/MSG/
Uwaa OmO
No....it typically applies to any vet who has a service connected disability.
Rep. Tammy Duckworth takes apart IRS contractor for 'gaming' veterans
- Thread starter cancel2 2022
- Start date
No....it typically applies to any vet who has a service connected disability.
Sory, Althea. Billy's right. It applies to everyone with a rating.
Althea
Althea told me...........
Some yes, some no. There was a long period of peacetime before Bush. Combat veterans get a large break on property taxes.
Veterans Preference
Veterans’ Preference gives eligible veterans preference in appointment over many other applicants. Veterans’ Preference applies to virtually all new appointments in the Competitive Service and many in the Excepted Service. Veterans’ Preference does not guarantee veterans a job and it does not apply to internal agency actions such as promotions, transfers, reassignments, and reinstatements. Not all veterans receive preference for federal civilian employment, and not all active duty service qualifies for Veterans’ Preference. Only veterans discharged or released from active duty in the Armed Forces under honorable conditions are eligible for Veterans’ Preference.
http://federaljobs.net/veterans.htm
Now, you can split hairs over the qualifications of this poser. He never saw active duty....and that's the issue.
cancel2 2022
Canceled
Yes well we all know that you are a Master Bullshit Artist.
/MSG/
Uwaa OmO
So he was a reservist the whole time?
We all know you need to see a dentis before you go back to the uk!
tekkychick
New member
Found this:
http://www.military.com/daily-news/2013/06/27/duckworth-slams-man-over-prep-school-disability.html?comp=7000023317828&rank=1
But the injury was from playing football or orienteering while in military prep school
Althea
Althea told me...........
And his claim about being discharged from active duty is suspect. I'm not sure if enrollment in the prep school is technically considered active duty? If his 1984 disability was so debilitating, how did he serve? And '84 is the exact period of time when we typically didn't have any real military engagements going on. Duckworth's claims are accurate.
Thanks for clearing that up, tekky. I wasn't sure if the scumbag had served active duty or not. Refardless, after reading his shit about walking with his grandkids or whatever, I still agree with Tammy that he's a POS.
That said, however, he's still eligible for consideration. In the civil service system, that means points are added onto to civil service exam based on your disability.
Oh. I din't pay property taxes either due to my status; but that's a state/county matter.
/MSG/
Uwaa OmO
So he was active duty. Ok. Then yeah, he has service connected disability.
/MSG/
Uwaa OmO
If he enlisted, then he was likely active duty, conflict or not.
PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
????....do you expect Republicans to vote for Democrats because they were in the military?......
007
New member
This guys injuries were not received in combat or as an active service soldier.
He was in a prep school.
He is a charlatan.
Rep Duckworth is an honorable former member of the us military who willingly put herself at risk to do her job( supporting her comrades), she is a hero.
I thank her for her heroic service and wish her the very best in the future.
Though I probably disagree with her on many political ideas, I will stand behind her on this 100%
He was in a prep school.
He is a charlatan.
Rep Duckworth is an honorable former member of the us military who willingly put herself at risk to do her job( supporting her comrades), she is a hero.
I thank her for her heroic service and wish her the very best in the future.
Though I probably disagree with her on many political ideas, I will stand behind her on this 100%
SR_
Junior Member
Theres a few things that should probably be made clear.
1. Mr. Castillo was enrolled in a US Military prep school. Its unclear if prep schools that may have ties with Military Schools (like West Point) have an ability to offer anyone any type of service related status. Regardless, his injury occurred while at prep school, but he was able to go on to play college football in California. The VA found his injury while at a prep school was somehow erroneously valid and awarded him a disability rating of 30%.
2. Disability ratings from the VA are not all encompassing... they are almost checklist style. So... when Congresswoman Duckworth said she received a 20% disability, that was just for the status of her arm. That is in COMBO for the checklist % of her left leg, in combo with the checklist % value of her right leg, in combo with any checklist % for any other injuries (such as to eye sight, hearing, PTSD, etc..)... these %'s in combination can add up to 100%. She was saying that for the severe damage to just her arm she received 20% and Mr. Castillo had received 30% for his foot injury. She most likely is 100% from the VA, if she isnt, she's in the 90%'s.
These determinations are somewhat a combination of objective guidelines and subjective determinations of boards on the VA... meaning, if a veteran has lost hearing, a multitude of medical visits with VA doctors are required and tests must be done, and at the end someone says "yes, hearing loss has occurred and it is severe"...(thats subjective as its really impossible to invest the technology and time to make certain as a fact that hearing loss occurred due to service related activities, however, the VA is making its best judgement).. then someone goes to the checklist and see's that hearing loss is worth 10% disability (thats the objective part as those guidelines are provided to the VA representatives).
3. The government offers preferrential treatment to SDVOSB (Service Disabled Veteran Owned Small Business) and must by law award at least 3% of government contracts to SDVOSB business's. Mr. Castillo in his entrepreneurial spirit wanted access to these government contracts and that is why he went to attain this status so that he could get this done... (also in combination with contacts and the location listing of his business in a HUB zone).
4. In order to get this type of status the injury must be associated with service. This doesnt mean it has to happen in the activity of a military purpose. What it does mean is that if a veteran leaves the military and then has a car wreck, that their injury is not service related. Anyone on active duty status, regardless of whether its in-country or stateside, during a war or not, if they are injured it can qualify for a service related injury and thus qualify them for service related disability. This is also to include national members and reservists while activated (for drill or otherwise)... this is ANY injury or medical issue. A military member can go their entire career and never see combat, but through the physical demands placed on their bodies (as they are ordered to undertake) can degrade their bodies and health as a nature of their occupation. So... if Mr. Castillo had in fact served 4 years in the Army and never saw combat, but did twist his ankle while doing regular physical training (running around the barracks)... that would qualify as a service related injury as someone above him has mandated a specific physical status that he was to maintain... PT'ing is a part of his occupation and the injury would have occurred while "working", and Congresswoman Duckworth couldnt, shouldnt, and I expect most likely WOULDNT have said anything about Mr. Castillo's service related injury had it been valid.
5. None of this happened in Mr. Castillo's case. Congresswoman Duckworth's main point was to make it clear that when assholes like Mr. Castillo take advantage of the program it can cause the American public to doubt the validity of veterans receiving disability for service related injuries. The American public may decide that those benefits should be made less available or worth less per % injury. Shaming this individual was to demonstrate that as a veteran (regardless of her political leanings), that just simply as a veteran, she cannot stress enough how important it is for the American people to keep faith with those who fight on their behalf, and how wrong it was to take advantage of that generosity and how wrong it was to show such disrespect for those veterans who have suffered debilitating injuries and require such benefits to survive. This display was not mean spirited, you can see the emotion in her voice as she described a Navy Corpsman who she was recovering with in the hospital that in a firefight had lost his leg, and wrapped a tourniquet around his own leg as he pushed forward to address his wounded Marines. She was not speaking as a Democrat... but just as a veteran. Her comments were echo'd by other veterans on the committee that are in congress and also have service related injuries (both republicans and democrats).. so it wasnt a partisan position.
1. Mr. Castillo was enrolled in a US Military prep school. Its unclear if prep schools that may have ties with Military Schools (like West Point) have an ability to offer anyone any type of service related status. Regardless, his injury occurred while at prep school, but he was able to go on to play college football in California. The VA found his injury while at a prep school was somehow erroneously valid and awarded him a disability rating of 30%.
2. Disability ratings from the VA are not all encompassing... they are almost checklist style. So... when Congresswoman Duckworth said she received a 20% disability, that was just for the status of her arm. That is in COMBO for the checklist % of her left leg, in combo with the checklist % value of her right leg, in combo with any checklist % for any other injuries (such as to eye sight, hearing, PTSD, etc..)... these %'s in combination can add up to 100%. She was saying that for the severe damage to just her arm she received 20% and Mr. Castillo had received 30% for his foot injury. She most likely is 100% from the VA, if she isnt, she's in the 90%'s.
These determinations are somewhat a combination of objective guidelines and subjective determinations of boards on the VA... meaning, if a veteran has lost hearing, a multitude of medical visits with VA doctors are required and tests must be done, and at the end someone says "yes, hearing loss has occurred and it is severe"...(thats subjective as its really impossible to invest the technology and time to make certain as a fact that hearing loss occurred due to service related activities, however, the VA is making its best judgement).. then someone goes to the checklist and see's that hearing loss is worth 10% disability (thats the objective part as those guidelines are provided to the VA representatives).
3. The government offers preferrential treatment to SDVOSB (Service Disabled Veteran Owned Small Business) and must by law award at least 3% of government contracts to SDVOSB business's. Mr. Castillo in his entrepreneurial spirit wanted access to these government contracts and that is why he went to attain this status so that he could get this done... (also in combination with contacts and the location listing of his business in a HUB zone).
4. In order to get this type of status the injury must be associated with service. This doesnt mean it has to happen in the activity of a military purpose. What it does mean is that if a veteran leaves the military and then has a car wreck, that their injury is not service related. Anyone on active duty status, regardless of whether its in-country or stateside, during a war or not, if they are injured it can qualify for a service related injury and thus qualify them for service related disability. This is also to include national members and reservists while activated (for drill or otherwise)... this is ANY injury or medical issue. A military member can go their entire career and never see combat, but through the physical demands placed on their bodies (as they are ordered to undertake) can degrade their bodies and health as a nature of their occupation. So... if Mr. Castillo had in fact served 4 years in the Army and never saw combat, but did twist his ankle while doing regular physical training (running around the barracks)... that would qualify as a service related injury as someone above him has mandated a specific physical status that he was to maintain... PT'ing is a part of his occupation and the injury would have occurred while "working", and Congresswoman Duckworth couldnt, shouldnt, and I expect most likely WOULDNT have said anything about Mr. Castillo's service related injury had it been valid.
5. None of this happened in Mr. Castillo's case. Congresswoman Duckworth's main point was to make it clear that when assholes like Mr. Castillo take advantage of the program it can cause the American public to doubt the validity of veterans receiving disability for service related injuries. The American public may decide that those benefits should be made less available or worth less per % injury. Shaming this individual was to demonstrate that as a veteran (regardless of her political leanings), that just simply as a veteran, she cannot stress enough how important it is for the American people to keep faith with those who fight on their behalf, and how wrong it was to take advantage of that generosity and how wrong it was to show such disrespect for those veterans who have suffered debilitating injuries and require such benefits to survive. This display was not mean spirited, you can see the emotion in her voice as she described a Navy Corpsman who she was recovering with in the hospital that in a firefight had lost his leg, and wrapped a tourniquet around his own leg as he pushed forward to address his wounded Marines. She was not speaking as a Democrat... but just as a veteran. Her comments were echo'd by other veterans on the committee that are in congress and also have service related injuries (both republicans and democrats).. so it wasnt a partisan position.
SR_
Junior Member
Howey,
That is entirely incorrect. You can have a 100% rating and work at whatever you want. It's only if you have an IU (which means you are saying you are unemployable) that you face work restrictions before invalidating your rating.
There are no double amputees at just 30%.....
Come on now.
That is entirely incorrect. You can have a 100% rating and work at whatever you want. It's only if you have an IU (which means you are saying you are unemployable) that you face work restrictions before invalidating your rating.
There are no double amputees at just 30%.....
Come on now.
tekkychick
New member
SR_ - thanks for the summary; it was a nice condensed version of the issues.