Billy Whyde was a petty officer in the Navy during the Vietnam War. Whyde, who is from Ohio, served aboard vessels that transported Marines in Vietnam. He has received denial letters for his disability claims related to exposure to Agent Orange. Whyde is shown in September 1972 in Vietnam aboard a vessel that moved troops and equipment. (Jeremy Bert)
WASHINGTON — Billy Whyde, a Navy veteran in Columbus, Ohio, has filed five disability claims in 15 months with the Department of Veterans Affairs for a chronic neurological condition he said he developed after exposure to Agent Orange in Vietnam.
But the VA rejected every claim for disability compensation related to his diagnosis of central nervous system vasculitis, a rare disorder that causes swelling in his spine and brain.
Adding insult to injury are the lengthy denial letters the VA sends about the status of his claims and his rights for appeal, he said. The letters are 10 to 20 pages with legal explanations that are hard to follow and understand.
“Look, I am 71 years old and having problems because of my disease. The average, everyday veteran like me gets lost in the legal terminology. It feels like I’ve been kicked in the teeth,” said Whyde, who was a petty officer who served from 1969-1973, including deployments in the Philippines, Japan and Vietnam.
The challenges that Whyde and many disabled veterans face trying to decipher VA notification letters — which communicate decisions for disability compensation and health care — are a focus of House lawmakers who urged the VA to simplify the language.
The letters have critical instructions that veterans must follow to collect benefits, appeal denials or complete a pending claim.
“These letters from the Department of Veterans Affairs are often unclear and confusing puzzles that only lawyers can read,” Rep. Morgan Luttrell, R-Texas, said at a hearing Wednesday of the House Veterans’ Affairs subcommittee on disability assistance and memorial affairs.
The hearing examined complaints and concerns by veterans about the lengthy citations of federal regulations and laws included in the letters. Veterans groups, including the Disabled American Veterans and the National Organization of Veterans’ Advocates, told lawmakers that veterans often panic after receiving a letter and decide not to pursue a claim.
Luttrell, a retired Navy SEAL and chairman of the panel, admitted to struggling over the VA’s decision letters regarding his own disabilities. He asked VA officials to put the letters into plain language.
“The notice letters are supposed to be easy to understand, but the directions are like walking through a maze,” Luttrell said.
The Government Accountability Office has documented problems with clarity in the notification letters for several years, said Rep. Chris Pappas, D-N.H. Although there have been improvements, more needs to be done, he said.
Lawmakers discussed how the VA needs to better balance the legal information required in notification letters with clear messages and instructions.
Brian Griffin, deputy chief counsel at the VA, said that the notification letters “do get litigated,” so the agency is careful to provide legal explanations for its decisions.
Another issue, according to Rep. Morgan McGarvey, D-Ky., is about reports of mistakes in letters, and he questioned the accuracy of “automated decision technology” that the VA is using.
Beth Murphy, senior principal adviser for compensation service at the Veterans Benefits Administration, defended the computerized support, saying it is used for compiling information from veterans’ files for staff to make decisions.
Diane Boyd Rauber, director of the National Organization of Veterans’ Advocates, said that information for how to file appeals often is buried in decision letters. She also said mistakes are common, citing the case of a veteran asked by the VA to submit an additional form after he filed a claim for disability benefits.
Upon receipt of the completed form, the VA inquired about the whereabouts of his original claim, which he had to file again.
Luttrell criticized VA officials for mismanagement and lack of oversight.
“This issue should not be in front of this committee. It should have been handled at lower levels,” Luttrell said.
He urged the VA to resolve the issue and return to his committee in 30 days with a report.
In Whyde’s case, he said that he resubmits claims for the same condition based on instructions in a VA letter only to receive another denial with a new set of instructions to file again. He is now appealing the denials, a process he is told could take years.
“My disease could kill me before my claim is resolved. It simply becomes a closed case then, with no fault of the VA,” Whyde said.
