Archives of Historical Material pertaining to

Veterans for Due Process

A work in progress—much more will be added including testimony from
Federal Congressional hearings.

The basic problem began in 1933 with the passing of the Economy Act that cut military pensions to give government more money for the New Deal projects to recover the economy.

The Government's First Step in Reducing Veterans' Benefits

No Mercy
National Tribune, December 15, 1932
“Those with huge incomes seek to add to their unearned increments by taking from the disabled veterans and widows their means of existence. The extremely wealthy men—and women, too—want a reduction in their Federal taxes, and to accomplish such a reduction, they say it is necessary to pauperize the ex-service men and their dependents.”

Roosevelt's New Deal

March 15, 1933

The New Deal, introduced by F D Roosevelt was to transform America's economy which had been shattered by the Wall Street Crash. Roosevelt asked Congress to pass the Economy Act. This cut the pay of everybody who worked for the government and the armed forces by 15%. Government departmental spending was also cut by 25%. The saved money, about $1 billion, was to go towards financing his New Deal.

The impact of the decision was noted after the Vietnam Vets were not treated fairly by the VA.

November 10, 1982

Representatives from six Veterans' advocacy groups gathered in Washington, D.C. and signed a resolution to be presented to Congress.

Letters from Veterans Service Organizations

Re: Judicial Review Act

une 30, 1986
Letter from The American Legion to House Committee on Veterans Affairs:
"In our considered opinion that authorizing judicial review of individual VA benefit determination in the federal court system would have a definite adverse impact on the VA system."

National News Articles relating to Veterans Dilemma

Uncle Sam stacks deck against Veterans
by Jack Anderson
August 17, 1991
"Thus, there is a colossal mismatch in most Veterans' disputes. The resources of the Goliath VA Bureaucracy vs. the Davids of the Veterans' community. Even when a Veteran pulls a upset with a mere slingshot often the does not comply with the COVA [Court of Veterans' Appeals] rulings."

Transcripts of Cases before the Court of Veterans Appeals

Richard S. Levy, Appellant, v. Jesse Brown
November 9, 1993
Case No. 92-1174

Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Appellee.
On Appeal from the Board of Veterans' Appeals

Statements from Professionals Regarding Court of Veterans Appeals:

October 17-18, 1994

Chief Judge Frank Q. Nebeker
State Of The Court for Presentation Secretary of Veterans Affairs

"Neither the Court, through the Board, the Board, nor the General Counsel has direct and meaningful control over the Agencies of Original Jurisdiction. Indeed, it is also clear that the VHA—the Veterans Health Administration—often ignores specific directives to provide medical opinions as directed. And this is resulting in unconscionable delays."

Novermber, 1996
OMB tells VA to hide "grim picture" of service to Veterans from Congress and public



Letters from Veterans Affairs Office

Letter from Toni S. Hustead, Chief Veterans Affairs Branch to Office of Budget Management

January 24, 1997

Most of the VBA outyear workload and performance measures (other than C & P) paint a grim picture of service to veterans. GPRA envisions that if these kinds of results come out of a status quo model they should be discussed during negotiations. At that time options on how service to veterans can be maintained or under these funding constraints should be brought forward.

Statements Regarding Regional Veterans Administration Offices:

Re: Wisconsin Veterans Offices
       November 3, 1997

Letter from Attorneys Joseph C. Koltz and David Mirhoseini
to The Honorable Barbara B. Crabb

Letters from Veterans for Due Process

Open Letter to Presidential Candidates
October 17, 2000
From: Veterans for Due Process, Inc.
and The National Veterans Organization