Jump to content
VA Disability Community via Hadit.com

VA Disability Claims Articles

Ask Your VA Claims Question | Current Forum Posts Search | Rules | View All Forums
VA Disability Articles | Chats and Other Events | Donate | Blogs | New Users

  • hohomepage-banner-2024-2.png

  • 27-year-anniversary-leaderboard.png

    advice-disclaimer.jpg

  • donate-be-a-hero.png

  • 0

Effective date question

Rate this question


Plumbob

Question

I retired 1 June 16, 1st VA claim submitted 2 June 16. I put a Intent to File on 14 June 16 for some issues that didn't make it to my retirement claim. Got my first claim done in Aug 16, I waited till April 17 to File again. My claim was complete last week, got a increase and received the letter today.

Received some back pay, but the letter says my effective date is April 17. I was under the impression that it would go back to my intent to File date at least, but also thought since I filed within 1 year of retirement it would go back to that date?

I called the VA yesterday, and she told me it was because that was the first I was diagnosed with it, which is true, I never thought of going to the doc for crapping all the time while on active duty.

Am I wrong

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Answers 6
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters For This Question

6 answers to this question

Recommended Posts

  • 0
3 hours ago, Plumbob said:

I retired 1 June 16, 1st VA claim submitted 2 June 16. I put a Intent to File on 14 June 16 for some issues that didn't make it to my retirement claim. Got my first claim done in Aug 16, I waited till April 17 to File again. My claim was complete last week, got a increase and received the letter today.

Received some back pay, but the letter says my effective date is April 17. I was under the impression that it would go back to my intent to File date at least, but also thought since I filed within 1 year of retirement it would go back to that date?

I called the VA yesterday, and she told me it was because that was the first I was diagnosed with it, which is true, I never thought of going to the doc for crapping all the time while on active duty.

Am I wrong

I am wondering about this as well, and not trying to hijack this thread, but perhaps we can both gain something from this...I placed an intent to file for ptsd/MDD back in 2014 and was reluctantly met with a denial in late 2016, had treatment all the while from local VA clinic, however, didn't have statements rendering a "diagnosis" just had treatment for "undiagnosed" ptsd....if the connection was made after-the-fact...why wouldn't any retro fall back to the date the complaint was originally filed, even with proof that the illness began on AD and treatment thereafter?

I feel like this is a way of botching Vet's from timely and proper compensation this way, because instead of Duty to Assist, they never requested information on any evidence regarding, specifically, a diagnosis for the treatment I was given for years...so they mean to say that along the doctor's notes and "Problem List" under MyHealth Blue button doesn't count for anything?? (which btw has the earliest registered date besides my ITF) still predates my date for the Reopening of my claims...

Help!!

Edited by awgv001
Oops
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
On 7/12/2017 at 11:00 AM, Plumbob said:

I retired 1 June 16

1st VA claim submitted 2 June 16.

I put a Intent to File on 14 June 16 for some issues that didn't make it to my retirement claim.

Got my first claim done in Aug 16,

I waited till April 17 to File again. My claim was complete last week, got a increase and received the letter today.

Received some back pay, but the letter says my effective date is April 17. I was under the impression that it would go back to my intent to File date at least, but also thought since I filed within 1 year of retirement it would go back to that date?

I called the VA yesterday, and she told me it was because that was the first I was diagnosed with it, which is true, I never thought of going to the doc for crapping all the time while on active duty.

Am I wrong

ITF becomes stale when you file.

Generally, generally, awards are from filing date (and non stale ITF date).

See Bronco's post below for dates within a year of dischatge

Edited by MikeHunt
Update with Bronco's info, remove off topic info
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0

Here's the processing instructions:

M21-1, Part III, Subpart ii, Chapter 2, Section C - Informal Claims Received Prior to March 24, 2015, Communication of an Intent to File (ITF), and Requests for Application

Relevant part:

Quote

III.ii.2.C.2.d.  Effective Date of Entitlement When an Application For Benefits Is Preceded by a Claimant’s Communication of an ITF

 
A claimant’s communication of an ITF is “active” for the purpose of assigning an earlier effective date of entitlement (as explained in M21-1, Part III, Subpart ii, 2.C.2.c) until the earlier of the following occur:
  • VA receives a substantially complete application for benefits, or
  • the one-year period following VA’s receipt of the communication ends

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
  • Moderator

If you filed within a year of your discharge, you should get benefits from the day of discharge.  Source:

https://www.va.gov/vetapp14/Files2/1417346.txt

In pertinet part:

Quote

As noted above, the effective date for claims received in the year following separation from service is the day after the Veteran's date of separation.  38 C.F.R. § 3.400(b)(2).  The Veteran's Department of Defense Form 214 shows that his date of separation was May 31, 2011.  The day following his date of separation is June 1, 2011.  Based on the foregoing discussion, the evidence reflects that the Veteran's informal claim was made in January 2011, before the Veteran's one year period to file a claim had concluded.

The way I read your post, you followed up with the ITF within a year.  Personally, I think the ITF is a very bad idea.  It puts your claim in the grey area..did you file or not.  Why would you send a letter to VA "Im thinking of filing for benfits".  

The obvious answer is, "Well, ok, if you want to file, let me know."  

Informal claims have to "show intent to file for benefits".  THe ITF should do that, but why not skip the ITF and just file?  As Mike Hunt pointed out, the Veteran has to jump through more hoops to "activate" the ITF.  

I can see no reason to send the Va a letter, "Im thinking about filing".  Instead, I file.  I can not see a useful purpose on the ITF.  Maybe someone can point out how a ITF will benefit a Vet.  

Edited by broncovet
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0

Thanks for the info!! I still can't find it in the m21-1

Effective Dates §3.400 General.

Quote

(2) Disability compensation—(i) Direct service connection (§3.4(b)). Day following separation from active service or date entitlement arose if claim is received within 1 year after separation from service; otherwise, date of receipt of claim, or date entitlement arose, whichever is later. Separation from service means separation under conditions other than dishonorable from continuous active service which extended from the date the disability was incurred or aggravated.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
  • Moderator

MikeHunt

    Agree,  I have MUCH more trouble finding stuff in M21, than in 38 CFR.   For example, I can simply google "38 CFR effective dates" and I will get a nice, applicable list.  M21 wont work nearly as well.  If you read case law, they often Cite 38 CFR's, or sometimes USC's, but rarely M21's, so judges must rely on the the CFR's and USC's also.  

    I think the rater's use the M21's, while the judges use the USC's and CFR's.  Frankly the judges dont really care what M21's interpretation says, they want to know what the law says.  I think that is why there is a "disconnect" going on here.  Frankly, the judges and the raters use and "entirely different" manual.  

    It would be like if you were a NFL coach, and give the players the NBA manual.  Crazy.  The players need to know exactly the rules the guys with the striped shirts enforce.  EXACTLY.  Not someone elses guess, but exactly.  Both feet have to be "in bounds".  Not just one.  

     Supposedly, they wrote the m21 so "laypersons" can understand it.  That is, the raters who are not lawyers, doctors, or dont have an advanced degree.  The judges, however, do have an advanced degree, and have no trouble understanding the USC's or CFR's.  They dont need a senior rater, who probably does not have a law degree,(who probably writes the M21's) explain the law to them.  

      In a similar way, a judge would not want to see "my" interpretation of the law, he will make his own interpreation.  

Edited by broncovet
Link to comment
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
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Guidelines and Terms of Use