CHOICE Act gives veterans more options when navigating VA claims process

By Patrick McSpadden. Read it in Stars and Stripes.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR: Patrick McSpadden is a retired U.S. Air Force lieutenant colonel and former intelligence officer with more than 21 years of service, including multiple operational deployments. He writes on defense policy, military technology and national security. The views expressed are his own and do not reflect the official position of the Department of Defense or the U.S. government.

When I retired from the Air Force after 21 years of service, I quickly learned that navigating the Department of Veterans Affairs disability system could be nearly as challenging as some of the bureaucracies I had spent a career working inside. Between medical records, supporting evidence, deadlines, and unfamiliar terminology, the process was far more complicated than I expected.

That is why a recent court ruling involving veterans’ claims assistance deserves a closer look.

The May 20 ruling by a federal judge in North Carolina in Ford v. Veterans Guardian VA Claim Consulting upended the long-standing understanding of who may lawfully provide paid assistance to veterans pursuing VA disability claims, reigniting the debate over accreditation, consumer protection, and veterans’ access to representation. 

If the ruling was supposed to solve the challenges veterans face navigating the VA disability system, it missed the mark.

The decision may have taken one option off the table, but it did not change the reality thousands of veterans face every day. The VA claims process can be confusing, frustrating and time-consuming, especially when a case involves multiple conditions, years of medical records, appeals, or questions about service connection.

Like many veterans, I turned to a Veteran Service Organization for help with my claim. My experience was overwhelmingly positive. The VSO representative I worked with was professional, knowledgeable, and genuinely invested in helping me understand a process that often feels like learning a new language. He helped me organize paperwork, understand requirements, and navigate a system most veterans encounter only after they hang up the uniform.

That experience left me with tremendous respect for the work VSOs do every day. They are a vital part of the veterans’ community and have helped countless veterans receive the benefits they earned.

But it also taught me something else.

Not every claim is the same.

Some veterans separate after one enlistment with a relatively straightforward claim. Others leave military service carrying the physical and mental effects of decades in uniform. Some claims involve a single condition. Others involve multiple injuries, surgeries, mental health challenges, secondary conditions, and records scattered across years of assignments, deployments and duty stations.

The further a veteran gets from military service, the more complicated things can become.

That reality sits underneath the current debate. The discussion surrounding the court ruling has largely focused on who should be allowed to assist veterans and under what rules. Lost in much of that debate is a simple fact: veterans are looking for help because they are trying to navigate a complicated system. Taking an option away does not make the system easier to understand.

That is one reason the CHOICE Act has become part of the conversation.

The legislation would establish a framework for certain forms of claims assistance while preserving the free options veterans already have through VSOs, accredited agents, attorneys and congressional offices. Supporters see it as an effort to create clear rules, transparency and oversight. Critics question whether additional paid assistance is necessary and warn about unintended consequences.

Reasonable people can disagree on the legislation itself. What should not be controversial is the idea that veterans deserve clear information about every legitimate option available to them. Whether a veteran chooses a VSO, an attorney, an accredited claims agent, or another authorized form of assistance, that decision should be made with full transparency. Veterans should know who is helping them, what qualifications they have, whether fees are involved, and what alternatives exist.

Those are not political principles. They are consumer protection principles.

The conversation also raises a larger issue that often gets overlooked. We trust young Americans to fly fighters, command troops, maintain nuclear weapons, operate submarines, and make life-and-death decisions in combat. Yet when they become veterans, there is often a tendency to assume they cannot evaluate information and make decisions about how to pursue their own benefits.

That strikes me as an odd contradiction.

Veterans deserve protection from fraud, abuse, and deceptive practices. No serious person disagrees with that. But veterans also deserve access to information and the ability to make informed choices about navigating a system that directly affects their health, financial security and quality of life.

None of this diminishes the importance of VSOs. In fact, my own experience reinforces their value. They should continue to play a central role in helping veterans navigate the claims process.

The question is whether one option should be viewed as the only option.

Most veterans are not looking for someone to make decisions for them. They are looking for someone who can help them understand a complicated process, explain their options, and help them pursue the benefits they earned. Some will choose a VSO. Others may prefer an accredited attorney or claims agent. The important point is that veterans should have access to accurate information and clear disclosures so they can make those decisions for themselves.

As Congress, veterans’ organizations, and policymakers continue debating what comes next, it is worth remembering who is actually affected by these decisions.

Veterans.

The veteran sitting at a kitchen table trying to understand a denial letter. The retiree sorting through decades of medical records. The former service member dealing with chronic pain, post-traumatic stress disorder, or a condition that worsens years after leaving active duty.

Those veterans do not care much about policy arguments. They care about getting answers. They care about understanding the process. And they care about receiving the benefits they earned through their service.

The court ruling may have changed part of the legal landscape, but it did not change that reality.

Veterans still need help. Veterans still need transparency. And veterans still need confidence that whatever assistance they choose is operating in their best interest.

That is the conversation worth having.