Showing posts with label U.S. Dept of Veterans Affairs (DVA. Show all posts
Showing posts with label U.S. Dept of Veterans Affairs (DVA. Show all posts

Jan 26, 2010

G.I Bill Benefits Pushed Aggressively by VA

Delivering the Dept of Veterans Affairs (DVA) education benefits from the Post-9/11 GI Bill is one area the DVA does not want to screw up and its commitment in the face of continuing criticism from veterans groups on other DVA benefits is the topic of DVA communiques to state veteran affairs bureaucrats to presume a veteran is eligible and move the benefits process forward.

Standing in stark contrast to the infamous DVA culture of no and denial of benefits for disabilities sustained during service, the intended message from the DVA regarding the GI Bill appears a message of yes. The apparent effort behind the presumption of eligibility for education benefits actually has the tone of the-guy's-a-vet, get-him/her-what-he-needs urgency that would represent a historic departure in this government agency that has taken on the face of an implacable enemy for many veterans.

Reviewing some statistics from last year, implementation of the GI Bill arguably represents the greatest success of the Obama administration for veterans during its first year in office, and will likely get prominent mention in the State of the Union address Wednesday night, taking note of the fact that states and educational institutions had initially been bogged down as the early point of contact in the process of getting veterans their new education benefits.

In a Jan. 14, 2010 Dear Colleague letter to state veterans affairs directors and members of the veterans' community from Michael Walcoff, DVA Deputy Under Secretary for Benefits, Walcoffnotes the DVA has processed some $1.3 billion in education payments for some 137,000 student veterans, while urging improvements and positive action.

DVA secretary Eric Shinseki similarly notes some 1,200 DVA employees have been assigned duties to process education benefits in a letter to state veterans affairs directors and staff.
The Jan. 14 Shinseki letter urges states to pursue the streamlined delivery of information about education benefits to students, colleges and universities, and expedite the subsequent delivery of education benefit claims to the national DVA resulting in paying student-veterans in a matter of weeks and months; and not years like the processing of typical disability benefits claims.

"A Certificate of Eligibility is not required for submission of the enrollment certification. If a student has provided any documentation to show that he or she is a veteran or dependent that is likely entitled to benefits, an enrollment certification should be submitted as soon as the student enrolls in classes.," reads a Lessons Learned memorandum [emphasis mine] accompying the Shinseki letter.

Post-9/11 GI Bill Lessons Learned

With a semester of the Post-9/11 GI Bill behind us, we are providing a list of 'lessons learned' in hopes of working together for a smoother spring enrollment period - Early submission of enrollment certifications is essential to timely payment.

- A Certificate of Eligibility is not required for submission of the enrollment certification. If a student has provided any documentation to show that he or she is a veteran or dependent that is likely entitled to benefits, an enrollment certification should be submitted as soon as the student enrolls in classes.

- The Post-9/11 GI Bill brought a new dimension to VA education benefits that now involves schools’ business offices. Many payment issues can be addressed by the school’s certifying official.

- It is critical to VA’s processing that students are correctly identified as chapter 33 participants to prevent misrouting of claims.

- Correct direct deposit information is essential for accurate payment routing. If the school’s deposit account information changes the school VA certifying official should notify their Education Liaison Representative immediately.

Aug 18, 2009

Top Court Rules for Due Process in Vet's Case

As the U.S. Dept of Veterans Affairs (DVA) has become infamous for its culture of denial of veterans' claims, a potentially landmark decision may signal an end to this bureaucratic phenomenon that has caused veterans' advocates to shake their heads in disbelief for decades.

Signaling a judicial mandate that U.S. governmental agencies follow the law, a top federal appellate court has ruled the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) and the Dept of Veterans Affairs (DVA) violated the due process rights of a Vietnam War Marine veteran in wrongfully deciding his disability case.

The case, Cushman v. Shinseki (No. 08-7129), rules that this Marine veteran like other Americans is entitled to a fair hearing in administrative law courts such as the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC).

"The Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment guarantees that an individual will not be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. [U.S. Const. amend. V.] Due process of law has been interpreted to include notice and a fair opportunity to be heard," ruled the Court

The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit was created in 1982 and hears appeals from all over the U.S. including from numerous federal administrative courts such as the U.S. Court of Federal Claims and the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC).

The case is described by Larry Scott of VA WatchDog as a "landmark decision ... which could impact hundreds of thousands of veterans."

The ruling is hailed by Philip Cushman, the Marine veteran who filed the complaint, in an e-mail to Larry Scott:

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, [has] recognized a PROPERTY RIGHT INTEREST in a VA claim, thus triggering the legal protections of DUE PROCESS OF LAW which mandates a FAIR and IMPARTIAL VA adjudication process. This [is] a HUGE victory for the [nearly] MILLION veterans now caught up in VA backlogged claims denial mill.

The Court decision concludes:

Mr. Cushman demonstrated that his injury meets the service connection requirement of [United States Code]. Mr. Cushman has a constitutional right to have his claim for veteran’s disability benefits decided according to fundamentally fair procedures. We find that this right was violated due to the presence of an improperly altered medical record in Mr. Cushman’s file. We vacate the June 6, 2008 decision of the Veterans Court and remand the case with instructions to grant Mr. Cushman a new hearing before the Board to determine de novo and without the presence of the alterations in his medical record whether Mr. Cushman was unable to secure a substantially gainful occupation between May 3, 1977 and August 31, 1994, because of his service-connected disability.