VA disregards its own letter verifying vet's Vietnam service. Defers decision on disability claim saying it needs "development."

by Larry Scott, VA Watchdog dot Org

The Veteran served in Vietnam during the War.

Except, there was nothing in The Veteran's records to indicate this.

What did he do in Vietnam?  Lots of "things."

Now, The Veteran is suffering from type II diabetes (DMII).  But, after a number of denials from the Veterans' Benefits Administration (VBA) because he couldn't prove service in Vietnam, The Veteran gave up trying to get benefits.

Today, The Veteran has an attorney.

And, on November 1, 2008, The Veteran gets a letter from the VA's Compensation & Pension (C&P) Service.  The letter is signed by the Director, Bradley G. Mayes.

The letter states:

According to records of the Department of Veterans' Affairs (VA), you were stationed in the Republic of Vietnam during your military service.

The letter goes on to explain available benefits including the service-connected presumptives due to exposure to Agent Orange ... and, that would include type II diabetes.

End of problems for The Veteran, right? 

Wrong!

The attorney explains:

I immediately send the letter to the Columbia VARO and ask that the DMII be reviewed for presumption based on the service concession (along with a few other claims on appeal). Today, I was reviewing the guys claims file copy I finally received last week and in it is a "Deferred Rating Decision" ordering "further development" because the locals don't agree with the C&P letter!!! This is the worst "develop to deny" example I have seen, not to mention they never sent the decision to him or me (and there was another deferred decision that was also not sent).

"Develop to Deny" refers to the VBA disregarding irrefutable evidence and then saying they are going to further "develop" the claim.  In essence, this is a denial of the claim.

The attorney adds:

I am aware of no authority, practice, rule, regulation or policy that allows a VARO to "develop" a fact determined by the C&P Director. Further, this is the same VARO that told me that they would not challenge a C&P reversal of an award because "they don't question HQ."

I would appreciate hearing from anyone who can characterize this as anything but a "develop to deny" case. Vet has been diagnosed for years with DMII and VA admits he was in RVN and is eligible for AO presumption. What possible other reason is there for further development?

The attorney has now placed the VARO on notice with a rather stinging letter.

"Develop to Deny" is just one of the dirty little "Claim Games" the VBA plays.

If you've ever thought that "Delay, Deny and Hope that I Die" is the motto of the VBA ... you just may be right.