Military.com article from Larry Scott at VA Watchdog dot Org 

 

Here's the link to subscribe to Larry Scott's Military.com articles as an RSS feed
 

 

September 02, 2005

 

 

Second Signature Policy Revisions Flawed

 

Nicholson lays out confusing policy changes

 

Opinion by Larry Scott

 

 

In June I wrote about VA?s new Second Signature Required policy.  My email inbox was filled for weeks.  And, the outcry from veterans? service organizations was deafening.  So deafening that VA backtracked and is taking a second look at Second Signature.

 

In its original form, the Second Signature Required policy looked like this.  If a veteran filed a claim for PTSD, any 100 per cent disability evaluation or total disability rating based on individual unemployability (IU) and that claim was granted, there would be a second evaluation and a second signature.  A second signature was NOT required if the claim was denied.  Then the veteran would have to re-file the claim, a process that would take months and sometimes years.  The policy was implemented by Daniel L. Cooper, VA Under Secretary for Benefits.

 

Shortly after its implementation VA decided to ?clarify? the policy for the Regional Offices.  The policy was not withdrawn.  What?s interesting here is that the original document sent to all VA Regional Offices disappeared from VA?s web site.  (That document is available here.)  The official explanation was that since they were going to ?clarify? the policy, there was no need to keep the original document.  Huh?  The government throwing away a document?  In its place is a document explaining that the original policy is being revised.  (That document is available here.)

 

On June 21, Rep. Lane Evans (D-IL), Ranking Democratic Member of the House Committee on Veterans? Affairs fired off a blistering letter to VA Secretary Jim Nicholson questioning the appropriateness of the Second Signature Required policy.

 

Now, sorting our way through all the documents, we find that Secretary Nicholson has ?clarified? the Second Signature Required policy.  Sort of.  In a July 20 letter sent to Rep. Evans, Secretary Nicholson lays out the All-New-and-Improved Second Signature Required policy.  And it contains just as much bad news for veterans as the first policy.

 

Secretary Nicholson?s ?clarification? looks like this.  Now a second review and second signature will be required for:  (1) grants of service connection for PTSD; (2) denials of service connection for PTSD; (3) grants of 100 per cent evaluations for PTSD; (4) grants of total disability ratings based upon IU.

 

What a total mess this is!  The ?clarification? itself doesn?t make sense, much less the new policy as a whole.  Doesn?t #3 fall under #1?  Of course.  Then a denial for #3 would fall under #2.  Can this get any more confusing?

 

The little bit of good news is that denials for PTSD will get a second review and grants for 100 per cent disability not associated with PTSD or IU were take off the second signature list.  I think.  However, denials for IU were NOT added to the list.

 

What VA needs is a consistent policy for claims awarded and denied.  Not a hodgepodge of confusing regulations where some claims are put under a high-power microscope and others are not.  VA needs to make up their collective mind on this subject.  ALL claims get one review or two reviews or three reviews.  I don?t care how many as long as the policy is consistent for ALL claims.

 

Secretary Nicholson?s new Second Signature Required policy is fatally flawed and should not be implemented.  It is obviously biased against ?big money? claims and looks to many veterans as just another way to cut the VA budget at their expense.  The message this policy sends to veterans and our troops in the field, who will soon be veterans, is that VA will put any ?big money? claim careful scrutiny.  This message, in itself, is a discouragement to file claims that fall under the Second Signature Required policy.

 

VA needs to go back to the drawing board and create a policy that handles ALL claims in the same manner.  And I encourage you to write your elected representatives and urge them to get this policy thrown out and a policy of consistent claims management put in its place.