Proposal to Ease Aid for G.I.’s With Stress Disorder

[babylonsister]

Proposal to Ease Aid for G.I.’s With Stress Disorder

By JAMES DAO
Published: August 25, 2009


Under fire from veterans groups and Congress for its handling of disability claims, the Department of Veterans Affairs is proposing new regulations that it says will make it easier for veterans to seek compensation for post-traumatic stress disorder.


Army boots were spray-painted white at Fort Riley, Kan., this month to commemorate six soldiers who committed suicide at the base last year.

The proposal is intended to lower the burden on noncombat veterans who claim they developed PTSD in the service and to speed processing of those claims, which represent a significant part of the 82,000 disability claims the department receives each month.

Current rules require veterans who have received diagnoses of PTSD to document that they experienced traumatic events during service that triggered the disorder. For veterans who did not serve in combat units, such proof can be difficult to find given the unevenness of military record keeping.

But veterans’ advocates have argued that many noncombat troops, including truck drivers and supply clerks, have experienced such events, which include roadside bombs, firefights, mortar attacks or the deaths of friends. Despite receiving diagnoses of PTSD, many of those troops struggle to receive disability compensation.

The proposed rule would eliminate the requirement to document triggering events, provided veterans with PTSD could show that they were in places and performed duties where such events might have occurred. Their symptoms must also be consistent with the trauma they claim to have experienced.

By some estimates, 20 percent of troops returning from Iraq and Afghanistan have PTSD.

In a news release on Monday, the secretary of veterans affairs, Eric K. Shinseki, said, “The hidden wounds of war are being addressed vigorously and comprehensively by this administration as we move V.A. forward in its transformation to the 21st century.”

more...

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/26/us/26vets.html?_r=1&hp

[alstephenson]

1. K & R

[babylonsister]

2. If you r'd it, someone negated that. Why? Weird. nt

[alstephenson]

7. Yep, I r'd. And yep, pretty weird.

I'm still not sold on the unrec feature. I guess someone is against funding for vets???

[Monk06]

3. Another rec for the cause n/t

[babylonsister]

4. I don't know that there's a 'cause' here, but thanks. nt

[Monk06]

5. The cause gernerally speaking the topic of this or other worthy and neglected thread

[Feron]

6. K&R n/t

[NecklyTyler]

8. Let me make it 5 R's

Kick too