Promise of the PACT Act Fades; Raked Over the Coals
Yesterday, at the direction of Secretary Collins, the VA published a notice regarding the VA’s decision to deny presumptive service-connection for a multitude of nasty blood disorders. Another promise of the PACT Act broken. Meanwhile, Veterans’ Law Judge Ray B. Slabbekorn is busy raking me—and you—over the coals. Finally, some joker out in San Diego has been selling VA ratings. Boy, I always knew the week before Thanksgiving was busy, but phew!
Buck Passage not Permitted
If there is one thing I really admire about Secretary Collins, the buck really does stop with him. At least you know what he is about. When he makes a decision, he lets us know it came straight from the top. Now that’s leadership! A few weeks ago, he signed a memo denying presumptive service-connection for male breast cancer. A real pen and ink signature. Like I say, he leaves no doubt. On October 24, 2025, Secretary Collins gave the green light for a notice in the Federal Register, to deny presumptive service-connection for the following conditions and locations: polycythemia vera, essential thrombocythemia, histiocytosis, mastocytosis, and chronic myeloproliferative disease for veterans exposed to fine particulate matter (PM2.5) while serving in the Southwest Asia Theater of Operations or Somalia on or after August 2, 1990, or in Afghanistan, Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, Yemen, Djibouti, or Uzbekistan on or after September 11, 2001.
Copy of Notice Authorized by Secretary Collins.
According to the notice, “VA conducted a formal evaluation between November 2024 and March 2025 that considered available medical evidence, Veterans Health Administration (VHA) health care data, Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA) claims data, and other factors, as required by 38 U.S.C. 1173. A structured literature search did not yield any papers that were directly relevant to assessing the relationship between exposure to PM2.5 and polycythemia vera, essential thrombocythemia, histiocytosis, mastocytosis, and chronic myeloproliferative disease.”
“Additionally, the formal evaluation analyzed VHA electronic medical record data for the five conditions of interest between Calendar Year (CY) 2016 and CY24. The results indicate that the nine-year prevalence of these conditions among post-9/11 [V]eterans who served in the Southwest Asia theater of operations who use VHA health care was lower than the prevalence in the general population. The nine-year prevalence of these conditions among the 1990-1991 Gulf War Era [V]eteran population utilizing VHA health care was higher than the general population, except for mastocytosis; this was observed in both veterans who deployed to Southwest Asia and those who served during the time period of the war but did not deploy,” (emphasis added).
Now, I am not a hematologists, expert researcher, etc. But, I can do some basic reading skills, and something doesn’t fit here. The first part, I can understand. Post 9/11 Veterans have these conditions less often than the general population. Alright, I am with you so far. But Gulf War Veterans have a higher prevalence of these conditions than compared to the general population. The notice says this is “likely due to this [V]eteran population’s older age distribution.” But, this ignores something very important. This is why I love the internet, it is fairly easy these days to call B.S. Google some of these conditions followed by “risk factors.” For example, it is true age is a risk factor for mastocytosis—being more common in children. Age is also a risk factor for essential thrombocythemia, for those over sixty. If this was a 9 year study, and you were in the Gulf War, very few are pushing sixty years old. I believe that is what you would call an inconclusive study. But hey, you can still file a claim for it. You will just have to fight like hell, just like our Vietnam Veterans did before so many nasty things were recognized as an Agent Orange presumptive condition.
If anything, the VA should have put the pause on this decision and said look, we need more data. So much for the promise of the PACT Act.
Raked Over the Coals
In other news, this one is a first for me. The Board has a rule that once an appeal is filed, an agent or attorney, like myself, can’t just leave you, the Veteran, high and dry, and say “I am done representing you.” We have to demonstrate good cause to the Board as to why we will no longer be representing you. The rule is very well intended. It prevents you from being left in the dark, unrepresented. However, VLJ Ray B. Slabbekorn, Jr., has a different reading of the regulation. He believes a change in representation can’t occur period, without some sort of good cause. This misunderstands the purpose of the rule. The rule is not designed for you to be unable to hire someone better equipped to handle your appeal, which is what happened to my client. I was hired after a case was sent back from the Veteran’s Court, because the Board made a bad decision. Shocker.
So, after the case was sent back, I was hired to represent a very deserving widow. Well, try to represent that is. That is, until I got this demand letter from the Board, directing my client and I to demonstrate “good cause” for the change in representation. (This is a 2012 appeal, mind you. Considering how old this appeal was, you’d think the Board would have better things to do.) What a letter? I wasn’t up to playing silly games, so I fired off quite the response. Maybe Judge Slabbekorn has never heard of the Due Process Clause—the right to chose who represents you.
He probably didn’t care for my closer “therefore, the Board…may not interfere with the change in representation. This is not a request, but a simple fact.” The story doesn’t end there. In Judge Slabbekorn’s decision, he mentions my name eight different times. He was so infatuated with me, he forgot to mention the poor Veteran’s name. (Infatuated: filled with or marked by a foolish or extravagant love or admiration. If the shoe fits…?)
“The Board has given the appellant and Mr. McCauley an opportunity to comply with the rule’s requirements, and they have elected not to do so.”
Copy of Judge Slabbekorn’s Decision Raking me Over the Coals.
Maybe if the Board would focus on more important matters, their decisions wouldn’t be overturned on appeal so often. Just a thought.
Raiding the Place
Really though, it is interesting Judge Slabbekorn is a VLJ to begin with. According to the Board’s annual report to Congress from 2024, “the current Board of Veterans Law Judges (VLJ) is the most experienced in the history of the Board, including 57% women and 24% Veterans.” Judge Slabbekorn, to his credit, is one of the only twenty-four percent of judges who are Veterans. Let that sink in for a minute. The judges deciding your claims for disability benefits—as a result of military service—only twenty-four percent of them are Veterans themselves. No wonder the Board has a disconnect. Judge Slabbekorn is a Veteran alright.
According to MilitaryTimes.com, “In the wake of a controversial search of Camp Pendleton, California, defense attorneys' offices by military investigators, the senior Marine prosecutor who planned the search has been ordered off a number of cases and reassigned to a new job. Maj. Ray Slabbekorn was transferred this month from his post as senior trial counsel for Camp Pendleton to a position within the Marines' complex trial team for the West Coast, officials said. In a June 10 ruling, military judge Lt. Col. Chris Thielemann found that the search on defense offices, instigated and overseen by the prosecution, constituted apparent unlawful command influence, meaning that a casual observer would have reason to believe the government had unduly interfered with the legal process, creating a potential disadvantage for defendants in ongoing cases. Thielemann also disqualified Slabbekorn from participation in the case of Sgt. Ricardo Miramontes — an unrelated sex assault case proceeding this week with casefiles kept in the searched offices — and ordered that Slabbekorn not discuss the case with his legal team. Sources said judges have handed down similar rulings in two other cases with upcoming trial dates.”
“A Camp Pendleton spokesman, Jeffrey Nyhart, said the decision to reassign Slabbekorn was made after officials realized the restrictions on communication in these cases would make it impossible for the prosecutor to do his job. "This constraint made it impracticable for Maj. Slabbekorn to effectively supervise subordinate judge advocates in his former billet," he said.”
Well, talk about a checkered past, this makes Chinese Checkers look like child’s play. It really makes you wonder how someone like that could be elevated to a position where he judges you. Judge Slabbekorn used to raid the offices of other attorneys. Now he’s busy raiding your claims file. My point here is to be on the lookout, there are bad apples all around. There are also lots of great VLJs at the Board who will bend over backwards to help Veterans. Then, there are some, Veterans themselves, who will do everything to deny Veterans. Here’s a thought. What if every Judge had to have their grant/deny rate published so it could be compared to the average of all Board decisions?
San Diego Fire-Sale
To top everything off this week, a grand jury returned a 33-count indictment against Daniel Rikkels of Chula Vista, a former VA rater (decision maker). According to the 33-count indictment, since 2020, Rikkels knowingly and intentionally instructed veterans to provide false, exaggerated, and misleading claims of service-related injuries to support their disability claims. Rikkels also instructed [V]eterans to alter documents submitted during the claims process. “The indictment also alleges that Rikkels frequently requested that [V]eterans who lived in the local area meet him to make payments in cash to minimize what he would have to pay in taxes. According to court records, the investigation revealed that during just a three-month period between February and May of 2025, Rikkels met with at least four local [V]eterans and received a total of $57,000 in cash payments from them. On November 13, 2025, agents searched Rikkels, his vehicle, and residence and seized a total of over $280,000 in cash.”
Here is what bothers me about this. It paints Veterans in a bad light. The sad truth is, Veterans were in on this scheme. Paying this guy cash in exchange for a rating. That gives certain Judges ammunition to put everything under a microscope, and that hurts you.
With all this going on, you’d think the VA would have better things to do than to worry about who I am representing.
Welp, I think that is enough for one week—I’ll ride again.
Godspeed.
