• Topics

  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
    • Most Online

    Newest Member
  • Forum Statistics

    • Total Topics
    • Total Posts
  • Posts

    • Berta; I am typing up on letter as we speak to my congressman and I just noticed that there are issues with the C&P exams done back in July 2013.  Can you look at them attached in my original post?  I want to point out to you the feet C&P exam and the ankle C&P exam. During my claim process I had two C&P exams.  In July 2013 I had a C&P Exam for feet and ankles.  During that exam I supplied two DBQ’s that were filled out by my private Podiatrist Dr. James Hurst.  Those DBQ's were solid and my Podiatrist stated my diagnoses for all my issues were while I was in-service.  The C&P examiner Dr. Tesfaye Tetemke stated in the remarks section on BOTH C&P exams for feet and ankles, stated there is “for claimants condition of right foot condition, there is no diagnose because the claimant does not claim the condition”.  This is an error because my original claim of May 2013 states ankle and foot conditions.  He goes on to say that the Left Foot and Left Toe Condition on Left foot, the diagnose is already noted in the diagnose section.  He noted under diagnoses the morton’s neuroma as of 1992, he noted avulsion fracture of the RT 5th metatarsal as of 6/23/2013.  This is incorrect!    He then did a C&P exam for ankle conditions.  He then puts in the diagnoses section, right ankle sprain, 1993 for both, right 5th metatarsal fracture, 1993, left ankle synovitis, 1992.  The fracture he states as of 1993 here but states it as 2013 in above C&P exam.  He clearly made errors here!  He goes on to say in remarks that the right and left ankle conditions are noted in the diagnoses area. This should have warranted me a new C&P exam right? Furthermore, the DRO Steve Wilbur stated,  “ We have opinions relating this condition to falls in the military and also falls related to your service-connected left ankle condition after service.  Both opinions lack a rationale sufficient to support a grant of service.”  The two rationales he is referring to be the letters from my VA Podiatrist indicating my contentions were in fact service related.  This in it’s self should have warranted me a new exam!  The one letter is attached for your review.
    • We have a great benefit in Utah, based on what percentage your disability is.  However, I am struggling with my deed in both my spouse and my name so I only get 50% of my benefit since my spouse is not disabled.  Any thoughts on how to fix this?   
    • yes navy4 do as Ms berta suggested    ''The CUE would be a violation of 38 CFR 4.6. You could attach copies of the SMRs with the probative parts highlighted with a magic marker, to support the CUE claim''.  


Help - This Vet Has No Cib - Cab Award

21 posts in this topic

This vet has no CIB - CAB award.

Does this info from his 201 prove (as PTSD stressor) for combat vet?

13F10 - Asst Mach Gunner 14 Aug 1968


16F10 - Asst Mach Gunner 14 Feb 1969

along with


VN Counteroffensive Phase V

VN Counteroffensive Phase VI

Tet/69 Counteroffensive

Unnamed Campaign

I have scanned these forms and will try to upload them here.

Thanks for any and all responses.




Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Carlie I believe that his MOS (Combat Arms) and campains in Vietnam would prove to be PSTD Stressors. Only Special Forces and Infantry recieve the Combat Infantrymens Badge.

As for the Combat Action Badge which was authorized on 5 May 2005. He is not authorized for award as follows:

"(6) Retroactive awards for the CAB are not authorized prior to 18 September 2001, applications (to include supporting documentation) for retroactive awards of the CAB will be forwarded through the first two star general in the chain of command to CG, U.S. Army Human Resources Command, ATTN: AHRC-PDO-PA, Alexandria, VA 22332-0471."

HIs time of service in Vietnam is prior to the actual creation of the CAB.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have not had time to read the scans- but traditionally VA wants proof of stressor, unless PH, CIB or CAR is on the veterans DD 214-

My husband was USMC Vietnam- all USMC were considered infantry regardless of their MOS-

he had numerous decorations/awards but

he still had to prove his stressors.

Although Rod was in combat many times- his actual stressors had nothing to do with the direct combat-just the results in a few cases and many had nothing whatsoever to do with the firefights at all.

there were many reasons Vietnam vets had significant stressors.

Some considered combat as just part of the job.

Edited by Berta

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think combat MOS and Vietnam campaigns are enough to prove combat with the enemy. I could be wrong since I had combat MOS and Vietnam campaigns but no CIB since I was in an aviation brigade. I had Pathfinder MOS but ended up in Aviation.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't understand why the VA puts specific stressors on there criteria. Being shot at is being shot! Its at a disturbing situation that one finds one self in. As well as seeing the aftermath or being involved in a scud attack. The memories and experiences carry on for years but not the physical results. All a 201 has in it are your awards campaigns and duty assignments not the actual happenings of day to day things in a combat area. Its a broke system for sure.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with John-so would the VA- I know it doesnt seem to make sense but the VA wants proof of stressors.

A stressful event will be either documented in the unit morning reports or the vet can get a buddy statement.

I had a vet many years ago who wanted help with his claim- he related about 15 stressors to me and about 20 to his shrink-

they were all different-

JSRRC couldnt find proof of any of them.

He was in combat zone -Vietnam.

But he had no valid stressors.

Please check out my topic here under Stressors defined.

If it happened it can be proven.Most of the time.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now