Challenge

Combat Wounded Veteran Challenge Wednesday Dive

https://combatwounded.org/challenges/scuba-challenge-2021/ source

2 years ago

Advocates for homeless vets face next big challenge: inflation

[ad_1] With coronavirus pandemic restrictions lifting across most of America, federal officials and housing advocates are hoping their efforts in…

2 years ago

Black Female Veteran Meets Newest Challenge Head-On After Early-Onset Alzheimer’s Diagnosis

[ad_1] Anitra “Nia Mo” Mostacero has spent most of her adult life in the U.S. Air Force. She originally joined…

2 years ago

Disney challenge coins are real. Here’s the story behind them

[ad_1] Editor’s note: This article was originally published on Nov. 23, 2020. Challenge coins are an interesting military tradition.  Some…

2 years ago

Single Judge Application; section 311 meant in 1981; CUE; presumption of soundness; The appellant argues that the Board erred in its determination that no CUE existed in the 1981 RO decision. Specifically, he contends that Wagner is an authoritative statement of what section 311 meant at the time of the 1981 RO decision. Appellant’s Brief (Br.) at 6. The Court agrees with the appellant that the Federal Circuit’s interpretation of section 1111 in Wagner is an authoritative statement of what that statute has meant since the date of enactment in 1958. See Rivers v. Roadway Express, 511 U.S. 298, 312-13 (1994) (“A judicial construction of a statute is an authoritative statement of what the statute meant before as well as after the decision of the case giving rise to that construction.”); Patrick v. Shinseki, 668 F.3d at 1325, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“We made clear . . . , that ‘[u]nlike changes in regulations and statutes, which are prospective, our interpretation of a statute is retrospective in that it explains what the statute has meant since the date of enactment.’” (quoting Patrick v. Nicholson, 242 F. App’x 695, 698 (Fed. Cir. 2007)(remanding for further consideration of CUE request using the correct standard articulated in Wagner and directing remand to Board, if necessary, to determine whether the Secretary has rebutted the presumption of soundness by providing clear and unmistakable evidence that the presumption has been rebutted))); see also Jordan v. Nicholson, 401 F.3d 1296, 1298 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (noting that the appellant’s CUE request challenges the validity of a regulation but does not question the correct legal standard under the statute, and that “Wagner governs that issue”). Thus, the Court agrees with the appellant that the Board erred when it concluded that he could not challenge the correct legal standard that applies under section 1111 in the CUE context.;

[ad_1] Single Judge Application; section 311 meant in 1981; CUE; presumption of soundness; The appellant argues that the Board…

2 years ago

Whisper Challenge Veterans Day Reunion Surprise

Jimmy Fallon partners with T-Mobile and uses a game of Whisper Challenge to reunite a military veteran with her active-duty…

3 years ago

China’s Capabilities Growth Shows Why U.S. Sees Nation as Pacing Challenge > U.S. Department of Defense > Defense Department News

[ad_1] Army Gen. Mark A. Milley pointed to China's recent test of a hypersonic weapon system as an example of…

3 years ago

How A Navy Challenge Coin Saved A Tulsa Police Officer’s Life

[ad_1] Editor’s note: This story first appeared on March 5, 2019. Sgt. Mike Parsons should have died that day. On…

3 years ago

Single Judge Application; In Rizzo v. Shinseki, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit previously held that VA need not affirmatively establish an examiner’s competency. 580 F.3d 1288, 1291 (Fed. Cir. 2009), overruled by Francway v. Wilkie, 940 F.3d 1304, 1308 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (finding that the presumption of competency requires nothing more than is required for veterans in other contexts—i.e., simply that the veteran raise the issue—and that, once the veteran raises such a challenge, the presumption has no further effect and VA must satisfy its burden of persuasion as to the examiner’s qualifications). But, to the extent that Francway did not overrule the holding in Rizzo, the issue here is not the examiner’s competency; In addition, in Sickels v. Shinseki, the Federal Circuit found unpersuasive the veteran’s argument—that he should not be required to assert that the examiner was insufficiently informed—because, like in Rizzo, he had not raised that concern before the Board. 643 F.3d 1362, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (finding that an examiner’s competency and whether the examiner was sufficiently informed were similar in that a veteran must challenge both and, because Mr. Sickels had not done so, the Board was not required to address the issue of whether the examiner understood the adjudicator’s instructions);

[ad_1] Single Judge Application; In Rizzo v. Shinseki, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit previously held that…

3 years ago

DOD, Israel Host Indoor Autonomous Maneuver Technologies Challenge > U.S. Department of Defense > Defense Department News

[ad_1] The Defense Department, the Israel Defense Ministry and the Merage Institute are holding a Mobile Standoff Autonomous Indoor…

3 years ago
Show more Posts