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

jcntnc

Seaman
  • Posts

    2
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by jcntnc

  1. Go for it. If you have a rating, they aren't going to take it away, but be prepared to wait in line.
  2. Hello to all, and thanks to everyone.

  3. I'm the soldier that had the "CUE FROM HELL". IIII T.he V,: has conc~ded tha~ Mr.J had a valid diagnosis of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) at the time ! his claim was decided on July 27, 1984 (see Statement of the Case, dated 20 I0, pages 31-32). That diagnosis, rendered by Dr. D, Chief of Psychology Service, dated May 29, 1984, was clearly based on the veteran's traumatic experiences during the Vietnam War as no non-military sources of trauma were cited by the examiner in his report. The only question remaining, therefore, is whether or not the VA possessed at the time of the 1984 decision sufficient evidence of a verifiable stressor. Once again the VA has denied entitlement to an effective date for service connection for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) earlier than December 16,2005 as indicated by the Statement of the Case dated October 21, 2010, The veteran respectfully requests that this matter be appealed to the Board of Veterans' Appeals. 11. SIGNATURE OF PERSON MAKING THIS APPEAL '12. DATE 113. SIGNATURE OF APPOINTED REPRESENTATIVE, IF ANY (A4!vI-Dl):,YYYYj (NO[re ulred tfsigned by appellant. See paragraph 6 ofthe . uctions.] 14. DATE (J\;fMD1YYYY)j '~/f (?tIol (Continue on the hack, or attach sheets of paper, U).'ou need tnore space.) Adobe Live-Cycle Designer CONTINUATION SHEET FOR ITEM 10 The veteran's 1983 Statement in Support of Claim clearly indicates one of his major stressors as being his participation in graves registration while assigned to the 19th Support and Service Company at Qui Nhon. This stressor information was repeated at the time of his C&P examination and was very clearly annotated in Dr. D..... the time of the 1984 Decision the VA possessed extracts from an Operational Report for the US Army Support Command - Qui Nhon, the higher headquarters to the veteran's unit, for the period ending 31 July 1966, which indicated the total number of remains processed by the graves registration unit. It is reasonable to conclude that upon receipt of this information a fair application of the reasonable doubt doctrine (38 CFR 3.102 1984) would have led to the VA confirming the veteran's stressor related to his participation in graves registration. Inexplicably, the 1984 Decision completely ignored this critical evidence. When discussing stressors it only noted that the VA was unable to verify the death of a serviceman named "Swisher." There was no mention of graves registration as a stressor nor was there any discussion of the aforementioned report. As a result, the decision of the rater that "the evidence available is held insufficient to establish any particular stressor or life-threatening episode to which the claimant's current symptoms may be attributed" was clearly and unmistakably in error. When service-connection for PTSD was eventually granted by the October 20, 2008 Rating Decision, the veteran's stressor was confirmed based upon basically the same evidence that was available to the VA in 1984. The only new stressor information listed in that decision was an Operational Report for the Quarter ending April 30, }967 which essentially duplicated the information available in the earlier report. It is therefore reasonable to conclude that no significant evidence existed in 2008 that did not exist when the claim was denied in J 984. A finding of entitlement to an effective date prior to December 16, 2005 for the granting of service connection for PTSD on the basis of clear and unmistakable error is therefore warranted. The appellant hereby takes exception to and preserves for appeal all errors the VA Regional Office may have made or the Board may hereafter make in deciding this appeal. This includes errors in failing to adjudicate issues or claims reasonably raised by the record, even though not specifically mentioned by the appellant. This also includes all legal errors, errors in fact-finding, failure to follow Manual M21- L failure to discharge the duty to assist, and any other due process errors, Under the Veterans Claims Assistance Act of 2000, the VA must advise the appellant of how to substantiate his claim as well the existence of negative evidence and how to counter this evidence. (Attach
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Guidelines and Terms of Use