FormerMember

Actually, Kgosi, with VBMS, your claims file is on line now. You just need a VA attorney or agent with access to the database. He/she would need your VA 21-22a and a POA on file to access it. You can give a partial POA for them to view the c-file without giving them permission to represent you. I'm in the process of getting approval for access to do so. They do a CBI on you and you have to do the security training "school". Then they issue you a va.gov email address to use. You have to use an isolated, designated computer for this all by itself. Lots of rules but who cares? Real time access to a c-file is important. What if they didn't get your N&ME you filed last week? You can see the up-to-date record instantly 24 hours a day. They might even have this on eBenefits by 2036.

I love it. A new can opener for old claims. I'll have to put 4.6 in my toolbag along with 3.103(c)(2). You're going to love this one, Berta. I have an endless supply of 156(c) ammo for a 1970 claim. VA never went back to St. Louis for the NPRC stuff after AmVets filed in 70. All the STRs from arrival at 312th Air Evac at Chu Lai, the debridements and eye surgery from 95th Air Evac. Hospital at Da Nang the next day and a month's worth of Camp Zama STRs have been sitting there for 46 years. VA only got what he walked out with for an initial rating at separation. The Asst. RO director called me Wednesday to apologize for not being able to get a DRO hearing date before the 22nd. I told him if they deny me and issue an SOC, I'm going to keep dribbling in more 156(c) evidence in SSOC rebuttals until the cows come home. He did promise me the DRO will begin the decision making process the next day after the hearing. Either they realize they stepped on their necktie or they plan on going through a big Dog and Pony show denial. My VLJ friends all think they'll try to toss us a 30-40% bone and pray we were born last night. Like the idiots they are, they separated the CUEs from the increase claim and gave me a separate CUE denial. 12 muscles groups were rated for scars instead of muscle damage. Maybe someone read my NOD for the CUE- it was 26 pages long. If the line at the BVA is 4 years, why wait? Always keep a hand grenade or two for the DRO to SSOC with whenever possible. Check out the pepper spot tattooing from the 60mm mortar in this picture. That's just his arm. It runs from head to knee on the right side including the back. He has more retained metal than any 11 Bravo I've ever met and lived through it. They gave him 10% in 70 for a scar. With 3.103(c)(2), you can request a VA physician to be present for a visual-only inspection of the claimant. Boy howdy are they going to get an eyeful. I told Butch to wear clean underwear. I hope the DRO isn't a woman of modesty because he's going to drop trou for the doctor. 7 MGs @40%, 2@ 30%, tinnitus, PTSD, TBI, headaches, blurred vision, otitis media and a spouse and four dependents since 1970. Check out his bunker the 60mm mortar hit.It's the double-berth one on the right of the picture. It was totally destroyed in the explosion. The culvert shielded him and his buddy partially. This takes 'delay, deny until we die' to whole new level.

That's an anomaly that was gross error and VA knew reasonable minds would all agree it was a CUE. For hearing, it was peanuts. Had it been for 100% for PTSD back to 1998 it would never happen without an appeal. I've had a BVA judge ( Mark Hindin) look me in the eye in 2011 and say "Man, you should pursue a career helping Vets. You have this dialed. Excellent presentation (1 hr. 40 minutes)". A year later he denied it all. A year after that in 2013, the CAVC tossed it and said give Alex his money. VA will make you feel like King of the Hill right before they sucker punch you. I'm glad you won but always remember you won because you were prepared and had every hole plugged with evidence-not because you were a silver-tongued devil. CUE in Berta's and my old claims was gross and blatant. They made up the rules as they went along. Nowadays, they're more careful of anything that will cost them big bucks. When in doubt, fall back and punt on 4th and long to the BVA.

DAV is repped by Chisholm, Chisholm and Kilpatrick (CC&K). If they won a remand as you say, it would be an a) reversal and remand to comply with the Court's directives; b) a vacate and remand for a do over at the BVA; or c) a set aside and remand with the Court telling the VLJ to fix it. A win is a nebulous thing at the CAVC. A real win means the VLJ has to don sack cloth and ashes and admit he came to the wrong conclusion. After that, he remands it back to the RO to implement his "new" finding of fact. Eventually you get some $. If the vacate and remand is to gather more facts due to an arbitrary or capricious rationale for the denial, the VLJ may re-deny it using the proper statute and regulation. Not all result in a win- just another bite of the appeals apple. This is your wakeup call to get a new IMO and fix the problem that caused you to lose. In your case, it was relying on the DAV. I'm gonna bet you got a letter from Roy Spicer by now telling you you're in good hands with DAV. Time for an attorney pronto if it's a vacate and remand. If CC&K and the VA OGC mutually agree the VLJ screwed it up, they can ask for a Joint Motion to Remand (JMR) to fix it. I always put teeth into a JMR so there can be no "Well, Johnny Vet didn't specifically ask for that. He just agreed to the JMR-not what was to be the subject or the outcome of the JMR. I lost out on that in 2013. They JMR'd me back to the BVA and the horse's ass VLJ gave me 100% for my HCV but ignored the denial of my Agent Orange disease. I waited a year with a CUE filing, SOCs and SSOCs and finally filed an Ex Writ to fix it over a year later. A Reverse and Remand is the CAVC saying "Where did you go to law school? In Uganda? Here's how the Court wants you to fix this: Give the Vet X and Y effective to the date of his original filing and be quick about it".

You have all the ammo for a TDIU alone just in the 70% for bent brain. The rest is the gravy for the SMC S. File an 8940 requesting TDIU and peruse FAST letter 13-13 to make sure you don't step on your necktie. Having a "natural" 100% rating is not the same as a 100% schedular rating. VA wants to see you as unemployable if they are going to give you P&T. By rights, a TDIU determination based on the 70% alone is warranted but VA has never been a self-starter. Sometimes you have to take it up a notch. As long as you haven't been employed in the last 12 months or just have been in a sheltered family business that carries the water for you, you should qualify.

This claim doesn't pass the smell test. Clear and unmistakable error must rest on the evidence of record at the time the decision was made. Further, it has to based on the statutory and regulatory laws at the time of the prior decision. It's impossible to have a FDC CUE claim. You cannot have a C&P exam and add that to the evidence of record in 2002. You can ask for an increase as a reopen on an FDC but a CUE claim must be bifurcated from a request for increase because it seeks to overturn a prior decision based on the evidence as it was know at the time not being before the adjudicators or a gross violation and disregard for the regulation controlling it. Moreover, the result has to to have manifestly changed the outcome. You may win an increase but your decision will not encompass a finding of CUE one way or another. That will be a separate decision based on an entirely different metric.

<<Where did they get their call sheet from?>>> Where else? The same place the DAV, AmVets and the rest did. Within a month of my 100% rating in 2008, I got invites from a few to let them be my claimsmeisters. I just got this link from one of my members today and a little bit of research has opened up quite a bit of controversy. They're out of Gainesville, FL, not Arizona. I'm guessing they tied into a VA lawyer to hand it off to for another kickback. Now, re Broncovet's post (4/22/15), saying " Many Vets are skeptical of the "non attorney" (Vets) practioner[sic], that charges a similar fee as attorneys. Reason: Gee, if you want to get paid as a lawyer then get a law degree", I strongly disagree. I know several Agents or "nonattorney practitioners" as we like to be called. Many of us have more knowledge than some attorneys with over 10 years of experience. I have yet to find one who can recite SMC chapter and verse from 38 CFR and cogently express all the myriad possibilities. EAJA fees, on the other hand, are not based on the complexity of the case but being an attorney. An attorney can charge the lodestar based on an amalgam of all rates across the country which is a maximum of $187.50/hour. VA will not pay more than about $95.00/hr to a VA agent who prevails doing the exact same work. Similarly, we can charge up to 33% maximum if the case is very complex. I won't go over 20% which is the common rate because I have ethics. Most of what I make goes back into helping Vets because I am blessed and don't need the money. Broncovet and I have broken bread together several times and he knows my circumstances. We do it for Vets, not for our personal enrichment. I'd be interested in any feedback from Hadit members on a successful outcome with these folks. They don't seem to be too terribly different from Dr. Bash or Dr. Ellis-just the new kids on the block.

JFrei is already rated at SMC (s). He wonders why he isn't at SMC (t). Here is the reason. SMC (t) is the same amount as (r2) or $8,506.47/month (married). In order to qualify for SMC (t), a Vet must have a full-time caregiver who watches over him/her to protect them from injuring themselves or others. The caregiver can be a wife or significant other and have no true medical training. The extra money above SMC (o) is to offset the cost of the full-time caregiver. This is where it differs from (r2) which requires the regular supervision of a medically certified caregiver or the supervision of your wife/sig. other by the medically trained caregiver. VA will also pay to give your caregiver proper training if necessary. SMC T is never permanent. VA hates to award it and checks you out about once every year to determine if you are getting better. In most cases, it is awarded for two years and VA comes up with an excuse or a C&P that you have recovered sufficiently to be down rated. I had a case where the wife decided to go back to work on a part time basis-about 3 hrs a day. Bingo. No more SMC (t) because the Vet's care was now not "full-time". I read about another where the Vet decided to volunteer at a food bank two days a week. Bingo- VA said if he's able to work at all (volunteer or paid), then he isn't eligible for SMC (t) and they axed him. He gave up the food bank gig and is still fighting on appeal (two years now) to get the SMC (t) back. Rots a ruck. If you are hospitalized while on SMC (t), they revert your pay back to SMC (o) and do not resume it until you return home. SMC (t) is not what it seems when you get down to the brass tacks of how it operates. SMC (t) is also only available to those Veterans who served after 9/11/2001 which is terribly biased. What's the difference between a guy who gets blown up by a satchel charge or 60mm gook mortar in 1969 at Dong Ha? He still has TBI and would qualify if it had happened after 9/11. This creates two unequal classes of Veterans who suffer exactly the same set of maladies. We have the WWP to thank for this inequity.

er·go ˈərɡō,ˈerɡō/ adverb therefore. "she was the sole beneficiary of the will, ergo the prime suspect" I use it a lot in legal briefs. DROs don't know what it means. They have to look it up. Nobody takes Latin as a language course anymore.

The answer is no. The decision states: Entitled to special monthly compensation under 38 U.S.C. 1114, subsection (s) and 38 CFR 3.350(i). 38 cfr 3.350(i) states: (i) Total plus 60 percent, or housebound; 38 U.S.C. 1114(s). The special monthly compensation provided by 38 U.S.C. 1114(s) is payable where the veteran has a single service-connected disability rated as 100 percent and, (1) Has additional service-connected disability or disabilities independently ratable at 60 percent, separate and distinct from the 100 percent service-connected disability and involving different anatomical segments or bodily systems, or (2) Is permanently housebound by reason of service-connected disability or disabilities. This requirement is met when the veteran is substantially confined as a direct result of service-connected disabilities to his or her dwelling and the immediate premises or, if institutionalized, to the ward or clinical areas, and it is reasonably certain that the disability or disabilities and resultant confinement will continue throughout his or her lifetime. Ergo, you are awarded SMC (s). Merry Christmas.

I asked to view my c-file at what was then a DRO hearing of sorts back in 1991. I read it during the hearing. I requested a copy in 2009 after I filed for P&T and received it in 3 weeks. After the CAVC win in 2013, I asked for a new one. By then, it had mushroomed out to 10,078 pages and those five boxes. It took a while to get it. I think over 14 months. I've filed several more CAVC ex Writs since then so it's probably over 12,000 pages by now. Hell, the VR&E (left flap) is over 2,000 pages alone because of the greenhouse appeal. I'm just finishing up my paperwork to do the online access. They run a Criminal background check on you (again). They do one when you file to become an agent so it's rather redundant. Ben Krause of DisabledVets.org just went to the Fed. Circus for oral arguments on them forcing us to get alex.graham@va.gov style email addresses so they can monitor what we do. It's a whole new world of computer stuff now. Take your protein pill and put your helmet on, cowboy.

I guess folks here need an update for 2017 on c-files. Here's the latest. Attorneys and agents can sign up for access to the c-files on line using VBMS. I do not know about NSOs as I am not one and have little contact with them except for the nasty letters they send me at my website. Access is granted when you have a signed copy of the VAF 21-22a filed with the Regional Office closest to the Veteran where his/her claims are being handled. We contact the Information Security Officer (ISO) and request access. We have to have a va.gov email assigned to us and only the agent or attorney with the POA can access the file-no paralegals, secretaries or other clerks. The computer we use has to be secure and there are a few other things regarding protection of information of the Veteran. It's a read only file and we cannot enter any info or delete any. It is instantly updated with anything sent in via the EIC in Janesville. Attorneys/agents do not use eBenefits-or at least I don't. It's like reading last month's newspaper or the 800-827-1000 Prize Redemption Center. Due to viruses and other internet glitches, I doubt Vets will ever get access to c-files on eBennies. Writing directly to the Records depository in St. Louis is now the preferred method using a VAF 21-3288.

You will lose R2 if you go into a hospital as you receive care "in kind". To avoid that, it is suggested you get to the high ground of "permanently bedridden" if you end up in the ER or the hospital frequently. I've gotten several Vets R1 and R2 and it requires a few things most do not suffer.

OGC made me get a letter from my doctor saying the brain box was 5 by 5. They hung me out for a year but I finally got the accreditation in late July. Study, study, study. Focus on part 14,19,20 and of course Parts 3 and 4. The test is often heavy on pension law and very light on parts 3 and 4.

We VA agents and attorneys are, by law, are allowed to charge up to 33% but only for very complex cases. I feel uncomfortable with that and stick with the old 20% figure. If we "substantially prevail" in the clam, we can bill the VA $187.50 an hour for our EAJA fees which do not come out of the Vet's settlement amount. One thing many probably do not know is that VA also duns us $100.00 (handling fee) for withholding the 20-33% .

Here's an interesting FYI for all of you to be aware of: https://asknod.org/2016/12/07/vas-subtle-delay-and-deny-tactics-boldly-going-nowhere/

Gastone makes a good point. If you have the ratings to support it (i.e. the P&T plus an additional 60% unrelated to the P&T claim), you qualify and it's like shooting fish in a barrel. VA cannot deny you. On the other hand, if your claims were not sufficient to reach the 100% (IU) + 60% rule, you'd need some pretty severe medical issues that keep you housebound like mobility issues or an inability to drive. As Gastone also pointed out, VA will never grant if you fail to appear for a c&p. That's the law, not VA vindictiveness. I've won claims with no c&p but I had a killer IMO in my pocket VA couldn't rebut. It sounds like you are good to go on the ratings so why the concerns?

The test will be elementary. They will make a determination that you have effectively lost the use of your right upper and lower extremity which would grant you a 100% rating for it and subsequently give you SMC L for loss of use. That is not the same as A&A. The SMC (L) is the vehicle but the rationale will be loss of use rather than the need for A&A unless you are not ambulatory. Remember, SMC L is a multi-pronged tool. There are several reasons why they grant it. Moreover, they do not grant it if they can find a way out of it. All the Vets I've wrangled the higher SMCs for always go through a vetting process and boy howdy does VA try to wriggle out of it with some of the dangedest excuses. I had one for R2 where the Vet was bedridden (w/ bedsores) and they said he could make the transition (just barely) from the bed to his wheelchair- albeit assisted. VA insisted that if he could stand, however briefly, to make this transition, that it somehow unequivocally proved he had not lost the use of his lower extremities. This battle went on for a year. I finally got a private IMO to defeat it. Now we are battling for a 2008 effective date. They insist it's 2014. At $8,400 a month ($100 K a year), you can see why he's fighting for those extra six years of compensation at R2 or at least a Fenderson staged rating building up to it. The medrecs support him entirely but you know VA. They'll lip whip it with 500 attorneys for a decade in hopes of a delay and deny until he dies. Best of luck on your battle, sir and Merry Christmas.

No. You do not have to prove that your spouse had HCV prior to service. He was found fit to serve and not impaired by anything on his physical profile. That is called the presumption of soundness at induction. If they let him join, then they accepted that he did not have HCV. You need his service medical records and VA's c-file like yesterday if you hope to prevail. VA docs can't write nexus letters since June 2010. Most who did deliberately avoided a) looking at the Vet's contemporary records in the service but most importantly b) "forgetting" to include a reasoned analysis of why they believe it and the medical reasons that lead them to believe it. No "possibly" or "could have". No "rule out" or "might have been". You need a quick education on this and a lot of help to prepare for a win. Either that or a good VA attorney. The reason you haven't won is you don't have the same evidence they have to fight them. Attempting to file a CUE is futile. They'll eat you for breakfast. Your husband is granted the "combat exemption" that if he was in combat, everything he says is true. If he said he thinks he got it at the 3rd Army Field Hospital in Saigon, then VA has to believe him. They can't go off on a wild goose chase into what he was doing before he joined. Most of all, you need an IMO. A good attorney wouldn't hurt either.

Pdiddy, you do not want to do a CUE claim. You need a IMO from a gastro saying it is at least as likely as not that he contracted his HCV in service, Here's why you can get a doctor to say that. HCV runs in five stages (Metavir /scale-google it). Each stage takes approximately ten years- i.e. stage 0 runs from 1968-1978, stage 2 1978-1988 etc. It took forty plus years to get to a liver transplant when his liver became decompensated and quit working. I have a gastroenterologist who will do that for you for free. That is all you need to win. I've done this four times and am four for four on wins. Every one went to the BVA on appeal but the VA lost each one because the VA examiner's IMO was a joke-just like yours. Contact me on the private messaging feature here or send me an email at asknod@gmail.com and I'll provide you with what you need to prevail. I'm sorry for your loss. It sounds like it was readily avoidable. VA bolluxed up four operations on me and I ended up with an ileostomy bag for a year waiting for all the sepsis to abate. They came very close to killing me several times over my one year inpatient status,

Certain injuries are more likely to receive a transfusion. First, if you are a combat Vet and you say you got a transfusion-that's the story VA has to accept. You do not need the records. It's called the combat presumption accorded all of us combat Vets under 38 USC 1154. If he was medivac'd out to Camp Zama, the records exist. The NPRC stores hospital records in a different building than the Sick Call records. Same for military records. I've requested NPRC info 3 times and gotten three different sets of records back. I use my congressman and NARA a lot and there's a new place up in College Park Md. with tons of records that JCRUR uses all the time to confirm stressors. P.S.

The first thing missing from this discussion about attorneys/hired legal help is glaringly obvious. Consider the following. Joe Average Vet asks Mr. Law dog to represent him. Joe becomes irritated that Mr. Law dog has not "measured up" to his expectations and he fires him for whatever reason. Trust me. We can see this the moment we order the c-file, or, in my case, when I go on VBMS and review his c-file remotely following submittal of the VAF 21-22a. I can easily determine if she/he has a habit of jumping ship from one law dog to another by how many 21-22s or 21-22a there are in the file. Trust me when I say I wouldn't touch you with a ten-foot fork if I thought I was going to invest any time into your claim only to have you bail on me shortly thereafter. A compact between an attorney and a Vet is not as binding or enforceable as Vets might think. If they file a new POA (21-22a) with another attorney or a VSO, all that is right there in the file. Should you have the misfortune to pull this stunt like 63Charlie , you'll be shunned like you have leprosy. The second thing is even more important. This is litigation much like ambulance chasing. We're going to work for you using our own money and assets for what may turn into years. In some cases, I have to get a doctor and pay the fee for the IMO out of pocket if the Vet is financially challenged. I (or an attorney) have invested countless years learning how to do this. It's a recipe like baking cookies or putting down laminate on kitchen countertops properly as BroncoVet pointed out. Why would I invest time and energy with no eventual reward? A service rep does it because he gets paid by his VSO regardless of the outcome. An attorney/agent gets nothing if he a) loses or b) the Vet skies out on him. Based on this alone, many attorneys want to take a good long look at your c-file to make sure there's a valid claim. We are not allowed to file frivolous claims for Vets as we risk losing our accreditation. Looking over Hepatitis C claims, I cannot count how many blame the jetguns and conveniently overlook their heroin addictions and the sharing of needles/syringes. All that is a matter of record and it pays to find out the character of the one you intend to represent before you find out you're pissing on a flat rock and getting your shoes wet. VA law is not particularly complicated after one becomes experienced. However, learning the best way to do it is a never-ending educational process as VA frequently changes their game plan once we figure it out. The third thing is that some claims, like HCV jetgun claims, are unwinnable at the VARO stage. A Regional Director simply doesn't have that authority. Joe Vet is not aware of this and could spend years waiting for a futile DRO review and hearing. Every single case has gone to the BVA for adjudication. Complicated CUE claims going back to 1952, like Leroy Macklem's, will never be granted without a fierce battle all the way to the CAVC. Witness my eight-year battle to the CAVC for my 1994 EED. The accepted adage is that the more money on the table, the more they will fight and deny. As for Joe Average Vet fighting 500 BVA staff attorneys and expecting a win without a competent attorney is like expecting to win a quadriplegic asskicking contest with no prosthetics. I have helped many win but one thing I always studied was whether they were entitled to it first. As Vync pointed out, the attorney doesn't know you in most cases. He or she must decide if your claim has merit, whether you're a flight risk and what the value of the claim is. One thing we do not do is try to inflate the time it takes to win it in hopes of padding the paycheck. That falls into the category of morals. I leave you with this thought. If you could make an easy guaranteed 40% in short order as an attorney chasing ambulances and hanging out in emergency rooms, why on earth would you opt to help Vets at 20% and $187.50-an-hour in EAJA chump change and wait years-sometimes even decades- for a payday? Occam's razor tells us that the simplest explanation for a conundrum is most often the correct one. I do this to pay it forward. I did it for free for others for eight years after I figured it out. When an attorney told me I was more knowledgeable than him and should take the test to become an agent, I laughed. A year later I took the test. I don't do it for money. Thankfully, I'm blessed in that regard. I attend the NOVA conferences every spring and I have yet to hear one single attorney brag about how he is getting filthy rich doing it. To a man (or woman) they tell me they do it because they respect us and what we did for America. I'm sure somewhere in this closed system there are unscrupulous attorneys who might pervert the system and try featherbedding a claim. To be honest, there are so many needy Vets and so few of us skilled in the art form that we have no need or desire to drag out the process in hopes of a big payday. I've seen an attorney fight for 8 years for a Vet to get him 10% for tinnitus. Test your mathematics skills and multiply $125 a month X 96 months and peel off 20% of it for your pay day. It comes out to $2,400 out of a potential $12,000. Actually, it's less than that as I used the $125/mo. figure instead of going rates over the last eight years. Trust me. It doesn't even pay a month's rent- let alone the errors and omissions insurance for a year. In VA claims, you have the right to remain stupid, and I will defend that right to the death, but please do not come to Hadit and tell us about how eeeeevil VA attorneys are. Never have so few fought so hard for so many for so little financial gain. We are required by law to provide 30 hours per year in free pro bono time to clients at no charge. Most of us exceed that tenfold. And that's all I have to say about that.

I think Broncovet is playing fast and loose with the term "reopen". In VA law, You only have one claim. It may be for different diseases or injuries, but it is still one and only one claim. If you file new evidence between the time you receive your denial and when you file your NOD, VA is indeed required to give you a de novo review of the denial by law. Since there is no such thing as a reconsideration, by law, if they fail to "reconsider" it and issue a new denial, the claim does remain pending by law until it can be determined it has been answered and decided. This is how I went back to 1994 and got them to grant my claims. However, the correct procedure is to file the NOD with the new and material evidence, not ask for a reconsideration. If you do send in N&M E, you still have to protect your claim by filing the NOD. Since a substantive appeal is bifurcated into two parts (NOD and VAF 9), you have to comply completely and properly or the claim dies for lack of action one year from the initial denial. If you did not appeal in that one year window following the initial denial, you may "reopen" the claim at a later date but would be required to submit more new and material evidence to permit the reopening. Duplicative evidence already sent in will not suffice to reopen it. Claiming they failed to reconsider it following the new submission of evidence will not work either if you fail to file the NOD. The only thing you can ask VA to reconsider is a failed appeal at the Board of Veterans Appeals which must be accomplished within 120 days of the BVA decision. P.S. Back in the "old days", we could file N&M E and get a new denial back in a month or two ( 1994). By 2000, the backlog was becoming endemic to the system and the danger of running out of time in that first year without a NOD became more prevalent. Strictly speaking, they are required to return a de novo decision if you submit the new evidence. In reality, they are overwhelmed and it befalls you to file the NOD to protect their delay in deciding it anew. Read 3.156(b) carefully to include all interpretations: (b) Pending claim. New and material evidence received prior to the expiration of the appeal period, or prior to the appellate decision if a timely appeal has been filed (including evidence received prior to an appellate decision and referred to the agency of original jurisdiction by the Board of Veterans Appeals without consideration in that decision in accordance with the provisions of § 20.1304(b)(1) of this chapter), will be considered as having been filed in connection with the claim which was pending at the beginning of the appeal period. Please note the repeated emphasis on the word "appeal".

Never allow the VR&E pukes to quote VA law to you. The M-28 is a manual to be used as aguide to help formulate a decision. It is not law. Just because they said no more riding lawnmowers is not law. Saying no to a small John Deere tractor is not VA law. It is a decision based on them arbitrarily saying now with no legal justification. They tried that crap on me for five years. I just plodded along straight ahead and kept saying Greenhouse. When I got to the BVA the VLJ looked and said "I don't see where it says no greenhouse. Show me." They couldn't, so I won. You need to follow the same game plan. A rater once told me there was nothing after 100% and I believed him until one day I read about SMC in 2009. I got SMC S by fighting for it. Same difference. They will never tell you the truth so do not expect it when they show up and say no dice. Use their own regulations against them. If they whip out the M-28 for justification, laugh at them and explain the difference.If they deny, call me. Jez. You're a Marine- or were one once. You know the drill. It ain't a f-up until you can't fix it, hoss.

Entitlement to SMC S effective on ___/__/2008 based on TDIU and 60% or more in separate ratings in Block 13. If you want, you can attach an extra sheet and cite to 38 CFR 3.400(o) circa 2008 for your relief. I doubt the folks in Seattle could figure out what the CAVC is-- let alone Bradley v. Peake. If they deny, look me up. I'm accredited now.