This kind of stuff I don’t post on my blog at KTHV Channel 11 or write to the editor of the local newspaper.  In the case of KTHV, I really don’t care to post it there anyway and in the case of the local newspaper the editor most likely wouldn’t publish it anyway lol.  Ever fantasize about some of your favorite stars from the past, doesn’t matter if they are living or dead its fantasy anyway.  In fact you don’t even need an overly strong vivid imagination, but By God it sure helps if you got one lol and makes a good fantasy even better.  Two male stars I fantasize a lot about are Andrew Stevens (still living) as Canadian Mountie Const. Alvin Adams from Death Hunt 1981 also staring Lee Marvin, Charles Bronson and Angie Dickinson.  And the late singer/actor Ricky Nelson as Colorado Ryan in Rio Bravo 1959, also staring John Wayne, Dean Martin, Walter Brennan and Angie Dickinson.  And sometimes as En. Tommy J Hanson in The Wackest Ship In The Army1960.

Fabian, Tab Hunter and Frankie Avalon I didn’t fantasize about then and don’t fantasize about these days, although I used to fantasize about Tony Dow (just not as Wallace, Wally Cleaver) and still do on occasion.  Luke Halpin from the old Flipper series used to be fun to fantasize about though.  Be back in a sec gotta make a mad dash to the coffee pot.

See when you get to be in your senile gay crotchety old age you tend to do a lot of that stuff, especially when you pull an all niter and the only thing worth watching on television is the Weather channel.  Though I don’t fantasize about the late Heath Ledger too much, I have nonetheless been a fan of his since the days of Roar.  And lets face it his performance, as Bisexual cowboy Ennis Del Mar in Brokeback Mountain was stellar. I suppose anybody, (well almost anybody) could have played the part of Jack, but anybody other than Heath Ledger playing Ennis would have totally fucked the entire movie.

There are not a lot of young male actors of today that I don’t get into, they’re all so fresh from the pages of GQ its not even funny.  Actors in the 50’s had an innocence about them and just about every one of them had a fair amount of charm and charisma of no small amount.  I’ll pile up all of my unhealthy for ya snacks, treats, coffee and cigarettes (in my case its Prince Albert roll your own lol) pop a B grade sci-fi  from the fifties in the DVD drive on the computer and most of the time get lost in it and its take up a good hour or so.  Ever notice in the movies how the French are so open and relaxed when doing male frontal nudity, not so the Americans.

Most of them come across as stiff as a board and are only willing to do a butt shot where the shit and stink comes out lol.  I mean if an actors only going to show us his bare butt where the shit and stink comes out, why even bother to include a nude scene in the first place, swing it around and give us some meat to work with hon.  Doesn’t’ matter to me if you look like you need to go out and get stung by a bee, I can always add a few inches to it in my fantasy… although I guess Ryan Phillippe does have a cute butt, even if it is only where the shit and stink comes out lol.

Oh yeah and forgot to mention, whatever your reasonably good at and like doing if Morrilton doesn’t agree with it or like it, whatever is in Morrilton will do its best to eradicate it and failing that put it on such a low level as to be  outright unfulfilling. 

http://va.gov/PTSD_QA.pdf
“Keep on, Keepin’ on”
Dan Cedusky, Champaign IL “Colonel Dan”
See my web site at:
http://www.angelfire.com/il2/VeteranIssues/

July 12, 2010

New Regulations on PTSD Claims

Quick Facts:

This new rule is for Veterans of any era.

The new rule will apply to claims:

o received by VA on or after July 13, 2010;

o received before July 13, 2010 but not yet decided by a VA regional office;

o appealed to the Board of Veterans’ Appeals on or after July 13, 2010;

o appealed to the Board before July 13, 2010, but not yet decided by the Board; and

o pending before VA on or after July 13, 2010, because the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims vacated a Board decision and remanded for re-adjudication.

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

“Stressor Determinations for Posttraumatic Stress Disorder”

1. What is Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD)?

Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) is a condition resulting from exposure to direct or indirect threat of death, serious injury or a physical threat. The events that can cause PTSD are called “stressors” and may include natural disasters, accidents or deliberate man-made events/disasters, including war. Symptoms of PTSD can include recurrent thoughts of a traumatic event, reduced involvement in work or outside interests, emotional numbing, hyper-alertness, anxiety and irritability. The disorder can be more severe and longer lasting when the stress is human initiated action (example: war, rape, terrorism).

2. What does this final regulation do?

This final regulation liberalizes the evidentiary standard for Veterans claiming service connection for post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Under current regulations governing PTSD claims, unless the Veteran is a combat Veteran, VA adjudicators are typically required to undertake extensive record development to corroborate whether a Veteran actually experienced the claimed in-service stressor. This final rulemaking will simplify and improve the PTSD claims adjudication process by eliminating this time-consuming requirement where the claimed stressor is related to “fear of hostile military or terrorist activity,” is consistent with the places, types, and circumstances of their service, and a VA psychiatrist or psychologist, or contract psychiatrist or psychologist confirms that the claimed stressor is adequate to support a diagnosis of PTSD.

3. What types of claims for VA benefits does the final regulation affect?

The final regulation will benefit Veterans, regardless of their period of service. It applies to claims for PTSD service connection filed on or after the final regulation’s effective date, and to those claims that are considered on the merits at a VA Regional Office or the Board of Veterans’ Appeals on or after the effective date of the rule.

4. Why is this final regulation necessary?

The final regulation is necessary to make VA’s adjudication of PTSD claims both more timely and consistent with the current medical science.

5. How does this final regulation help Veterans?

The final regulation will simplify and streamline the processing of PTSD claims, which will result in Veterans receiving more timely decisions. A Veteran will be able to establish the occurrence of an in-service stressor through his or her own testimony, provided that:

(1) the Veteran is diagnosed with PTSD;

(2) a VA psychiatrist or psychologist, or a psychiatrist or psychologist with whom VA has contracted confirms that the claimed stressor is adequate to support a PTSD diagnosis;

(3) the Veteran’s symptoms are related to the claimed stressor; and

(4) the claimed stressor is consistent with the places, types, and circumstances of the Veteran’s service and the record provides no clear and convincing evidence to the contrary.

This will eliminate the requirement for VA to search for records, to verify stressor accounts, which is often a very involved and protracted process. As a result, the time required to adjudicate a PTSD compensation claim in accordance with the law will be significantly reduced.

5. How does VA plan to monitor the need for examiners in various regions of the country, and how does VA plan to respond if is determined that more examiners are needed in a particular region?

The Veterans Health Administration (VHA) has written in to the FY11-13 Operating Plan the need for additional staff to support doing adequate, timely exams. VHA proposes: “A8. Increase mental health field staff to address the increase in C&P examinations and develop monitoring system to ensure clinical delivery of mental health services does not decrease in VHA.“ Specifically, VHA has requested 125 clinicians for FY11 with additional 63 staff in FY12 if the need exists. If the Operating Plan and the proposed budget are approved, VA proposes asking the Veterans Integrated Service Networks (VISNs) to develop plans for distributing the funds in order to ensure adequate coverage at sites based on number of claims being processed; the VISNs are well positioned to determine these regional needs.

6. How does the regulatory revision affect PTSD service connection claims where an in-service diagnosis of PTSD has been rendered?

The new regulation does not apply to the adjudication of cases where PTSD has been initially diagnosed in service. Rather, under another VA rule, 38 CFR § 3.304(f)(1), if a Veteran is diagnosed with posttraumatic stress disorder during service and the claimed 3

stressor is related to that service, in the absence of clear and convincing evidence to the contrary, and provided that the claimed stressor is consistent with the circumstances, conditions, or hardships of the Veteran’s service, the Veteran’s lay testimony alone may establish the occurrence of the claimed in-service stressor.

7. Is the new regulation applicable only if the Veteran’s statements relate to combat or POW service?

No. The rule states that the stressor must be related to a “fear of hostile military or terrorist activity,” and the claimed stressor must be “consistent with the places, types, and circumstances of the veteran’s service.”

8. What circumstances will still require stressor verification through DoD’s Joint Services Records Research Center (JSRRC) , VBA’s Compensation &Pension Service (C&P Service), or other entity if a Veteran claims that his or her stressor is related to a fear of hostile or terrorist activity?

The regulatory revision will greatly lessen the need for undertaking development to verify Veterans’ accounts of in-service stressors. Now, stressor development may only need to be conducted if a review of the available record, such as the Veteran’s service personnel and/or treatment records, is inadequate to determine that the claimed stressor is “consistent with the places, types and circumstances of the veteran’s service.” In such circumstances, the Veterans Service Representative (VSR) will determine on a case-by-case basis what development should be undertaken.

However, it is anticipated that in the overwhelming majority of cases adjudicated under the new version of § 3.304(f), a simple review of the Veteran’s service treatment and/or personnel records will be sufficient to determine if the claimed stressor is consistent with the places, types, and circumstances of the Veteran’s service. We also believe that, in some cases, a Veteran’s separation document, DD-Form 214, alone may enable an adjudicator to make such a determination.

9. As the regulatory revision seems to require an enhanced role for the examining VA mental health professional, whose role is it to determine whether the claimed stressor is consistent with the Veteran’s service?

VA adjudicators, not the examining psychiatrist or psychologist, will decide whether the claimed stressor is consistent with the Veteran’s service.

10. Is a Veteran’s testimony about “fear of hostile military or terrorist activity” alone sufficient to establish a stressor?

Yes, if the other requirements of the regulation are satisfied, i.e., a VA psychiatrist or psychologist confirms that the claimed stressor is adequate to support a PTSD diagnosis and that the Veteran’s symptoms are related to the claimed stressor, and the stressor is consistent with the “places, types, and circumstances of the Veteran’s service.”

11. Are the stressors accepted as adequate for establishing service connection under new § 3.304(f)(3) limited to those specifically identified in the new regulation?

No. The examples given in the revised regulation do not represent an exclusive list in view of the use of the modifying phrase “such as” that precedes the listed examples. Any 4

event or circumstance that involves actual or threatened death or serious injury, or a threat to the physical integrity of the Veteran or others, would qualify as a stressor under new § 3.304(f)(3).

12. How will the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) work with Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA) on the new regulation?

VHA was actively involved in discussion with VBA of the new regulation and fully supports the new regulation.

The new regulation will provide fair evaluation for Veterans whose military records have been damaged or destroyed, or for whom no definitive reports of combat action appeared in their military records, even though they can report such actions and it is reasonable to believe that these occurred, given the time and place of service.

This will be especially beneficial to women Veterans, whose records do not specify that they had combat assignments, even though their roles in the military placed them at risk of hostile military or terrorist activity.

This means that more Veterans will become eligible for VA care and thus be able to receive VA care for mental illness related to their military service, as well as receiving full holistic health care.VHA will work actively with VBA on implementing the regulation. VHA staff’s main role is as clinicians conducting C&P interviews to establish diagnoses and obtain other information to be used by VBA raters to determine the outcome of claims.

The new regulation will not change the diagnostic elements of the C&P interview, but may change what additional data are collected for use by VBA raters.

“Keep on, Keepin’ on”
Dan Cedusky, Champaign IL “Colonel Dan”
See my web site at:
http://www.angelfire.com/il2/VeteranIssues/

http://va.gov/PTSD_QA.pdf

"Keep on, Keepin' on"
Dan Cedusky, Champaign IL "Colonel Dan"
See my web site at:
http://www.angelfire.com/il2/VeteranIssues/

July 12, 2010

New Regulations on PTSD Claims

Quick Facts:

This new rule is for Veterans of any era.

The new rule will apply to claims:

o received by VA on or after July 13, 2010;

o received before July 13, 2010 but not yet decided by a VA regional office;

o appealed to the Board of Veterans’ Appeals on or after July 13, 2010;

o appealed to the Board before July 13, 2010, but not yet decided by the Board; and

o pending before VA on or after July 13, 2010, because the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims vacated a Board decision and remanded for re-adjudication.

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

“Stressor Determinations for Posttraumatic Stress Disorder”

1. What is Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD)?

Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) is a condition resulting from exposure to direct or indirect threat of death, serious injury or a physical threat. The events that can cause PTSD are called “stressors” and may include natural disasters, accidents or deliberate man-made events/disasters, including war. Symptoms of PTSD can include recurrent thoughts of a traumatic event, reduced involvement in work or outside interests, emotional numbing, hyper-alertness, anxiety and irritability. The disorder can be more severe and longer lasting when the stress is human initiated action (example: war, rape, terrorism).

2. What does this final regulation do?

This final regulation liberalizes the evidentiary standard for Veterans claiming service connection for post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Under current regulations governing PTSD claims, unless the Veteran is a combat Veteran, VA adjudicators are typically required to undertake extensive record development to corroborate whether a Veteran actually experienced the claimed in-service stressor. This final rulemaking will simplify and improve the PTSD claims adjudication process by eliminating this time-consuming requirement where the claimed stressor is related to “fear of hostile military or terrorist activity,” is consistent with the places, types, and circumstances of their service, and a VA psychiatrist or psychologist, or contract psychiatrist or psychologist confirms that the claimed stressor is adequate to support a diagnosis of PTSD.

3. What types of claims for VA benefits does the final regulation affect?

The final regulation will benefit Veterans, regardless of their period of service. It applies to claims for PTSD service connection filed on or after the final regulation’s effective date, and to those claims that are considered on the merits at a VA Regional Office or the Board of Veterans’ Appeals on or after the effective date of the rule.

4. Why is this final regulation necessary?

The final regulation is necessary to make VA’s adjudication of PTSD claims both more timely and consistent with the current medical science.

5. How does this final regulation help Veterans?

The final regulation will simplify and streamline the processing of PTSD claims, which will result in Veterans receiving more timely decisions. A Veteran will be able to establish the occurrence of an in-service stressor through his or her own testimony, provided that:

(1) the Veteran is diagnosed with PTSD;

(2) a VA psychiatrist or psychologist, or a psychiatrist or psychologist with whom VA has contracted confirms that the claimed stressor is adequate to support a PTSD diagnosis;

(3) the Veteran’s symptoms are related to the claimed stressor; and

(4) the claimed stressor is consistent with the places, types, and circumstances of the Veteran’s service and the record provides no clear and convincing evidence to the contrary.

This will eliminate the requirement for VA to search for records, to verify stressor accounts, which is often a very involved and protracted process. As a result, the time required to adjudicate a PTSD compensation claim in accordance with the law will be significantly reduced.

5. How does VA plan to monitor the need for examiners in various regions of the country, and how does VA plan to respond if is determined that more examiners are needed in a particular region?

The Veterans Health Administration (VHA) has written in to the FY11-13 Operating Plan the need for additional staff to support doing adequate, timely exams. VHA proposes: “A8. Increase mental health field staff to address the increase in C&P examinations and develop monitoring system to ensure clinical delivery of mental health services does not decrease in VHA.“ Specifically, VHA has requested 125 clinicians for FY11 with additional 63 staff in FY12 if the need exists. If the Operating Plan and the proposed budget are approved, VA proposes asking the Veterans Integrated Service Networks (VISNs) to develop plans for distributing the funds in order to ensure adequate coverage at sites based on number of claims being processed; the VISNs are well positioned to determine these regional needs.

6. How does the regulatory revision affect PTSD service connection claims where an in-service diagnosis of PTSD has been rendered?

The new regulation does not apply to the adjudication of cases where PTSD has been initially diagnosed in service. Rather, under another VA rule, 38 CFR § 3.304(f)(1), if a Veteran is diagnosed with posttraumatic stress disorder during service and the claimed 3

stressor is related to that service, in the absence of clear and convincing evidence to the contrary, and provided that the claimed stressor is consistent with the circumstances, conditions, or hardships of the Veteran’s service, the Veteran’s lay testimony alone may establish the occurrence of the claimed in-service stressor.

7. Is the new regulation applicable only if the Veteran’s statements relate to combat or POW service?

No. The rule states that the stressor must be related to a “fear of hostile military or terrorist activity,” and the claimed stressor must be “consistent with the places, types, and circumstances of the veteran’s service.”

8. What circumstances will still require stressor verification through DoD’s Joint Services Records Research Center (JSRRC) , VBA’s Compensation &Pension Service (C&P Service), or other entity if a Veteran claims that his or her stressor is related to a fear of hostile or terrorist activity?

The regulatory revision will greatly lessen the need for undertaking development to verify Veterans’ accounts of in-service stressors. Now, stressor development may only need to be conducted if a review of the available record, such as the Veteran’s service personnel and/or treatment records, is inadequate to determine that the claimed stressor is “consistent with the places, types and circumstances of the veteran’s service.” In such circumstances, the Veterans Service Representative (VSR) will determine on a case-by-case basis what development should be undertaken.

However, it is anticipated that in the overwhelming majority of cases adjudicated under the new version of § 3.304(f), a simple review of the Veteran’s service treatment and/or personnel records will be sufficient to determine if the claimed stressor is consistent with the places, types, and circumstances of the Veteran’s service. We also believe that, in some cases, a Veteran’s separation document, DD-Form 214, alone may enable an adjudicator to make such a determination.

9. As the regulatory revision seems to require an enhanced role for the examining VA mental health professional, whose role is it to determine whether the claimed stressor is consistent with the Veteran’s service?

VA adjudicators, not the examining psychiatrist or psychologist, will decide whether the claimed stressor is consistent with the Veteran’s service.

10. Is a Veteran’s testimony about “fear of hostile military or terrorist activity” alone sufficient to establish a stressor?

Yes, if the other requirements of the regulation are satisfied, i.e., a VA psychiatrist or psychologist confirms that the claimed stressor is adequate to support a PTSD diagnosis and that the Veteran’s symptoms are related to the claimed stressor, and the stressor is consistent with the “places, types, and circumstances of the Veteran’s service.”

11. Are the stressors accepted as adequate for establishing service connection under new § 3.304(f)(3) limited to those specifically identified in the new regulation?

No. The examples given in the revised regulation do not represent an exclusive list in view of the use of the modifying phrase “such as” that precedes the listed examples. Any 4

event or circumstance that involves actual or threatened death or serious injury, or a threat to the physical integrity of the Veteran or others, would qualify as a stressor under new § 3.304(f)(3).

12. How will the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) work with Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA) on the new regulation?

VHA was actively involved in discussion with VBA of the new regulation and fully supports the new regulation.

The new regulation will provide fair evaluation for Veterans whose military records have been damaged or destroyed, or for whom no definitive reports of combat action appeared in their military records, even though they can report such actions and it is reasonable to believe that these occurred, given the time and place of service.

This will be especially beneficial to women Veterans, whose records do not specify that they had combat assignments, even though their roles in the military placed them at risk of hostile military or terrorist activity.

This means that more Veterans will become eligible for VA care and thus be able to receive VA care for mental illness related to their military service, as well as receiving full holistic health care.VHA will work actively with VBA on implementing the regulation. VHA staff’s main role is as clinicians conducting C&P interviews to establish diagnoses and obtain other information to be used by VBA raters to determine the outcome of claims.

The new regulation will not change the diagnostic elements of the C&P interview, but may change what additional data are collected for use by VBA raters.
"Keep on, Keepin' on"
Dan Cedusky, Champaign IL "Colonel Dan"
See my web site at:
http://www.angelfire.com/il2/VeteranIssues/

Some would say you brought it on yourself, in fact VA psychiatrist and all psychologists used to beat the hell  out of that line every time I would go and talk with one of them.  Well all except for the one that treated me in New Orleans that is.  As I’ve said before all of my VA claims were denied in early 2003  shortly after returning to Arkansas.  Received this little ole letter from The Department of Veterans Affairs out of Washington in today’s mail, wrote refused three times on the front of it and FOVBA on the back of it and popped it back into the little ole mailbox.  In fact didn’t even give a damned what the contents of it were.  Department of Veterans Affairs all of the years are gone now and you were never there for me when it might have done some good and made at least a few dreams possible.

Any letters I receive from the Department of Veterans Affairs or any veteran’s organization for that matter with the exception of a newsletter from The VVAW I refuse them and return them.  I haven’t had the pleasure as yet though of handing out one of my standard form letters to any VFW, American Legion or DAV members on a membership drive yet but I sure got em standing by at the door lol.

As I’ve stated in previous comments and blog post all of my VA claims are now dead and buried for all time to come and I’ve slammed the door on the VA for all time remaining to me.  I’ve no intentions whatsoever of letting anyone ever drag that kind of emotional hell inside me again not ever.  Let em all go be with the liars, drug addicts, alcoholics and favorites that got all of the high dollar retroactive VA awards dumped down of top them, because I sure as hell was never one of them.

So if I brought all onto myself then so be it and I will live with, it’s no different than all of the rest of the doors that were slammed in my face over the years.  Only this time around I choose to do it with full knowledge and willingly.  And now that Don’t Ask Don’t Tell stands a very good chance of being repealed and if it is, the Department of Veterans Affairs and that does include the VA Regional Office in Little Rock/North Little Rock will be obliged to deal with more gay veterans than they even care to think about bravo and I’m glad.

Court rejects veterans’ disability claims unfairly, Louisiana advocate says

Published: Tuesday, July 06, 2010, 8:46 PM Updated: Tuesday, July 06, 2010, 8:57 PM

Bruce Alpert, Times-Picayune
http://www.nola.com/crime/index.ssf/2010/07/court_rejects_veterans_appeals.html

A Louisiana veterans advocate Tuesday accused the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims of rejecting many valid disability claims.

“Veterans are not being treated fairly,” said Paul Labbe, who heads the Louisiana Veterans Advocacy Group of Lake Charles.

Labbe said he also fears that a civil rights lawsuit alleging improper treatment by a doctor at the VA Alexandria Medical Center in Pineville will be thrown out if a federal judge accepts the arguments of Veterans Affairs lawyers.

A filing by government lawyers argues that the suit doesn’t meet the criteria for a civil rights case and shouldn’t be allowed to continue to trial.

Members of Congress have been looking at the issue of rejected disability claims after Assistant U.S. Solicitor General Anthony Yang admitted during a Supreme Court hearing in February that between 50 percent and 60 percent of veterans disability cases are mishandled by the Department of Veterans Affairs.

Chief Justice John Roberts was surprised by the admission.

“Well, that’s really startling, isn’t it?” Roberts said. “In litigating with veterans, the government more often than not takes a position that is substantially unjustified?”

Labbe said the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims continues what he called the injustice of rejecting the vast majority of appeals by veterans denied disability benefits by the VA.

“Veterans aren’t getting any justice at this court,” Labbe said at a news conference outside the court’s Washington, D.C., headquarters.

In 2007, a Harvard University study said it takes the Department of Veterans Affairs an average of six months to process a disability claim, and the appeals process takes a little less than two years. Because many veterans applying for disability benefits are elderly, many die before a final decision is rendered, the study said.

Calls to the court’s chief justice, William Greene Jr., were not immediately returned.

The House Veterans Affairs Committee heard testimony last week about legislation that would give veterans more time to file appeals.

Rep. John Adler, D-N.J., discussed the case of Korean War veteran David Henderson, a diagnosed schizophrenic, who was denied a hearing because his appeal was filed 15 days past the 120-day deadline set by the court. His disability, Henderson said, made it impossible for him to get the papers together in time to meet the court’s deadline.

“The veterans’ claims process is extremely difficult to navigate, especially when doing so without the aid of an attorney or while suffering from a mental disability,” Adler said.

Rep. Alcee Hastings, D-Fla., said he was distressed to hear about a veteran in his state who was cut off from his veterans’ pension for a year, two days after he voluntarily disclosed that insurance was paying some medical costs resulting from an accident in which an automobile struck his wheelchair, knocking him head first against the pavement.

Given that it takes many months to qualify for benefits, Hastings said he found it disturbing that someone could be cut off benefits in just two days.

“This means that the law effectively punishes veterans when they suffer from such an accident or theft,” Hastings said.

Bruce Alpert can be reached at balpert@timespicayune.com or 202.383.7861.

Also see:

http://johnhall.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1215:hall-applauds-new-post-traumatic-stress-disorder-rule-for-americas-veterans&catid=39:news-center&Itemid=32

“Keep on, Keepin’ on”
Dan Cedusky, Champaign IL “Colonel Dan”
See my web site at:

http://www.angelfire.com/il2/VeteranIssues/

V.A. Is Easing Rules to Cover Stress Disorder

By JAMES DAO

Published: July 7, 2010

Jeremy M. Lange for The New York Times Eric K. Shinseki, the secretary of veterans affairs.

The government is preparing to issue new rules that will make it substantially easier for veterans who have been found to have post-traumatic stress disorder to receive disability benefits, a change that could affect hundreds of thousands of veterans from the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and Vietnam.