# Disability decision letter



## koreankid (8 Sep 2015)

Can anyone tell me if on their disability decision letter the adjudicators signature is on a page by itself or if the signature is on the last page with part of the decision written with it. This is very important and could use your feed back


----------



## blackberet17 (9 Sep 2015)

It will depend on how much information is contained in the letter, and where the text falls.

Why is this important? Are you missing the last page of your decision letter?


----------



## PMedMoe (9 Sep 2015)

If I remember, I'll have a look at mine when I get home...


----------



## koreankid (9 Sep 2015)

My disability decision letter isn't done in letter form like the 2 decisions I found online where the text ends and the signature is directly underneath it. mine is done differently and the signature is by itself on a separate end page.
the adjudicator has made over 15 intentional errors in my adjudication, and the signature has been altered from the 2 I found online from the same adjudicator. my lawyer thinks my adjudication has been done off record as there are no signed copies in my ATIP files, 2 1/2 months I have tried to get these signed documents verified by VAC and they won't respond by phone, email, or letter, my federal MP won't send these documents to VAC for verification, and I have found many unsigned documents by pension officers in my ATIP documents. My lawyer figures that no one wants their signatures on any documents for liability reasons in civil court.My lawyer feels that the adjudicator has not given me a "fair adjudication" with regards to legislation and policy or the right to fair procedure and that may be why the signature has been altered so when we take the adjudicator to court to verify her signature and decision documents she can say its not her signature or adjudication to avoid being sued in civil court for her actions.
This is why I need to look at an up to date decision letter from another vet or cf personnel to caompare and know for sure. The 2 I found online are older ones from 2004 and 2007 and the format is totally different than I have.
If anyone can show me a copy of their decision letter, I would be the most appreciative of this and they can black out all their personal information as I only need to see the format of the letter and signature.
the other 2 I have found on line are at:
cansav.ca/12%20Jan%202007.pdf. and the other one is at:    bluewaternavy.org/LFVAC%20pg3.jpg
Some help with this would make my year long battle worth it.I am spending about $30,000 to go to court to expose VA for everyones benefit as well as mine. Don't want what is happening to me to happen to the next guy. Never give up and fight to the end.


----------



## blackberet17 (9 Sep 2015)

The format was recently changed, in an effort to meet Treasury Board and other guidelines to contain clear and concise language, etc. Tt has changed more than once in the last five to six years, as well.

I have a file on my desk right now, with four decisions in it, from May 2014 to July 2015. Three of the decisions (all in 2015) are preceded by a cover letter, containing a basic explanation of the decision itself. There is no signature block on the cover letter. Attached to each of the three cover letters are the decisions themselves (Departmental Review, Assessment Decision, and Official Decision). Each of the actual decisions has a signature block at the end. Neither is on a separate page from the remainder of the text of the decision, and each page is numbered at the top.

The other Assessment Decision, from May 2014, has no cover letter, but it does have a signature block at the end of the letter. It is not on a separate page; rather, it flows "naturally" from the main body of the letter.

If the 2004 and 2007 letters were both signed by the same person, I wouldn't find it surprising if it changed over the three-year span...specially if they are signing more than one letter a day, as the Adjudicators would be...

It's like signing rent cheques for the year...not going to be the same from cheque #001 to #012.


----------



## koreankid (9 Sep 2015)

thanks for the info, mine is the official decision letter which interests me. Is there any chance of you copying it blacking out all the information on the whole document and letting me view the format. I would really appreciate it.Mine is not even in letter form


----------



## koreankid (9 Sep 2015)

Mine is not in letter form and has bullets throughout the 12 pages with large spaces between the writing and bullets. others on another site have told me theirs is all in letter form with no bullets under each heading.


----------



## koreankid (9 Sep 2015)

If you can find your decision letter, I would appreciate some feed back, it would really help out. Thanks


----------



## TCM621 (9 Sep 2015)

I can't speak to a decision letter but it is standard practice to never put a signature block on its own page. It could then easily be used with a different document.


----------



## koreankid (9 Sep 2015)

That is what I figured out 3 months ago, and have been trying unsuccessfully to find someone for the last week to let me look at theirs before my lawyer starts the affidavit process. can't find anyone willing to black out their personal info so I can look at it. Been very frustrating.


----------



## blackberet17 (10 Sep 2015)

Question: have you been in touch with any of the lawyers at the Bureau of Pensions Advocates? They know the system better than a private solicitor, and better yet, provide free legal advice and representation.

I fail to comprehend based on the little you have told us why you have engaged a private solicitor, who does not know the system, and could be leading you down a financially backbreaking path.


----------



## koreankid (10 Sep 2015)

I am trying to get the original signed document verified by VAC that it was sent from them and signed by their adjudicator. they won't verify the signed documents, have no copies on file of the signature, and I am will not use a pension advocate lawyer simply because I have already caught VA corrupting many doctors for my testing. pension lawyers are already trying to find out who my private lawyer is and I won't tell them. I already hired a second lawyer from a different firm as a backup in case my lawyer is corrupted by VA. They are trying to cover up their fraud at all costs. money is not an issue.


----------



## BinRat55 (10 Sep 2015)

Sounds like an awful lot of effort / money / trouble because you can't take "no" for an answer.

Honestly, I am with BB17 on this - is it all based on mistrust of the system? Please do not attempt to martyr yourself on our behalf. Tying up an already taxed system because "money is not an issue" is actually doing the exact opposite.

I want to understand, but you are talking in conspiracy circles (hiring a backup law firm just in case my primary lawyer whom I hired myself is corrupt...) Do you hear yourself?


----------



## koreankid (10 Sep 2015)

Also, I am not doing a review. I am taking the adjudicator to civil court to verify her signature and to verify that this is her adjudication.this adjudicator probably did a proper fair adjudication and Va has taken the signature page and put with an unfair adjudication so they don't have to pay me the other 3/4 million and make me fight for something I should have already been given fairly. When I take the adjudicator to court that will tell all if the adjudication is fraudulent or not.


----------



## blackberet17 (10 Sep 2015)

"3/4 million"?

Say again your last, over.

$750,000?!

The max payment under the current rate tables is less than half that (strictly NVC talking). I am obviously not including the other benefits and programs available.

Something isn't lining up here.


----------



## BinRat55 (10 Sep 2015)

koreankid said:
			
		

> ... so they don't have to pay me the other 3/4 million and make me fight for something I should have already been given fairly.



How on earth can DND owe you almost a million dollars? Jesus, I have been owed 76.15 for just over a decade now... and I though THAT was bad enough!


----------



## BinRat55 (10 Sep 2015)

blackberet17 said:
			
		

> "3/4 million"?
> 
> Say again your last, over.
> 
> ...



 :nod:


----------



## koreankid (10 Sep 2015)

This isn't a conspiracy theory, I have 6 primary claims, and about 20 secondary claims. All have been proven for me by the Canadian government. There are 3 Australian Korean war veterans studies that prove that these conditions have been caused by the chemical exposure in korea. As Canada accepted the Australian studies because they didn't want to spend the money on their own, they proved for all veterans of korea that the cause is from these chemicals.  As long as they don't find any contradictory medical evidence in your medical files which they have not, they have to pay you on the benefit of doubt. This is why you look on VAC website and only 2 Australian studies are listed telling of the medical conditions that are covered and VAC has removed the other so Vets can't find it. The one missing has diabetes, peripheral vascular disease, hypertention, but I got all the info from other vets to prove all this. Conspiracy 
theory, what a joke.


----------



## koreankid (10 Sep 2015)

And you wonder why my adjudication has been sabotaged with over 15 intentional mistakes,and I know that no adjudicator is going to sign their name to this because they are liable in civil court. The signature on my adjudication was put on a seperate page for this reason, as a new
sabotaged adjudication was made up and the original signature page was added to that adjudication.
I will post my results for the court decision and the full story soon so others can look at their adjudications to see if this has been done to them and what they can do about it.


----------



## BinRat55 (10 Sep 2015)

Sir,

Do not confuse my misgivings regarding your ramblings as being disrespectful - I have know many people stricken with a touch of a mental disorder to still be sick. Your theory of government corruption is where I place my conspiracy rope. I have zero doubt you are ill, have been ill and could get even more ill.

But spare me the "money is no object" rhetoric and the Canadian taxpayers owe you. Go tie up the Australian government or the Korean government. And stop eliciting hard working, respectable Canadian soldiers to fly to your aid because we are having a difficult time with a department that has been established - ironically thanks to veterans like you - for soldiers like me.

Veterans Affairs may have their issues, but they have bent over backwards to help us - not to be told that they are our to get you...


----------



## koreankid (10 Sep 2015)

How long have you been working for Veterans Affairs. Don't be jealous because the government proved my disabilities for me and you have to prove yours. you weren't exposed to 125 different chemicals like we were in Korea in the 50's. have you ever been exposed to ddt,and had it sprayed on your clothing to keep the snakes and vermin away from you, did you ever come in contact with jungle plants that were sprayed with chemicals so it would kill the plant life so you could see the enemy, did you ever drink water from a drum that had chemicals floating on top. Let me guess, you had hemorrhoids and were turned down for your disability claim.I am 80 years old and served my country over seas and the government took 60 years to finally compensate the men from Korea, and your champion VAC is trying to stop us from getting paid for what the chemicals did to us by doing everything illegal they can, but my nephew caught them. 
By the way VAC has done Jack shit for anyone, The ombudsman has made everything happen for us.


----------



## Teager (10 Sep 2015)

Can I ask if the decision you recieved if it was in your favour at all?


----------



## koreankid (10 Sep 2015)

Yes they accepted 1 out of 6. The one they accepted was cut down hugely by not using all my medical documentation submitted as evidence, they used the oldest medical documents showing the condition in its earliest form and used the wrong disability tables to take all they could.
The other 5 that were accepted by the Canadian government as conditions that were a result of my military service in Korea found in the Australian Health Study 2005 were not accepted, and they did this by removing the Australian Health study 2005 from the VAC website and adjudicating as if it never existed. The same Health Study 2005 is found on the VRAB site and shows this is intentional as it has to be on both sites. Then you get people like bin RAT who most likely works for Veterans Affairs posing as a vet or soldier trying to disprove all the things a vet discovers and tries to bring forward to other vets and current cf soldiers. I spent most and part of the last 10 years in the hospital where my severe peripheral vascular disease had started gangrene on both feet and they were going to amputate both legs at the knee. This caused open bleading cysts on my legs and feet for many yaers. I was lucky new technology allowed for surgery and stenting. I now have my main blkood supply connected to my other leg to avoid amputation. All my conditions were accepted by parliament in the studies and we are to be compensated for our medical conditions from the chemical exposure, except that VAC staff want their performance bonuses and can't get them unless they do very serious things to adjudications, but thankfully my nephew is educated in some law and has discovered all of this.
So, no review until the adjudicator owns up in court to what she has done, then I will take this to adjudication if these documents don't turn out to be fraudulent as we suspect they are. I am no martyr but all the other vets and cf soldiers are happy someone has discovered this and is fighting on their behalf also. BinRAT is a fed and we have smoked out others on other sites as well, no vet or soldier is going to talk to a vet in that manner when he has discovered what VAC is doing. It's going to help others down the line and yes I'm paying for a private lawyer because I have discovered a system within VAC that I can't trust anyone assoc with the dept.


----------



## the 48th regulator (10 Sep 2015)

koreankid said:
			
		

> Yes they accepted 1 out of 6. The one they accepted was cut down hugely by not using all my medical documentation submitted as evidence, they used the oldest medical documents showing the condition in its earliest form and used the wrong disability tables to take all they could.
> The other 5 that were accepted by the Canadian government as conditions that were a result of my military service in Korea found in the Australian Health Study 2005 were not accepted, and they did this by removing the Australian Health study 2005 from the VAC website and adjudicating as if it never existed. The same Health Study 2005 is found on the VRAB site and shows this is intentional as it has to be on both sites. Then you get people like bin RAT who most likely works for Veterans Affairs posing as a vet or soldier trying to disprove all the things a vet discovers and tries to bring forward to other vets and current cf soldiers. I spent most and part of the last 10 years in the hospital where my severe peripheral vascular disease had started gangrene on both feet and they were going to amputate both legs at the knee. This caused open bleading cysts on my legs and feet for many yaers. I was lucky new technology allowed for surgery and stenting. I now have my main blkood supply connected to my other leg to avoid amputation. All my conditions were accepted by parliament in the studies and we are to be compensated for our medical conditions from the chemical exposure, except that VAC staff want their performance bonuses and can't get them unless they do very serious things to adjudications, but thankfully my nephew is educated in some law and has discovered all of this.
> So, no review until the adjudicator owns up in court to what she has done, then I will take this to adjudication if these documents don't turn out to be fraudulent as we suspect they are. I am no martyr but all the other vets and cf soldiers are happy someone has discovered this and is fighting on their behalf also. BinRAT is a fed and we have smoked out others on other sites as well, no vet or soldier is going to talk to a vet in that manner when he has discovered what VAC is doing. It's going to help others down the line and yes I'm paying for a private lawyer because I have discovered a system within VAC that I can't trust anyone assoc with the dept.



Koreanboy, and even typing that makes me laugh (I have a sick mind), I commend your fight and the bravado you have.  However, You sales presentation is a tad, how shall I say this, sounding like a snake oilsalesman.  You sound Kookie.  You are talking to people that have been around for a while, and know the system.  Then you get even more amusing when you start the personal attacks.  Talking about we, and this website.  I think you are out of order, and my spider senses are tingling with you.

Either way Francis, reign in the claws.  Binrat is a Government worker, CAF.  Who are you?


----------



## koreankid (10 Sep 2015)

This all coming from a young lad that quotes movies. i'll bet commando was your favorite.


----------



## koreankid (10 Sep 2015)

I probably served in Korea before you were part of the sperm flow


----------



## George Wallace (10 Sep 2015)

koreankid said:
			
		

> This all coming from a young lad that quotes movies. i'll bet commando was your favorite.



This is twice you have insulted members of this site.  Members who have been here much longer than you.  It has not gone unnoticed.


----------



## MJP (10 Sep 2015)

With such flippant and bang on witty remarks like the last few I am in shock how much trouble you seem to be having in dealing with the VAC.  Obviously with one as great as you they should be bending over backwards to assist in in anyway possible.  Clearly all the issues are on their end.


----------



## BinRat55 (10 Sep 2015)

koreankid, I am affording you the benefit of the doubt - if you are truly a Canadian veteran from that era you do deserve my respect. You are ill and I hope you get the help you have earned through serving this great country. 

Please stay on your meds... I am going to take the high road here and apologize for even starting this with you.


----------



## Loachman (10 Sep 2015)

I've just reviewed this entire thread, and a couple of people need to dial it down a little. None of this acrimony was necessary.

I've locked it for twenty-four hours until people calm down

If anybody has anything critical to say, they can PM me.

In the meantime, if anybody is willing and able to provide koreankid with the requested examples, please do so. It's certainly not going to harm anyone, and also may help someone.


----------



## Loachman (11 Sep 2015)

Unlocked, a little early.

Behave, play nicely, help each other.


----------



## blackberet17 (11 Sep 2015)

koreankid:

The studies to which you refer are the fol:

1) _Cancer Incidence Study 2003: Australian Veterans of the Korean War_.

It is available here:

http://www.aihw.gov.au/publication-detail/?id=6442467537

2) _Mortality Study 2003: Australian Veterans of the Korean War_.

It is available here:

http://www.aihw.gov.au/publication-detail/?id=6442467527

3) _Health Study 2005: Australian Veterans of the Korean War_.

http://www.dva.gov.au/health-and-wellbeing/research-and-development/health-studies/health-study-2005-australian-veterans

Those are the three studies the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare has published to date in reference to Australian Veterans of the Korean War.

All three are listed – as hyperlinks back to the original creator and holder of the document - on the Veterans Review and Appeal Board (VRAB) web site for information purposes.

It is my regret to inform you there is no conspiracy involved in the links being removed from the Veterans Affairs Canada (VAC) web site. Those three documents are linked on the VRAB site, and are easily found on the Australian Government Department of Veterans’ Affairs (AGDVA) web site.

Furthermore, the three studies, as well as the AGDVA’s Statements of Principles and many other reputable medical journals and studies, were used to form the basis of VAC’s Entitlement Eligibility Guidelines.

The VAC web site contains a document which should be of interest to you, and can be found here:

http://www.veterans.gc.ca/eng/about-us/policy/document/1445

It is the Policy Document as related to the studies listed above. It outlines the guiding principles for the adjudication of disability benefit applications for conditions recognized under ALL three of the studies listed above.

I will direct your attention to the list below:



> *Illnesses/Medical Conditions Accepted by VAC as Associated with Service in Korea*
> 2.	VAC may grant disability benefit entitlement to Canadian Korean War Veterans, who served in Korea, for the types of conditions identified below:
> a.	Primary malignant neoplasms (including "in situ" neoplasms) of the following sites:
> i.	Primary malignant neoplasms of the head and neck - includes only the following sites:
> ...



This list would have been used, in part and along with all of the other medical and service evidence in your file – of which you would have a copy through your Access to Information and Privacy Act request – to determine whether your claimed medical conditions are related to your service in Korea.

Following any determination of a link between your claimed medical conditions and your service in Korea, the resulting pensioned medical conditions would have been assessed by using the Table of Disabilities.

The Table of Disabilities is a legislated document, of which a copy can easily be found on the VAC web site, and is used in assessing the degree of disability resulting from medical conditions associated with military service, in war time and in peace time.

The Medical Impairment ratings are based on the symptoms presented due to a specific medical condition, and provide the basis for the percentage a Veteran or service member is then awarded. Korean War Veteran claims fall under the _Pension Act_, which means this percentage would equate to a monthly pension, based on the Disability Pension Rate Table for any given year. (2015: http://www.veterans.gc.ca/pdf/services/disability-pension/Disability-Pension-Rates-2015.pdf) 

In other words, let us say your peripheral vascular disease (PVD) was found to be associated with your service in Korea, and you receive a full disability pension of five-fifths. The symptoms related to your PVD are then assessed against the concordant Table of Disabilities, and a percentage is then awarded. For the sake of argument, let us go with 25%. This would equate to a monthly pension of $665.94 for an unmarried pensioner.

I still fail to see how you feel VAC or DND “owes” you an amount IVO $750,000.00, considering the amounts prescribed by the Rate Table above. To my knowledge, no _ex gratia_ payment has been approved by the Government of Canada for chemical exposure in Korea, such as is the case for Agent Orange exposure in the mid-50’s at CFB Gagetown – which amounted to $25,000.00.

I will not speak to your claims of a conspiracy regarding the adjudicator. While not knowing the specifics of what you may or may not hold in your hand, I have great difficulty believing such a situation exists in any form you or I may believe of reality.

I still strongly recommend you reach out to the lawyers at the Bureau of Pensions Advocates (BPA), for the reasons I have previously mentioned. BPA's mandate is to assist clients in the preparation of applications for review or for appeals and to arrange for them to be represented by an advocate at hearings before the Veterans Review and Appeal Board. They have the expertise to assist you with your concerns, as I have already mentioned. It would be to your benefit to request Departmental Reviews to the Department, and/or Reviews to VRAB, of any unfavourable decisions you have received regarding your pension applications, rather than expend time, energy and money (regardless of your “no object” statement - all wells run dry eventually), on what could be a fruitless endeavour.

BPA can be reached, toll-free, at 1-877-228-2250.



_Edit:_ Edited to clean up some abbreviation use, and added the phone number.


----------



## Loachman (11 Sep 2015)

Thank-you, blackberet17.


----------



## konda (11 Sep 2015)

I appreciate the time you have put in to show the information, however we have all that already. My uncle isn't on meds and needs no meds as he is mentally stable as can be. And it is appreciated that someone finally said they respect his service. My own father and 2 uncles served in ww2 with the loyal Eddies and this veterans own 2 brothers unfortunately had to land on the beaches of Normandy. We have a proud military background as most of you do also. 
As for the Australian Korean war veterans studies, we know there are 3 studies and if you look on VAC website, only 2 are listed, and the reason my uncle and the rest of the family is pissed is because the 3rd study that is missing on this site also has the medical conditions that are approved are missing as well and aren't listed.So now a veteran has to fight for something that he was to be paid for already and chances are he'll expire before all the reviews and appeals, most likely what VAC wants. I guess my uncles way of thinking would be, If he discovered a booby trap or mine while walking, should he alert the guy behind him of this. If a veteran discovered something with VAC should he tell the next veteran what he has discovered. It really is the same thing. I have found documentation from other veterans that proves all the missing information on VAC site for medical coverage for the 3rd study is covered. So why should the next veteran come along and not be compensated because the information is not available on the VAC site. Not all veterans have people to help them. As for the medical testing that was to be ordered by his doctor, the doctor was to order 5 tests which means all the results would come back to that doctor and be accessible to my uncle. What happened is in his medical files we ordered months after the tests, no requisitions for the tests were found, no test results from the labs were found. We were told by the sister clinic that a doctor who my uncle never ever seen ordered a test but no record of the requisition existed when we went to view his files or test results existed except for the results the doctor transcribed from the test we can't get. In all 12 doctors were involved from the information we were able to obtain. One doctor that my uncle never ever seen was found to be a wcb doctor who transcribed a test that no one can get the results of the real test. You all may have had help from VAC and that is great, but I can assure you my uncle has had none as I have had to resort to audio recording phone calls to get them to tell the truth. I spent 2 months emailing VAC to get them to verify these decision documents and they will not respond. I got his ATIP documents that show emails between the workers and them stating"what are we going to do? we can't answer him online" This was reference to the emails that the adjudication was fraudulent. I am a very well educated person and I am of sound mind also, and no, I don't need meds either, if VAC won't even verify their own signed documents and don't have any copies of the signature on file my uncle simply is going to take the adjudicator to court to verify her signature and decision documents. That is not harming anyone, can you imagine if the documents were fraudulent what would this do for others in the same boat. Imagine if it was you that was helped because some old kook from a different era kept on fighting and never quit like he was told in Korea. I am sure happy my dad,uncles, and others in ww2 never quit, their sacrifices gave us pretty good lifes.  Should the veteran and his family let the next vet step on the landmine, or should the vet yell out "Look what I found"and help his buddy coming behind him? I had to quit my job a year ago to take care of my 85 year old mom with her medical problems and also moved my uncle in with me to take care of him so he didn't have to go to a home, I think it's a small sacrifice for both their services as seniors and a veteran. I am very glad and proud that the KOOKY old veteran has taught me to never give up also very sad to see an old veteran patronized like he is an idiot. we have had 3 lawyers review all the stuff we have found VAC doing and they are all of the same conclusion that major sh$t is going on inside of VAC. If we are right in what the documents are telling us and we prove this I hope an apology will come from a couple of people because they may be in the same boat when they get older!!! It's alright if no one wants to show their decision letter the Adjudicator will prove this all in court for him anyways.
Again thank you Blackberet17, loachman, and others- helping each other should be the prime reason for the site
He is owed money for the lump sum award not a monthly pension. they just don't want to pay, that is why there are over 15 mistakes in his adjudication.To make these mistakes, the right to procedural fairness,and the legislation and policy of fair adjudication were not given to the veteran and I am very curious myself to see the outcome of the adjudicator taking responsibility for this or not. Other wise, what is the reason for having these policies and legislation if they are not followed by the adjudicator. I am pretty sure if the adjudicator says the documents are hers and the signature is hers she is going to know she's getting sued. But the main thing is will the adjudicator do this again to the next vet if sued the first time.


----------



## blackberet17 (11 Sep 2015)

konda and koreakid:

I can try to assist and provide you with the information readily available to me. Which is what I have attempted to do above.

While I do not speak for anyone working in IT or Communications or Web stuff at VAC, I highly doubt there was any conspiracy or malicious intent in the link (because that's all it ever was, if I remember correctly, a link to the study back on the AGDVA's web site) being removed from the VAC web site.

I have provided links to the three studies to which you refer. Which can also be found on VRAB's web site. The "fact" only two of the studies are available on VAC's web site is insignificant at best. All three of the studies are readily available to anyone with an internet connection and the ability to type the search words into a search engine of their choosing, or by following the links I provided above.



> . . . the reason my uncle and the rest of the family is pissed is because the 3rd study that is missing on this site also has the medical conditions that are approved are missing as well and aren't listed. . . .



If you scroll up, the list is there, provided as a direct quote from the Policy Document in question. And it is readily available by searching on the VAC web site.

Again: I strongly suggest you contact the Bureau of Pensions Advocates. I believe I speak for more than one person here as we read your posts: I have grave concerns your private lawyer(s) are not directing your inquiries correctly, and are confusing the matter: if you are dissatisfied with the decisions you have received from the Department of Veterans Affairs regarding your pension applications for medical conditions associated with or related to your military service, you should be taking them to the Bureau or - if you lack the trust in those folks - a Royal Canadian Legion Service Officer.


----------



## konda (11 Sep 2015)

Thank you, but it is very significant that the information is not on the VAC site, because the previous versions and archived documents are also missing. you talk about anyone with an internet connection, we are talking about many old veterans that rely and believe what is on the VAC site.My  uncle was fortunate enough to have me find the info on line, however, maybe all the information should be removed from the VAC site for all veterans so no one can find what they need. then VAC wouldn't have to pay anyone. I want to go work for VAC so I can get my performance bonus. The VAC site is there for a reason, and there can be no reason some veterans get all the info they need and others don't. There should be no reason VAC should be telling veterans that they are not eligible for pension awards when they are. if they would have treated my uncle fairly and helped him he would have quietly went on his way, now everything we have found is going online and I'm sure will cost millions more for the other vets that see this info. The issue he went on here wasn't for the medical conditions and what was awarded, it was about the VALIDITY of the Decision letter itself. We don't need pension lawyers for this. A private lawyer will prove if the documents are valid. If they aren't valid and are fraudulent like we all suspect, then there won't be a reason for a review will there, just a fraud investigation by the RCMP and a new fair adjudication. 
To Bin Rat, I thank you for the respect shown later to my uncle, didn't care for the remarks about the meds, but whatever, the world goes around. To the other fella that thinks my uncle is Kooky, if you seen what we and the lawyers have for documents, audio recordings and VAC inter- office emails you wouldn't be saying that, I can assure you. To Blackberet17 the medical conditions you show seem to have been altered by VAC. Look on the bottom where it says Other General Medical Conditions. It is supposed to read Arteriosclerosis (which includes cerebrovascular disease and peripheral vascular disease) I have lots documents from latter 2000's that prove this. Maybe someone wants to see the signed document by a pension officer that was given to a doctor to release medical documents to VAC without having permission from the veteran. They still don't have this permission. Even a  doctor tried to get my uncle to sign a covered document with only the signature space provided and my uncle refused. Definitely no conspiracy here. I would like to thank all people reading this for your service to this country and hope you all are respected when you are  old frail veterans by your next generation. This old veteran didn't come on here to look for glory, he found that when he had his birth certificate backdated by his mother and went to Korea at 17 so he could be like his 2 big brothers at Normandy. Kooky Konda out.


----------



## PMedMoe (12 Sep 2015)

blackberet17 said:
			
		

> I have a file on my desk right now, with four decisions in it, from May 2014 to July 2015. Three of the decisions (all in 2015) are preceded by a cover letter, containing a basic explanation of the decision itself. There is no signature block on the cover letter. Attached to each of the three cover letters are the decisions themselves (Departmental Review, Assessment Decision, and Official Decision). Each of the actual decisions has a signature block at the end. Neither is on a separate page from the remainder of the text of the decision, and each page is numbered at the top.



This is basically what mine is like except that my cover letter has a signature.  The cover letter is three pages, all numbered with the payment officer's signature and the decision letter is also three numbered pages with the signature of the benefits adjudicator.  These two items were attached together and I also received the Disability Worksheet (single page) which is also signed by the payment officer.


----------



## konda (12 Sep 2015)

Thanks MOE, I kind of don't understand, but maybe you can walk me through it. I was sent one by email from Bin Rat, and it really helped as I am discovering things that haven't been sent to my uncle and how Bin Rats and my uncles have been manipulated to have a signature block on the end by itself and not part of the decision letter. Is there any way you could copy this and black out all your personal info so I could view it. Trust me it is very important or I wouldn't be asking- what we find different about the letters compared to ours. We are taking the adjudicator to court shortly.
Bin Rat put his on google drive so I can't copy it, but I can view it and you wouldn't believe the things that have helped me so far.If you can't that's ok too. I will settle for your explanations. I will need to ask you specific things about each page if you don't mind answering a lot of questions. Please let me know. your only the 2nd person who has offered to help out of 1200 views so I will take what I can get and appreciate it.
Thank You-Konda


----------



## the 48th regulator (12 Sep 2015)

konda said:
			
		

> Thanks MOE, I kind of don't understand, but maybe you can walk me through it. I was sent one by email from Bin Rat, and it really helped as I am discovering things that haven't been sent to my uncle and how Bin Rats and my uncles have been manipulated to have a signature block on the end by itself and not part of the decision letter. Is there any way you could copy this and black out all your personal info so I could view it. Trust me it is very important or I wouldn't be asking- what we find different about the letters compared to ours. We are taking the adjudicator to court shortly.
> Bin Rat put his on google drive so I can't copy it, but I can view it and you wouldn't believe the things that have helped me so far.If you can't that's ok too. I will settle for your explanations. I will need to ask you specific things about each page if you don't mind answering a lot of questions. Please let me know. your only the 2nd person who has offered to help out of 1200 views so I will take what I can get and appreciate it.
> Thank You-Konda



Can I ask you to stop begging the masses to stroke both of your uncle, and your egos.  We get it, he served, and he was hurt.

Some of us have been too, don't see you helping us, or priaising us either.


----------



## konda (12 Sep 2015)

You are certainly entitled to your statement and opinion and I respect that.  No one is begging and if someone wanting to help someone wishes to, I think that is what its all about isn't it. I was contacted by someone on the forum and it was their choice to contact me and if they wish not to answer that is also their choice. I will not engage in my opinion of your comments as I would be very rude and ignorant by doing this. I do appreciate your feedback though and also appreciate that you took the time and interest in posting. If there is any other way I can help anyone please ask. This post is about information on a decision letter, if you want to discuss something else, I would be happy to visit your post to discuss it.
I would also like to point out that you are incorrect in stating we are not trying to help anyone. Look on the main page and you will see Koreankid left some information on VAC/SISIP tips trying to help others. I am also a Business Administrator and if anyone can use my knowledge please direct them to me, I would have no problem trying to help them the best I can. I am sure you just missed koreankids attempt to help others on Teagers post before you left your post here, that's ok, everyone makes mistakes. You have also have not read through this post very well as the information is not only for my uncle, it most likely will help others as well. Loachman also agrees earlier in the post. Maybe you had a bad day and I am helping you right now to vent. That's not a problem I will help anyone I can.I believe in paying it forward. I am just trying to help a veteran, and the only thing important is that we can help others with the information. Is there anything else I can help you with? Please Advise.


----------



## the 48th regulator (12 Sep 2015)

konda said:
			
		

> You are certainly entitled to your statement and opinion and I respect that.  No one is begging and if someone wanting to help someone wishes to, I think that is what its all about isn't it. I was contacted by someone on the forum and it was their choice to contact me and if they wish not to answer that is also their choice. I will not engage in my opinion of your comments as I would be very rude and ignorant by doing this. I do appreciate your feedback though and also appreciate that you took the time and interest in posting. If there is any other way I can help anyone please ask. This post is about information on a decision letter, if you want to discuss something else, I would be happy to visit your post to discuss it.
> I would also like to point out that you are incorrect in stating we are not trying to help anyone. Look on the main page and you will see Koreankid left some information on VAC/SISIP tips trying to help others. I am also a Business Administrator and if anyone can use my knowledge please direct them to me, I would have no problem trying to help them the best I can. I am sure you just missed koreankids attempt to help others on Teagers post before you left your post here, that's ok, everyone makes mistakes. You have also have not read through this post very well as the information is not only for my uncle, it most likely will help others as well. Loachman also agrees earlier in the post. Maybe you had a bad day and I am helping you right now to vent. That's not a problem I will help anyone I can.I believe in paying it forward. I am just trying to help a veteran, and the only thing important is that we can help others with the information. Is there anything else I can help you with? Please Advise.



blackberet17 went above and beoyond to answer your Uncle's questions, and your vague posts.  Other than tht I see not reason for this thread.  Sorry, may seem harsh, but that is the truth.


----------



## konda (13 Sep 2015)

Yes he and others sure have helped in that regards and they were all thanked for their help also. You must have missed that in the thread. I believe you are just mis understanding what we were trying to find out. It was nothing very major, just some information in regards to the formatting of a decision letter. It was my uncles mistake in telling people why he needed this information, but then again he was asked why in the post. If you think it is wrong to try and help a veteran or help others we both apologize for that. I think you misunderstood also that out of the 1200 that viewed that only 2 answered the original request for info on the formatting of the document. This was no reference that no one else helped or tried to help with other issues. The formatting of the document was the reason for the post, nothing else and yes 2 people have responded to that and it was appreciated. The other responses we knew already, however we were very thankful of the time and effort that all put in any ways. I think most people that have come on here have misunderstood what the thread is about. I should have posted and probably not my uncle.
We may have discovered something within VAC that may help a lot of others and we apologize again that you don't approve of this. If we ask for info from others, we feel we should at least explain why we are asking. This would only be right. But it seemed like when my uncle did, he was attacked early on in the thread. As you can see, he was called Kooky, he was told he needs meds, ect and I really don't think he deserved that. What spurred this I don't know, but maybe the people that did this should explain why they would possibly want to do this to someone who did nothing wrong to this point. Bin Rat sent me some info that has really helped. Moe really helped as well, but it hard to understand if you can't see a letter.I am sorry you feel that this thread is not important to you and again we both apologize that this thread doesn't meet your expectations as it was meant for the poster and others that it will help.  If you understood the thread better, I'm sure you might agree with the thread. The thread is only about the formatting of decision letters and absolutely nothing else. The Title should have been - Info needed on the formatting in decision letters. My uncle should then have replied to the person that wanted to know why he needed to know this, by just saying he wanted to make sure his was the same as everyone elses. 
I think Loachman said it correct that asking about other decision letters isn't harming anyone and may also help someone.
Because you see no reason for the post doesn't concern me and really see no reason you need to tell me this. What concerns me is there are others on here that  are interested in helping someone with a request and there are others on here that really shouldn't be on this post if they aren't interested in- the formatting of  a decision document. If they are on here for any other reason, then it must be for their own personal agenda. Maybe they're bored and want to start something, lash out, I don't know. It's kind of like someone getting mad at someone for drinking Coke instead of Pepsi. There is a woman on an American veteran site that goes on threads and starts problems right away because she needs to be the center of attention. She even uses her real name on that site and a veteran said its because she needs self gratification. I pity that poor woman, someone should try to help her. It seems her head is swollen and no one wants to hurt her feelings by telling her this. One veteran even said on that site that she doesn't realize how destructive she is around others and many people just put up with her because she has psychological problems she can't help. 
There are probably a lot of people on here that have emotional problems from what they have been through, and that is why I understand and don't respond ignorantly to them. I am sure they can't help it any more than my uncle can with his issues and age. Take care and thanks for responding. If you have any constructive information you would like to share in this post in regards to - Formatting of a decision letter, please enlighten us and the viewers. I read your story, and appreciate your service.


----------



## PMedMoe (13 Sep 2015)

I can't copy it, but am willing to answer questions you might have.


----------



## konda (13 Sep 2015)

Thank You Moe, very much appreciated for the time and effort you are showing. I'll try to be fairly quick so as to not take too much of your time. I will put the questions in numbered order if you could answer them in that order, that would be great. You
have 7 document pages in total. 3 from the payment officer, 3 are the decision letter, and a payment officer worksheet.

Payment officer documents 
1- The first page would be your covering page with subject material describing your benefits/ no benefits? No page number on this.
2- Page 2 is instructions on filling out disability award options/Financial counselling/ changes to your conditions, ect? this page has page 2 on the top.
3.The final page is catagorized as CATAGORIES on the top left corner and the signature of the payment officer follows below?Page 3 is printed on top.

You can now look at the bottom of the first page and most likely will see ...2 in the lower right corner. Flip to page 2 and you will see ...3 and the final page has nothing. This is called what I was taught in law as page citing or page tattling.  This means page 1 is tattling that it is part of page 2. page 2 is tattling it is part of page 3 which is the signature page. What is missing is that page 1 with the important information on it isn't tattling that it goes with the signature page. to understand this please look at your application and you will notice all the pages that you filled out are tattling that each page is part of the signature page only. Meaning on your payment officer documents, your first page is not with the signature page. Thus the reason the signature is on its own separate page. If anything is different than I have stated please correct me so I know if we have any differences.

Decision Letter.
1The covering page is not numbered?
2Page 2 is numbered on top and your decision has been manipulated to end on this page not leaving room for a signature. 
3Page 3 is a separate page that says For advice on options, you may contact... with the signature of the adjudicator below.
What I would like to know is do the bulleted items on the first 2 page have spaces between them or not. BinRats spacings were removed  so his decision ended on a full page and the signature is separate. My uncles has spacings added between all items to make it end on a full page with the signature on a separate page.
If you look at the bottom of your decision letter on each page, I am guessing there is no page tattling that page 1 and 2 are part of the signature page as our 2 documents aren't either. Now, I am not a conspirator, nor a snake oil salesman, as I have been labelled in the post. to confirm my suspicion's, I contacted VAC and asked them to send me a copy of the decision and payment officer documents as I told them that I misplaced mine. I was sent new documents with no signatures. No copies of the signatures exist on file, and correct me if I am wrong as my lawyer agrees that any legal documents signed by any government must have copies of the the signatures on file. Especially when the adjudicator is signing these documents on behalf of the minister of veterans affairs. So I emailed for over 2 1/2 months to get VAC to verify these documents and they wouldn't reply. I got my uncles ATIP files which included a newly signed adjudication which is not a copy of the original document which my lawyer says can't be done as there is only one original document and only a copy of this can be in the files.
What I need to know, was your disability approved or only partially approved or wasn't approved. As Bins wasn't and my uncles weren't we feel that a fair adjudication may have been done by the adjudicators, but someone else has done a new adjudication
and declined the disabilities and took the signature page from the approved adjudication and slipped it in with declined adjudication. This would make sense why the signature pages have been manipulated to be on their own so they could be used with another set of documents. This may be why VAC won't verify their documents, won't produce any copies of the signatures on file, and have no copies in the ATIP files of the original signature of the decision. I am not trying to sell you on this, but I went to my federal MP and asked them to send the documents to VAC for verification and they refused to do this. I wondered why and figure the MP is a PC and so is her colleage the VAC minister with the federal election coming wouldn't look good if there was fraud at VAC. I also asked VAC to send me a letter just to confirm that they sent the decision letter to my uncle and they refused. All the documents found in my uncles ATIP files are all unsigned documents, even the ones from internal pension officers. This is why we were trying to find out about others documents to see if ours were the same or not. We are taking the adjudicator to court as we feel that this is her signature but we don't think this is her adjudication that it was fabricated  and sent with her signature page from the adjudication she did. All fair adjudication legislation and the right to procedural fairness have been ignored and this would mean the adjudicator would be liable for this in civil court and why we suspect that this isn't her adjudication that was sent with her signature page. Office workers get huge performance bonuses based on percentage of the money they take from the adjudications. we are waiting for court to see if the adjudicator says this her adjudication, if not we are going to the RCMP to have a fraud investigation done. thanks again, your information makes a big difference and if we are right, it will help many many people. By the way, I don't have a big ego as someone has posted, I was educated as a business administrator where I was specifically trained in legal documentation where we were taught to pick out inconsistencies in all forms of documentation and I am using this knowledge to help others at my own time and expense.


----------



## George Wallace (13 Sep 2015)

konda

Reading your posts, and that of your father, are like reading the fine print at the bottom of an advertisement for cars.  My eyes just can't handle that much small print, so I ignore it.


----------



## konda (13 Sep 2015)

Certainly that is why you took the time to come on here and waste your time posting. Nothing to add for anyones benefit just a bunch of hot air with no where to release it. I see you use your name online like the woman veteran in the usa. are you sure you didn't change your name and move to Canada. I see you may be a little illiterate as it is my uncle not my dad. I left a needle at the end of this thread for you to pop your swollen head. when your done using the needle to pop the swollen head take the thread and sew your mouth shut.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (13 Sep 2015)

Reel yourself in there Konda.
George is right, your post is almost impossible to read.  We like to use proper paragraphs and punctuation here on army.ca.

I can assure you Mr. Wallace has *lots * of time in our military and if you wish to further engage in getting help here you will suck back and reload.

Thank you,
Bruce
army.ca staff


----------



## konda (13 Sep 2015)

I think he could have probably said it in a nicer way, or mabe you don't do that at army.ca


----------



## konda (13 Sep 2015)

I noticed it is alright for your staff to come on this thread such as John T and be pretty ignorant to people and there is nothing wrong with that. I have the info I need so tell George to lend the needle to John and whats left of the thread and follow the instructions. take care and thanks to all who have helped. Army experience doesn't garner respect the man does.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (13 Sep 2015)

Bye.
Good luck in your quest.


----------

