AL94 - Comment - Dependents and Survivors - FR Doc # 06-07759

I have two quick things that I would like your feedback and assistance with. In your post "From Friday's (03-31-06) Federal Register we find that the VA is rewriting the rules," I am concerned that National Guard Full time active duty members who serve under title 32 orders are still not considered to be veterans because of the USC definitions. It seems that in-order to be considered a veteran one has to comply with the following definition " Veteran means any of the following, as applicable: (1) A person who had active military service and who was discharged or released under conditions other than dishonorable. Unfortunately, many of us Guard troops are on Title 32 orders under active duty for training even though we are fullfilling real world missions that are not training duties. Example, I worked at the F-15 alert facility before and after Sep 11th 2001 and we continued to serve under "active duty for training" orders. According to the VA "active duty for training" does not qualify us for being defined as a veteran. Now if we are injured and become service connected, then we qualify, but under normal circumstances we are not and cannot utilize any of the VA programs. I am not sure if the changes proposed have changed the definition of veteran to ensure that the title 32 guard members who are listed as "active duty for training" are to be considered as veterans. This is an unfair situation as I have heard of people who retired from 20 years of title 32 active duty for training being turned away from the VA. ------------------------------- My other concern is that the Winston Salem Regional Office denies all veteran claims for aid and attendance if the veteran is not rated at 100%. According to what I have read, and according to the St Pete Regional office, a veteran/and or spouse payee can be entitled to Aid and attendance without being rated 100%. Here is a letter that I wrote to Sec of the Dept of Vet Affairs. Tell me what you think, and if you know anyone at the Winston Salem office who can look into correcting this. To: R James Nicholson From: Richard Thor Sep 3 2006 Dear sir, please find the enclosed response from the Winston Salem office, which still insists that a veteran must be 100% service connected before aid and attendance can be granted. This is wrong and I beg you or someone from your office to review the regulations and inform the Winston Salem office of their errors. As evidence which will make it easier, I offer these two 2006 Board of Veteran Appeals decisions that granted aid and attendance for veterans who are not 100%, blind, or housebound. Docket Number 04-28 259, Citation Nr: 0611982, the veteran was not rated 100% but was granted aid and attendance on the sole basis that their disabilities required the assistance to dress and undress themselves. Docket Number 04-19 152, Citation Nr: 0614754, the veteran was NON-service connected at 80%, but was granted aid and attendance due to his psychiatric condition and performance of certain daily activities. I am sure if I spent another 30 minutes reviewing Boards of veterans appeals decisions I could find several more decisions that prove that a veteran does not have to be 100% in order to be granted aid and attendance. . Obviously, based on the letter that I was sent from the Winston Salem office they continue to falsely automatically turn down veteran applications for Aid and Attendance if the veteran is not rated at 100%. I beg your office to look into this and set the Winston Salem office straight. I also propose that they send out a memorandum to all of their raters so that the veterans claims can be adjudicated properly as soon as possible. Sincerely, Richard H Thor II