Letters of Investigation for VA benefits
09-03-2023, 04:43 PM
#51
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2011
Position: Volleyball Player
Posts: 4,024
The Warning Letter is what I referred to, and it does exactly what I claim. I can attest to that personally; for investigations that resulted in no action, a warning letter placed in the file states that no evidence was found of wrong doing, and then goes on to state that doing XXX is a violation of 14 CFR XXX. The employer, or future employer who asks if one has had enforcement action or received a warning letter may not ever read the letter (which states insufficient evidence found to proceed with enforcement. The warning letter, however, has a damaging effect on the career of the airman; in the past, these were supposed to be removed after two years, and this was very frequently not done. Moreover, I can personally attest to employers in PRIA checks receiving not only the warning letter on file, but also a letter of investigation, because I have had new employers tell me about them after receiving my FAA information. I realize the FAA states that this doesn't happen, and that the LOI is a local affair; real-world experience (you can dismiss as anecdotal, if you wish) has proven otherwise.
In short, Iv'e seen both show up in the airman's record.
During the kinder, gentler FAA phase, I've not found that to be the case among inspectors who work in a field where one of the application requirements is that the applicant cannot have had more than two aircraft accidents in the prior five years, for which the applicant as at fault. My respect level for inspectors and their knowledge and understanding of the regulation and associated process is low; the FAA sets the bar low, and it shows. It's for that reason that I was able to have two LOI's and warning letters. One of those I received after a call from an inspector in the LAS FSDO a number of years ago, who told me he wanted evidence to use against my employer; he told me that if I would obtain the records and files from the employer and provide them to the inspector, he would table the matter, because he knew it had no merit (company records showed 1/2 hour too little rest on one date; it was a clerical error and it was obvious. I refused to spy on the employer or steal records. Subsequently, I received a letter of investigation, and. later a warning letter in my file stating that while the FAA could find no evidence of wrong doing, it was wrong of me to do it. Another event involved the head of a FSDO that called me into his office and told me to buy his secretary a dozen red roses, or he'd find a reason to violate me. I kid not. One can't make that **** up.
In short, Iv'e seen both show up in the airman's record.
During the kinder, gentler FAA phase, I've not found that to be the case among inspectors who work in a field where one of the application requirements is that the applicant cannot have had more than two aircraft accidents in the prior five years, for which the applicant as at fault. My respect level for inspectors and their knowledge and understanding of the regulation and associated process is low; the FAA sets the bar low, and it shows. It's for that reason that I was able to have two LOI's and warning letters. One of those I received after a call from an inspector in the LAS FSDO a number of years ago, who told me he wanted evidence to use against my employer; he told me that if I would obtain the records and files from the employer and provide them to the inspector, he would table the matter, because he knew it had no merit (company records showed 1/2 hour too little rest on one date; it was a clerical error and it was obvious. I refused to spy on the employer or steal records. Subsequently, I received a letter of investigation, and. later a warning letter in my file stating that while the FAA could find no evidence of wrong doing, it was wrong of me to do it. Another event involved the head of a FSDO that called me into his office and told me to buy his secretary a dozen red roses, or he'd find a reason to violate me. I kid not. One can't make that **** up.
And you are right, the warning notice wasn't exactly the best idea ever. Everyone I know is glad those days are past.
As far as your roses story, I would be calling the IG and anyone else to report that if it happened. No way anyone should ever get away with something like that.
I work with some people that do try to understand and get the right answers, rather than just their opinion on Tuesday at 3pm. I'm all for more accountability and higher standards. It only helps those of us trying to do the right thing.
09-03-2023, 05:49 PM
#52
Disinterested Third Party
Joined APC: Jun 2012
Posts: 6,260
You'll get no disagreement from me on that.
And yet...
I bought the roses, because the cost of the roses was far, far less than what it would have cost to fight whatever he might have dredged up, whether true or not. The power of the position is that it doesn't have to be true to be quite costly, wether it's direct costs in the fight (attorney, travel, time off, etc), or the secondary, long term damage that comes from ever having been i the fight in the first place. The job you don't get can opportunity cost millions.
And yet...
I bought the roses, because the cost of the roses was far, far less than what it would have cost to fight whatever he might have dredged up, whether true or not. The power of the position is that it doesn't have to be true to be quite costly, wether it's direct costs in the fight (attorney, travel, time off, etc), or the secondary, long term damage that comes from ever having been i the fight in the first place. The job you don't get can opportunity cost millions.
09-04-2023, 03:18 PM
#53
Banned
Joined APC: Oct 2010
Posts: 96
Exactly. It is my opinion…regardless of what the law is…that this is unfair to servicemebers. I think that it offers an opportunity for the FAA to provide additional regulatory oversight to a subgroup. That, in my opinion, is unfair. Not sure how anyone could label me a liar (or right winger) for expressing an opinion and if I misrepresented it as fact or myself as a constitutional scholar, then I would appreciate knowing where I did that and I will gladly correct the record.
Back to the point, servicemembers volunteer to relinquish a lot of rights…most notably 1st amendment. But they do so on paper and with a lot of command emphasis. Best I can tell, they have not given up their right to due process and when the government uses secret tools for investigative reasons that violates due process.
But again, I’m not a judge or constitutional scholar. Or that gooder in grramer.
Back to the point, servicemembers volunteer to relinquish a lot of rights…most notably 1st amendment. But they do so on paper and with a lot of command emphasis. Best I can tell, they have not given up their right to due process and when the government uses secret tools for investigative reasons that violates due process.
But again, I’m not a judge or constitutional scholar. Or that gooder in grramer.
Last edited by JBird; 09-04-2023 at 03:31 PM.
09-04-2023, 03:34 PM
#54
Prime Minister/Moderator
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Engines Turn Or People Swim
Posts: 40,016
Exactly. It is my opinion…regardless of what the law is…that this is unfair to servicemebers. I think that it offers an opportunity for the FAA to provide additional regulatory oversight to a subgroup. That, in my opinion, is unfair. Not sure how anyone could label me a liar (or right winger) for expressing an opinion and if I misrepresented it as fact or myself as a constitutional scholar, then I would appreciate knowing where I did that and I will gladly correct the record.
Back to the point, servicemembers volunteer to relinquish a lot of rights…most notably 1st amendment. But they do so on paper and with a lot of command emphasis. Best I can tell, they have not given up their right to due process and when the government uses secret tools for investigative reasons that violates due process.
But again, I’m not a judge or constitutional scholar. Or that gooder in grramer.
Back to the point, servicemembers volunteer to relinquish a lot of rights…most notably 1st amendment. But they do so on paper and with a lot of command emphasis. Best I can tell, they have not given up their right to due process and when the government uses secret tools for investigative reasons that violates due process.
But again, I’m not a judge or constitutional scholar. Or that gooder in grramer.
I'd be more vocal about my rights in areas that are clearly constitutionally protected, not a fan of big brother in general.
09-20-2023, 07:18 AM
#55
Disinterested Third Party
Joined APC: Jun 2012
Posts: 6,260
Something no one has mentioned, and is worth noting, is that the highest person in the FAA's Office of Aerospace medicine is a retired USAF colonel. She is the FAA's Federal Air Surgeon, the FAA's equivalent of the Surgeon General, but specific to aviation. During her 20 years of service, she served as a flight surgeon at Moody AFB, Chief of Operational Medicine at Bolling AFB, Chief of Aerospace Medicine at Pope AFB, and Chief of Aeromedical Services in Saudi Arabia at both Dhahran and Prince Sultan AB. She's board certified in aerospace medicine. She was Head of Delegation to the aeromedical working group at NATO. She's more than qualified, and has a lengthy list of accolades, awards, and associations in and out of the military. She's hardly averse to service personnel.
The Deputy Federal Air Surgeon is likewise a former service member, including four combat tours. He's presently still in the reserves, and has served the Office of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, etc. Not someone who's anti-military, either. His son is USAF, his daughter is in the USAF academy.
The present investigation touching on reporting of disability benefits was not initiated by the FAA, but by the VA. It is also not the only database-correlation dealing with disability benefits, as this has been conducted using the social security database on both coasts as well as state disability benefit databases. This isn't an assault on service members. It's also not a state secret. it's an investigation triggered by an external investigation. As the VA looked at the potential for fraud and began turning up cases warranting further investigation, the FAA was in turn unable to ignore the matter and had little choice but to reciprocate and investigate, although the FAA did so with significant enough reluctance that it was castigated by the VA and associated parties for it's slowness in producing airman records and in becoming involved.
It's not a witch hunt. It's not anti-service. Anyone with a FAA medical certificate is subject to investigation, and it's not been restricted to service members in the past, nor will it be in the future. That the present investigation is a reciprocal one associated with the VA does not mean it's an assault on those who have served.
The Deputy Federal Air Surgeon is likewise a former service member, including four combat tours. He's presently still in the reserves, and has served the Office of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, etc. Not someone who's anti-military, either. His son is USAF, his daughter is in the USAF academy.
The present investigation touching on reporting of disability benefits was not initiated by the FAA, but by the VA. It is also not the only database-correlation dealing with disability benefits, as this has been conducted using the social security database on both coasts as well as state disability benefit databases. This isn't an assault on service members. It's also not a state secret. it's an investigation triggered by an external investigation. As the VA looked at the potential for fraud and began turning up cases warranting further investigation, the FAA was in turn unable to ignore the matter and had little choice but to reciprocate and investigate, although the FAA did so with significant enough reluctance that it was castigated by the VA and associated parties for it's slowness in producing airman records and in becoming involved.
It's not a witch hunt. It's not anti-service. Anyone with a FAA medical certificate is subject to investigation, and it's not been restricted to service members in the past, nor will it be in the future. That the present investigation is a reciprocal one associated with the VA does not mean it's an assault on those who have served.
09-20-2023, 07:52 AM
#56
Prime Minister/Moderator
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Engines Turn Or People Swim
Posts: 40,016
Maybe not that straightforward.
First off I don't think it's a targeted witch-hunt, I tend to suspect those who are most vocal about that may have gotten letters, or be expecting to.
They're doing it not because they're after vets, but because they can. They did the same with SS a number of years back. Again, because they can. I suspect there's a LOT more of this on the VA side than on the SS side, at least for commercial pilots, for the cultural and systemic reasons we've already discussed. Vets get led down the path to the water, it's up to them in the end to recognize the ethical and legal perils and not actually take a drink, or too large of a drink.
I can't really fault the FAA for focusing on a large number of likely commercial pilots, as opposed to a smaller number of likely private pilots on the SS side.
Plenty of civilians are lying on their 8500 too, but they can't catch them unless they have probable cause and a subpoena... that usually only comes from a very rare inflight incap, or more commonly a pizzed-off ex wife/GF.
Regarding mil officers in the FAA... career active duty tend to have an elevated opinion of themselves relative to reserve/guard, and it's culturally common within that crowd to denigrate those who leave for the airlines. If you're career mil and then civil service, there's also some sour grapes about airline compensation. For much of this century during the hard years, rolling your mil time over for civil service retirement credit and settling into a modest but very secure career seemed like a good bet, and I knew some folks who were pretty smug about it. But now the tables have turned, and airline pilots can be in the $500K ballpark just for flying their line... I don't think it's a witch-hunt per se, but I wouldn't necessarily be counting on a lot of brotherly love from the career AD-to-GS crowd either.
First off I don't think it's a targeted witch-hunt, I tend to suspect those who are most vocal about that may have gotten letters, or be expecting to.
They're doing it not because they're after vets, but because they can. They did the same with SS a number of years back. Again, because they can. I suspect there's a LOT more of this on the VA side than on the SS side, at least for commercial pilots, for the cultural and systemic reasons we've already discussed. Vets get led down the path to the water, it's up to them in the end to recognize the ethical and legal perils and not actually take a drink, or too large of a drink.
I can't really fault the FAA for focusing on a large number of likely commercial pilots, as opposed to a smaller number of likely private pilots on the SS side.
Plenty of civilians are lying on their 8500 too, but they can't catch them unless they have probable cause and a subpoena... that usually only comes from a very rare inflight incap, or more commonly a pizzed-off ex wife/GF.
Regarding mil officers in the FAA... career active duty tend to have an elevated opinion of themselves relative to reserve/guard, and it's culturally common within that crowd to denigrate those who leave for the airlines. If you're career mil and then civil service, there's also some sour grapes about airline compensation. For much of this century during the hard years, rolling your mil time over for civil service retirement credit and settling into a modest but very secure career seemed like a good bet, and I knew some folks who were pretty smug about it. But now the tables have turned, and airline pilots can be in the $500K ballpark just for flying their line... I don't think it's a witch-hunt per se, but I wouldn't necessarily be counting on a lot of brotherly love from the career AD-to-GS crowd either.
09-20-2023, 09:42 AM
#57
Perennial Reserve
Joined APC: Jan 2018
Posts: 12,096
Maybe not that straightforward.
First off I don't think it's a targeted witch-hunt, I tend to suspect those who are most vocal about that may have gotten letters, or be expecting to.
They're doing it not because they're after vets, but because they can. They did the same with SS a number of years back. Again, because they can. I suspect there's a LOT more of this on the VA side than on the SS side, at least for commercial pilots, for the cultural and system reasons we've already discussed. Vets get led down the path to the water, it's up to them in the end to recognize the ethical and legal perils and not actually take a drink, or too large of a drink.
I can't really fault the FAA for focusing on a large number of likely commercial pilots, as opposed to a smaller number of likely private pilots on the SS side.
Plenty of civilians are lying on their 8500 too, but they can't catch them unless they have probable cause and a subpoena... that usually only comes from a very rare inflight incap, or more commonly a pizzed-off ex wife/GF.
I don't think it's a witch-hunt per se, but I wouldn't necessarily be counting on a lot of brotherly love from the career AD-to-GS crowd either.
First off I don't think it's a targeted witch-hunt, I tend to suspect those who are most vocal about that may have gotten letters, or be expecting to.
They're doing it not because they're after vets, but because they can. They did the same with SS a number of years back. Again, because they can. I suspect there's a LOT more of this on the VA side than on the SS side, at least for commercial pilots, for the cultural and system reasons we've already discussed. Vets get led down the path to the water, it's up to them in the end to recognize the ethical and legal perils and not actually take a drink, or too large of a drink.
I can't really fault the FAA for focusing on a large number of likely commercial pilots, as opposed to a smaller number of likely private pilots on the SS side.
Plenty of civilians are lying on their 8500 too, but they can't catch them unless they have probable cause and a subpoena... that usually only comes from a very rare inflight incap, or more commonly a pizzed-off ex wife/GF.
I don't think it's a witch-hunt per se, but I wouldn't necessarily be counting on a lot of brotherly love from the career AD-to-GS crowd either.
But on the other hand, active duty guys get harangued by all the ambulance chaser type disability lawyers that Reservists do. They know the temptations…
https://www.woodslawyers.com/veteran...xoCkNYQAvD_BwE
https://www.hillandponton.com/increase-your-va-rating/
https://www.idlawcenter.com/faqs/how...ity-rating.cfm
09-20-2023, 10:08 AM
#58
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2007
Position: 767/757 CA
Posts: 2,695
Twas always thus… https://youtu.be/bJaSIUCPZKc?si=VHiUBjlbGrBUlIv2
But on the other hand, active duty guys get harangued by all the ambulance chaser type disability lawyers that Reservists do. They know the temptations…
https://www.woodslawyers.com/veteran...xoCkNYQAvD_BwE
https://www.hillandponton.com/increase-your-va-rating/
https://www.idlawcenter.com/faqs/how...ity-rating.cfm
But on the other hand, active duty guys get harangued by all the ambulance chaser type disability lawyers that Reservists do. They know the temptations…
https://www.woodslawyers.com/veteran...xoCkNYQAvD_BwE
https://www.hillandponton.com/increase-your-va-rating/
https://www.idlawcenter.com/faqs/how...ity-rating.cfm
09-20-2023, 10:22 AM
#59
Prime Minister/Moderator
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Engines Turn Or People Swim
Posts: 40,016
If we were talking about 22 y/o E-4's I'd have more sympathy. Majors and Cols should know better when it comes right down to it. If you just gotta have that 100% rating, then get a non-flying job, they'll never know.
09-20-2023, 10:25 AM
#60
Disinterested Third Party
Joined APC: Jun 2012
Posts: 6,260
If one weren't pursuing FAA certification or aviation employment, maximizing one's disability rating might be a good deal. A few extra dollars from uncle sam won't compensate for hearing loss, limb loss, mobility loss, or loss of sanity or sleep, but it's something. In the case of one making a career of aviation, the cost-benefit analysis of what one gets in compensation from the VA, insurance, social security, etc, should be weighed against the potential cost to one's career over the expected term of the career (lifetime, for example). The aggregate income up to retirement with a legacy airline will be substantially more than whatever one is able to achieve in a VA disability rating. So long as the two won't conflict (due diligence), no problem, but if a choice must be made, it's best to do the homework and decide where the priority lies. It should probably lie with one's lifetime career.
That said not everyone who comes into disability benefits does so with the foresight of an aviation career. I asked a fairly young gung-ho staff sergeant in Basrah one night if he had a sinus or other condition that would preclude a rapid altitude change on the way to the airport. He said he had just one ear drum. I told him we'd take a little more time and care getting down. I asked what happened to his other ear. RPG in Baghdad. "It's okay, sir," he said cheerfully, "If the army wants me to have another ear drum, they'll issue one." Admirable, but of course, wrong.
I mention this relevant to the reference of sour grapes and prejudices about the great unwashed separating and seeking a white collar career as airline pilots; not everyone leaves the service in a pilot, or as an officer, or even with the intent to fly. Additionally, not everyone has any idea that disability benefits might have a bearing on medical certification (or that reporting them might). For those reasons and many more, t's always wise to do extra due diligence in researching the impact to career, what must be reported, what's allowed, etc. Just like planning a takeoff, know before you go, and just like a clearance (Clarence) that isn't clear, clarify. Far better than falling afoul.
That said not everyone who comes into disability benefits does so with the foresight of an aviation career. I asked a fairly young gung-ho staff sergeant in Basrah one night if he had a sinus or other condition that would preclude a rapid altitude change on the way to the airport. He said he had just one ear drum. I told him we'd take a little more time and care getting down. I asked what happened to his other ear. RPG in Baghdad. "It's okay, sir," he said cheerfully, "If the army wants me to have another ear drum, they'll issue one." Admirable, but of course, wrong.
I mention this relevant to the reference of sour grapes and prejudices about the great unwashed separating and seeking a white collar career as airline pilots; not everyone leaves the service in a pilot, or as an officer, or even with the intent to fly. Additionally, not everyone has any idea that disability benefits might have a bearing on medical certification (or that reporting them might). For those reasons and many more, t's always wise to do extra due diligence in researching the impact to career, what must be reported, what's allowed, etc. Just like planning a takeoff, know before you go, and just like a clearance (Clarence) that isn't clear, clarify. Far better than falling afoul.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
