting. I wrote the BVA, Mr. Hogeboom 8/20/05, briefly, "I want to know why, you substituted 'severe financial hardship'(never suggested) as my claim and why 'interpretation of the law of general application affecting other claims' was not considered." No answer. However, when reading 38 USC 1722a, a short and simple law, people read what they want out of it. But, if you keep it simple, it's understandably simple. Unless you work for the VA. Because of this confusion and mis-understanding, I wrote Senator Durbin, who I keep informed, about this mis-understanding problem. I explained it, in it's basic simple terms, because I wanted to make sure if he is going to defend it, I must be sure he understands it. Writing back, "I have been informed of the nature of your concern and will do my best to assist you.. ..a Senate aide in my Chicago office, assists me in mettters such as these and will contact the Department of Veterans Affairs..to make an inquiry...You will be contacted as soon as a response has been received."
on 10/19/2005, 11:55 am, in reply to "VBA denial re: Va Violation docket advance"
172.140.226.88
: 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.”
:
: 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
: Mr. Charles Hogeboom
: 8/20/05
: Deputy Vice Chairman
: Board of veterans Appeals
: 810 Vermont Ave. N.W.
: Washington DC 20420
:
: 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.
:
: 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’?
:
: 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
: Senator Obama
: Rep. Gutierrez
: Veterans file
: file
:
:
:
10/19/05 UPDATE VA VIOLATION 38 USC 1722A
Message Thread:
« Back to thread