Philip Rogers

Berta, thanks! Yup, it was a great find by her. I owe her big time!!! It should be a shoe-in but ya never know w/the VA. At least if they deny, I'm prepared to take it to the CAVC, if necessary. The BVA judge properly applied 38 USC 1114(s), in this case and I'm sure there are more. pr

WAC-Vet75 and I have been discussing SMC(s) awards and how the additional 60% is totaled. See her recent posts and if you have the time give us your take. As an "insider," so to speak, you should be able to explain to us how the RO's deal w/this. Thanks you for your time!! pr

WAC-Vet75 - This is the proof I've been looking for. I received a call again yesterday on my claim asking "what I wanted to do." They, once again, explained that according to their chart I didn't qualify for SMC "s" - I tried explaining but they "wouldn't hear." I'll be there tomorrow with my updated evidence and since my claim is currently being worked on should have an approval within 60-90 days. jmo Check your messages. Thanks, again!!!!!!!! pr

emandg - welcome! I was an 11B and I respect anyone who served . . . period. To the 11B's who claim to have been in it 24/7, I say BS!!! Most were routine boring patrols, interlaced with moments of shear terror. I know some FB's had it worse than us, sometimes, and some had it easy, especially when on R&R, but for most the bases were hit once in a while. Anyway, welcome and good luck w/your claim!! pr

WAC-Vet75 - Thanks, that's just what I needed. I'll get it done the first part of the week and deliver it, later this week, when I have a scheduled appt. Thanks you very much!!! I sure can't see how they can go lower than "0" efficiency. I think they were just trying to mislead me, much like they do when they deny TDIU quoting 4.16(a) but not mentioning 4.16(b). We're learning! pr

WAC-Vet75 - is this from M-21??? If it is, could you please post a link, as this is just what I need?? I wish I had it, the other day, when the VA called about my claim. From what I read the 60% should be using regular math and they are trying to deny me stating I only have 50% because they used the combined ratings chart. Thanks!! pr

tompoe - I doubt any checks will be held up. No need to panic!! I notice this is your first post. I hope you didn't join just to create fear, among the troops, here?? The thing I hate is when they go back to work they get paid, just as if they worked during the "shut down." Grrrrr! jmo pr

You could win back to whenever you first filed for the symptoms of MS. You only needed to show 10% of the symptoms, then, meaning you didn't need to have fully blown MS but only needed some symptoms pointing in that direction. Unfortunately, I'm not familiar w/the symptoms of MS. If the spine stuff is related to the MS then it would be possible to go back to the original claim date. If you had them then and the VA missed or ignored them you could have a CUE and be entitled to an EED. The VA won't generally go back further than the date you applied. pr

I take it to mean that there is an additional 60% rating (besides the total rating) that is either 60% or more, or is additional ratings that combined equal 60% or more. I'm dealing w/this now. I feel the 60% is not totaled thru the combined ratings chart, as the claimant is already 100% and therefore fully disabled. To be using the ratings chart for this 60% would be penalizing the claimant twice for their disability. I'll be NOD(ing) their denial. This can be clarified if someone can find the section of M21 that deals with SMC awards. pr

JOHNboy99 - If, in fact, what the VFW told you is correct, it could take anywhere from 7-90 days, depending on at what level it was approved. If you gave the VA your banking info, for direct deposit, the money could show up before you even receive the actual decision. jmo pr

Personally, I recommend representing yourself. No one cares about your claim like you do. I've found most SO's suck and have represented myself for 15 yrs. You can represent yourself, w/a little help from hadit.com, but, that'll have to be your choice. jmo pr

It'll probably depend on when you filed your claim, unless you were discharged for those symptoms. jmo pr

It could be, provided your sleep apnea is SC. jmo pr

Double WOW and triple awesome!!!! Bet the VA appeals that decision but it's about time it happened! pr

John, I have an appeal, on the HB, that is going on 21 yrs. I am 100% for PTSD, and requested an inferred HB, which they denied and it has been under appeal for 21 yrs. The court remaned it about 2-3 yrs ago. My current rating is 100%, + one 20% and four 10%'s. They stated that that only equals 50%. I disagree and plan to NOD their denial. Personally, I think they are lying to me. Anyone have any thoughts??? Thanks, pr

I agree w/Berta, that she needs a RE lawyer. I see liabilities and I'd check w/an atty, just to be sure. A quit claim deed should suffice but she needs to see an atty. jmo pr

Berta - 1114(s) is 38 US Code, not CFR but I'm sure that was just an oversight by you. Here's 1114(s): (s) If the veteran has a service-connected disability rated as total, and (1) has additional service-connected disability or disabilities independently ratable at 60 percent or more, or, (2) by reason of such veteran’s service-connected disability or disabilities, is permanently housebound, then the monthly compensation shall be $2,993. For the purpose of this subsection, the requirement of “permanently housebound” will be considered to have been met when the veteran is substantially confined to such veteran’s house (ward or clinical areas, if institutionalized) or immediate premises due to a service-connected disability or disabilities which it is reasonably certain will remain throughout such veteran’s lifetime. Please see s(1) which states: "has additional service-connected disability or disabilities independently ratable at 60 percent or more, or,"That includes a combination of disabilities. My point was their math. I've seen other cases where the math is regular math and they are getting paid the additional SMC "S". pr

I agree, send it now. The VA will sometimes try to short ya, so it's best to do it now. pr

starsnstripes - I would file under CUE. Whether it qualifies is something different but I feel if you have the evidence you could win. jmo pr

bump

I can't say whether it's CUE but you can try it. You'll need to show they erred in their original decision and that it was not just a differing opinion. Personally, there's enough money at stake that I'd try it. jmo pr

This is from theVVA website: Looking for "Volunteers" of Chem-Bio Testing VVA is a plaintiff in a lawsuit seeking to illuminate the long-term harm done to service members who "volunteered" for testing of chemical and biological agents at Edgewood Arsenal, Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland, from the 1950s through the 1970s. The law firm that is representing VVA, the organization Swords to Plowshares, and six individual veterans, is seeking the names of "each and every" VVA member who is a "former member of the armed services who participated in programs of human experimentation into drugs, chemicals and other substances" . . including the dates that these members participated in the programs and the specific "drugs, chemicals and other substances," if known, that were tested on each of these members. Any VVA member who participated in this testing should please contact ASAP Bernie Edelman, VVA's deputy director for policy and government affairs, at 1-800-882-1316 ext. 118, or via e-mail at bedelman@vva.org .

I received a phone call from my VARO to discuss my SMC "S" claim. I was advised that altho I have ratings of 100+100+20+10+10+10+10, it doesn't equal the 100+60 required, for SMC. I thought once you were over the 100% the remaining 60% is totaled using regular math and not VA math. I guess I'm wrong. They also explained that I don't have two 100% ratings, because they converted my (1989)100% for PTSD to 100% for PTSD and alcoholism, in 1999. When I inquired about my 20 yr protection he couldn't answer my questions. It was kinda sad cuz I generally know more than he does. pr

The more I think about it, the more I feel this could be some type of fraud or scam someone's trying to involve her in. With all that's going on these days I'd advise against it. Why does she want to do it??? What's in it for her??? Personally, I'd pass on the offer. pr

She may not have any involvement but it does expose her to liability. As an owner she could become liable to anything the other person does with the properties. I am somewhat suspect that her friend could be involving her in some type of scam, especially since the properties are out of state. jmo pr