Board of Veterans Appeals (Attorney Advisor)

[Anonymous]

If you hate it so much, why do you still work there?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If you hate it so much, why do you still work there?

Lack of options, my friend. Like most BVA attorneys, my post law school work experience consists of doc review and decision writing. I’ve never represented clients, never worked for a law firm, and the only time that I’ve been to court is to deal with speeding tickets. Who is going to hire me for a real legal job when I don’t have any legal experience? I’m stuck at BVA until I retire or until AI manages to copy and paste boilerplate language into decisions as efficiently as I can.

[Anonymous]

And by speeding tickets, I mean my own, lol.

[Anonymous]

Looks like Congress is considering legislation to address the error riddled decisions that BVA attorneys and judges regularly pump out. Apparently, members of Congress aren’t thrilled that approximately 80 percent of BVA decisions are remanded back to BVA due to errors of law and fact and insufficient legal analysis.

https://www.govexec.com/oversight/2024/04/va-claims-appeal-board-errors-target-new-house-bill/395658/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People get promotions to GS 14 yearly here. I am one of them. They don't automatically give it to new hires after 2021 based on a change in the job description. You can get GS 14, but not by doing the bare minimum anymore. That's all. Admin can give out as many GS 14s as they want, but GS 15 are limited. Sounds like the original poster is a troll and is trying to start sh*t.

how would you know what the requirements are? they never made it clear. what does "the bare minimum" mean? Why make it a performance standard if meeting it isn't good enough to reach the full performance level?

you must be one of the new people who started after they made the change.

No. But you must have been one we fired, and the reason is obvious. Bad attitude.

nope. left for better pastures but received excellent performance appraisals.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Looks like Congress is considering legislation to address the error riddled decisions that BVA attorneys and judges regularly pump out. Apparently, members of Congress aren’t thrilled that approximately 80 percent of BVA decisions are remanded back to BVA due to errors of law and fact and insufficient legal analysis.

https://www.govexec.com/oversight/2024/04/va-claims-appeal-board-errors-target-new-house-bill/395658/

this is such a bunch of trash. They took the one good witness at the hearing, the OGC attorney, and ignored what she said and cut her off. She tried to explain that often OGC negotiates these JMRs, they are NOT findings of inadequacy by the Court, but rather agreed upon resolutions for a variety of reasons. In some decisions of course the errors are clear, because decisions are written by humans and humans sometimes make mistakes, but in many cases the errors are not clear, and amount to a matter of interpretation and, again, horse trading with the private bar. Anyone who has actually done the work knows this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Looks like Congress is considering legislation to address the error riddled decisions that BVA attorneys and judges regularly pump out. Apparently, members of Congress aren’t thrilled that approximately 80 percent of BVA decisions are remanded back to BVA due to errors of law and fact and insufficient legal analysis.

https://www.govexec.com/oversight/2024/04/va-claims-appeal-board-errors-target-new-house-bill/395658/

this is such a bunch of trash. They took the one good witness at the hearing, the OGC attorney, and ignored what she said and cut her off. She tried to explain that often OGC negotiates these JMRs, they are NOT findings of inadequacy by the Court, but rather agreed upon resolutions for a variety of reasons. In some decisions of course the errors are clear, because decisions are written by humans and humans sometimes make mistakes, but in many cases the errors are not clear, and amount to a matter of interpretation and, again, horse trading with the private bar. Anyone who has actually done the work knows this.

According to the Government Accountability Office, "in instances where VA and the claimant agree to a JMR, it generally involves acknowledgement that VA made a factual or legal error in its decision or that additional information is needed before making a final decision." While I understand that everyone makes mistakes, it is rather egregious that 80 percent of BVA decisions are being remanded. That means, 8 out of 10 BVA decisions contain errors or were based on a legally insufficient record. Isn't that shocking? It is for me, and I hope that Congress can address it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Looks like Congress is considering legislation to address the error riddled decisions that BVA attorneys and judges regularly pump out. Apparently, members of Congress aren’t thrilled that approximately 80 percent of BVA decisions are remanded back to BVA due to errors of law and fact and insufficient legal analysis.

https://www.govexec.com/oversight/2024/04/va-claims-appeal-board-errors-target-new-house-bill/395658/

this is such a bunch of trash. They took the one good witness at the hearing, the OGC attorney, and ignored what she said and cut her off. She tried to explain that often OGC negotiates these JMRs, they are NOT findings of inadequacy by the Court, but rather agreed upon resolutions for a variety of reasons. In some decisions of course the errors are clear, because decisions are written by humans and humans sometimes make mistakes, but in many cases the errors are not clear, and amount to a matter of interpretation and, again, horse trading with the private bar. Anyone who has actually done the work knows this.

According to the Government Accountability Office, "in instances where VA and the claimant agree to a JMR, it generally involves acknowledgement that VA made a factual or legal error in its decision or that additional information is needed before making a final decision." While I understand that everyone makes mistakes, it is rather egregious that 80 percent of BVA decisions are being remanded. That means, 8 out of 10 BVA decisions contain errors or were based on a legally insufficient record. Isn't that shocking? It is for me, and I hope that Congress can address it.

Here's the link to the GAO report:

https://docs.house.gov/meetings/VR/VR09/20231129/116596/HHRG-118-VR09-Wstate-CurdaE-20231129.pdf

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People get promotions to GS 14 yearly here. I am one of them. They don't automatically give it to new hires after 2021 based on a change in the job description. You can get GS 14, but not by doing the bare minimum anymore. That's all. Admin can give out as many GS 14s as they want, but GS 15 are limited. Sounds like the original poster is a troll and is trying to start sh*t.

If attorneys at BVA can get to GS-14 by doing more than the bare minimum, why did the union file a grievance accusing management of making it very difficult to attain the GS-14 grade level?

Lol “the union” - that question answers itself

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People get promotions to GS 14 yearly here. I am one of them. They don't automatically give it to new hires after 2021 based on a change in the job description. You can get GS 14, but not by doing the bare minimum anymore. That's all. Admin can give out as many GS 14s as they want, but GS 15 are limited. Sounds like the original poster is a troll and is trying to start sh*t.

how would you know what the requirements are? they never made it clear. what does "the bare minimum" mean? Why make it a performance standard if meeting it isn't good enough to reach the full performance level?

you must be one of the new people who started after they made the change.

You are confusing yourself. Admin did not abide by the labor agreement that was in effect for this employee. Thus, she was entitled to her automatic promotion. Admin changed the employee promotion ladder as of 2021 so that employees have to apply for GS14 now, rather than obtain automatically as was the case prior to 2021. [I am paraphrasing, otherwise this post will be paragraphs.]

They didn’t obtain it automatically, before, they had to meet benchmarks

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People get promotions to GS 14 yearly here. I am one of them. They don't automatically give it to new hires after 2021 based on a change in the job description. You can get GS 14, but not by doing the bare minimum anymore. That's all. Admin can give out as many GS 14s as they want, but GS 15 are limited. Sounds like the original poster is a troll and is trying to start sh*t.

how would you know what the requirements are? they never made it clear. what does "the bare minimum" mean? Why make it a performance standard if meeting it isn't good enough to reach the full performance level?

you must be one of the new people who started after they made the change.

No. But you must have been one we fired, and the reason is obvious. Bad attitude.

nope. left for better pastures but received excellent performance appraisals.

If you’re in a better place, why you keep coming back here?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Looks like Congress is considering legislation to address the error riddled decisions that BVA attorneys and judges regularly pump out. Apparently, members of Congress aren’t thrilled that approximately 80 percent of BVA decisions are remanded back to BVA due to errors of law and fact and insufficient legal analysis.

https://www.govexec.com/oversight/2024/04/va-claims-appeal-board-errors-target-new-house-bill/395658/

this is such a bunch of trash. They took the one good witness at the hearing, the OGC attorney, and ignored what she said and cut her off. She tried to explain that often OGC negotiates these JMRs, they are NOT findings of inadequacy by the Court, but rather agreed upon resolutions for a variety of reasons. In some decisions of course the errors are clear, because decisions are written by humans and humans sometimes make mistakes, but in many cases the errors are not clear, and amount to a matter of interpretation and, again, horse trading with the private bar. Anyone who has actually done the work knows this.

According to the Government Accountability Office, "in instances where VA and the claimant agree to a JMR, it generally involves acknowledgement that VA made a factual or legal error in its decision or that additional information is needed before making a final decision." While I understand that everyone makes mistakes, it is rather egregious that 80 percent of BVA decisions are being remanded. That means, 8 out of 10 BVA decisions contain errors or were based on a legally insufficient record. Isn't that shocking? It is for me, and I hope that Congress can address it.

It’s bad, but not as bad as it appears. The 80% is only for Board decisions that are appealed. Many aren’t, it part because they are legally sound and the private bar can’t make money off them. Plenty of cases that come back from the court are because the Board did a bad job. Others are because the court doesn’t care about harmless error and the private bar can collect an EAJA fee from the government even if the claim is ultimately denied.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Looks like Congress is considering legislation to address the error riddled decisions that BVA attorneys and judges regularly pump out. Apparently, members of Congress aren’t thrilled that approximately 80 percent of BVA decisions are remanded back to BVA due to errors of law and fact and insufficient legal analysis.

https://www.govexec.com/oversight/2024/04/va-claims-appeal-board-errors-target-new-house-bill/395658/

this is such a bunch of trash. They took the one good witness at the hearing, the OGC attorney, and ignored what she said and cut her off. She tried to explain that often OGC negotiates these JMRs, they are NOT findings of inadequacy by the Court, but rather agreed upon resolutions for a variety of reasons. In some decisions of course the errors are clear, because decisions are written by humans and humans sometimes make mistakes, but in many cases the errors are not clear, and amount to a matter of interpretation and, again, horse trading with the private bar. Anyone who has actually done the work knows this.

According to the Government Accountability Office, "in instances where VA and the claimant agree to a JMR, it generally involves acknowledgement that VA made a factual or legal error in its decision or that additional information is needed before making a final decision." While I understand that everyone makes mistakes, it is rather egregious that 80 percent of BVA decisions are being remanded. That means, 8 out of 10 BVA decisions contain errors or were based on a legally insufficient record. Isn't that shocking? It is for me, and I hope that Congress can address it.

it most certainly does not mean that 8 out of 10 decisions contain errors.

This only refers to cases that are appealed from BVA. Are there statistics showing what percentage of decisions are actually appealed?

I also do not agree with GAO's characterization of a JMR. It is a negotiated agreement between counsel. Sometimes they are done becuause the BVA decision contains a clear error. Sometimes they are done for strategic reasons to avoid making "bad law" at the Court. Sometimes they are done because the OGC attorney has a difference of opinion with the VLJ who signed the decision. Sometimes they are done because the OGC attorneys are overworked. There are many explanations as to why there could be a JMR following a BVA decision.. It is incorrect to conclude that every JMR means that a clear error was made.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Looks like Congress is considering legislation to address the error riddled decisions that BVA attorneys and judges regularly pump out. Apparently, members of Congress aren’t thrilled that approximately 80 percent of BVA decisions are remanded back to BVA due to errors of law and fact and insufficient legal analysis.

https://www.govexec.com/oversight/2024/04/va-claims-appeal-board-errors-target-new-house-bill/395658/

this is such a bunch of trash. They took the one good witness at the hearing, the OGC attorney, and ignored what she said and cut her off. She tried to explain that often OGC negotiates these JMRs, they are NOT findings of inadequacy by the Court, but rather agreed upon resolutions for a variety of reasons. In some decisions of course the errors are clear, because decisions are written by humans and humans sometimes make mistakes, but in many cases the errors are not clear, and amount to a matter of interpretation and, again, horse trading with the private bar. Anyone who has actually done the work knows this.

According to the Government Accountability Office, "in instances where VA and the claimant agree to a JMR, it generally involves acknowledgement that VA made a factual or legal error in its decision or that additional information is needed before making a final decision." While I understand that everyone makes mistakes, it is rather egregious that 80 percent of BVA decisions are being remanded. That means, 8 out of 10 BVA decisions contain errors or were based on a legally insufficient record. Isn't that shocking? It is for me, and I hope that Congress can address it.

it most certainly does not mean that 8 out of 10 decisions contain errors.

This only refers to cases that are appealed from BVA. Are there statistics showing what percentage of decisions are actually appealed?

I also do not agree with GAO's characterization of a JMR. It is a negotiated agreement between counsel. Sometimes they are done becuause the BVA decision contains a clear error. Sometimes they are done for strategic reasons to avoid making "bad law" at the Court. Sometimes they are done because the OGC attorney has a difference of opinion with the VLJ who signed the decision. Sometimes they are done because the OGC attorneys are overworked. There are many explanations as to why there could be a JMR following a BVA decision.. It is incorrect to conclude that every JMR means that a clear error was made.

This is correct.

I can say, as a Board attorney, I have seen many JMRs that are actually citing incorrect facts based on the misunderstanding of the record. People who don't work as attorneys at the Board really have no clue.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Looks like Congress is considering legislation to address the error riddled decisions that BVA attorneys and judges regularly pump out. Apparently, members of Congress aren’t thrilled that approximately 80 percent of BVA decisions are remanded back to BVA due to errors of law and fact and insufficient legal analysis.

https://www.govexec.com/oversight/2024/04/va-claims-appeal-board-errors-target-new-house-bill/395658/

this is such a bunch of trash. They took the one good witness at the hearing, the OGC attorney, and ignored what she said and cut her off. She tried to explain that often OGC negotiates these JMRs, they are NOT findings of inadequacy by the Court, but rather agreed upon resolutions for a variety of reasons. In some decisions of course the errors are clear, because decisions are written by humans and humans sometimes make mistakes, but in many cases the errors are not clear, and amount to a matter of interpretation and, again, horse trading with the private bar. Anyone who has actually done the work knows this.

According to the Government Accountability Office, "in instances where VA and the claimant agree to a JMR, it generally involves acknowledgement that VA made a factual or legal error in its decision or that additional information is needed before making a final decision." While I understand that everyone makes mistakes, it is rather egregious that 80 percent of BVA decisions are being remanded. That means, 8 out of 10 BVA decisions contain errors or were based on a legally insufficient record. Isn't that shocking? It is for me, and I hope that Congress can address it.

it most certainly does not mean that 8 out of 10 decisions contain errors.

This only refers to cases that are appealed from BVA. Are there statistics showing what percentage of decisions are actually appealed?

I also do not agree with GAO's characterization of a JMR. It is a negotiated agreement between counsel. Sometimes they are done becuause the BVA decision contains a clear error. Sometimes they are done for strategic reasons to avoid making "bad law" at the Court. Sometimes they are done because the OGC attorney has a difference of opinion with the VLJ who signed the decision. Sometimes they are done because the OGC attorneys are overworked. There are many explanations as to why there could be a JMR following a BVA decision.. It is incorrect to conclude that every JMR means that a clear error was made.

This is correct.

I can say, as a Board attorney, I have seen many JMRs that are actually citing incorrect facts based on the misunderstanding of the record. People who don't work as attorneys at the Board really have no clue.

Board attorneys have to review three case files a week and pump out three decisions. Each case file contains anywhere from 200 to over 1000+ pages of medical records and evidence. I understand that BVA attorneys are excellent at doc review given that so many BVA attorneys are former doc reviewers. But at that speed, I’m not surprised that BVA attorneys make so many mistakes. I suggest learning from your mistakes rather than trying to shift the blame by accusing OGC of misstating the record.