jvretiredvet

Senior Chief Petty Officer
  • Content count

    367
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About jvretiredvet

  • Rank
    E-6 Petty Officer 1st Class
  • Birthday 01/04/1951

Previous Fields

  • Service Connected Disability
    Some
  • Branch of Service
    Air Force
  1. Well, taking the additional records to the C&PE does not always - ok, rarely - mean that the RO doing your claim got the records. When you file for the temporary 100%, I suggest you also send those additional records to the RO. They may - or may not - make any difference in the initial rating. Please note that anticipated surgery in and of itself is not one of the criterium in evaluating a heart valve problem, DC 7000, or heart valve replacement, DC 7016.
  2. Folks, we should be reading regulations for what they state and not for what we want to read. As another poster opined, the area of SMC can be complex. However, the issue in this thread is not all that complex. Please follow along: 1. The OP for this thread carries SMC-s. 2. 38 CFR 3.350(f)(4) http://www.benefits....ART3/S3_350.DOC specifically states: "In addition to the statutory rates payable under 38 U.S.C. 1114(l) through (n) " . Please note that SMC-s is not mentioned. BTW, this applies also to 38 CFR 3.350(f)(3) 3. Based on what the OP wrote, I do not see how this paragraph applies to the OP, until/unless he achieves SMC-l. I hope that not-too-many troops now have this too-fanciful interpretation.
  3. In answer to your your specific questions: Now I have been awarded 100% Ischemic Heart Disease Any Idea how nthis will affect my SMC Rateing There will be no effect. You will remain at SMC-s. and I was told, ( Do not Know how truthful it is) What you were told is not all that correct. that housebound should have given me SMC L. No. "Housebound-in-fact" is SMC-s . SMC-s also is the 'statutory' housebound, where the veteran has total disability (a single schedular 100% or TDIU for a single disability) with additional combined 60%. Now my curiosty is up wondering what they will award with the new 100%. No change in the rating or the level of SMC. However, the additional service connected disability may be helpful in the event of your demise, either with DIC or the higher death benefit.
  4. OK then, DC 7016, 100% for 6 months after discharge from the hospital with another VAE. It seems strange though, that someone with 'only' a 30% evaluation for a heart condition necessitated a valve replacement. Did your condition worsen in the period between the CP&E and the date of the Rating Decision? Or, was this a medical decision to prevent things from worsening? Are you now part-pig or do you have a 'clicker'?
  5. You've got almost everything correct except for the statute of limitations for refunds. Prior to June 2008, the SOL was in fact 3 years. The HEART Act (PL 110-245) changed the SOL somewhat for retroactive VA disability determinations, either for retired military or for those who received a military lump-sum disability severance pay. That act allowed me to amend my 2002 return in 2009, but that was an exception for us old farts. Special statute of limitations. In most cases, under the statute of limitations a claim for credit or refund must be filed within 3 years from the time a return was filed. However, if you receive a retroactive service-connected disabil- ity rating determination, the statute of limitations is extended by a 1-year period beginning on the date of the determination. This 1-year extended period applies to claims for credit or refund filed after June 17, 2008, and does not apply to any taxable tax year that began more than 5 years before the date of the determination. So, depending on dates, we're either looking at a usable Statute of Limitations, or conversely Shit Outta' Luck.
  6. Well, the intent was noble yet incorrect on many issues. To have a service-connected disability re-evaluated you should submit a VA FM 21-526b and send it to the VARO in your state. The OP can go through the agony of a 526, but I'd recommend using VA Form 21-4138 . This link http://www.vba.va.go...21-4138-ARE.pdf allows you to type into the form and print it out. But, the local VARO is a real good idea. You are entitled to a special monthly compensation of 100% if your convalscence is longer than 21 days. First, it is NOT special monthly compensation of 100%; it would be a temporary 100% evaluation. Second, a period of convalescence has to be for more than 1 month; the period of convalescence must be either medically directed or statutory directed by the Rating Schedule. As this troop appears to be service connected for IHD, I presume he had coronary artery bypass surgery, evaluated under Diagnostic Code (DC) 7017 http://www.benefits.......4_104.DOC . A VA examination will be scheduled towards the end of the 3 month statutory convalescence. You will need to obtain a letter from your Doctor stating the following; date of surgery; type of surgery and days that the Doctor has given you for convalscence. Send these two forms to the VARO in your state. The address will be at the top of your rating decision, page 1. Send as much as you care to. But, if you are service connected for IHD and the surgery was a CABG, notification of the surgery with operative records should be sufficient. As always, please seek out the assistance of a veterans service officer in your area to assist you. I hope you are not a VSO.
  7. In addition to the emergency generator, will you request an automatic start-up and power transfer system? How about fuel for the generator? Seriously though, my suggestions: 1. Either buy or ask the VA for an Uninterrupted Power System (UPS), such as the type used for home computers, electronics, etc. The UPS sitting in my lap right now has enough battery power to power a CPAP for in excess of 8-10 hours. 2. If your local power system is so crappy, complain to the local power company.
  8. At this moment I am not inclined to go into the Internal Revenue Code so I will respond with references from IRS consumer guides. But if you want to go to the source: USC 26 http://www.law.corne.../uscode/text/26 . Section 61 discusses what is taxable income (basically, eveything is taxable unless specifically excluded by law). Section 104 covers disability. A statement was made that this only applies to disability severance? Yep, purt' much so. The 2011 IRS consumer guide Pub 17 Page 53 http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p17.pdf states: However, you must include in your income any lump-sum readjust- ment or other nondisability severance payment you received on release from active duty, even if you are later given a retroactive disability rating. Can the tax I paid last year on involuntary separation pay ($25k) be recouped as well since the VA is taking the non-taxed amount back ($75k)? I really feel taken for having to pay taxes on money I don't get to keep. The technical answer is that you did receive the entire $100k package, of which $25k was Federal income tax withholding (25% is required on all such lump sums). Remember, unless specifically excluded, it is taxable. Depending on your other income(s), filing status, exemptions, deductions, and your true marginal tax rate, you might have already received some part of that $25k back as a refund. The only recourse I can see is for you to somehow change the actual circumstances of your non-disability discharge with severance pay to a disability discharge with severance pay. This would be a long shot in any case.
  9. Are some here suggesting that procedures should be ignored when it seems convenient and one "knows" what the answer will be? It appears that many here want a decision before evidence. Unlike those here who know absolutely how easy and clear cut all VA claims always are ... here is my take: All claims are addressed on three bases for service connection: Direct, Aggravated or Presumptive, 'Direct" being the oldest and perhaps preferable (I'll ignore aggravated for this specific discussion). Even if the RVSR might 'know' he/she will be granting service connection on a presumptive basis, the RVSR still needs to address direct service connection based on the actual evidence (or actual lack of it). The letter was generated by a non-decision maker and was required by the Veterans Claims Assistance Act (VCAA); I'm sure that someone here might have heard of VCAA, I'm equally as sure that many here would complain vehemently if VCAA had not been been given, even though s/c had been granted because well, well it is an 'error' and veterans want to point out errors. In an official review, lack of VCAA would be an error even if service connection had been granted with spot-on effective dates and evaluations. If the veteran "knows" that service connection is going to be granted on the basis of presumption and he/she receives such a letter, there is no requirement for the veteran to provide anything more. Send in a letter/4138 that states all evidence has been submitted and to proceed with a decision. For the OP ..... WRT (3) Evidence showing that I have a skin disease contracted within one year of my last exposure to agent orange in 1968. (NOTE: Apparently the Atlanta VARO thinks multiple myeloma is a skin disease instead of a blood cancer). ... well, it could be a lack of knowledge, or a mis-type, or ... are you absolutely sure that you never mentioned anything about a skin condition in one of your letters to the RO? If you mention something even without specifically claiming it, is the VA to presume that you are or are not claiming it. Jest sayin'
  10. Certainly, check with the resources already listed. Here are some other possibilities: Many areas have something called "Independent Living Center" that assists folks to stay in their homes. There might be some financial assistance available through them. Check on your city, county or state disability office. For a short-term solution, try changing out the door hinges with these hinge extenders (sometimes called off-set hinges) http://www.disabilit...cgi/search.html . Some on-line sites sell a three pack, 'cause most doors anymore have three hinges. Due to the hinge off-set, you get an 'extra' 2 inches of usable door opening and sometimes that will work. Not optimum, but an interim solution.
  11. I have found many references that imply combat related service connected disabililities are exempt from disability severance pay recoupment. That's the way it is - now. The 2008 National Defense Appropriation Act Section 1646 http://www.govtrack....4986/text made this change. However, the effective date of the change was January 28, 2008 and it was not retroactive. Am I exempt from serverance pay recoupment since I am service connected for the injuries while deployed to the Persian Gulf? I understand that you took a lump sum disability severance way back ... is that correct? Furthermore, you are not drawing Ch 61 retirement pay ... is that correct? If so, I don't see how you can get around recoupment. However, if you are drawing Ch61, you can apply to your service for Combat Related Special Compensation (CRSC) and the service would make that determination. here is an application form: http://www.eglin.af....-080905-039.pdf Under current rules, you can draw CRSC as well as VA disability compensation - but only if you are retired under Ch 61 or are retired with over 20 years service. You also must remember that something that occurred while you were in a combat zone and something that occurred as a direct result of combat may be two different things.
  12. Why are you confused? What specifically confuses you?
  13. Remember, I am doing a great deal of this from memory, so be gentle ... In the May 11, 1999 issue of the Federal Register http://www.gpo.gov/f...df/99-11768.pdf , the criteria for Diagnostic Code (DC) 6260 were changed somewhat. Per page 25206: The previous rating schedule provided a 10-percent evaluation for tinnitus, DC 6260, with the criteria being: ‘‘persistent as a symptom of head injury, concussion or acoustic trauma.’’ We proposed to remove the requirement that tinnitus be a symptom of head injury, concussion or acoustic trauma and that it be persistent and instead provide a 10-percent evaluation for recurrent tinnitus. The change resulted in: 6260 Tinnitus, recurrent ......................... 10 Note: A separate evaluation for tinnitus ]may be combined with an evaluation under diagnostic codes 6100, 6200, 6204, or other diagnostic code, except when tinnitus supports an evaluation under one of those diagnostic codes. While it would seem to indicate that there would be a single 10% evaluation for the condition "tinnitus", neither unilateral nor bilateral was mentioned specifically. Now, dredging up from memory ... In the May 14, 2003 issue of the Federal Register http://www.gpo.gov/f...df/03-12038.pdf , clarification guidance specified that a single 10% was warranted for DC 6260, whether unilateral, bilateral or within the head. I think the rational for the clarification is pretty much valid. In close proximity with this clarification, there was a lawsuit alleging that a separate 10% evaluation for each ear was authorized (or, perhaps better to say 'not unauthorized'), and there were a fair number of new claims and claims for increase for bilateral tinnitus. I do not recall the decision year or the name of the decision. The upshot? Those veterans with an extant claim for bilateral tinnitus at the time of the judicial decision were authorized separate 10% evaluations. So, there likely are a few folks still out there with "schedular" 10% + 10% for tinnitus.
  14. 2012 Annual Retiree Statement and Form 1099-R Available December on myPay http://www.retirees....sp?id=123328004
  15. I am going to file the NOD .... To be honest, I don't think that this NOD would be successful. However, it is your right to appeal if you want to. ... if it was service connected it should go back to my first filed claim, right? Not necessarily. Am I screwed because this was a re-open of the claim with new evidence? I don't know that I'd say you were screwed at all. You filed a claim in 2009 that was denied on two bases: Direct and Presumptive; that claim became finalized because you did not continuously 'prosecute' your claim. In 2012, you filed to reopen your claim with New and Material Evidence. Based on that evidence, service connection was granted. In this case, the effective date would be per the opening paragraph of 38 CFR 3.400 http://www.benefits....ART3/S3_400.DOC