FormerMember

Carlie- Thank you for your patronage. I have to update the book to include new concepts soon. Nevertheless, it is an excellent guide on what not to do. In the same vein, it teaches what (and how) VA will use things to deny you. Their playbook is a severely limited repertoire. After about 10,000 BVA decisions and 5,000 cutting edge panel CAVC decisions, this becomes glaringly apparent. The egregious stuff always appears at the Court as "post hoc rationalizations" where the OGC tries to reconstruct the crime scene based on how a claim would have been accomplished if it were indeed done legally. Since VA does not operate by their own rules, it is usually reflected in the records, or, more appropriately, the lack of records, and they get busted. Look at this one. http://asknod.wordpress.com/2013/09/30/getting-your-c-file/ I wrote it up yesterday in order to encompass what I wrote above. Vets need to know they can (and should) take the gloves off and KATN. VA, for far too long, has held sway over us via the VSO arm of representation. We blindly followed like sheep because we trusted them. Wouldn't most of us? I did for years until it dawned on me something was amiss. I never won anything but 0% ratings for hearing which, as most know, is a dead end. You have to almost be deaf as a post in one ear and well on your way with the other to even get to 20%. In 2007, I gave my MOPH rep my IMO for the hepatitis/AO. The one seminal item that would be instrumental in my winning oddly never made it into my C-file. I asked him to show me his file on my claim. When I discovered it, I mailed in another myself. My rep. indicated if I went off the reservation without him again, he would drop me. I took the initiative and dispensed with him summarily. As you will read, I won 100% +40% +10% less than a year later without (gasp) any legal help. With that said, the turn around time for a CAVC Writ filing is surprisingly quick. For $50, you can do what Leigh Ann did and have their undivided attention within 60 days. This is my kind of justice. I love it. VSOs' and most attorneys' hair stands on end when you suggest it but none will deny that it doesn't have a profound effect on a timely receipt of the file. I used to build houses before this disease took me. We never sat around waiting for a truss truck or lumber. There was always something that could be done in the interim. As for sitting around patiently and waiting, that isn't an option for us Type A personalities. I love IRIS. It may not solve the problem but it tells you far more than the 827-1000 Prize Redemption Center personnel ever will. DIY or Die is my newest motto. It's a nice bookend to Win or Die. You basically have two choices. Sit patiently on the Group W(wait) bench or be proactive. VA would rather you simply go away. A petition for a Writ is a horse of a different color. VA can and does ignore you but they cannot ignore the Court. Obviously, Veterans have been reading my site because I viewed the CAVC site this morning and the number of Writ petitions denied (3) continues to mushroom with each succeeding month. Most are by pro se vets, too. One thing you should expect though. The CAVC rarely grants the Writ. In almost all cases the VASEC trips over his necktie to get the requested action done before the Court can sanction him. It's usually written up like " The Secretary is mystified as to what the Veteran is upset about. Yes. we forgot to send him the C-file but we did it about .0001 seconds after we realized we forgot so there isn't a problem anymore. Can we all go out to recess now?" One last observation. You can file for free if you are indigent. Many are. They may ask for proof and that might take longer. For the $50 though, you cannot beat it. It sure beats Dialing for Dollars at the 800 number. Clear prop. Mags on.

Anytime your c-file contains the records of another Vet, any claims decisions with the records in place are tainted. Raters have been known to confuse the evidence and deny based on the other Vet's records. The Court has held that in these cases, the repair order is to remand for a decontamination and a new (de novo) readjudication at the RO that does not take into account the tainted evidence. With that said, getting the VA to comply without an appeal to the Court is almost impossible. Cushman v. Shinseki is a good example. VA "modified" his nexus letter and then said they took it out. He lost again and got his c-file and there was the letter, right in place next to the one that had been corrected to erase the addition. The BVA didn't seem to think it was a big problem. The Court did. Phil won. Here's the Fed. Circus decision http://asknod.wordpress.com/2012/02/03/fed-cir-cushman-v-shinseki/

The smart money says VA is going to wash their hands of this tarbaby and grant based on the old Luker nexus. you can only spend so much time on these before they begin to smell like three day old fish. I suspect this will be one for the "squeaky wheel gets the grease" file. If it occurs at the RO, it won't be published and no one will be the wiser. J1VO.

Agreed, Carlie. However, when treating with these fellows, absent your C-file, you are flying blind. The RO has a marked deck and even knows what's in your hand. You, on the other hand, are at their mercy to ascertain if they are even being honest. What of Leigh's problem where there are another Veteran's records in her c-file? Do you see the implications of this? VA has a storied propensity as BroncoVet would probably be more than happy to tell us about re the shredder fiasco. If you have no copy of the c-file as a reference, the c-file simply contains whatever VA says it contains. Not the judicial posture I would want to be in. In a claim for increase, it is necessary to confirm they rated you properly based on the evidence in the file. Since we know they tend to low ball Vets, this again is just a normal precaution to "trust, but verify" as Ronald Reagan used to say. I have found that VA does not always bargain in good faith. And if TC has another Vet's records mixed in with his, he needs to have them expunged and a de novo adjudication free of the taint of contamination. Absent that, he can obtain them sometime in 2020 after the backlog subsides if he trusts them. For some, the financial repercussions make them want to be meek and take the proffered handout (rating) and then try to right the wrong at their leisure over the next two or three years at the BVA. Thus the argument boils down to its essence. Does TC risk delay by asking for it? Will it slow his claim down? Would a CI throw a monkey wrench into it? I don't feel it would. At the RO, you have a projected completion date. The oldest claims come first. The homeless, the 20.900(c ) hardships etc. VACOLS knows your place in line. Since you c-file lies in the records room until actually being worked, any potential delay might occur if it were being actively prosecuted. Again, they are not permitted to put you at the bottom of the pile. That would be grounds for a Writ. If his claim has been digitized at one of the 18 VAROs who are using VBMS, it would only take five minutes to run a copy of the .pdf. A lot of ifs. I merely touched on the legal aspect of extricating a c-file from a recalcitrant RO. I do not suggest one particular choice over another for the gentleman. I merely inform. Clear prop!

I suppose I disagree with the majority of you on this. Prying a copy of c-file away from the VA is time-consuming only if you let it be. I did it in 2008 in the midst of my appeals- after my NODs had been filed but before my claims had been through the DRO reviews. I'd been granted 100% right out of the gate and the P&T was set two years hence for June 2010. I wanted to see what this confounded c-file held that was so damn important. Everyone talked of it. I filed to get it and then followed up with a 21 day letter using all the 5 USC language that ordered them to do it. I'd be glad to copy and paste the form letters here for all of you if you wish. The law says they have to provide you one in 90 days. Many are unaware of that codicil. Next, if you do not receive it within the time limit and they do not respond to the second letter, you go over the head to the next level-the OGC. This is where the rubber usually meets the road. There will always be recalcitrant ROs who think they are above the law. VA, as we know, are not great communicators. Right now they are using the backlog as their main argument for being unable to comply. It does not wash. The law stands above it. However, if they still refuse, do what I advised Leigh B. to do. After waiting for almost two years, I had her file for an extraordinary Writ (of Mandamus) to the CAVC. She had her c-file one day after the suspense date the Court set. The bigger problem was that it was woefully incomplete. Now the VA is mired in having to stay after school and answer to the Court as to why their copy varies so radically from what Leigh fully well knows is in it. Her RO in Baltimore shipped it off to Detroit's RO because they were backlogged. And Detroit wasn't? Detroit proceeded to misplace it. Then Detroit sent it out to be converted to electronic format and forgot to make her a copy. Not once did VA contact her and apologize or explain the delay. To add insult, some chucklehead at the Baltimore RO insists he still has it. It's becoming a "Who's on first? game." The CAVC docket number is 13-2095. It makes for interesting reading Here's a sample. One day after this Court issued its order to the Secretary to respond to the Petition, an employee of the Detroit VA Regional Office called the veteran directly, not the undersigned counsel, to confirm the address to which to direct the copy of the claims file. The undersigned counsel did receive a set of papers at his office. However, for several reasons it is unknown what that set constitutes: (1) there was no cover letter transmitting the records; (2) the shipping label indicates a return address of the Detroit VA Regional Office; (3) there was no certification that the set was a complete and true copy of the original claims file as requested in the Petition. Here's the petitioner's response (attached). Leigh's name is now a matter of record so this is not "spilling the beans". When you go to the CAVC, anonymity flies out the window. My experience did not delay my place in line. Face it. The delay is endemic right now. If you honestly think it could get worse, you're wrong. Getting a Congressional Inquiry (CI) involved also does not slow the process down. The CI desk at the RO is staffed by a small crew of apologists. They dig up the claim in VACOLS, ascertain where it is in the adjudication process and report back. It doesn't involve "taking it out of the in basket". The VBA is a miasma of old, antiquated procedures being spliced onto newer computerized ones. They don't fit. Imagine attaching your hand directly to you shoulder like a Thalidomide baby and you have a visual concept-albeit an imperfect one. The truth is that VA hierarchy is staid in their ways. They've been doing business like this since the War of Northern Aggression and do not take kindly to outsiders showing up at 810 Vermin Ave. NW telling them how to do their job. They have almost the same number of Veterans Law Judges now (67) as they did in 1989 (60). They "fixed" their backlog by allowing a single VLJ to adjudicate claims in 1994 instead of the old "board" of three. That is what you are up against. Nothing more. It's called ennui. Complacency. Laziness. Get out your thesaurus and pick an adjective. When you deal with VA, you have two choices. Either sit back and wait patiently for years and years or become proactive and push back. I don't know how many service reps from VSOs have admonished their Vets to be patient; to not upset the apple cart or they'll be sorry. You have two choices. Be a punk or be a chump. After 18 years of doing my best chump imitation, I tried the other approach and was amazed at what happens when you send dear Sen. Murray an email saying VA is giving you the high hard one. I got my P&T in 89 days and my c-file in 94. You have to be firm but not overbearing. One thing I note in all the CAVC and BVA jurisprudence I read is the lack of personal attacks on the character of the idiot responsible for a really stupid decision. A CAVC judge will not question whether a VLJ was raised by wolves. S/he will simply and politely point out the error of the decision and reverse/remand/vacate appropriately for the VLJ to revise his/her decision to comport with law. Simple and elegant. Likewise, you can do the same with no fear of recrimination or being sent to the locker room for two years. I am willing to bet that if you took a poll, you would find most VSOs pooh-pooh the idea of getting a c-file while the case is in progress. How, exactly, do you propose to defend yourself? Absent the documents being used to impeach your testimony and evidence (or lack of evidence) to deny you, how is it, exactly, that you would propose to defend yourself. Waiting until you've been the guest of honor at your Texas necktie party and trying to undo all the errors at the BVA is again a self-defeating argument. Waiting until your c-file is in DC is even more asinine to ask for a copy. The BVA doesn't make copies. The ROs do. LAB.pdf

Hoo, doggies. One word. Hindin. My wife and I sat in front of him for two hours at a Travel Board hearing April 5th, 2011. The Markster sat and nodded his head like a bobblehead doll and asked idiotic questions. I laid out a trail a blind man could follow. He insisted on putting in a second cassette tape and had me keep talking far beyond the allotted time. I thought I had made my case hands down only to read a year and a month later that he simply parroted the RO denial decision for an earlier effective date of 1994. I might as well have been talking to an earthworm. Fortunately, my attorney made them see the light at the CAVC and they recanted their heresy. Judge Hindin is personally writing his mea culpas on this as we speak. I have never been so wrong about reading a man's character as I have with VLJ Hindin. He has "short man syndrome". He is 5' 2" tall on a cold day with a sweater on. He has been around the BVA since 1994 as a law clerk and staff attorney. Over time, this inculcated a a firm resolve to screw Vets whenever legally permitted. His legal acumen is nil. He took all the evidence submitted and ignored it. He relied on nothing more than the advice of his own staff attorneys and paid scant attention to anything submitted as evidence. In fact, the crux of the argument, the VA Office of General Counsel Precedent that was the legal underpinning of my contentions, was never mentioned even once. He queried me on my legal standing for my argument and then never addressed any of it in the decision. It was at this point that I realized a Veteran can have the strongest legal argument in the world and still lose. VA is simply not prepared to cough up large settlements without a protracted fight-regardless of whether they are in error or not. Concurrently, if the decision will have severe financial repercussions for VA, the inclination is to deny and see how the dust settles. If the Vet does not appeal, then the decision was correct. Problem solved. VA's coffers have been defended against unscrupulous Vets seeking to plunder it. The long and the short of prevailing at the BVA often does not hinge on the strength of your legal standing. It often is driven by what they are willing to grant to appease you and make you go away. Or, in the alternative, what the Board chairman tells them to decide is what they write. Horsetrading between your VSO and the staff attorneys is rampant and you will be no wiser until you read about it years later-if then. Justice, as we know it, is immaterial. Fairness is not a VA concept. Only when faced with the inevitable will they acquiesce, relent and begrudgingly acknowledge their error. Otherwise they will steadfastly deny and wait for you to play the CAVC card with your Notice of Appeal (NOA). Surprisingly, many Vets do not. The reason is that VSOs do not have legal training and thus cannot represent you before the Court. This makes them resort to the "Well, we gave it our best shot. Too bad. I think you had a good claim but I guess we'll never know now." No mention of that big NOA option. No suggestion that you might want to seek out the services of a "real" leagle beagle. Often your "defense" at the BVA consists of your representative begging for Benefit of the Doubt with no discussion of legal aspects. Once VA sees you are willing to fight and are not going away, the tenor of their arguments change. Be aware that this is usually when they bushwhack you into a Joint Motion for Remand (JMR) and craft a better noose with which to hang you. I have too much anecdotal evidence of that than I could print out here. JMRs, by their mutually agreed upon nature, are open-ended invitations to a de novo review of the original BVA decision. They take what the CAVC said they did wrong and refashion it to legally pass muster. The result is a brand new shiny denial with fresh paint and little else. Sadly, many Vets think this is the olive branch that will right the injustice they suffered. Knowledge is power for Vets. Tbird started a small snowball rolling downhill here many years ago. The result is phenomenal. Veterans of all eras have a place to go to to find these truths. Hadit is a valuable tool and a convenient rallying point to discover VSOs have been funning you all these years and making you think they are the driving force behind your paltry 0% and 10% wins. We know otherwise. Many of us have struck out on our own and had far more success doing it ourselves. Using the VA's own metrics, 85% of us will be denied the first time out. Does that imply we are Welfare cheats looking for a freebee? Conversely, if only 15% prevail legally, isn't that the same as saying 85% of VA claims are meritless? That, my fellow Veterans, is how the VA truly views you. Nonadversarial, my ass.

I was zero for three with DAV, AmVets and MOPH when I opted to go it alone. I won all three claims within seven months. MOPH "accidentally forgot" to file my nexus and my civvie medrecs. The VA rater called me personally and said if they didn't have them then they couldn't rate me. My wife ran them up to the RO 60 miles away the next day. How do you lose 650 pages of medrecs? When I got my C-file a year later, ding dong. Two complete sets of medrecs. The blind leading the deaf. A lady friend who is doing her husband's claim said VA notified her they could not process her FDC because she had not provided any proof of service (DD214). She checked her records and there it was on page 465 of the 600 page filing. She notified them it was in there and to be safe ran another copy up to them. Bingo. One day late. Now it's not a proper FDC. Denied. Off to 2 year limbo for another adjudication when they'll finally find the original 214. The Blind leading the deaf. Nonadversarial. A Veteran friendly environment. It reminds me of that drunk sea captain on the bridge of the Exxon Valdez. It takes two miles to turn right or stop. Clear Prop

WFDyer1: <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<When my NOD was filed back on 07/2011,my rep. as usual was out of the office.They had another rep assist me, who is no longer there,and it seems that my usual rep never followed up with anything.I think we have the same rep at the DAV whom I've met once in the past 3 years since originally opening my claim.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How do you abbreviate Laughing on floor with my ass because I laughed it off me ? LOFw/MABILIOOM. I like my big win with Tombo the DaNang Marine. He gave up and his wife did it herself without the Bozos at AmLeg. When s/he won, the AmLeg rep knocked on the front door and Lo! there was the VSO wanting a photo for the trophy wall in the AmLeg Bar. Tombo and the AmLeg had gone and won 280% and AmLeg wanted their Big Moment in the sun. They had called and called but got no answer. She told them to go piss on a flat rock. If they couldn't be polite enough to return his phone calls, she wasn't too inclined to do so either. My theory is that if they have THAT much work, then they are spread too thinly. Why throw your hat in that ring? If all the VSOs in Phoenix are that busy, why would switching from one to another help? No spite intended sir, but you do yourself a great disservice. You are asking for Perry Mason justice and getting Cheech and Chong. You seem unnerved that they could screw it up. They're getting paid about $40K a year. What's wrong with this picture?

Dang. You one fart smeller, PR. That's a high art form in the VA litigation scheme of things. Call B&M pronto. Sweet.

You know the drill. Win or Die. That's some serious change on the table. Get the law dogs. 20% is peanuts. They'll be jerking your chain for another 10 years if you don't.

I'm 0/3 on DRO reviews but 1/1 at the CAVC. You drive for show but you putt for dough as they say in golf. VA is pretty hard-headed if the condition/disease/injury is at all controversial. VAROs tend to kick on 4th down to the BVA. Especially on HCV via a jetgun. Watch for a whole new view soon on Sleep apnea. They're getting ready to whack that down. Hope you get something from the book. I will add that you should parse every noun and verb in a SSOC or SOC for meaning. VA is the past master for hiding a big fact for denial in an innocuous phrase. Similarly, they tend to screw up the facts so badly (in their favor) that you lose. Timelines always find you on the outside of the corral. Divide and conquer where they deny one disease and all the others you claimed secondary fall by the wayside. Etc. Etc. Read some of the decisions from the CAVC on different subjects to see how they use post hoc rationalizations to explain away procedural violations and due process.

I hope I'm not committing a crime. I do not advertise other than my site to avoid the appearance of commerciality .http://asknod.wordpress.com/. I've made almost $300 back on my $6,000.00 investment a year ago. At this rate my break even point is 2148 (within 125 days) with 90% accuracy. Look for the Black book w/ red lettering in the upper right below the Vietnam Campaign Medal Click on it and it will lead you to it also. Google asknod and it pops up too.

Something many of you do not understand as you begin your VA claims journey, is the duty to assist incorporated into 38 USC and 38 CFR. The VA is required by law to help you develop your claim by doing exactly what they are now asking you to do. While I would never depend on them to round up my civilian medical records or Social Security documents, they are, by law, required to do so. In an effort to "speed up" the process, as they like to say, VA has put the onus of doing so on you-unfairly. It may speed up a claim by a few weeks or months but make no mistake about it. It does not improve your chance of winning. If anything, it reduces it. Vets are often extremely depleted financially as they approach a claim adjudication. The longer it goes on, the more desperate (and destitute) many become. This new procedure proposes to give you what you seek sooner. All well and fine if it were so. Vets overlook the most obvious thing staring them in the face. VA denies 85% of all claims submitted initially-or, looking at it from the obverse, they approve 15%. After remands, appeals etc, the figure ascends to 22% approved. That takes years so any time gained in the initial filing is a wasted effort once denied. After an appeal to the CAVC, the figure jumps to 35%. Has your VSO mentioned that? Probably the most disheartening thing about all this is that many legitimate claims go into the trash can after the first denial when Vets realize it is a rigged game. They simply walk away! For those who appeal to the BVA, the success rate increases marginally, but again, the dice are loaded. This is preplanned. VA winnows out all but the hard core Vets willing to stay the course. For those, a win is inevitable but time consuming. Look no further than my 20 year battle with them for benefits on one claim alone. The DBQ is a cruel hoax as there is no box for the IMO/nexus. A doctor filling this out would surmise there is no need for one. If a Vet is naive, he, too, would not know to admonish the doctor to be sure to add one. Many of you are aware of it but can you say that for the FNG who just got here and missed the briefing? At the congressional hearings last year, a Congressman pointed out the absence of box for an IMO/nexus. Under Secretary for Benefits Allison B. Hickey apologized for this and said new forms would have this important feature but that they would have to use up the old ones first. Think about that statement. The forms are on line, not in print form. Modifying them would take little or no time whatsoever. What does this tell you about the claims process? Helloooooooooooooo? The downside of a DBQ, aside from what is mentioned above, is that it encourages haste in claims processing. It the error rate, which is currently 60% was egregious before, what does anyone expect in the future? They clearly state on Ebenefits that Fully Developed Claims (FDCs) containing the new DBQs will be rated based on what you submit, not what VA assembles. Thus the Veteran is responsible now for correctly assembling and submitting his own claim. Duty to assist just became an antiquated concept. If your claim is deficient in some respect due to VA being unable to obtain STRs from St. Louis and the NPRC- Bingo. You lose. You simply find out you lost sooner with your shiny FDC. It does not ensure accuracy. It does not do anything to reduce errors. In fact, the new VBMS conversion to electronic records keeping has a downside. Where before you could take apart a C-file and view documents individually side by side, the new method allows you to view one document at a time. It makes it more difficult to jump back and forth and corroborate facts to ascertain the veracity of what you claim. This is claims processing 101 at Geico or Allstate. The long and the short of all this is that if you are not financially strapped, it may be much more advantageous for Vets to simply submit claims the old fashioned way so the documents- and the IMOs/nexus letters- are prominently displayed as an individual document so the rater(s) can view it individually. They already have a storied reputation for "top-sheeting" claims by reading as little as possible in the first several documents to arrive at a flawed decision. DBQs may seem to organize and corral the important information but they do not capture the essence of the claim from service. DBQs do not identify the first ingredient needed in the claim- a disease or injury in service. This is where most claims fail and the VA does not even address this. VSOs fall in right behind the VA and herald the importance of the DBQ without impressing on the Veteran that the first key ingredient is lacking. Record keeping in the military is woefully sparse. VA thinks Field hospitals and air evac pads have shiny stainless steel cabinets and white-suited orderlies running around filing things promptly. That might be more prevalent now, but during the Vietnam "conflict", record keeping was woefully inadequate or nonexistent. VA, nevertheless, applies the same set of criteria now to that former era. Thus, you lose a claim for Hepatitis C because there's no evidence of HCV in your STRs from 1968. VA conveniently ignores that it wasn't "discovered" until 1989. VA's claims mantra is simple-No tickee-no laundry. Before you file, do what lawyers call "discovery". Obtain your STRs from St. Louis and find out what you need that may be missing. You may sadly discover that the records from your service in 1991 in Kuwait burned up in the great NPRC fire on July 13th, 1973. Shit happens. And it happens more frequently at the VA, apparently. That's who you are dealing with.

To make sure they don't lose my filings, Berta, I use 8 1/2 X 11 Tickle Me Elmo© stationary but I still agree with you on putting the SSN/claim number on each page. You can never be too careful with these people. They're pretty slippery.

I don't mean to be obnoxious or sell product but read my book. Ask Berta if she thinks it helps win a claim. I'm 41 -2 helping Vets as of last week. Of the 41, most have 100% or TDIU. I don't teach you how to file. There are thousands of DIYs out there that do that. I teach you how not to lose. The VA approves 15% of claims presented. If I was a VSO, I would hope for a win loss record of 6.45 Vets out of 43. Amazon has it as a download electronically for $3.99. It's like buying insurance when you go Down for Double in Blackjack.

Ah, the infamous DBQs strike again! I have warned all the boys and girls at my site to avoid these things like the plague. They are great for assembling raw data on a disease/injury- admittedly. No one disputes that. For brain dead RO raters, this is a Godsend. It alleviates them of one of their Prime Directives- the duty to assist. The problem we've been enunciating since their inception is what Mr.Tired Coastie complains of here. You simply must be in charge. Anyone who lets another submit unreviewed medical material is asking for a front end dental rearrangement. As the DBQs still do not have a place to attach the IMO/nexus info, VA can logically deny it. A classic example might be your civilian records you've accumulated over the decades. Simply handing these over in toto without searching through them to remove irrelevant information is essential. I counsel my Vets to remove anything about mental health if the claim does not concern it. Similarly, a claim for a MDD does not require submission of records regarding a weight cessation program. Once VA gets their hands on this stuff, it's impossible to remove or ameliorate the impact. We are all more than familiar with the ugly VA habit of dragging up extraneous history totally unrelated to the claim at hand. It may mean an added delay of months to submit the old fashioned way but is that such a burden? From what we see and hear, the vast majority of the new Fully Developed Claims (FDCs) are simply a template to a denial sooner rather than later. To that I add "Haste makes Waste". VA has never been thorough when doing a claim. Speeding it up is asking for even less inspection for completeness. As they say in their disqualifier, "We'll rate on what you give us". Compound that with a service representative who misplaces half your filing. Assuredly, assembling it all yourself for them seems to be advisable. Nevertheless, review the records you submit for pertinence. Any IMO or nexus letter should be submitted separately and initially so it sits at the top of the center flap of the C-file. You may think the new VBMS method assembles the C-file chronologically with all documents now filed in one convenient pile. Not. There is still a "left flap" for dependency issues and a "right" one for educational/VR&E. As I wrote in my book, the idea is to get the Brainiac 5s down there to keep tripping over your pertinent STRS and the nexus/IMO again and again until one of them says "Gee, Bob. Look at this. His MOS says he was a paratrooper. Maybe that's what screwed up his back." Winning is predicated on a formula. Depart from it and you lose. Knowing the red flags of VA claims is no different than knowing them when filing an IRS tax return. Shoveling everything into the ebennies mail and pushing send will get it there (maybe) but you need to draw a good map. You're dealing with mental midgets. Last but not least. Never abandon a claim. Ever. VA will use it against you some day. Once you file, if it was justified and supported by STRs, stand your ground.

Sadly, a lot of Vets got this from IVDU. Not most but a lot. I would guess at least 30% or more. I'd say 30% don't have a clue where they contracted it. The other 40% are legitimate tattoo, STD, combat blood exposure or transfusion. Remember the haircuts with the white wall? The blue juice jar behind the barber on the ledge in front of the mirror? The unsanitary one? Just one recruit with a nick and some blood would be all it took. We are having some success with those claims but it is tedious work. Most occur at the BVA. ROs won't touch these things with a ten foot fork. Trust me when I say VA will get the new drug Sofosbuvir about 2016. They are still inveigling naive Vets in to do the Interferon/Teleprevir/ Ribavirin three drug cocktail even those they know it's poison and a 57-62% cure rate. They must have gotten a special on it and are trying to run out their stocks. Only at the VA. Best of luck, sir.

Vync-- Here's the history on Hepatitis C Virus (HCV) where your individual risks are concerned. Doctors and scientists knew about HCV as early as about 1984. The only test then was the Australian Antigens test (AAT). It was like a pregnancy test -yes or no. If it was positive you had Hepatitis B virus (HBV). This is bloodborne, like HCV. A negative result was indicative of Hepatitis A (HAV) which is always transmitted via the oral/fecal route. You get it on your hands and then touch your mouth or its in/on the food you consume (or the one handling it who goes to the bathroom and doesn't wash the hands). Nevertheless, there were increasing numbers of service members and Vets coming down with all the hallmarks of hepatitis-the yellow eyes and skin (jaundice), light clay-colored stools, very dark urine and high blood lab tests on a liver panel. (SGOT and SGPT aka AST/ALT). The ATT said nothing. No hepatitis at all. It was obvious these guys had something. People with HAV get better. Fast. These Vets continued to have high AST and ALT numbers like I did long after service. I tested positive for B on the first ATT in November 1992. My AST/ALT were 138/200 which is off the map. Normal is 10-30 on both. 40 if you drank a lot. In 1989, Dr. Edwin Southern discovered the single strand RNA of HCV. He'd already developed the Western Blot test addition to the ELISA test to discover HIV. He created the Northern Blot to discern HCV. Fast forward to 1992 when it still wasn't widely known in medical circles. The blood banks were the first to begin testing in early 1992 and the supply was declared safe by December. From then on, anyone who claims they got it from a transfusion had to prove it happened before 1992. Actual commercial testing for this was a crapshoot. They'd give you the Northern Blot test about five times. If you came up 3/5, you had it. By the late 90s they were developing the Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) test which was very reliable and also much faster. Now, there are a magic number of you out there who were exposed to it and it probably happened if you were in the military before 1998. Oddly, that's when the DoD suddenly decided that the jetguns were "unable to be proven to be sanitary one hundred percent of the time". After 1998 the incidence of HCV in the military plummeted but according to the VA, that had absolutely nothing to do with the discontinuance of jetgun usage. I believe the disease got into the military during the Vietnam War for several reasons. Many were drafted who had a history of drug abuse but were accepted anyway if they were currently in remission (clean). Going down a shot line is a bloody gauntlet as most know. If a guy flinches, it slices like a knife. Everyone after that got bloody. Sanitary precautions could never put that Pandora back in the box. I believe that in the first Gulf War, another large number enlisted and a few of the more marginal were accepted. True, also, was the large number of Weekend Warriors who served. They got hosed along with everyone else. Again, HCV is a versatile little bug. It can live at room temperature (60s) for three months- even on a dry surface. A jet gun was the Devil's playground for this disease in this environment. By 1995, scientists were dragging Interferon back off the shelf, which hadn't worked for Cancer or HIV, and trying it out on- who else- Vets (around 1996 in LA). VA started testing Vets without their permission to see what the prevalence of this was nationwide. This began in the mid-90s. When it was obvious the rate was about 10% and as high as 60% of Vietnam Vets, they quit testing. They began again in the 2004s- again- without telling Vets. We've had quite a number who find it in their VHA VISTA electronic records at the VAMC or CBOC Release of Information Office (ROI). They are dumbfounded that VA would not inform them of it. We at asknod.org don't find it strange at all. VA has a storied history of "failing to notice the Vet was at all ill". ​Now, a small minority of you lucky rascals, about 28-32%, actually caught this critter and somehow, by superior breeding in your families, developed an immunity to it. You are a carrier but cannot ever come down with it yourself. You can transmit it to others via a blood transfusion (rare) so the blood banks are rather skittish about taking any chances. You're on the "B" list until there's a national emergency. You've stated all the usual risks, Vync, but there are a few others. Acupuncture, an EMG test with unsterilized needles or any procedure like tattooing where needles penetrate the skin-even cutaneously. Think piercings. Sex has been proven to be a much larger risk than VA would like to admit. If they could make STDs willful misconduct, they'd be happy clams. Look for that some time in the 2020s. HCV is very linear unless you drank a lot. If so, it occurs faster. There are 4 stages using the widely accepted Metavir scale (0-4). There are 4 grades of speed of progression of the disease. I'm Stage 4, grade 3. Each stage is generally 10 years give or take 2-3. It is determined by a liver biopsy. I got mine from a transfusion Sept. 16ish, 1970. I came down with what appeared to be Hepatitis A 89 days later. Six weeks in the hospital and six weeks of light duty. Hepatitis A, however, generally lasts for about 7-11 days. They didn't have the ATT test at the civilian hospital I was at in 1971. Shoot, they probably only had it in fancy New York hospitals. If I got it (the ATT test) in Seattle in late 1992 from a civilian doctor, the HCV test obviously wasn't out there yet. VA didn't get it until about the mid to late 90s and then quit testing for it as I mentioned earlier. The best news for last. Gilead Science, Bristol Myers and a hoard of European medicine makers are all on the cusp of an oral dosage that doesn't make you sick, go blind, get DM2 or thyroid cancer. It takes twelve to sixteen weeks and is 95% effective against the most stubborn varieties- Genotypes 1A and 1B. It is still 65 % effective on my type (3A) so that's what I'm striving to stay alive long enough for. The release date is rumored for January 2014. My autoimmune AO diseases make me ineligible for a liver transplant so its Win or Die. HCV is extremely difficult to eradicate because it's a shape shifter. Just as your body develops a perfect white blood cell to do battle with it, it metamorphoses ever so slightly and the body's defenses can't "see" it to attack it and are forced to begin the attack anew. The new drugs arrest the incubation cycle rather than try to fry the body with Interferon like a napalm strike for a year. Precautions for you? Don't share your toothbrush or razors with anyone. If you cut yourself, clean up spilled blood with a ton of undiluted bleach. It can only be transmitted via blood to blood such as a person with an open cut themselves gets your blood into their wound so the chances of transmission are almost nil if you observe normal hygiene. And, of course, thank you Vync for your unselfish contribution to America's continued freedom. Many hear the call. Few sign on the line. Fewer return. Clear Prop

Danger. Danger Justrluk. Nobody who is tightly screwed down should ever be telling you to go off your meds to provoke the disease/injury you seek a rating or increase on. Better to show disease controlled by medication and have a documented medical record showing symptomatology and chronicity/continuity. The potential for this to backfire on you is phenomenal. By law, you would be required to inform them of what meds. you are on---or aren't. By either lying or omitting the truth, you have endangered your claim by fraud. That a VSO would suggest it is unsavory. The idea is to win legitimately, not by subterfuge or deceit. We won't discuss the danger to you personally (and medically) for doing it. That's a no brainer. If that is Mr. Service rep's secret weapon, your legal strategy is in deep doo doo. I recommend my guys take copies of all the medrecs they can assemble with them to the C&P. I know full well VA says not to but note that they do not forbid it. Doctors are inherently self-critical and insecure. If there is anything about you s/he can read about to inform them about your illness/ injury, trust me they will gobble it up. They, too, know they are supposed to do it by Braille, but none of them can look away when an opportunity to plagiarize comes along. They reason that a hippocratic mind must, by doctor law, use anything to get to the bottom of an etiology. If it means peeking, so be it. Doctors hate to be wrong. I "cheated" and did this on my AO porphyria claim C&P. The QTC doctor didn't even blink. All he did was ask if he could keep the records.

(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. VA loves obfuscation but there is one and only one ratings table and method for "adding" them up. I applied for SMC-S by virtue of being "housebound in fact" with a number of disabilities (colostomy, 40 lb. weigh loss. 9 months in hospital- the usual stuff). VA turned me down even with my 40% (DC7815-7704) and 10% (DC 6260). Their words- "your independently ratable disabilities add up to 50% and you do not qualify for 'S'. You seem to get to your VA appointments okay so we see no evidence you are housebound."

Midland, Georgia? Do you know my good friend Bruce McCartney? Four tours Dustoff medic?

Just received this in an email and posted it to my site. I like the CONUS sites included. The guy was smart to break the RVN down to Corps areas, too. http://asknod.wordpress.com/2013/08/24/aoabaw-where-is-it-now/

Just remember, if it's informal, nothing goes into a transcript and nothing in the C-file. You're trying to win. If you do not ask for a formal hearing, you are having nothing more than a bull session with them. You want it in the C-file or it isn't worth waiting for. Evidence. Evidence. Evidence. That's what you seek. IMOs. Nexus letters. Ammo to win with. If you want an informal hearing, get the DRO's cel phone number and have a beer summit at the local pub. That's about all it will be worth in terms of adjudicating your case. They'd love for it to be informal. They usually do not tell pro se Vets what the difference is between the two until afterwards when you ask for a transcript. "Transcript? What transcript. You specifically said "informal" gomer." Clear Right

That's the problem you encounter with VSOs. They have training in which forms to use. They have training in what to do next. What they lack is the judicial knowledge of what is actually needed to win. VSOs have known full well since Caluza v. Brown (1994) that the three elements were required. In point of fact, it has been required since the War of 1812 in practice. It wasn't summarized as a legal concept for Veterans until the VCRA of 88 let us use federal precedent. The COVA rapidly set their own cases to use to cite this concept as soon as it came up. Mario Caluza will be remembered forever even though he lost http://asknod.wordpress.com/2012/02/09/cova-caluza-v-brown-total-recall/. Just imagine if you'd stumbled in here in 2003-04...

<<<<This is just my opinion but I'd eat at McDonalds prior to my exam, as it's practically guaranteed you'll have extremely loose bowels and maybe some leakage. I'd surely eat foods that disagree w/my digestive system, the day before (maybe drink some of that liquid they give you before a colonoscopy) >>>>> I would hope this is a joke. I certainly would not incite a Vet to irritate a condition. Your lay testimony into the record is sufficient to verify this is the truth. If there is further evidence of it in the STRs, it would be a slam dunk. Assuming you have the magic paper from a doctor saying it's active, chronic and debilitating X number of days a year, there is no need to "provoke" the symptoms by pooping your drawers at your C&P. In fact, if I were a C&P doctor, I'd think it was a put up job. You're asking for compensation. You don't have to cheat. You have to fulfill three things. Chronicity and continuity must be established before you get there, not in the bathroom at the C&P. A medical record showing it as a continuing condition does not need "staging".