# Old Charter or New Charter, which is it?



## Lightguns (6 Mar 2014)

I one has a benefit for hearing from 1989 and they put in for a benefit in 2012 and received a benefit for ringing in the ears in 2013, should the benefit be issued under the old system or NVC?  Are they not related?

It was figured under the NVC which as a 1/10 of what friends received in 2006.  Additionally, the original benefit for hearing is a mere 1% away from a monthly benefit.


----------



## Jed (6 Mar 2014)

I was assessed in 2003 - 2004 for hearing damage. The powers that be dragged their feet until the NVC came in to effect to the put in the claim a few days after the cutoff for applications under the old charter in April 2006. They also assessed me as 1% below the magic % required. Anyway, under the NVC they cut me a lump sum check and sent me on my merry way.

I guess they got their best bang for the buck because I no longer have the stomach to fight the paper war battle to get what I perceive to be fair compensation. My self esteem takes too big of a hit to be seen groveling for a monthly disability pension.

What it did do was help me make up my mind about the so called fairness of the NVC. In my opinion it is not worth a damn especially for the serious disabilities that other people are unfortunate to suffer through. They do not have the luxury or option as I had to say I just can't be bothered fighting the paper war.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (6 Mar 2014)

My reading of it, not gospel.

Hearing loss and tinnitus are two separate conditions. Although they are often placed on the same claim if identified at the same time. Tinnitus can appear a substantial time after the hearing loss.

If you were diagnosed with hearing loss and no tinnitus, under the old charter, you get monthly payments for hearing loss only.

If your tinnitus didn't manifest itself or get claimed for until the new charter, you get a one time payout for the tinnitus.

Like I say though, that's just the way it reads to me.


----------



## Rifleman62 (6 Mar 2014)

Correct recceguy.

Jed:





> The powers that be dragged their feet until the NVC came in to effect to the put in the claim a few days after the cutoff for applications under the old charter in April 2006.



What "the powers that be dragged their feet" ? It is your responsibility to put the claim in. If it was in to VAC before the cutoff of the old charter, then it is assessed by the old charter. The evidence, mainly a current hearing test and resume of your military time could be submitted later. A CF 98, etc if you experienced something unusual that effected your hearing who have been available from the OR if you lost *your* copy.

My understanding is, concurrently with CF Ops in Afghanistan, the level for hearing loss was raised making it more difficult to claim. In combat ops, no hearing protection because.............


----------



## Jed (6 Mar 2014)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> Correct recceguy.
> 
> Jed:
> What "the powers that be dragged their feet" ? It is your responsibility to put the claim in. If it was in to VAC before the cutoff of the old charter, then it is assessed by the old charter. The evidence, mainly a current hearing test and resume of your military time could be submitted later. A CF 98, etc if you experienced something unusual that effected your hearing who have been available from the OR if you lost *your* copy.
> ...




I don't mean to sound like I am whining here, I had no CF 98 from the Austrian and Polish doctors. I was treated pretty well by the reviewing Doctors back in Canada but not a lot of evidence to support how things happened. I know it was my personal responsibility to chase it down but it was never a priority for me to address it. 

 I was very surprised years and months later when a check showed up in the mail. I have never even enquired about my personal treatment on this issue as I don't think it matters in the big scheme of things. I feel like I came out ahead on a personal basis.

My only observation is that the NVC is a raw deal compared to the old charter. Especially for those who have significant disabilities. The bureaucratic process sucked then and continues to exasperate many to this day. The process was brutal after WWII for my uncle and probably was brutal for those who went through WWI.


----------



## Rifleman62 (6 Mar 2014)

Jed: 





> The bureaucratic process sucked then and continues to exasperate many to this day



Remarks from blackberet 17 pending.


----------



## blackberet17 (10 Mar 2014)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> Jed:
> Remarks from blackberet 17 pending.



 :rofl:

Had to bite.

Recceguy is correct. Hearing loss is one condition, tinnitus is another. Tinnitus may be present without evidence of what VAC calls a compensable hearing loss. IOW, you can have tinnitus (ringing in your ears) due to noise exposure, but you may not have a hearing loss level which meets the guidelines for compensation...which is why tinnitus and hearing loss were finally considered separate and distinct conditions for pension/award purposes back in...08 or 09, I forget.

NVC is a raw deal in certain instances, certainly for younger members of the CF. Here's a comparison of Pension Act vs. NVC I wrote up a while ago. http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/106421/post-1179188#msg1179188



			
				Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> My understanding is, concurrently with CF Ops in Afghanistan, the level for hearing loss was raised making it more difficult to claim. In combat ops, no hearing protection because.............



Not from the VAC side of the house, regardless of op lvl. Only the method it was determined to be service-related, IOT account for noise exposure not related to service, for example, a person who puts in a claim for hearing loss 40 years AFTER his discharge and three years of service (so he spent the 40 yrs post-discharge working in a wood mill or mechanics shop or hangar), with a hearing disability similar to a person with 25+ years of service as an artilleriman who puts in a claim a year after discharge.

It's more technical than that, but just an example of some of the cases which pushed VAC to review its hearing loss guidelines, along the same lines as the Nelson Federal Court case.


----------



## pinger206 (12 Apr 2014)

This topic ties into my sit and might help others. I've been low back x % PA for years, put a couple of consequential claims over the years. The last time I put in a new application in for lower leg functions (TOD). The app.was pre-written as a award so I thought it would be a NVC lump sum, oh well. Lo and behold it's approved but no lumpy sum, my old PA % increased instead. I am very fortunate, but even more confused. How did that happen? It wasn't bracketed. Shouldn't a new app under current TOD be a NVC lump sum? Even the app said award. Why does it have to be so confusing, so we give up? I didn't. pinger206.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (12 Apr 2014)

pinger206 said:
			
		

> This topic ties into my sit and might help others. I've been low back x % PA for years, put a couple of consequential claims over the years. The last time I put in a new application in for lower leg functions (TOD). The app.was pre-written as a award so I thought it would be a NVC lump sum, oh well. Lo and behold it's approved but no lumpy sum, my old PA % increased instead. I am very fortunate, but even more confused. How did that happen? It wasn't bracketed. Shouldn't a new app under current TOD be a NVC lump sum? Even the app said award. Why does it have to be so confusing, so we give up? I didn't. pinger206.



I'll try and take a stab at what you may be asking.

It's called an award, because they can't ask for it back, no matter the circumstances or tax you on it as income.

If the new injuries are a result of the older one, they are called consequential and attached to the original. Hence your rise in % and monthly payment instead of a lump sum.

You will eventually, if you don't die in the next ten or so years, end up making more than the lump sum payment and it's guaranteed, life long, non taxable income.


----------



## pinger206 (12 Apr 2014)

Thank you very much Reece. It finally makes sense, phew! Sort of consequentially attached to the old PA but not as a new claim in spite of putting one in.
Sheesh, I couldn't even understand my CM's explanation.
I wish VAC would just simplify, esp. for newer and much younger vets. "Cutting Red Tape" ... I don't think so.
Tx Reeces   pinger206.

BTW, to one and all, let's "Rock the Hill"


----------

