This eBook will teach you how to get C-Files (paper and electronic) from the VA Regional Office.
How to Get your VA C-File


  • Topics

  • Forum Statistics

    • Total Topics
      60,333
    • Total Posts
      389,738
  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Sleep Apnea Claim
      EODCMC,   Same here, just went to gathering evidence or as we like to call it gathering dust stage!!! First of all, was it a standard claim or a FDC so called fast claim? If it was a FDC (fast claim) then the expected wait time should be posted in the claim application. Probably around 6 months. Either way, this is usually the longest stage of the game, so sit back and relax and find a good hobby that will take your mind off this process. Many a vet including myself have driven themselves crazy by looking at ebenefits every hour expecting it to change. By what you are saying you should have no problem getting your claim approved but, you never know with the VA.  Anyway, Welcome to the HADIT Family!!!!  Spend some time researching stuff here and remember knowledge is power when it comes to the claim game!!!                                                                                    Silver
    • Sleep Apnea Claim
      Hi, I am a 30 year retired vet. I retired 13 years ago. I as recently diagnosed with "very severe" obstructive sleep apnea. The machine they gave me is preset on the highest output flow. My episode exceed 35 times an hour with some lasting more than 30 seconds.  I was diagnosed with sleep apnea a couple of years prior to retirement and the study and diagnosis is documented in my record. In fact, they wanted to operate on my uvula. There lies the rub. The operation could have ended my career so I didn't persue. Additionally, while on active duty I developed severe chronic sinusitis and allergic rhinitis and this also is documented in my service health record. I have been living with this and chalking it down to getting old. Fast forward...I recently got a machine that they say I have to wear for the remainder of my life. I just learned that Tricare Prime does not pay for it all. So, I researched online and submitted a claim the E-benefits and it has been received and was under review until today when they changed this to "gathering of evidence" Development Letter Sent. Does anyone know what this means? What do I have to look forward to concerning the process. I watch the news. It doesn't look good, right? thanks in advance.
    • My husband died in motorcycle accident
      Your Welcome Page, don't worry about missing the show  there will be more shows. btw, the 33% that attorney quoted you is a little expensive in my opinion'' but'' DIC Cases I'm not that familiar with/just with regular VA Claims its usually a 20% deal However I heard of Some Charging that much  or have  a 20% fee and a clause for   another fee for extra work they do or had to do...I can imagine  a lot is involved  so who's to say 33% is to expensive....its just right if you win...but that's a big'' if'' The attorney will have to do a lot of digging and records to look at phone calls & other personal to pay calls ect,,,ect,, DIC Cases as we learn from Ms berta are very difficult   especially a case  such as yours.  you have to do what you believe is right, I'm sure your late husband would want that for ya. You might want to ask Ms berta about your time-line limit? unless you have an Attorney Already?  Anything you can do to not let your Limit run out will help. if you can Request an extension or more time to prepare your case?  IDK? Take Care .............Buck
    • DRO hearing
      I have a hearing coming up on Thursday for Bowel Incontinence. Yesterday my POA stated that the DRO wanted me to have another C&P exam for the Bowel Incontinence. Here is the thing Dr. Bash diagnosed this back in 2012. Again in 2013 and I've had 2-3 C&P exams since 2012 for the same things.. The VA, a PA and GI Surgeon both diagnosed the same exact thing in July 2013, Bowel Incontinence secondary to my Lumbar DDD/DJD. On the original decision the RO stated it was not diagnosed. This is wrong because they had in their hands Dr. Bash's IMO which showed the diagnosis then in 2013 whenever the VA Surgeon finally diagnosed it they still are denying me but the only reason they gave so far that it was not diagnosed. Everything Dr. Bash diagnosed has been diagnosed by the VA. As a matter of fact they approved me for IU based on the same Dr. Bash IMO!!!!! So how are they allowed to pick and choose what to believe on the report when the diagnosis has been proven by the VA? This is crazy. I am going to refuse ANOTHER C&P exam on the grounds that they already did 2-3 exams, Dr. Bash did 2 exams and the VA (James A. Haley) did two of them (One from PA and One from the GI Surgeon). Am I correct to say they are just trying to low ball me severely knowing it would put me over the SMC and P&T threshold? I told my POA that I will in fact just send it to the BVA if the RO doesn't want to make a decision. They all know I have it so why are they low balling me? I am on SSDI all just for service connected issues, nothing else and I was just award my SSDI continuation. So what gives and how should I approach them at the hearing? I will try to keep my cool because the have sat on this too long. Rob
    • New Proposed VA Reg Vets Should Know About
      Pete...I hear ya.  Now, the VA has an excuse to delay the appeals for 10 years, instead of the current 5 year delay plan.  FDC = Fully Delayed Claim, and Finally Denied Claim.  
    • New Proposed VA Reg Vets Should Know About
      We all know that there is no accountability with VA. I personally had a claim denied several times by VA then when I filed an appeal BVA remanded it several times (twice) trying to get the local VA to grant my claim since the record proved that my claim warranted service connection. Then when the local VARO continued to deny my claim the BVA ALJ decided to deny my claim also. Of course all this did was add years to my waiting. Since the BVA ALJ denied my claim I had to get a lawyer and file a claim to the CAVC. The CAVC remanded my claim and then the BVA ALJ granted my claim. I am talking about a decade of playing VA game of you should be, you should not be service connected. This is with all the evidence in  my records. I admit that someone messed up but no one wanted to correct the mistake so they (VA) wanted to screw me (the veteran) over.  I wonder how many veterans they have screwed over.
    • My husband died in motorcycle accident
      I'm upset that I missed it. I was not able to get online. I will make sure to catch the show in the archives. Thank you for all the information Buck!
    • My husband died in motorcycle accident
      Sorry Ms berta,   The show was on tonight  and it was a dandy DR Bash & Att John Dorle  were on and Dr Mark Worthing  Called in & They all had a great discussion, I sure wish Page 1006 could have called in ask about her claim and about what Attorney to help with her case. Lot of good information was passed on tonight with Claims, Mark talked a bit about Sleep Apnea, and him and John and Dr Bash was just full of Information tonight..I bet they missed you calling in, Alex was not on tonight hope he is feeling well?  Jbasser and Jerrel Had a great show   the hour went real fast, there going to get Dr Mark Worthing to come back as well as Dr bash &  Attorney John Dorle Be sure and catch the show later in the archives.   ..............Buck I thoroughly enjoy the show tonight.
    • My Cue
      If I understand correctly it is one year.  Though don't take my word for it.  I am in the same boat.  Messed up on my original claim many years ago and am now trying to fix the mistakes I made.   I wish you luck, stick in there.
    • NOD - VA Form 9
      IF YOUR LOCAL VSO DID NOT FAX OR SEND THE FORM TO JANESVILLE, WI.,  THATS THE PROBLEM.. YOU DO NEED TO FILL OUT THE 21-526EZ AND FORM 9 .  YOU CAN DO THIS THRU EBENEFITS OR FAX IT TO:  844 822 5246.  (PERSONALLY I USE THE FAX METHOD)    VA HAS A NEW PROCESS WHEREIN ALL DOCUMENTS GO THRU JANESVILL..SEND IT TO THEM ASAP... BOTH OF THESE FORMS CAN BE FILLED OUT AT THE VA WEBSITE  WWW.VA.GOV AND THEN PRINTED/SAVED PLEASE POST YOUR SOC SO OTHERS CAN CHIME IN.....

  • HadIt.com Veteran to Veteran providing FREE information and community to veterans since 1997.

    I am proud that I've been able to offer all that HadIt.com has for free for 19 years and continue to do so. HadIt.com does accept contributions to help with costs we also offer paid ad free subscriptions. None of the paid options are required. The forum, the website, news site and podcast are free and will remain so. If you choose to support the site with a contribution or a subscription it is appreciated but never required. If you choose to make a contribution or purchase an ad free subscription, you can do so here. 

Berta

Award Letter

17 posts in this topic

hours ago I irised VARO Buffalo to remind them I won 6 claims issues under Nehmer-I wanted to do this hopefully before the award letter came .

I just got the award letter in the mail-

They awarded me SC death but forgot to mention the money!!!!!

And they skillfully completely ignored that this is now a death directly due to AO.

I am calling up NVLSP- I am livid -

They also said they enclosed a pamphlet as to additional benefits I am entitled to but the pamphlet wasnt in the envelope.

And then they sent a separate statement that my CUEs are still on appeal-

but my award should render them moot and they still have to decide SMC.

They cannot do a single thing right- the BVA decision clearly states I an entitled to offset FTCA refund as well as other ancillary benefits- what a bunch of DOPES!

I will re send my Iris as a complaint and then maybe I will get respond from someone there who is literate

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites




sorry for double post- I irised them and it felt good to send as complaint-

I referred them to my Iris of a few hours ago-I did their work for them-

I told the VSCM ( Looks like a shuffle has occurred there on the past VSCM-she is not VSCM anymore) that if he reads my prior Iris he can write a proper award letter-

as I wrote it for him- the dope

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can they be that dumb on purpose?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

John they regularly do stuff like that to me so the answer is YES they can and do things like this DUMB all the time even after it seems like they know they have been caught and it's time to quit playing, yet the games continue so it has to be on purpose who is going to hold them accountable?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They owe me almost a 6 figure award- it will be over 6 figures when I figure out the accrued SMC .

They do this deliberately-

I called the VSCM at his desk phone and left message for him and I filed Iris complaint-

I think when they stall for so long ( this all took over 6 years but they had all the evidence in 2003 and 2004-the same evidence the BVA awarded on -on April 29th)

they know the retro is a biggie-

I could not send them a letter last week-PC problems- but I have the evidence attached to the letter as prove of what they owe me-

and I listed it all in my iris complaint- of course they have all this in the c file anyhow-

They will have to CUE themselves on both decisions I just got.

But what great evidence I have now for the next Sub COmmiittee hearing in June (oversight/investigations) to prove how incompetent they truly are. :unsure:

Unless they fix this fast.The BVA award covers all of my 6 pending issues.

I got Rod Peace with Honor-so I dont mind playing their little war game for the money-

But it gets me that many widows out there would not have a good rep or be able to handle a award letter like this themselves.That is a Travesty.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Berta, I don't know if you remember a few weeks ago when Buffalo sent me a decision letter telling me that my knee had always been rated at 20% and would continue to be rated at the level, even though it was going from 10% to 20% that I had requested a DRO hearing on. I had sent an IRIS about it and never got a reply. A week or so later I got a decision letter telling me that my knee had been approved for 20% (along with my IVDS/DDD). Long story short, I already got my retro a week and a half ago and whadda ya know, 2 days after that I get a reply to the IRIS about the first decision letter saying "that was a typo, please ignore that letter, your knee is rated at 10% pending the DRO hearing results".

Stay on them! I think that we have Buffalo scared. I was going to drop my possible CUE for a EED for my knee, but ya know what, $12000 or so in retro sounds good to me so I think I'm gonna file it after all. they seem pretty willing to apply the law fairly right now.

Sorry for the set-back, but you will win!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They are jacking you around Berta. Lawless ratfinks.

This is how they treat the widow of a Vet they killed. They play with them like a sadistic game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

x

x

x

Berta, Would the General Counsel assist you? Who is responsible for paying you; which VA Office has the authority, would that be the Finance Office in Austen, Texas? ~Wings

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sometimes you get lucky and the new VSCM is better than the last one. It just takes a while for them to get up to speed when they first step into the job.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Berta, we all know that if anyone can get them straightened out...it is you...sorry for all the hassles they seem to still be putting you through. It will all be over soon.

Six figure retro is definitely worth the pursuit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What gets me the most

(every single award letter I ever got since 1996 was wrong and I had to fight them but it didnt take long to correct them-to include Chap 35, CHAMPVA -every single one)

is that this claim was filed due to Agent Orange.

is that the BVA decision stated that Rod's AO exposure caused his misdiagnosed diabetes and also his death since it was never treated.

The VARO never mentioned this at all in the award. The reasons and bases does not account for the nexus to AO at all.That is an insult to my husband.

(and of course they never mention I proved the additional malpractice).

But they do grant direct SC death.

Wings- good idea- I am calling the regional counsel up here-instead of in DC because he is the one who awarded my CUE some years ago-a CUE claim both VARO and BVA denied and I didnt pursue to CAVC.

They sent this out so fast they did not realise they have to get a hold of him for the offset refund anyhow.

I love the lawyers who work for VA.They speak the same lanquage we do here- 38 CFR-

and understand it intimately-

unlike the VARO employees who do piss poor work and get paid wonderful GS level salaries.

This is exactly what many VAROs did a decade or more ago- they withheld Millions of dollars in retro that should have been paid to AO vets and widows

They must think we are so dumb we will allow them to get away with that again.

I will get this squared away

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Can they be that dumb on purpose?

I do believe they can be that dumb on purpose.

§ 3.54 Marriage dates. states:

A surviving spouse may qualify for pension, compensation, or dependency and indemnity compensation if the marriage to the veteran occurred before or during his or her service or, if married to him or her after his or her separation from service, before the applicable date stated in his section.

© Dependency and indemnity compensation. Dependency and indemnity compensation payable under 38 U.S.C. 1310(a) may be paid to the surviving spouse of a veteran who died on or after January 1, 1957, who was married to the veteran:

(1) Before the expiration of 15 years after the termination of the period of service in which the injury or disease causing the death of the veteran was incurred or aggravated, or

(2) For 1 year or more, or

(3) For any period of time if a child was born of the marriage, or was born to them before the marriage.

(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 1304)

My husband retired from the Air Force in October 1998. (Served from 1970 - 1998) We were married April 2, 2006. That is CLEARLY within 15 years of his termination from the period of service in which the injury or disease was incurred.

My latest letter from the VA denies benefits because the law states you have to be married to the veteran for a year or more.

§ 3.54 is very clear. It is not hard to read. There are only 3 categories. Actually, being married within 15 years of the termination of service is the FIRST category. If you do NOT fall into THAT category, THEN you are only eligible if you are married for more than a year or have child with the veteran.

However, the VA was able to be "dumb on purpose" enough to IGNORE the FIRST category of entitlement for a widow, and make a determination that focused on the SECOND one.

This is not a matter of not looking hard enough to discover if I am eligible. They had to skip over the first category to read the second one.

And though I know they are often pressed for time, it seems like it would have taken LESS time to actually read all THREE sentences in § 3.54 (or even the FIRST sentence) than it took them to write a bogus denial letter based on bogus interpretations of the law.

Taking it one step further, the letter was actually a denial of the claim for HELPLESS CHILD benefits.

Though my son is is developmentally disabled, was disabled prior to the age of 18, and was LEGALLY ADOPTED by my husband - the VA determined he can not be entitled to helpless child benefits because *I* was not married to my husband for over a year before he died.

Yes, they can be that dumb on PURPOSE.

"....and for his widow, and his orphan"

Free

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am still reeling over their decision on my daughter's Chapter 35-

They awarded her one month of Chapter 35!!!!She is a veteran.

The dopes could not apparently read her application where it specifically asks for any military service period nor could they read her DD 214 attached to it.

I prepared her NOD and worded it very tough-and I attached the exact Chapter 35 regs they were too dumb to read.Actually they were same regs they had attached to the one month award letter-

Three weeks later she got the proper Chap 35 award -7 more years of

educational benefits due to 7 years of military service- I wonder how many times they got away with crap like that when a veteran is also eligible under deceased veteran's record for Chapter 35.

Only my accrued award letter of 1996 seemed to be proper -but now they have to send me one more year of accrued under Nehmer- I sure am glad I saved everything from them.

These errors are either deliberate, or these raters are under such extreme pressure that they cannot possibly make proper awards-

as you all know many more VARO employees are dropping dimes on them these days-as to their working conditions-

and the VA some time ago hired newbys to help reduce the backlog-which is worse than ever-

A few training sessions mean nothing when it comes to VA case law- it takes years of experience to learn all this stuff and no one knows it all-not even the veteran's lawyers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I do believe they can be that dumb on purpose.

§ 3.54 Marriage dates. states:

A surviving spouse may qualify for pension, compensation, or dependency and indemnity compensation if the marriage to the veteran occurred before or during his or her service or, if married to him or her after his or her separation from service, before the applicable date stated in his section.

© Dependency and indemnity compensation. Dependency and indemnity compensation payable under 38 U.S.C. 1310(a) may be paid to the surviving spouse of a veteran who died on or after January 1, 1957, who was married to the veteran:

(1) Before the expiration of 15 years after the termination of the period of service in which the injury or disease causing the death of the veteran was incurred or aggravated, or

(2) For 1 year or more, or

(3) For any period of time if a child was born of the marriage, or was born to them before the marriage.

(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 1304)

My husband retired from the Air Force in October 1998. (Served from 1970 - 1998) We were married April 2, 2006. That is CLEARLY within 15 years of his termination from the period of service in which the injury or disease was incurred.

My latest letter from the VA denies benefits because the law states you have to be married to the veteran for a year or more.

§ 3.54 is very clear. It is not hard to read. There are only 3 categories. Actually, being married within 15 years of the termination of service is the FIRST category. If you do NOT fall into THAT category, THEN you are only eligible if you are married for more than a year or have child with the veteran.

However, the VA was able to be "dumb on purpose" enough to IGNORE the FIRST category of entitlement for a widow, and make a determination that focused on the SECOND one.

This is not a matter of not looking hard enough to discover if I am eligible. They had to skip over the first category to read the second one.

And though I know they are often pressed for time, it seems like it would have taken LESS time to actually read all THREE sentences in § 3.54 (or even the FIRST sentence) than it took them to write a bogus denial letter based on bogus interpretations of the law.

Taking it one step further, the letter was actually a denial of the claim for HELPLESS CHILD benefits.

Though my son is is developmentally disabled, was disabled prior to the age of 18, and was LEGALLY ADOPTED by my husband - the VA determined he can not be entitled to helpless child benefits because *I* was not married to my husband for over a year before he died.

Yes, they can be that dumb on PURPOSE.

"....and for his widow, and his orphan"

Free

I agree with you on the wording of the regulation that the word or is significant. I've got a few ideas for you. Look to the bottom of the regulation in Code of Federal Regulations and see if it lists the authority found in Title 38 U.S.C. Perhaps V.A. is interpreting this regulation contrary to the law it was enacted under the authority of. Next go to the website of the U.S. Court of Veterans Appeals and search cases under 3.54 to see if there are any similar cases that can help you craft your notice of disagreement with V.A.'s decision.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
John they regularly do stuff like that to me so the answer is YES they can and do things like this DUMB all the time even after it seems like they know they have been caught and it's time to quit playing, yet the games continue so it has to be on purpose who is going to hold them accountable?

T.....I have to say what the VA is doing is far from dumb.

As I have stated on here before ....I read some where that only about 8% of Vets ever file a NOD so the VA is coming out way on the high side.

Also, if one doesn't know of a site like this one, they have no idea what the ultimate goal of the VA is & my opinion ( Not very smart but I can have an Opinion HA) is that the VA does all this to frustrate the VET & they will just give up or miss a due date of which the VA has none.

Or maybe just maybe the Vet will die & no one will have any idea they could still pursue the case.

The best thing the US (VA) could do is stop being in so damn many wars & then there wouldn't be so many Vets messed up by the incompetance that runs amuck in the VA/& or military.

I also read the Military was using Agent Orange at 600 times it's stated amount to get the result they desired

As all of these stupid things that are done come to light I would say the majority of Veterans are not even aware they are eligible for an award or figure it was so ong ago it wouldn't do any good any way to apply.

What the VA ought to do is send a shredder to each Vet that applies & tell him/her to put their claim in there & that is the new way claims are being handled. HA

Also, I believe these Raters figure they have a GS Rating so they are not worried about being fired & the person who runs these RO's don't want to lose their job by approving to many claims.

Thank U for reading my thoughts

GARY

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with Berta but add they always do those dumb things in their favor but rarely in the Veterans favor.

CBS News, several years ago, did a report on stores scanning errors. The store argued that it was impossible to keep track of hundreds of thousands of items, and that a small percentage of errors was expected and permissible.

However, they kept track of how often the scanning errors were less than the actual price and how often they were more, because, statistically, the scanned error should be less half the time and more half the time, as you are just as likely to enter a lower price than a higher price.

They found out the overpriced scans outnumbered the under priced scans by 95%. In other words, only 5% of the scanner errors were lower, 95% of the time the customer was overcharged.

Some groups are considering class action lawsuits over this..

In a similar way, the VA makes errors, of course, but the vast majority of the errors go against the Veteran, leading us to believe the errors, at least part of the time, were deliberate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I agree with you on the wording of the regulation that the word or is significant. I've got a few ideas for you. Look to the bottom of the regulation in Code of Federal Regulations and see if it lists the authority found in Title 38 U.S.C. Perhaps V.A. is interpreting this regulation contrary to the law it was enacted under the authority of. Next go to the website of the U.S. Court of Veterans Appeals and search cases under 3.54 to see if there are any similar cases that can help you craft your notice of disagreement with V.A.'s decision.

The US Code Reads the same:

§ 1304. Special provisions relating to surviving spouses

No dependency and indemnity compensation shall be paid to the surviving spouse of a veteran dying after December 31, 1956, unless such surviving spouse was married to such veteran—

(1) before the expiration of fifteen years after the termination of the period of service in which the injury or disease causing the death of the veteran was incurred or aggravated; or

(2) for one year or more; or

(3) for any period of time if a child was born of the marriage, or was born to them before the marriage.

Good idea on looking up Court of Veteran Appeals cases. I haven't done that yet. But - I don't think this is about actually interpreting the law. It is about leaving the part of the law that makes me eligible out of the decision.

There is not much to interpret. The law is clear. Was I married to the veteran within 15 years of the termination of the period of service in which he incurred the disability? Yes.

There is a difference between misinterpreting the law, and ignoring it.

That is why I say the VA is often "dumb on purpose."

They know better than to take the law and try to misinterpret it in this case. The law is too clear. So they just IGNORE that part of the law. They fail to mention it. They remain silent on that part of the law.

SSA did the same thing with my son's claim for Survivor Benefits. He was my husband's legally adopted child. Being his legally adopted child, he was eligible for benefits on my husband's record. Did they misintepret the law and state why he wasn't eligible as a legally adopted child? No. They merely informed him of all the reasons he was not eligible under the OTHER categories - and didn't mention the legal adoption.

Even wehn we specifically asked them to make an initial decision in regard to my son's eligibility as a legally adopted child - they failed to. We had to take it to the Hearing level. The decision was easy. He is the number holder's legally adopted child. He is eligible.

But until the Hearing level, SSA remained "dumb on purpose." They knew he was eligible as a legally adopted child, so they just left that part out. I think this is different than interpretation of the law. It is ignoring specific parts in order to deny benefits.

Pay close attention to the issues and the parts of the law they continually side-step. They intentionally side-step those to be "dumb on purpose."

Free

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