Chuck75

The real problem with ""choice" from the provider's side is getting paid. The VA is failing to do so in any sort of reasonable manner.

My original Vietnam Era DD214 showed in country service, and did not show combat awards. In order to prove combat veteran status needed for a couple of individual claims, a DD215 was necessary.

"How is this company getting email and/or phone # contact for disabled veterans?" Someone or some entity is selling the info? In the past, some of the veterans service orgs sold data. Anyway, there are public records that might also be used.

I assume E Bennies shows no payment history. If this was a recent award, it's possible that the VA's mill is screwed up. Something as simple as a "call Peggy" (the VA's 800-827-1000 number) may get you more insight into what is going on.

"benefits may be authorized ", not will be authorized! It's kinda like 54/40 or fight!

The SMC Table rates include the Disability payment amount plus the SMC payment.

The VA usually Interprets the 20 days to mean that they will acknowledge the request within the 20, and actually fill it when they please. In the past they have also refused to send a copy until a claim in progress is completed, or used any other excuse that came to mind. I'm sure that the electronic file bit has or will changes things, just don't know what to expect in the future.

Usually, a PTSD C&P does not have as many positive markers. In addition, reserve service is involved/noted, and that can make the RO's a bit suspicious. A maybe sort of example - - - One of my claims involves a back injury under awarded combat conditions. Little evidence exists in my service records. The BVA judge directed the RO to obtain my post active duty records for any additional evidence. The Navy reserves physicals for those on inactive duty were a joke, and unless a really disabling condition existed, were almost always fit for service. Just to add injury, the language in title 38 is extremely favorable to this type of claim, and the VA often tries to weasel out of the situation by trying to create negative evidence.

Playing Devils advocate - - - To me the C&P was a bit too positive, and the RO may use a final statement in it to schedule an additional C&P or so. I suppose a great deal depends upon what is currently "in favor" at the VARO. Single issue, make it happen, take the credit, or develop further in detail for a VARO "favored" rating.

One of the problems with the digitization is that the original paper files seem to become inaccessible. In the process of preparing for the effort, The VA (around 2008) supposedly went through the files, and removed (redacted) extraneous information. No one knows what was actually removed. Earlier this year, I was told that my VARO still had the paper files. Last year they were supposedly not available for a BVA traveling board hearing ?? Copies the VA has sent in the past contained some blank pages, and some older claims records mysteriously vanished. It may be that a Writ will be the only way.

I would look into an NOD for the Jan 1 2016 reduction. Further, it's possible that home bound status (SMC S) might be applicable, since the veteran likely could not leave home for work.

There would need to be at the minimum, some sort of record of an in or during service event that could be used as the basis for a nexus. Are there any existing A.O. related awards for anything? Otherwise, the VA (and most everyone else) will say that the condition is a fairy common problem, and the result of "normal" living, working, and aging. Exceptions relaxing the "rules" do exist, but, from the information given, it sounds like they are not applicable. As a general comment, remember that the classical military retirement has been 20 and out. That in part is some recognition that military service can be quite wearing. I'm also currently fighting a back injury denial. There is minimal and possibly ambiguous reference to it in my service records. War zone service, awarded combat veteran status, and so forth that are applicable. The VA at the RO level, naturally denied, forcing an appeal. (Failure to apply combat veteran status rules and law) I'd likely not have appealed, but the rules for certain levels of SMC may be a factor for additional compensation.

It looks to me like 100% single condition + 70% single condition more than justifies SMC S. The others should entitle you to an SMC rating higher than SMC S. Given the severity and mix of the conditions, I'd suggest that you don't dither in getting things corrected.

A favorably filled out DBQ makes things a lot easier and hopefully faster. With or without one the VA is likely to call for a C&P. (Standard RO CYA practices)

Some reasoning to the logic? What logic? Anyway, It's likely that the VA's interests were best followed by just picking the next available C&P slot, regardless of other consideration.

"will soon start to be discounted " That's been going on for some time! The VA, unless forced to do otherwise, has often taken the less favorable opinion (usually from a VA examiner) even when the examiner is marginally qualified, over the favorable one from a fully qualified physician. (I.E. Board certified specialist, etc.) On appeal, the BVA usually catches this. But, it's occasionally necessary to have more than one favorable IME/IMO to counter an unfavorable in house opinion and C&P. One of the "reasons" the VA uses is calling an expert opinion "Speculation". After all, an opinion given decades after a nexus event is less probative than a more contemporary one. It's all in the evidence. I really get upset when the VA calls for a C&P that is clearly not needed, due to sufficient medical records and test results. At one point, the VA RO was trying to make me take a treadmill stress test, even though the medical records, test results, etc. showed that such a test was extremely hazardous to me, and the VA's own regs and guidelines said that a stress test was not to be given. On appeal, via Nehmer (the VA failed to place my name on the Nehmer list, etc.) the appeal results politely said that the VARO screwed up, and that the existing medical evidence was conclusive without the C&P and stress test. The fact that the VA was trying to force me to drive over a hundred miles over snow covered two lane roads in Georgia to attend the C&P was not even mentioned. There were two other VAMC locations that were closer or easier to get to that had the ability to do the C&P, including the VAMC across the street from the VARO.

Your problem is not an infrequent one. Even insurance companies are trying to get out of paying for such things as MRI's. Personally, I do not trust VA PCP's to make decisions based upon the best interest and outcomes for individual veterans. Instead, the "party line" often seems to be as or more important. While I use the VA for no cost prescriptions, the majority of those are originated by non VA doctors. In the not so distant past, I had examples of the VA supplying prescriptions using generics that were not intended for the US market. In short, if I were you, I'd get an opinion and evidence from outside VA, then proceed.

Not that I know of. But, certain disabilities/conditions are considered permanent, due to the very nature of them.For instance, IHD with LVEF % below 30%. (SC'd @ 100%) The only "cure" is heart transplant, which then gets into another set of disabilities and associated conditions. There are mechanical "helpers" that can be implanted, on a temporary or permanent basis, but they have serious limitations as well. A rule of thumb guide I'd consider is if the condition is likely to eventually be terminal. The VA disability schedule, in many cases, also shows hints as to P&T or not.

There are fairly strict limits about holding/having a job and TDIU. Obviously if you are able to work, then you are not in reality TDIU. (Although it's possible to meet the VA TDIU requirements.)

That's a bit much. But, a complex IMO can get expensive, due to the time required to properly support the opinion with valid references and s forth.

I'd likely see about voiding the NG enlistment. Can't have both. I'd think that you would not be deployable with the problems you mentioned.

There is such a requirement with caveats. But, do you really want someone to fill out such a form when they don't want to?