FormerMember

Bradley isn't nearly as useful to comprehend this as Buie. In some ways Buie updates the Bradley jurisprudence. Give me an actual breakdown of how you see his ratings and the order in which you received them. Effective dates too, if you would. Sounds like they are doing a 3 card Monte game on you. If you haven't read Buie, see this http://asknod.wordpress.com/2011/09/27/cavc-buie-5-v-shinseki-0-2011/ a cp

<<<4. On seperation exam u stated that u do not have anxiety or depression>>> That is from your SF 88 or SF 93 (question # 16) Physical form you signed when you separated. It's a box you check so yes, you did state for the record that you were good to go if you endorsed the 'no' box by checking it. VA utilizes this technique every day. You will have a long hard road refuting that you "stated" that. VA will say you were under no duress when you filled this out. Best of luck on what appears to be a bad deal all around.

Jez. You're in Texas. There's no quick way to anywhere in Texas. Happiness is highly overrated, too. C&P exams are an exercise in futility for one reason. Most are conducted by your adversary unless you are obtaining one from a private doctor. The results are predictable thus you can expect to be depressed. I was lucky to serve towards the end of the Terry and the Pirates or the Steve Canyon era. At the ass end of the theater, uniforms and saluting were forbidden. You didn't get medals if you weren't there. The AF finally decided (with a little prodding) to give me mine after 40 years. The refer sounds like a good place to let them grow dust.

So I read this and I see "fear of attack". Were you ever actually attacked? Incoming? Multiple number of deployments? I guess I don't get this. I've dealt with quite a few guys who have PTSD bonafide-complete with stressors a mile wide. A chopper shot out from under them. Gooks inside the wire killing their buddies. The usual stuff but none predicated simply on being in-country. Pardon me if I seem pedantic, stupid and slow, but that's what you sign up for. If going to war is a known risk for bent brain, doesn't it follow that you simply say "Hold the phone. I changed my mind. This ain't gonna fly. I'll take the Big Chicken Dinner but no way am I going into that meatgrinder." This wasn't the draft where you didn't have an option. I strongly support the new regs coming out in the CFRs on MST. That is long overdue and some leeway has to be accorded women Vets because I know they were hit on- some violently-and still are. However, the whole concept of PTSD due to combat is (or was) wrapped up in violent, often graphic physical imagery of death and destruction. My good friend Gordon is missing a good-sized piece of his noggin and his right eye. One leg is shorter than the other. He has a colostomy bag. "His favorite rejoinder when someone looks at him askance getting out of his car in a wheel chair zone? "Hey. You ever stepped on a land mine buddy? Me neither. The guy in front of me did and it cut him and the guy behind me clean in half. I survived. Weird, huh?" Gordie has two purple hearts and a Bronze Star w/ a V device. He has his CIB and a wound medal. Even a Combat Action Ribbon. Oddly, what he doesn't have is PTSD. He said he didn't have time for it while he raised his four kids on a 100% comp. check. I came home after two years of it and moved to the desert to be alone. They booted me out with a General and called it personality disorder. My first wife took the kids and ran after three years. Help me fill in the gaps here. Is the mere fear that something "might" happen grounds for a 45 GAF? No anger here. Just a Vet wondering how this works in 2013. Do you get a CIB now for being "close" to the front? I guess they change the rules for every war. I'm glad you're winning. Mostly, I'm glad you came back alive. I'm certainly not vindictive. Uninformed about this SWA war maybe, but not angry or vindictive. I get to hear about the medical side on these boards but rarely hear how one gets from Fallujah to Hadit. a cp

I don't think he gets it, 63S. Expecting a good C&P nexus out of the VA is an oxymoron. It would be like hiring the attorney of the guy who t-bones you in an intersection and expecting to get a settlement in your favor. Hellooooooooooooooo? First, challange the results and ask for the doctor's specialty. You'll find he's a podiatrist or an ENT guy. Maybe a proctologist. A stethoscope does not a doctor make but it worked for Ben Casey.

That's plagiarism. You must have read my book. cp

The answer to many of these things is a matter of reading it carefully. Notice : The issue of entitlement to service connection for degenerative mitral valve disease, to include as secondary to service-connected supraventricular tachycardia, has been raised by the record, but has not been adjudicated by the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ). No. You did not file for it but some gomer decided they could hamster wheel you at the AMC. They needed breathing room and they got it. The BVA does everything at once so this means your whole claim is put on ice for the AMC to make a decision in the first instance as to whether the degenerative mitral valve disease has anything to do w/ the supra tach. $100 bucks says they come back with a denial on that and then you lose the increase to 30% There may or may not be some hanky panky with whose wire was whose, but it's fairly clear that the BVA is disinterested in it and concentrating more on the correct percentage for the supra tach rather than what it should have been in 2003. If you had a disagreement with what transpired in 2003 and did not appeal it, that is a done deal. You appear to have filed for it, and were given 10% but failed to appeal. You can only attack it via CUE. You currently have a claim for increase. The BVA VLJ has decided there is the possibility that you have degen mitral valve disease. They will adjudicate that in the first instance at the AMC because you signed a waiver giving them permission to do so. When they finish it, you will have two decisions decided by the BVA but not soon. If you are denied anew, your next trip is to the CAVC-- hopefully without that VSO chipmunk in your pocket. ​Pursuing it via the MEB will be rapid compared to the VA process but they will still have to incorporate it into a decision. We know where that has to go. Back to the RO for another decision based on original (revised) evidence. You should have this sorted out by 2017 now that the backlog is almost nonexistant. clear prop.

I Roger That John. No one boards a sinking ship - least of all one with a legal background. a cp

HQ is the ninth, tenth and eleventh Floors of 625 Indiana Ave. NW. If I remember correctly, the hearing room was on the ninth floor. I could be mistaken. Having Ken is like taking a chain saw to an 18th Century wood carving contest. a cp

Well, I see a problem. From my time helping Vets on hearing, I have spotted one thing. No matter how bad it gets, you'll never get to 100% unless you're stone deaf in both ears. Period. In fact, they usually don't begin handing out hearing ratings until you're toast in one ear already. They will not grant you a TDIU based on it being one of the major anchors (40% + other disabilities). Look at this one. http://asknod.wordpress.com/2013/10/30/fed-cir-geib-v-shinseki-youre-good-to-go-eddie/ Mr. Geib is 88 years old. Figure it out for yourself. Adding up a bunch of 10%s and then coming up short of 100% and hoping for IU ain't gonna happen. Adding up a bunch of non-life threatening ratings that merely make life more challenging and finding work harder to obtain do not constitute IU. Filing for depression is not a guarantee of getting it either. You actually have to be depressed clinically and you have to prove it's related to the hearing. You also have to prove it is severe enough to be compensable. Three very big ifs. Hearing ratings are about the hardest to get because they focus on the lower frequencies which are the least affected by trauma. Typically, you lose the high end like I did from too many things going boom too close for too long. The VA wasn't born last night and unless you can show some continuity for the depression in your civvie medrecs before you filed, they are gonna cut you to ribbons on it like Zorro. Three I know filed for the depression, secondary to hearing. One was granted but got 100% for the depression. Hearing? 0% compensable. Two were denied based on a diagnosis well after the onset of hearing loss. VA feels you should get bummed out as soon as it becomes apparent. They think maybe you're trying to pad the old ratings percentage when you start piling them on. In addition, total, utter, complete deafness in both ears will get you $100 extra month on SMC K. If you are blowing smoke rings for ratings, trust me when I say hearing is the least lucrative of all the avenues to the end of the rainbow. Just for the record here, I don't advocate anyone suggesting a fellow Vet should do the spaghetti on the wall trick and throw depression in if it isn't there. That is fraud. If Mr. Killemall has already filed for it and legitimately feels it is SC as a secondary, that is all well and fine but to suggest it out of the blue with no knowledge of his/her mental history is pointedly unethical and gives others the impression that maybe we all belong to the Safeway Slip on the Floor Club . That isn't advisable. This site has the absolute, unvarnished veneer of respectability and it is a hard reputation to attain. Keeping it so is equally difficult as many come here and form opinions based on what they read. I have learned over time that giving advice is like holding on to the wrong end of a double-edged sword.

Boy, if that's the case, I sure wouldn't relish having them. I know he has 10-12 assigned staff attorneys (Acting VLJs) in waiting but this is basically a rehash of the same decision with 'coerced' substituted for 'denied'. A do over is supposed to, by law reexamine all the pertinent files and perhaps give a peek at what I was contending. I see nothing other than a sour grapes approach. Very rare to see it written down. Very rare. Happy T-day to you and the rest of the crew, Carlie. I, too, look forward with interest to what VA accomplishes on this extended Fenderson expedition. A cp

And you wonder how Vets lose? The Blind leading the Deaf. I congratulate you on checking up. You just save yourself a lot of money but mostly time waiting in another line. Now follow up with a concise list of each and every part of it you don't like or feel is in error. Start with the diagnostic code for the disease /injury and look at the 50% you received and the next higher to see if your symptoms more closely approximate that higher one. Make sure to choose now whether you want to schedule a face to face Board hearing, a videoconference version or none at all. VA is notorious for lowballing us. Yep, gotta love those NSO mailmen. They are flat on it. And don't forget to pull up the VSO's tent stakes. Rescind your Power of Attorney before you get the claim certified and the Form 8 issued. You don't want Donny Deadwood in DC. I'd personally start reading the VBM for breakfast , lunch and dinner or consider hiring a law dog. It seems simple to argue for a higher rating but it must be based on facts already in the record. If they do not support 70%, you're trying to lasso unicorns. Best of luck. a cp

VA generally hands these down to the VAROs fairly rapidly such that you have a garbled, disjointed rating in about a month. I'm going to play mum until I see their cards. If there's any concertina wire in between the Hep and the PCT as to the EED, I have 120 days from November 21st to file my NOA back up to the Court and keep that one alive. This time I'll pound nails into it and go for a reversal and remand to comply. It's flat out wrong and they know they can't do it. OGC knows it but for some reason left it horribly vague with just enough salt on it to give old Hindin the idea which way the wind was blowing. One other thing they don't like to do is put the Judge on the spot and call him out on his stupidity. The proper way was to let him find the Easter egg. The OGC just leads them over until they're close to it. Have any of you ever met the Markster? He's at least 5'2 with his hair all moussed up or permed to look like a wire-haired terrier and has the elevated shoes deal. If he was bald, I imagine he'd have an elaborate combover. Add a Mitch Miller mustache/goatee and you get the picture. Like any VA Judge, he sits there and lets you pull up enough rope to hang yourself if you're foolish enough to run on. A clear prop!

Sometimes, getting these chowderhead VLJs to actually read the C-file is extremely difficult. This one still refuses to admit he's wrong! http://asknod.wordpress.com/2013/11/25/bva-win-im-48/ It's a win. As to whether they'll do a credible job on the Fenderson staged rating remains to be seen. Hell, the diagnostic codes have changed several times. It will be a twenty year protected rating in a few months. Happy Thanksgiving to all. A Clear Prop.

Diarrhea of the mouth, in the absence of real legal representation, has been the death knell of many a claim. One thing Carlie didn't point out is a difference of opinion on how the evidence was evaluated can never rise to the level of CUE. The VARO and the BVA, being triers of fact, are the only ones allowed to interpret evidence and derive a finding. You cannot attack a claim later on that basis via CUE even assuming you fail to appeal. The real fact of the matter here is that this claim is actively being prosecuted so it hardly can fall into a CUE discussion. Absent a decision that reflects CUE, it is premature, to say the least, to contemplate filing for that. It seems you have the VARO adjudication cart in front of the BVA Horse here as well as the CAVC. I'm not prescient, but assuming you don't miss any suspense dates, you have about 3-6 years of denial decisions ahead of you before the word CUE should be entering your vocabulary. Perhaps this is the wrong venue to discuss it in? As I am not a moderator, I merely comment. Best of luck with your claim, though. cp

Put 38 USC aside. You will win this (or lose ) on 38 CFR 3.303( c) : © Preservice disabilities noted in service. There are medical principles so universally recognized as to constitute fact (clear and unmistakable proof), and when in accordance with these principles existence of a disability prior to service is established, no additional or confirmatory evidence is necessary. Consequently with notation or discovery during service of such residual conditions (scars; fibrosis of the lungs; atrophies following disease of the central or peripheral nervous system; healed fractures; absent, displaced or resected parts of organs; supernumerary parts; congenital malformations or hemorrhoidal tags or tabs, etc.) with no evidence of the pertinent antecedent active disease or injury during service the conclusion must be that they preexisted service. Similarly, manifestation of lesions or symptoms of chronic disease from date of enlistment, or so close thereto that the disease could not have originated in so short a period will establish preservice existence thereof. Conditions of an infectious nature are to be considered with regard to the circumstances of the infection and if manifested in less than the respective incubation periods after reporting for duty, they will be held to have preexisted service. In the field of mental disorders, personality disorders which are characterized by developmental defects or pathological trends in the personality structure manifested by a lifelong pattern of action or behavior, chronic psychoneurosis of long duration or other psychiatric symptomatology shown to have existed prior to service with the same manifestations during service, which were the basis of the service diagnosis, will be accepted as showing preservice origin. Congenital or developmental defects, refractive error of the eye, personality disorders and mental deficiency as such are not diseases or injuries within the meaning of applicable legislation. As most here will tell you, VA doesn't fight fair. You are busy trying to nail down the presumption while they are busy undermining it by using info you freely supplied to them. VA is not allowed to develop negative evidence. They can only view evidence in the military record, your STRs and anything post service you submit as evidence. Somewhere along the line they picked up : 1) Post service VA treatment records noted your treatment for complaints of depression and anxiety that notes indicated date back to your childhood. Notes indicated that your father was diagnosed with schizophrenia and was abusive. Notes indicated that you were physically and mentally abused by your father and that you also witnessed your father beat your mother into a coma. Diagnosis was social anxiety, major depression, and alcohol dependence in early remission. 2) Prior to conducting the examination, the VA examiner reviewed your entire VA claims folder. The examiner notes the statement provided by your friend that makes it clear that you had serious mental health problems prior to joining the military. You reported a tumultuous childhood with clear signs of bipolar disorder. You were suspended from high school for poor attendance and not doing homework. You were charged with assault and shoplifting as a teenager and did community service; and abused alcohol as a teenager. The examiner noted that your bipolar symptoms are mostly in remission with medication; and you have recovered from alcohol abuse. The clinical findings of your recent VA examination reveal you to be casually dressed and appropriately groomed. You had poor eye contact and showed a wide range of affect. You answered all of the questions during the evaluation in an appropriate manner. You are oriented to person, place and time. No delusions, hallucinations, or obsessive/ritualistic behaviors are noted. You denied suicidal or homicidal thoughts, plans or intent. You report that you do not experience panic attacks Your rate and flow of your speech are normal. The examiner noted mild depression and anxiety with sleep impairment controlled by medication. The examiner provided a diagnosis of bipolar disorder and noted that symptoms are mostly in remission. Based on your friend's statement that shows you had a mood disorder as a teenager; and your admission that your sister is diagnosed with bipolar disorder, points to a genetic reason for your condition. The examiner provided the opinion that you had bipolar disorder before entering the military and the fact that you were depressed even in basic training is indicative of a problem that pre-existed your enlistment. So much for presumption of soundness. You may be able to salvage it on Wilson (Lawrence) v. Derwinski (90-673) "Symptoms, not treatment, are the essence of continuity of symptomatology." You case hangs entirely on 3.303(a) and ( c). Unless and until you rebut the negative evidence above, you cannot prevail. Letting the claim die for lack of appeal made it infinitely more difficult to correct via CUE. I attach Wilson for your perusal. Since Walker v. Shinseki (Fed. Cir. 2013)screwed up 3.303(b), revert to (a). Somehow, they have obtained all that is needed to assemble the ingredients to prove their case. If you only use VA doctors or Psychiatrists, they will use the evidence privately divulged to hang you. We've had Vets who discovered that innocuous group therapy sessions were used to obtain admissions of drug usage which were in turn used to prove willful misconduct. Bingo. Claim denied. Remember, at the VA, anything you say may be used in a claim against you and they do not need to Mirandize you first. Murphy's sixth law says you have the right to remain stupid. VA would make you think they have your best interests at heart when they're doing it. It all seems so...right, I guess, at the time. Using VA for your medical and MH needs can be lethal to your claims, unfortunately. This is why we tell you to develop your claims independently of their system. You need the three Caluza elements ( Shedden, Hickson, etc.) to win a claim. Without them you cannot prevail. Inspect your DBQs for the slot to insert a nexus in. USB Hickey said in testimony last year at the HVAC to Bob Filner that they had overlooked it and were in the process of changing them to incorporate a place. I have seen nothing yet.

They rebutted the presumption of soundness when they made the finding that you suffered it before service. The litany of evidence they produced is particularly damning. If your sister is indeed BP, then this will never fly. The miracle is why they let you into service with it as a pre-existing MH issue. I don't see the CUE. Remember, they have to violate the law, they have to be guilty of being in possession of the evidence and not seeing it and it (the mistake) had to manifestly change the outcome. If you do not submit records and they do not obtain them, that is a failure of the duty to assist, Caffrey vs. Brown took that one off the table. If you had a personality disorder that manifested in service, then they get to skate too. I can't think of any laws or regulations that were ignored here. I'm sorry. I'm not trying to be obtuse or insinuate your claim is without merit, but if there is merit, I don't see it. Many Vets try to read into regulations and statutes a meaning that comports with their view of the injustice. I feel that may be the case here although I wish it wasn't so. I have never been one to dissuade a Vet from a claim. I won't start now but I feel success may be nigh on to impossible with this one. a cp

Where'd you park the squad car, Dick Tracy? Wait! Up in the sky! It's .... it's... it's Captain Obvious!

Try adducing chicken bones or go back to the old standby for VA claims-the Ouija Board. cp

Roger that. Winning a CUE claim, even if you're right, is one of the hardest things you ever assay to accomplish. Of course, finding an attorney to take it will be equally difficult. I cheated. I put my son through law school. I don't even have to cough up 20%. Of course, I paid for the juris doctor degree so that's a subjective financial assessment some might argue. cp

Ah, the joys of doing it via electronic filing. Surely in this new Halcyon world nothing can go awry. Electrons know their place so it must be Veteran error. Look at this one I just wrote up and look also at Kyhn precedence from the Fed. Circuit for guidance. Do not allow this to die or you will simply be chasing your tail for years. Nip it in the bud with a NOD post haste, Prove they have two addresses. Remember Bell v, Derwinski on constructive possession. VARO can look into VISTA and see the dichotomy of having two addresses. http://asknod.wordpress.com/2013/11/17/cavc-collins-v-shinseki-more-presumption-of-regularity/ Here's Kyhn--http://asknod.wordpress.com/2013/10/25/cavc-kyhn-v-shinseki-no-additions-to-the-rba/ Make them show you, in your own C-file, where they have sent you a C&P notice. There is a legal codicil that says if they mail it to the wrong address, Presumption of Regularity does NOT attach. Forget the prop. Beware the Vet.

It's so shameful, John, they have to hang their heads. If fact, they are so embarrassed, I doubt any will have the chutzpah to show up on Monday. a cp

A common thread I see here on Hadit as well as Peggy's Pink Site, is the propensity to dwell on time. Time, as it is measured at VA; time as it is measured by Vets, and lastly, time as a horrible consequence due to its propensity to cause untold suffering. Vets have no conception of what they are getting into if they feel resolution is confined to a rating at the RO. As most know, time at the VA is measured in Jupiter days. VA has no conception of what delay means to us. Many are on the cusp of homelessness or financial ruin. I've sent out checks to guys to keep them from starving more than once. When you try to conceive of waiting years just for a denial, you realize the agency is inured to your suffering. They mouth endearing terms and commiserate with you but do nothing to ameliorate it. Were it truly a nonadversarial system, a Veterans Service Center manager could step in on an emergency basis and try to take corrective action to right a wrong. JC's travails are nothing more than a similar trail of broken glass through the centuries with regard to VA's compassion for us. Once you get past that, you prepare for the real world. Gone are the pleasantries and smiles. Every Vet I've helped out eventually decides to take off the gloves and roll up his sleeves. VA is like a train running on one rail. It's always moments away from derailing. Witness the CAVC Recent Decisions site. http://www.uscourts.cavc.gov/recent_decisions.php Read every Petition of a Writ of Mandamus for a month and you begin to get a feel for how out of control the process is. Backlog doesn't begin to describe what is afoot. Virtually all the Writs end with an Order from the Judge dismissing it as moot based on the fact that the error petitioned for has been rectified. What is glossed over is that the required action was done at 1615 hrs several days before the VA Secretary and Will Gunn report back and say " We don't understand why the Veteran is upset. We sent out the SSOC that he complains he's been waiting 3 years for just last week. Where's the case or controversy, your honor?" As such, the Writ is becoming a de facto "speed 'er up" function that attorneys are starting to take seriously. It used to be they were an oddity and rarely employed. Most law dogs would poo-poo the idea of filing one and advise you not to in years past. No so in these troubled times. Justice is so backed up, so imperfect, indeed, so sloppy and constipated, it's almost a miracle that anything gets done a): in a timely manner; b) even remotely correctly and c) doesn't require an appeal to delouse the defects. VA is playing a deceptive shell game with their new high-speed decision mill (the FDC). Many's the Vet who is now getting his high-speed denial based on an incomplete factual record where the raters simply do not have all the evidence in front of them to make the decision. That doesn't prevent them from proceeding to rate you anyway. The excuse is "What the hey? If it's wrong or we don't have the STRs is irrelevant. He can still submit new evidence and tune it up for a year. Of course, he loses his place in line but that's the risk of doing a FDC. No flies on us." In accounting, everything is in categories. VA's accounting is unique. Old claims, pending claims, new traditional claims and FDCs are now all tucked into separate columns in an artful attempt to make the backlog appear smaller than it is. Monday Morning reports look much more cheerful when numbers decline. If you merely shift numbers about like a three-card Monte game, it seems substantial progress is being made. Look to the resultant lump in the python at the BVA to see how this is working. We still have essentially the same number of Veterans Law judges now as we did in 1961 (74 versus 60). The addition of Acting VLJs to adjudicate frivolous appeals that are pointless still does not make a dent in the numbers. Each Judge is expected to sign off on at least one claim a day. We know what this leads to. Assembly line justice on a timed basis is never going to equate with what we were promised. Rapid justice is not equitable justice and often results in compounding the error tenfold. VA knows this. The mantra is to get it into someone else's in-basket and off their desk. I hate to say it repeatedly but the repair order is at your fingertips. If enough complain long and loud, which is hard to conceive of even now in light of all the dissention on the HVAC, something will change. I speak of Congress and your vote-as inconsequential as it may seem. In the meantime, I'm quite fond of the Writ of Mandamus when you feel you've hit the wall. $50 will often buy you what VA is dragging their feet on for years. It almost invariably will be a denial or continuance of one, but progress is progress at the VA-as imperfect and flawed as it is. In my book, the only place where the VA trains are still running on time is up at 625 Indiana Ave NW. But then, how long is "Indiana" going to last before some enlightened group takes umbrage with the name? By 2016, it'll be 625 Native American Ave. NW. As long as they don't throw sand in the gears, I don't care. I filed March 31, 1994 for my claims. Final resolution is moments away in VA time as it sits before my BVA judge awaiting his admission of error. It will be a twenty year protected rating on April 1, 2014 whether it is a finished product or not. Think about this when you discuss "time" or complain about interminable delays and errors. It gives the term VA backlog an entirely different cache. Hang in there JC. Help's on the way-eventually. You have Ric Shinseki's word on it. a The hell with the prop. Beware the Veteran

I think Free Spirit nailed it. I read over her multiple synopses (in several installments) and I agree with her. As for the SOC, I have seen them take as long as 16 months on one of mine. That was SEA RO in 2008-10. It may be worse now from what I see. If you positively must have an SOC, I'd file a for a Writ. $50 to get some action in 90 days. Of course, with the Imperial entanglements of a VSO, that probably isn't going to happen. They'll blow an ass gasket and refuse to rep you if you go Postal. a Clear prop

The denial language is the meat of your future success. Because this an ex parte process, you submit and they deny. You learn from the denial what it is you lack and fashion a repair order. Yes, you will need to appeal but you are experiencing what 85% of us do so don't be disheartened. Winning at the VA is akin to Las Vegas. The odds are not in your favor. Chicago or Des Moines is immaterial. It could just as easily have been sent to Ft. Harrison, Montana and suffered the same fate. The important thing is to post the denial language verbatim as Carlie suggests. This enables us to identify what went awry and suggest possible ways to correct it. You can win but you have to learn how to play the game with their rules. And Michael, trust me when I say they have rules you can't even conceive of nor will you ever. I have had Vets send me copies of their nexus letters that would floor you. The absolute worst one was a compendium of "might have", "could have" and "quite possibly". Your nexus letter will be the most important item you submit. In that regard, it must be flawless or VA will cut it to ribbons. Buddy letters, while valuable, must be accompanied by their DD 214s showing proof that they served with you. Some DD 214s like mine were purposefully vague due to the nature of my work. In that respect, a buddy letter would be pointless. In spite of jurisprudence that states it isn't a prerequisite for a doctor to view one's contemporary service medical records, failure to do so can be the difference between success and denial. The VA examiner will be sure to point out that s/he did and you didn't- thus making their "nexus" more probative. Most Vets view their claim from their own perspective and, as such, seem to think everyone else can see it's validity as clearly as they do. VA purposefully tries to misinterpret what you present. Remember, just as in the military, you are guilty until proven innocent. Eliminating all the negative possibilities in which to view the evidence is the first step. When all that is left on the table to view points to service connection, VA will acquiesce-but not a moment sooner. VA calls that "the benefit of the doubt" and applies it to your claim when they run out of reasons to deny. Communication of a thought, an idea, or evidence often requires a measured, pedantic approach. VA raters are not the brightest lights on the Christmas tree. Thus you have to put a halter on them and lead them to water. Sometimes it entails sitting on their heads to get them to drink. Always remember, they are a large insurance company and are paid to deny claims. This mindset means they view everything differently from us. If you are traveling through an intersection with a green light and get t-boned, you are in the right. VA automatically assumes the light was red and you are at fault. You have to build your claim from the bottom up and prove it was green. Sometimes that is no easy task when it happened 20 years ago and the traffic cop who wrote it up is retired or dead. I have had VA attack two buddy statements saying no one can remember what happened in Da Nang 45 years ago at 2 AM in the morning (a tattoo). The Vet won on appeal because both buddies' 214s showed they served with him on the USS Long Beach and one was a medic.VA had also maintained there was no proof they served together. In sum, each claim is unique and requires a unique approach. I doubt there is a "one size fits all" method to this business. If there was, we'd have no need for T-bird, Hadit.com, or for that matter, my site over at Asknod.org. The beauty of Veterans' experience in this new internet world is that someone out there has suffered a similar event or set of circumstances that provides guidance on how to help those who follow after. And so we pay it forward. Yes, in all reality, you will have to appeal. This will give you the opportunity to fix what was defective and produce a bulletproof win. It's a shame you have to be treated like a welfare cheat but that is the cross we bear. Happy Veterans Day. Be glad you're alive to celebrate at Applebee's next Monday. Attached below is a NOTAM of a few of my friends who won't be there. a The hell with the propeller. Beware the Vet.