Hicksville
Vietnam War Era Memorial
Thanks
to the readers of HixNews, we added 16 names in March for a new total of
487, so we are quickly approaching our interim goal of 500 names.
v
The Project Team continues
to seek broader distribution of the news of this effort.
Fundraising, Memorial design and site selection discussions also
continue.
v
Memorial
Qualifications:
A person must have been on active duty in one of our Armed Forces
during the Vietnam Era. The
person did not necessarily have to serve in
Vietnam
, because by being in service at that time he or she faced the
possibility of being sent to
Vietnam
and was an integral part of strengthening our Armed Forces during a time
of war.
Overall
qualifications include:
- must have been a
resident of
Hicksville
at some time before entering our Armed Forces
- must have attended a
public, private or parochial high school while living in
Hicksville
(attendance at HHS not required)
- must have served on
active duty anywhere in the world during
America
's Vietnam Era (1961-1973 per the www.vietnamwar.com
history timeline)
- Both men and women
qualify (We're stating this as we still have very few women
on the current list)
Even
with 487 names, we know there are many more that served who meet these
qualifications, but have yet to be identified by the Project Team.
Rough estimates indicate we should be able to collect between 2
and 3 thousand names. We have access to official records in
Washington
,
D.C.
but have found that many people left
Hicksville
before entering the service and show a different town or city as their
home at the time of entry. So, we need to continue this grassroots
effort and will also continue to use official records as a means of
confirmation of all personnel on the list.
Our
Project Team consists of the following members:
·
Ken Strafer, Founder (HHS
'62)
·
Joe Carfora, Master List (HHS
'62)
·
Carl Probst, Input Data,
Class of '59 & Others (HHS '59)
·
Tony Plonski, Input Data,
Class of '64 & Others (HHS '64)
·
Tommy Sullivan, Press
Release Editing (HHS '63)
·
Walter Schmidt, Hicksville
Local Coordinator & Town of
Oyster Bay
Veterans Services Officer (HHS '65)
·
Joe Ingino, Veterans
Advocate, Hicksville &
Long Island
(HHS '67)
·
Jay Tranchina, Input Data,
Class of '64 & Others, plus local press contact (HHS 1964)
·
Bill Walden, Commander of
Hicksville
VFW Post (HHS '65)
What we need each person reading this to do:
Please
click on the following link and review the current list of names:
https://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0AmMG_lUq31y2dGwyUlpnNGVpc0Y3cEIxT0phTExWenc&hl=en
If
you know of someone who is not listed, or if you have information to
clarify/correct data shown in red and/or with a question mark, please
send what you have to Joe Carfora at jcarfora1@nc.rr.com. Please use the information
contained on the current list as a guide for the data we need.
Thank
you
The
Vietnam War Era Memorial Project Team
Footnote extracted from www.vietnamwar.com:
During 15 years of military involvement, over 2 million Americans
served in
Vietnam
with 500,000 seeing actual combat. 47,244 were killed in action,
including 8000 airmen. There were 10,446 non-combat deaths. 153,329 were
seriously wounded, including 10,000 amputees. Over 2400 American
POWs/MIAs were unaccounted for as of 1973.
Veteran
HixNews Column For April 2010...
Folks
-
It seems we, who are still on Long Island, had our April showers in
March this year. We had the snowiest February and rainiest March on
record. On to April and a few dates not to be forgotten.
0403 - Marshall Plan Anniversary (1948)
0406 - US Entered WWI (1917)
0409 - Former POW Recognition Day
0410 - Bataan Death March (1942)
0414 - PVA established (1947)
0417 - Bay of Pigs Invasion (1961)
0418 - Paul Revere and William Dawes "the British are coming"
(1775)
0419 - Oklahoma City Bombing (1995)
0419 - American Revolution begins at Lexington Massachusetts (1775)
0422 - First Spanish-American War action a blockade of Cuban ports
(1898)
0430 - Fall of Saigon Vietnam (1975)
0430 - Adolf Hitler commits suicide (1945)
In the past month we've 'learned' an interesting fact that falls in the
category of "You Can't Make This Stuff Up." Related stories
follow.
Chief Justice "Startled" By Government Errors In Veterans'
Cases
A situation that causes any veteran who has filed a claim to shake their
head and wonder... why is it he did not yet know what is common
knowledge among the veteran community: In litigating with veterans, the
government more often than not takes a position that is substantially
unjustified. How often? This 'unjustified positions taken' percentage is
over 50%, at least 70%, and could be as high as 90% depending who does
the counting (the VA admits, "...in the order of either 50 or maybe
slightly more than 50 percent. It might be 60"). First we 'hear'
from Chief Justice Roberts, then from two practicing attorneys.
Roberts "Startled" By Government Errors in Vet Cases
When he was in private practice at Hogan & Hartson, Chief Justice
John Roberts Jr. did not handle veterans' benefits claims. So, he
understandably found "startling" information with which
lawyers for veterans are only too familiar: In litigating with veterans,
the government more often than not takes a position that is
substantially unjustified.
In oral arguments yesterday in Astrue v. Ratliff, an attorney fee case
under the Equal Access to Justice Act, James Leach of Rapid City, S.D.,
told the Court that 42 percent of Social Security cases result in an
EAJA attorney fee award.
"If it's 42 percent, that's quite a high number of cases in which
the government's position is found substantially -- not substantially
justified as well as legally erroneous," Leach said. "In
veterans cases, it's even worse."
The U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, which reports the number
of EAJA awards granted annually, reported that for 2008 and 2009, he
said, 70 percent resulted in fee awards, Leach told the justices.
When Assistant to the Solicitor General Anthony Yang got up for his
rebuttal in the case, Roberts interrupted him and the exchange went like
this:
ROBERTS: Counsel do you -- do you dispute your friend's statement that
42 percent of the time in Social Security cases the government's
position is unjustified, and 70 percent of the time in veterans' cases?
YANG: Well, I think that reflects the stakes often, Your Honor.
Oftentimes the government does not contest, for instance, the $2,000
EAJA award and because it's the government, has to -
ROBERTS: So whenever it really makes a difference, 70 percent of the
time the government's position is substantially unjustified?
YANG: In cases in the VA context, the number's not quite that large, but
is a substantial number of cases at the court of appeals -
ROBERTS: What number would you accept?
YANG: It was, I believe in the order of either 50 or maybe slightly more
than 50 percent. It might be 60. But the number is substantial that you
get a reversal, and in almost all of those cases EAJA -
ROBERTS: Well that's really startling, isn't it? In litigating with
veterans, the government more often than not takes a position that is
substantially unjustified?
YANG: It is an unfortunate number, Your Honor. And it is -- it's
accurate.
Bart Stichman, co-executive director of the National Veterans Legal
Services Program, said he thinks the percentage is greater than the
government's number.
"That means the quality of decision making at the Board of Veterans
Appeals is not very good," he said. "We've been saying that
for years. The number means not only did they wrongly decide the case
but their position wasn't substantially justified. Not too good."
Attorney #1
Mr. Chief Justice: Welcome to my side of the Looking Glass.
The response to your comments regarding the error rate in VA benefits
adjudications among those of us who attend tea parties here has mostly
been "duh" or "I am shocked" (ala Casablanca)
depending on how just how old a hand he or she is.
Sadly, however, the number of EAJA [Equal Access to Justice Act]
payments is only part of the story regarding unjustified legal
positions. As you know, EAJA payments are (1) only paid to attorneys and
(2) only paid when requested. As a result, the 70% number does not
include the cases that were unjustified but argued by veterans without
attorneys. In addition, EAJA is denied when the Veterans Court deems the
error was not eligible for EAJA (how and why this exception has
developed is for the Cheshire Cat - but it has happened to me).
Also, and most frustrating, is that "big" cases - the ones
that really change things for veterans - rarely, if ever, get EAJA
because the Court finds that Secretary "put up a good fight"
even when the law and the facts were so bad that even the Veterans Court
ruled against VA. So the attorneys putting the most time and effort into
cases with the most importance get no payments, while attorneys pointing
out obvious errors get EAJA fees (Alice where are you???). In any event,
the actual numbers of cases where - by all rational measures - the
Secretary should know that a denial is so wrong that no defense of it is
justified are even higher than 70%.
What is most interesting to me is how all this became known to you. It
is pretty obvious: EAJA is only paid to attorneys. The Secretary has to
account to Congress for EAJA payments. So, all of a sudden the substance
of VA's boasting about its "quality" of adjudications was
exposed for what it is - spin.
Reluctant to believe the VA would really spin such basic information?
Just compare the Veterans Court's accounting for remands, reversals,
etc., to that of the Board. Go ahead, pick any year end reports and
compare the numbers. According to the documents, the Court is remanding
huge numbers of cases, but the Board is only having a small number of
cases remanded?!?!. Ah, the magic of the Looking Glass.
Mr. Chief Justice, I'll bring the beer if you will sit down with Chief
Judge Greene [U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans' Claims] and Chairman
Terry [Board of Veterans' Appeals] and run down the list of cases for,
say, 2008, and work this all out. I am sure that it is all just an
honest miscommunication that happens to be repeated year after year . .
.
One last thought, Mr. Chief Justice, because I cannot afford to be late.
Why is it that the Social Security Administration people do so much
better (although admittedly still pretty badly) at adjudicating claims.
Could it be that SSA claimants have access to attorneys when they want
them so SSA is more reluctant to try and jam baseless decisions through
the system?? Hmmm???
Maybe if VA has to pay a claimant's fees EVERY time a vet is forced to
hire a lawyer and prevails things might tighten up just a bit.
Thank you for your time, Mr. Chief Justice. And feel free to contact me
should you find yourself involved in a veteran's benefits case -
everybody needs help navigating the VA system the first couple of times.
. . .
Attorney #2
A baseline number for the VA error rate is around 80% which reflects the
CAVC's reported affirmance rate. This means that of the small percentage
of cases which are appealed (many claims are just abandoned by veterans
who become frustrated), the Court reports that it agrees with the VA
only about 20% of the time. To calculate the true error rate of appealed
claims it is necessary to add the large percentage of cases in which the
VA concedes error in a Joint Motion for Remand. Appeals resolved by JMRs
are not considered in the Court's annual report and would bring the VA's
error rate to well over 90%.
Chief Justice Roberts should not be surprised by the idea that VA
decisions are frequently the result of errors. Aside from the media
coverage of the poor decision making by the VA, the Supreme Court has
recently dealt with errors in VA decisions. In the April 2009 opinion in
the Sanders and Simmons cases the Supreme Court gave the VA a license to
commit errors. There the Supreme Court decided that the VA's errors
cannot be considered by a Court unless the veteran proves to a Court
that the error resulted in prejudice to the veteran.
Senator Also "Startled" By Government Errors In Veterans'
Cases
Here's what the Senator from Iowa wrote. He asked for a response by
March 26; through the end of March no response was yet received.
Charles E. Grassley
United States Senate
Washington, DC 20510
March 16, 2010
The Honorable Eric K. Shinseki
Secretary of Veterans Affairs
810 Vermont Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20420
Dear Secretary Shinseki:
In arguments before the Supreme Court in the case of Astrue v. Ratliff,
shocking figures were presented regarding the number of veterans claims
where on appeal the government's position is found to be not just wrong
but unjustified. In fact, while there was some dispute between the
attorney who asserted that the figure was 70% and the government
attorney who conceded that the figure was somewhere over 50%, Chief
Justice Roberts called the situation "startling." I share the
reaction of the Chief Justice and seek answers about how you intend to
correct this unacceptable situation.
The severe and growing backlog of veterans' claims at the Department of
Veterans Affairs (VA) is well documented and has been a major concern
for Congress for some time. However, the alarming information presented
in this case sheds new light into just how dysfunctional the situation
has become. The fact that the VA 's decisions are not only overturned on
appeal frequently, but that a majority of claims were so wrongly decided
in the first place that the government's position is found to be
substantially unjustified would seem to indicate serious systemic
problems with the VA 's process for approving veterans' claims. This is
backed up by anecdotal descriptions 1 have heard from Iowa veterans
describing problems at the VA ranging from miscommunication to mistakes
causing unnecessary delays as they work through the claims process.
These erroneous decisions result in hardship for veterans who are forced
to wait longer and deal with additional red tape in order to receive the
benefits, like health services or disability compensation, to which they
are entitled. At the same time, by diverting resources from approving
additional claims to dealing with appeals in which the VA's position is
not only wrong but without justification, the backlog of claims awaiting
approval is only made worse. Furthermore, when a claim goes to appeal
and the court finds the government's position to be unjustified,
attorneys for the plaintiff are eligible to have their fees paid by the
government under the Equal Access to Justice Act. In this way, both the
veteran and the taxpayer are needlessly harmed.
To better understand where this situation stands, I ask that you answer
the following questions:
1. What is the accurate percentage of veterans claims appeals in federal
court where the government's position is found to be unjustified?
2. What is the VA doing to improve the quality of VA claims decisions
and reduce unnecessary appeals?
3. What is the total amount of attorney's fees paid by the VA under the
Equal Access to Justice Act for each of the past 5 years?
4. What is the source of the funds for attorney's fees paid by the VA
and were funds diverted from another part of the VA budget to pay these
costs?
Congress has provided substantial additional resources for the V A to
hire more personnel to process claims and I am certainly open to
additional legislative action that would help solve this problem.
However, it is clear that devoting more taxpayer dollars alone is not
the answer. Clearly, the VA needs to undertake a serious effort to
improve the operation of its benefit claims approval system. Until this
problem is tackled head on, thousands of veterans who were injured in
service to their country will continue to face needless delays and red
tape to receive the benefits we owe them and millions of taxpayer
dollars will continue to be at risk. I look forward to hearing how you
plan to aggressively address this issue and ask that you respond by
March 26, 2010.
Sincerely,
Charles E. Grassley
United States Senator
--
--- --- Walt Schmidt Veteran Services Officer
- - --- TOBay's Veteran Services Division
- - - - "Let No Veteran Ever Stand Alone!"
--- --- WorkDayTime: 516.797.7875 & 24/7 Voice Mail
- - --- Anytime: 24/7 Voice Mail 516.799.8300
- - - - Website: http://www.waltsdorsai.net/
Ken Sun - Weekly Column: http://experts.longisland.com/
veterans
"To know yet to think that one does not know is best;
Not to know yet to think that one knows will lead to difficulty."
- Lao-Tzu 71:1
|
