When first encountering the vastness of the sea, the young child pointed to it and said to his father with a breathless sense of wonderment and awe. “It’s like a big swimming pool,” the child said. “It won’t taste like one, though. And do you see the waves?” The boy stood in silence.
The mystery of the world, its infinite puzzlement, in contrast to man’s vain attempt to artificially recreate a semblance of its beauty, revealed itself to the child’s uncorrupted eyes. Only a child whose first encounter with creation could see the true nature of being; the rest of us, compromised by age, cynicism and self-indulgence, would forever be blind to its breathless scope of beauty.
Such a slice of life story is meant to illustrate the distinction between substantive extensiveness, and a smaller version thereof, in preparing, formulating and filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits under FERS or CSRS, from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management. Volume of evidence (i.e., likened to “the ocean”) can be persuasive; yet, if it is merely an elaborate pool, then lack of substance may undermine its own efficacy. On the other hand, a short but “to-the-point” medical report may be very effective, precisely because it is exactly what it was meant to be: without much fluff, the doctor is unequivocal in his or her medical opinion.
The point throughout is that there is never a science in the compilation of proof in formulating an effective Federal Disability Retirement application. Or, to put it another way: don’t try to recreate something which cannot be copied; sometimes, the evidence is what it is, and how one presents the evidence will make all the difference.
Robert R. McGill, Esquire