ptsd Post-Hoc And Cue I Think

[mos1833]

in my claim for my back injury, i have tried for years to get the va to assist me in gathering my records.this makes me so mad i cant stand it,below is what i think is a cue because the board ( as stated here is board trying to argue against the courts remand) post-hoc ? they keep asking for the wrong records , i told them i never applied ptsd,and i dont need any verified stressors,i just need the to get the morning reports and lite duty records , any way does this part look right or is it just me ??

REMAND

In part, the Joint Motion stated that because the Veteran had

stated that following two inservice back injuries he had been

placed on light duty for the remainder of his career during

service, the Veteran's service personnel records should have

been obtained prior to the Board's having adjudicated the

claim on the merits.

In this regard, the Board notes that following a March 2006

request, the National Personnel Record Center (NPRC) stated

that it had conducted an extensive and thorough search for

its records and was unable to locate the records requested

(i.e., the Veteran's service personnel records in conjunction

with a claim for service connection for PTSD). On the basis

of the request presented, the NPRC concluded that the records

either do not exist, the NPRC did not have them, or that

further efforts to locate them at the NPRC would be futile.

Nevertheless, the Joint Motion, which has been approved by

the Court, instructs the Board to remand the case for the

purpose of obtaining the Veteran's service personnel records.

[Berta]

,"so is it me or is the remand letter to the ro from the board trying to justfie the boards action,post - hoc that caused the remand ? thanks guys "

Basically the remand is to justify the remand from the Court.

The BVA's wording is curious:

"On the basis

of the request presented, the NPRC concluded that the records

either do not exist, the NPRC did not have them, or that

further efforts to locate them at the NPRC would be futile." and it goes on to suggest they were requested for a PTSD claim and not a back claim.

"berta my lawyer seems to not care about any thing that happens at the ro"

A lawyer's prime care is Evidence.

In my opinion- if I were the lawyer- I would have questioned this statement when the joint remand was negotiated:

"the Board notes that following a March 2006

request, the National Personnel Record Center (NPRC) stated

that it had conducted an extensive and thorough search for

its records and was unable to locate the records requested

(i.e., the Veteran's service personnel records in conjunction

with a claim for service connection for PTSD)"

If they sought the personnel records for a PTSD stressor (highly unlikely they would find one that way)

this suggests they overlooked SMRs for records regarding your back injury as well as any light duty records regarding the back injury---

If I were you I would contact the lawyer and ask them how they intend to challenge this.

But in the meantime-yo need to try any way at all to support the claim.

Have you been able to get any buddy statements?

Have you yourself contacted NPRC

[mos1833]

berta i am having trouble getting any thing to post, but let me say they have three volumes of lay and medical evidence including a buddies letter.the va says none of it is carries enough weight to over come the fony c&p exams on the records. i have pointed out to the va since day one,that the nrpc told me that they didnt have my records,i told them the records was with the marine corp,and gave them the address, guess WHAT they returned that information to me saying it was cumulative and they had it,dang i get so mad.how do you fight that ?

[Berta]

Can you give us the Docket number and citation number (or the link itself) to the BVA decision that caused the CAVC joint remand?

"but let me say they have three volumes of lay and medical evidence including a buddies letter.the va says none of it is carries enough weight to over come the fony c&p exams on the records"

You might well need to obtain an independent medical opinion.

If we can read your BVA decision we could better advise you.

[mos1833]

berta thanks so much, in these claims youll see i got my va treating doctor to write a opinion in my support,but the va said it was general in nature,

at the board its 95-42 640 the ones from tennessee are me PLUS they used it for another vet in 1993 same page.

[mos1833]

hi all

this is just an update on my claim. it also shows the board or the ro cant read orders from the court.

the orders were to make a new request for my personnel records. instead they just did a copy and paste.

which was wrong to begain with. ide like to see the actual request--or can i . the board just posteded their decesion in 2011,at their site docket no. 95-42 640

below is what they did. in 2006 they requested records for a ptsd claim not for the records related to my back injury.

In conjunction with the March 2010 remand, NPRC, in April 2010, again forwarded the results of the April 2006 prior search conducted which indicated that NPRC had conducted an extensive and thorough search of the records among their holdings. It noted that it was unable to locate the records identified in the request (personnel file). NPRC concluded that the records either did not exist or the records were not located at NPRC.

[NSA-Saigon-ET]

I read your posts and also looked up the docket number you supplied. The order from the board seemed to be quite clear to me.

Here is the remand part I copied:

REMANDAt the November 1997 hearing the veteran indicated that he received treatment at the Lynbrook Satellite Clinic, that he went to the Vet Center in Brooklyn, that he was in receipt of Social Security Disability, and that a Dr. Roy at the VA Medical Center, Northport told him that Agent Orange caused his liver condition. The Board finds that all the veteran’s records should be obtained from the aforementioned facilities.New evidence was received at the Board in April 1998 which has not yet been considered by the RO. This evidence includes records of medical treatment at the Northport VA Medical Center dated from January 1996 to March 1998. Consideration of this evidence has not been waived by the veteran or the veteran's representative; therefore, the RO must review this evidence before the Board can enter a decision. 38 C.F.R. § 20.1304© (1997).The Board also notes that the criteria for evaluating PTSD changed during the appeal process. Therefore the disability must be evaluated under the old and new criteria and the most favorable applied. Karnas v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 308 (1991). Therefore the Board finds that a new examination should be conducted and the PTSD evaluated in light of Karnas.For the reasons stated above, this case is hereby REMANDED to the RO for the following actions:1. The RO should obtain any of the veteran’s records, which are not currently in the claims file, from the Social Security Administration, VA Medical Center, Northport, Lynbrook Satellite Clinic and Vet Center, Brooklyn. Any other VA medical records of the veteran which are not currently in the claims file should be obtained.2. If the records from the VA Medical Center, Northport do not contain a statement from Dr. Roy, the veteran should be informed that he should obtain a statement from Dr. Roy regarding the relationship of his liver problem to Agent Orange.3. The RO should schedule the veteran for a psychiatric examination for his PTSD. The RO should furnish the examiner the old and new criteria of diagnostic code 9411. The examiner should first make findings using the old criteria and then make findings using the new criteria. The examiner should state whether the veteran’s PTSD precludes employment. The claims folder should be made available to the examiner.4. When the above actions have been completed, the pending issues should be reevaluated by the RO and, in the event a determination remains adverse to the veteran, the claims folder and the assembled data should be returned to the Board for completion of appellate review after issuance of a supplemental statement of the case. No action is required by the veteran until he receives further notice.By this action, the Board intimates no opinion, legal or factual, as to the ultimate decision warranted. E. M. KRENZER Member, Board of Veterans' AppealsUnder 38 U.S.C.A. § 7252 (West 1991), only a decision of the Board of Veterans' Appeals is appealable to the United States Court of Veterans Appeals. This remand is in the nature of a preliminary order and does not constitute a decision of the Board on the merits of your appeal. 38 C.F.R. § 20.1100(b) (1997).- 2 -

So from this remand order, what is the problem?

NSA-Saigon-ET