Here's the latest on Public Law 106-475, requiring VA to assist veterans in preparing their claims for VA benefits:

"On November 9th, 2000, President Clinton announced, "Today I am pleased to sign into law… the "Veterans Claims Assistance Act of 2000." The Act reaffirms and clarifies the duty of the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to assist claimants in developing evidence pertinent to their claims for VA benefits. It eliminates the previous requirement that a claim be well-grounded before VA's duty to assist arises.

The Act requires the Secretary to make reasonable efforts to assist a claimant in obtaining evidence to substantiate his or her claim unless it is clear that no reasonable possibility exists that the Secretary's assistance would aid in substantiating the claim. As under current law, the Secretary must consider the entire record of evidence, and when there is an approximate balance of positive and negative evidence regarding an issue material to the determination of a matter, the Secretary must give the benefit of the doubt to the claimant.

Veterans seeking benefits from this Government are deserving of all reasonable assistance that VA has to offer. The benefits administered by the Secretary are a means by which the Nation expresses its profound gratitude for the many sacrifices our veterans have made to protect and defend our freedom. Veterans Day, a day set aside to honor all veterans, is an especially appropriate time for us to ensure that we will continue to pay our debts to these men and women. This Act demonstrates to veterans and to all those currently serving in our military and to those who may serve in the future, that America honors its commitments to those who have served. I am very pleased to approve this new law." [Source: The White House Office of the Press Secretary 9 NOV 00]

This Act plus VA Directive 2000-29 (i.e. directs VHA health care providers, when requested, and under certain limited circumstances, to provide descriptive statements and opinions for VA patients with respect to patient's medical condition, employability, and degree of disability) makes it more difficult for veteran's claims to be denied provided there are some grounds for the application. If you submitted a claim in the past, for which you feel you should have received a disability rating and were not, you might want to consider resubmitting your claim under the current rules. Also, military service widows whose husband's died of a diabetic related condition should consider resubmitting their request for DIC since it has now been shown that there is a relationship between Agent Orange exposure and Diabetes.

The passage of the "Veterans Claims Assistance Act of 2000" represents a great win for every veteran who has filed or will hereafter file a claim for VA benefits.

We'll give you one guess to name the organization that was in the forefront of the fight to win passage of this bill. Our National Legislative Staff headed by Joe Violante did real good!

The Fact of the Matter - - In Defense of the Veteran

NOTE: The November 2000 issue of the VA's Vanguard Magazine published an article written by Paul Sherbo, Regional Director of the VA Office of Public Affairs. Mr. Sherbo's research demonstrates what has troubled many of us, that there exists an erosion of public understanding and support of the needs of disabled veterans. The conclusion is a clear indication that our job as veterans' advocates, and DAV's strategic plan, should be pursued and implemented today as vigorously as ever before. Now, here's Sherbo's article:

Some time ago, an aspiring novelist visited the VA Office of Public Affairs (OPA) Regional Office in Denver to get some information for a book she wants to write. The plot? A Vietnam veteran involved in a gruesome murder ... and I said, "Oh, please."

In the summer of 1998 1 wrote an article for our OPA newsletters on the facts versus fiction about veterans. I am far from being the only one who talks about this. I drew all my facts from research done by many much bigger players with far more resources.

I would like to tell you that, [as a result] of those studies and research, the media and public image of veterans (and specifically, Vietnam veterans) has turned for the better. I would like to tell you that, but it would not be true. Consider the following items:

* Courtesy of ABC 20/20, veterans claiming post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) are condemned as phonies. As Under Secretary for Benefits Joe Thompson said (in a part of the interview that 20/20 chose not to air), ABC has now added the accusation "charlatan" to mistruths about Vietnam veterans.

* Last March, National Public Radio contacted the Office of Public Affairs wanting to know how Vietnam veterans have managed trying to assimilate into society.

* In the January 31, 2000, issue of the Navy Times, an opinion piece by Lesa A. McComas refers to the designation of "disabled veteran" as "less a mark of distinction in this country than it is suitable for being written on a piece of cardboard and held by someone standing under a freeway overpass." Notice the image that sprang to McComas' mind, instead of picturing some of our distinguished veterans, such as Senator Robert Kerrey (D-Neb.) or Senator John McCain (R-Ariz.).

* In April, Philadelphia Inquirer reporter Jon Stenzler posted an inquiry on the Internet, asking for "sources to talk about the thousands of Vietnam veterans who languish away in VA hospitals across the country."

* Readers exchanged barbs about World War II veterans in two January issues of the Rocky Mountain News. Here are some sample comments: "Finally! I'm sick of the drunks from the VFW..." and "When will World War II vets quit asking for more? When the last one is mercifully dead."

Shocking? Should be. But it's also a wake-up call. In VA, we are used to considering and discussing veterans' issues with respect foremost in our minds. We need to wake up to the fact that many people do not share this view - in fact, many are openly annoyed or even angry at the very thought of veterans.

While we in VA have been focusing (appropriately) on our internal issues of pending claims, changes in health care and the budget, we have largely missed a tremendous shift in public opinion - a shift far more dangerous to the future of VA than budget issues. For if the public sees veterans as unworthy of respect, then why would the public want a veterans agency?

Some erosion of public support has already manifested itself. Consider this: Hiring preferences for post-Vietnam veterans expired on December 31, 1999, with hardly a whimper. Now consider who opposes that preference for veterans: federal employee unions (Army Times, August 21, 2000). This is not a situation in which a VA employee can take a passive stance. When our veterans are under attack, we must either come to their defense, or find a job in another agency.

Even when our jobs get tough, one of the things to get us fired up again is our mission: to serve veterans. It is a noble cause, and so is proclaiming the truth about them.