FormerMember

Somebody should tell our friend the truth here. In order to get any $ for hearing loss, you will need to be substantially deaf in one ear and have a major loss in the other. Hearing is one of the least paid of ratings and is totally predicated on the results a) at induction versus the b) results at separation. If you had no hearing test at separation, they have no baseline to measure from. Chances are you will go to your grave with a 0% for hearing. I wish it were otherwise but that is the reality.

This is one of those examples of what happens when you have an inept VSO. It really makes no difference if it's DAV or any of the other brand names. Allow me to explain. You have one claim and only one claim at the VA.. Back in the old days you filled out one (1) 21-526 and it stood for life. You might add dependents to it but it essentially was the bedrock filing with VA. When you first file, that is the beginning of your claim. Any new diseases or injuries are merely a continuation of the original claim. With that in mind, when you have a claim currently at the VARO and you have a DRO review, you get a DRO decision. That adjudication is an up or down decision that you appeal from with a VA 9 (if you choose to). In the interests of judicial economy, VA likes to combine multiple claims on appeal before a VLJ to speed things up. There are only about 110 VLJs and they are booked out to 2020 so if you can combine one Vet's claims together and speed it up. it makes room for others who are waiting. What it sounds like you are saying is that you have two different claims streams that were never combined. This is unheard of if you have proper representation. No lawyer would ever put you through this wringer and cause you to wait. It is very simple to ask the Judge to combine the denied decisions at the beginning of the VLJ hearing. If the DRO is not finished with his deliberations, you ask for a continuance on the VLJ hearing so you can combine (if necessary) the denied DRO review with the existing BVA appeal. I've done this several times at the very last moment. The VARO pukes don't like it but they have no say. The VLJ is the arbiter. I would personally call up or visit the VARO and ask to speak to the VARO Director or the Veterans Service Center Manager and ask them to explain what in Sam Hill they're pulling. Failing that, I'd be pounding on the door of the DAV rep and asking him if he got his legal training certificate out of a box of Cheerios. I'm sorry to hear you are going through this. It was unnecessary to say the very least.

Wowser. We still have the confusion about what 100% is versus TDIU versus P&T. 100% is a term that attaches to a 100% schedular rating only. ChiefSC's highest rating is 70% which means he is rated as TDIU. After a certain amount of time, usually two years, if you are extremely disabled, they give you another C&P exam and grant Permanent and Total (P&T) based on the findings. That makes you TDIU P&T. Period. ChiefSC qualifies for SMC S based on any of his other ratings that add up to 60% or more as long as they are not related to his PTSD. Far too many think VA adds all this up using 4.25 and tries to get it to 100%. Remember, a 100% schedular disability is rated at....duh...100%.Use 4.25 tables to add up enough of his other ailments to reach 60% or more and voila-he qualifies. Bradley v. Peake gave us TDIU as a total disability rating equal to 100% but not the actual schedular rating. Buie v. Shinseki gave us the concept that it makes no difference what order you are awarded them. The order most advantageous to the Vet must be applied.

You'll never get a c-file in this lifetime with a 21-4138. I do wish people would not keep saying that. Here's the absolute quickest (and only) way to get you c-file within 6 months -(or less) in the new VBMS world. http://asknod.org/2015/01/12/2015-va-updates-on-getting-your-c-file/

My Uncle Jay caught a Jap machinegun round through his ankle and it made it difficult to walk on. He got 20% from his discharge in 48. They had to amputate it in 64 and gave him a K on top for loss of use of one foot. He didn't get 100% until 82 for his PTSD. SMC K doesn't require being above any certain percentage. You could have loss of use of one eye and get K even if nothing else was wrong with you.

Add three months to it. Mine was heard 4/29/15 and advanced at the hearing. I got my decision 9/4/15. It's getting worse as we speak. There were 44,000 in the chute at the beginning of 2015 with another 62,000 incoming for the year. 2016 is said to show 50,000 in the queue with about 65,000 new appeals. And it just gets worse from there.

R/T.

Here are the requirements for 100% MDD. Keep in mind the Court(s) have held that you need not have each and every impediment but most of them. All MDD disabilities use the same set of metrics. Here is 38 CFR 4.130. It's a good place for some of you to begin your journey to attain the knowledge you need to win. Never think VA is going to "come after you" for filing too many claims. If they were, I'd be at 0% across the board. Total occupational and social impairment, due to such symptoms as: gross impairment in thought processes or communication; persistent delusions or hallucination; grossly inappropriate behavior; persistent danger of hurting self or others; intermittent inability to perform activities of daily living (including maintenance of minimal personal hygiene); disorientation to time or place; memory loss for names of close relatives, own occupation, or own name---100% With that said, you can apply for Voc Rehab but there is a high probability that your VRC will declare you ineligible simply because of your subset of disabilities. In that case, you can pursue the Independent Living Program path in 38 USC 3120. I have received a computer to write my blog and recently was granted a sizable greenhouse to keep me out of the whiskey bars and whorehouses. As a rule, I do not help individuals with their claims for several reasons. One, quite obviously, it's illegal and I risk my own compensation check for doing so. Secondly, it would take all my time away from helping my personal family of Veterans with Hepatitis C and AO diseases. Lastly, I enjoy gardening and devote endless hours to that and my horses. I offer advice. I counsel occasionally. I always help widows. I give back to my community. But I arrived here by reading the statutes and regulations for eight years. As long as any of you have the ability of sight, you, too, can attain this exact same knowledge with a little perseverance. Or maybe a lot of perseverance. I spent two years in Vietnam, Thailand and Laos. I was in combat during some of that time. Real combat- as in killing and blowing up things. Not just close to the sound of bombs and artillery or sitting on an LZ waiting for the shit to hit. I know full well what it feels like to be shot at and also to be physically shot. I also know the unseen scars it inflicts on the mind. I was booted out with less than six months to go on a stellar enlistment because of what I endured/encountered in Southeast Asia. They called it Antisocial personality with Passive Aggressive tendencies. That was nine years before they invented PTSD. I do not think it is permanent but I'm not a doctor. I don't socialize with a lot of folks and I live in a very remote rural area. I have no doubt that anyone- Zat954 included- can turn his life around (and his mind) if he so chooses. It takes time. Never become comfortable in your surroundings. Change will wreak havoc on you. The highest calling any of you can do here is to learn and share claims knowledge with those who come after you. I hear far too many express that sentiment after I help them attain 100%. By rights, that should be the "breather" needed to learn this and teach others. Sadly, they all drift away and disremember their promise. There are far too few Theresas, Berthas and Carlies in this world. Think where you'd be without Hadit or asknod.org. Theresa built an inexorable snowball that began its descent in 1997 and has done nothing but gain momentum, followers and a stellar reputation for honest appraisals. I think any who come here can decypher the tenor of our commitment to Veterans. Rarely will you see snarky behaviour or someone purposefully inciting others to argue by 'flaming' them. That is for other sites where seniority, rather than knowledge, is perceived as being most important. What will happen when we're gone? I have more diseases than I can count on both hands and I'm 65 in a week. One day our voices will be silenced and the advice with it. What I did in my war will stay on the other side of the globe.What I do here will hopefully help others now but a new phalanx of up and coming Veterans willing to help teach others is what is needed. Giving advice is easy. Giving good advice that is error-free can be the difference between a 70% rating and R2. That takes study. I do know all of you want to help in a meaningful way. Just remember that reciting your particular journey is just that. Each claim is horribly unique to that person. There is no 'one-size-fits-all' that is appropriate. This thread is a classic example of that. I spotted multiple errors and attempted to enlighten 954. Learning VA law is not complicated or difficult. It's akin to riding a bike. Pretty soon you know the regulations and can recite them without holding on to the handlebars. But you often have to know the why-not just the "because it says so'. We must follow the Hippocratic oath doing this--First, Do No Harm. If you are fuzzy or unsure, the absolute worst thing you could do is to start spouting half a regulation. Look it up. Teach others to do the same. Happy Easter to you all and thank you for wanting the best outcome for America and our Veterans.

Let's say I offer good advice and maybe about 500 or so Veterans have used it to attain 100% schedular or TDIU. I am seeking accreditation at the moment and awaiting the outcome of my CBI ordered by VA's OGC.

For argument's sake, you could petition the VA to rescind your SMC S and ask them to rate you at 100% P&T. That would not be 100% schedular as I pointed out earlier. You have no 100% ratings. Unless you have been rated at 100% schedular for any one disease or injury, you add up your disabilities using the chart on 4.25. VA has used 4.16 to determine you qualify for TDIU based on MDD @ 70% . This "frees up" the rest of your ratings to make the argument for SMC S like Mr. Bradley did. But...If you insist on going the "add 'em up" route, you end up here .... 70+ 50= 85/// 85 + 40=91///91 + 20=93///93+ 20=94///94+10=95>>> .100%. However, you have now used up all your ammo to get to 100%. That doesn't mean automatic P&T. That is another hurtle accomplished by showing there is no improvement over 2 years at the next C&P exam. Assuming your condition is static, you'd get the P&T but where are you going to assemble additional ratings to attain SMC (s)? You just shot them all to get to your 100%. Do you see the logic now? VA accorded you the most lenient reading of the ratings based on your ability to be employed (or not). It was a TDIU decision as they clearly stated in the decision language I copied for you. Forget the words "100% schedular". You aren't. VA is empowered to grant whatever they want whenever they want to. You can get TDIU with no 8940. It hinges on how disabled you are and how disabled VA views you too. As for obtaining your most up to date ratings awards sheet, you may ask VA to send you one by filing a 21-3288 and specifying it. I'd ask for the c-file in its entirety before it accidentally burns up in the Friday July 13th, 1973 fire. VA keeps on blaming the loss of their files to that even if you served in Desert Storm. For the record, I do have several Vets who are 60% TDIU for Hepatitis with a subset of other diseases associated with it like DM2 and thyroid problems. Everyone of them has filed VA 9s for 100% schedular in spite of being TDIU for the reasons I described above. You, too, can file a claim for increase to 100% for your MDD if you can qualify for the particulars needed. At that point you'd still be in the same financial position but in a far better and secure ratings place than a TDIU--and you could work without the TDIU penalty. What the hey? Look at me. I never intended to work again after I did a year and 4 surgeries at the VAMC. Now I'm preparing for an exciting new life as a VA agent (hopefully). I'm glad I went for 100% schedular at the outset rather than let VA blow TDIU smoke up my derriere. Always remember this. There is no such thing as "permanent TDIU". I do not care how many assurances you get that "no more examinations are scheduled". If you put one penny into SSI and VA sees it, they'll be knocking on the door and asking for a new C&P.

Schedular refers to the actual percentage of the rating assigned-never to a composite, added up score. EBennies is deceptive. They do not have a little circle and TDIU to express it. When you hit TDIU, it pays like 100%. You are young. Let me forecast what will happen when your TDIU is 19 years and 3 months old. Suddenly, VA will reexamine you. You get called in for a C&P. Then another one. They need two to prove you got better on paper. Bingo, they reduce you based on the two exams. They will magnanimously rejigger the ratings to say you now qualify for TDIU again based on your back. You think everything is still hunky dory. If you check, you will discover they have reset your 10-year clock for DIC for you wife. You'll have to maintain this new TDIU for ten years in order for her to get the DIC benefit all over again. I've seen it happen about 20 times. Each Vet was dumbfounded when he got broadsided. This is why I advocate for all my Vets to attain 100% as soon as possible if at all possible. Since most of the Vets I help are RVN boots on the ground and Hep C sufferers, getting to 100% schedular is not a problem and we usually find a way to get there from two different 100% schedular directions such as AO presumptives. Think of 100% schedular as a Harley. Think of TDIU as a Cushman. They both get you there but you'll be wanting the 100% schedular to CYA. It's the gold standard and VA feel much less inclined to disturb the 100% schedulars. What the hey? Look at all the TDIU fish in the pond they can go after. Additional benefits such as Chap. 35 are what ensue from the P&T only. Ratings, or more particularly ratings that exceed 100%, are the foothills leading to SMC. Don't confuse entitlements with compensations. DEA (Chapter 35 bennies) is an entitlement program predicated on reaching P&T. SMC is compensation based on how ginormous your ratings numbers are. Reread my earlier post. I was busy editing it when you put up your next one.

Zat,954- For the record, you are 70% schedular for MDD 50% schedular for SA 40% schedular for lumbar 20% schedular for sternum 20% schedular for pectoral 10% schedular for cervical You are not 100% schedular for any one of these. You are P&T TDIU. Here's why. You cannot use eBenefits ratings sheets as the metric for what you are or are not. You do not have one (1) disease or injury rated at 100% schedular using Part 4, 38 CFR. Without that, you will never be "100% schedular". You are rated TDIU at P&T for the 70% MDD alone. TDIU expressly holds you need a single disability 60% or greater Or.... a combo of disabilities that consists of one 40% rating and others that add up to a combined (VA math) 70%. (4.16) From the language, it sounds as if they combined several MDDs to arrive at a combined 70%. Since you are 70% for your MDD, which a true VA ratings sheet would show in your c-file, any combination of disabilities that add up to or exceed 60%, be they from lumbosacral or other etiologies, AS LONG AS THEY DO NOT INVOLVE MDD, will entitle you to SMC (s). This is the sole basis for your entitlement. I see far too many Vets become enamoured of the phrase "100% schedular." Far too many Diagnostic codes top out at less than 100% schedular and force us to seek TDIU. VA doesn't apply TDIU quite the way we think of it. One disease, the moment it reaches 60% is the springboard for TDIU all by itself. VA is not going to do a rolling addition of all your disabilities to get to a (95>%)= 100% rating if any single one is 60 % or greater. Likewise, if you have a 40% and others that reach 70%, they begin the process of examining you from a TDIU perspective. We currently have to file a 21-8940 if we're "iffy" to get it. At that point it becomes an extraschedular TDIU. If the combo of your ills is deemed insufficient to prevent you from working, you flunk the TDIU test. In your case, they determined that the combo of MDDs at 70% is the sole reason you are unemployable. If you are P&T and never work again, your rating is substantially protected after 5 years by 3.344. However, if you go back to work, you risk having the TDIU rescinded. Trust me on this one. Here's your TDIU: mood disorder (previously rated as major depressive disorder with anxiety disorder and body dysmorphic disorder (also claimed as involutional melancholia, severe insomnia due to pain, and adjustment disorder with anxious mood)) a single disability upon which a total individual unemployability rating is based . As you point out, your lumbar problem is not 60% but VA has added all your "lumbar related" disabilities to make one independently rated disease or injury that does add up to 60% or more so that you qualify for the SMC S. This is one of those rare instances where they got it right the first time. Actually, with the number of diseases you have ratings for, they had no problem finding 60% because 50+40+20+20+10= 83% <80%. Always read 3.350(i) for it's least complicated meaning. Just because it says 100% as the initial qualifier, remember Bradley turned that into TDIU as well. Also, the 60% required as the kicker can be one or more disabilities unrelated to the TDIU qualifier and also unrelated to each other such as your lumbar and sleep apnea issues. If you choose to go out and work, you will lose your TDIU unless it is a sheltered family enterprise. I do not care what the YUKU wizard moderator told you. He's blowing bubbles. They do that a lot over at the Pink Site. I'm sure they mean well but you have to understand where their loyalties lie. Likewise, I see several individuals here have offered you advice which is incorrect. That is a problem when anyone, regardless of training, expresses their thoughts as defined law and regulation. When in doubt, get a confirmed ratings sheet and know the law. Never just take someone's word for it. I did that for a number of years by listening to my VSOs. Here: I'll attach one for you so you know what they look like. They specify exactly what you are rated for and how much. This is an old one. I have 2 100s (schedular), 60, 40, 30 and 10 now. The difference between 100% schedular P&T and TDIU P&T is that you can go out and work on a 100% scheduler P&T without the risk of losing your rating(s). Best of luck and thanks for your time spent helping America to remain great. RBA Prime C-File 497.pdf

Beats limiting it to $10 like they did for a century. June 20th, 2007 was Emancipation Day. We're in the catbird seat now- or at least closer to it. The CAVC was the best thing since sliced bread in '88. P.S. VA VR&E Head poobah just contacted me about the greenhouse. They want to meet to sign the papers on what, how much, for how long and will they pay heat for 3 years?

Texas Marine, you need to read more articles on B&M. They exclusively represent all appeals of the Vietnam Veterans of America. The law is dispositive on the % charged. There is none. A Vet attorney, could he/she justify it, can charge 50% if they so choose. Most Vet Attorneys charge 20% because they enjoy repping Vets. Since 2007, it has become quite fashionable to do so. 33 1/3% gets you no more than 20% at the BVA or CAVC in quality. The motivation and intelligence of the representative is what you pay for- not his proximity to the Court. Ken Carpenter is unarguably the best and could quite possibly get 40% but he settles for 20. Considering he resides and works out of Kansas, that geographical dog you mention won't hunt. As for geographical proximity, in the electronic environment we now inhabit, there is no snail mail to the CAVC. It's called e-filing. It takes just seconds to send it in to 625 Wagon Burner Lane NW from anywhere in the country. In addition, not all jurisprudence occurs at 810 Vermont Ave or 625 Indiana Ave. NW. A great majority of it occurs at your local Regional Office. I have attorney friends in San Diego "fix" problems in Sioux Falls SD and other Regional Offices every day without having to journey there to do so. Likewise, there is no "trial" with attorneys facing one another in Court at the CAVC. On rare occasions, an oral hearing will be held to allow a Vet attorney to address the Court on a legal matter of first impression. This happens about 10 times a year-hardly a reason to lease expensive digs in Georgetown for a law office to be "closer to the action". A good attorney is definitely one who responds to your queries and keeps you in the loop. You should never have to pay extra for that service. Perhaps the best I have ever seen in this business are Vet attys. who are one-man bands such as Bob Walsh, Katrina Eagle and Keith Snyder. Too much support staff can lead to snafus of immense proportions. Any atty. who has his client prepare the claim has not done his job. You are called upon to provide a timeline/diary of events when possible. You might be called upon to explain discrepancies in the c-file or missing documents you alone may possess. An attorney is only as good as you arm him/her with the info needed to win. Over-supervising them or questioning their capabilities/ technique makes them feel inadequate and suspect in your eyes. That's the quickest way to lose representation. Always remember who did the 7 years of college and law school to get here. That's a tremendous investment of time and money. By comparison, try finding a regular civie attorney who will rep you for personal injury for less than 40% nowadays and you can begin to appreciate that 20% number. Consider also that there are a finite number of attorneys available to the numerous Veterans who seek their services and you can readily understand why they appear to "shop" your claim for viability. I have Vets who approach me with a "What do you think of this? Can I win it?" Why am I the bad guy if I say it's a short trip on the Shortline Railroad to a loss or a financial waste of time/resources? Or perhaps, why would I be interested in fighting for a retro of one year on a Tinnitus claim for 10%? 20% of $1590.00 is $318 dollars. It would not justify coming to work and turning on the lights. Veterans need to have a realistic appreciation for what an attorney can and will do for them. BroncoVet speaks volumes about how and when an attorney can best be employed and for what amount of remuneration. As for EAJA fees. the current lodestar is about $187 an hour and you can also expect VA to insist on a 25% reduction in the EAJA award without a good legal argument. That drags the number even lower. EAJA is a tip on 20%. I personally think the attorney should get it in addition to the 20%. The Attorney process for VA claims is a closed pool. It's easy law as it is designed to give the Vet a leg up legally on many aspects of law unlike civilian practice. For example, there is no comparable process to CUE in civilian practice. Congress' decision to allow VA attorneys into the process in June 2007 was met with howls of indignation by guess who? DAV, AmVets, VFW et al. Now they have all partnered up with attorneys for CAVC/Fed. Circuit representation. DAV actively seeks out their Vets for repping by Chisholm,Chisholm and Kilpatrick. Funny how things change-well, except for crappy representation by VSOs. Lastly, I consider horse-trading to be one of the quickest ways to a TDIU or a 100% schedular with P&T. Agreeing to give up some claims that are inconsequential to the big picture in return for the big banana is a valuable tool to bargaining. Being obstinate and demanding everything puts off DROs and raters alike. I guess I don't need to say how your attorney takes that when he's trying to do the best he can by you. If your law dog(s) are good, trust them to do it right. The internet is a valuable tool to ascertaining who is good at this and who isn't. Blindly accepting someone based on location or percentage charged is not a valid metric in this day and age. With that said-best of luck to whoever you choose.

§ 3.814 Monetary allowance under 38 U.S.C. chapter 18 for an individual suffering from spina bifida whose biological father or mother is or was a Vietnam veteran or a veteran with covered service in Korea. (a) Monthly monetary allowance. VA will pay a monthly monetary allowance under subchapter I of 38 U.S.C. chapter 18, based upon the level of disability determined under the provisions of paragraph (d) of this section, to or for a person who VA has determined is an individual suffering from spina bifida whose biological mother or father is or was a Vietnam veteran or a veteran with covered service in Korea. Receipt of this allowance will not affect the right of the individual or any related person to receive any other benefit to which he or she may be entitled under any law administered by VA. An individual suffering from spina bifida is entitled to only one monthly allowance under this section, even if the individual's biological father and mother are or were both Vietnam veterans or veterans with covered service in Korea. (b) [Reserved] (c) Definitions— (1) Vietnam veteran. For the purposes of this section, the term “Vietnam veteran” means a person who performed active military, naval, or air service in the Republic of Vietnam during the period beginning on January 9, 1962, and ending on May 7, 1975, without regard to the characterization of the person's service. Service in the Republic of Vietnam includes service in the waters offshore and service in other locations if the conditions of service involved duty or visitation in the Republic of Vietnam. (2) Covered service in Korea. For the purposes of this section, the term “veteran with covered service in Korea” means a person who served in the active military, naval, or air service in or near the Korean DMZ between September 1, 1967, and August 31, 1971, and who is determined by VA, in consultation with the Department of Defense, to have been exposed to an herbicide agent during such service. Exposure to an herbicide agent will be conceded if the veteran served between April 1, 1968, and August 31, 1971, in a unit that, as determined by the Department of Defense, operated in or near the Korean DMZ in an area in which herbicides are known to have been applied during that period, unless there is affirmative evidence to establish that the veteran was not exposed to any such agent during that service. (3) Individual. For the purposes of this section, the term “individual” means a person, regardless of age or marital status, whose biological father or mother is or was a Vietnam veteran and who was conceived after the date on which the veteran first served in the Republic of Vietnam during the Vietnam era, or whose biological father or mother is or was a veteran with covered service in Korea and who was conceived after the date on which the veteran first had covered service in Korea as defined in this section. Notwithstanding the provisions of § 3.204(a)(1), VA will require the types of evidence specified in §§ 3.209 and 3.210 sufficient to establish in the judgment of the Secretary that a person is the biological son or daughter of a Vietnam veteran or a veteran with covered service in Korea. (4) Spina bifida. For the purposes of this section, the term “spina bifida” means any form and manifestation of spina bifida except spina bifida occulta.

That and send in a request to have the enforcement abated until you can have a hearing or determine the validity of the debt. You have 30 days from the mailed notice ( not an eBennies posting) to file the request to forego enforcement. VA then must determine if it is a valid debt, and, if so, if it would create undo hardship or financial ruin for you. VA can't find their derriere with a methane detector so I wouldn't worry too much unless you get a notice via the USPS. By law, eBenefits doesn't constitute official notification. You have 180 days to file for relief of the debt entirely.

In the course of my studying further for the Agent's exam, I spotted what I hope will not be a roadblock for you. I note that Spina Bifida Occulta is excluded from the list of spina bifida diseases. I hope it is not the diagnosis you were given. Up to last week, I had no idea they don't grant for all Spina bifida cases. https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/38/3.814

QTC is owned by Lockheed Martin now. It was begun by former VA Secretary Anthony Principi and his friends. VA Secretary Peake also joined the Board of QTC as an owner after his stint as VASEC. QTC has been around since 1998 doing C&Ps for civie companies and Workman's Comp. exams. They are predominantly used out west. Many VAMCs in the east still do their own C&Ps with a larger staff.

Compensation and Pension Service is run by Tom Murphy out of VACO. They make determinations on large settlements and also on extraschedular awards. CPS is not part of the Appeals Management Center. Think of the AMC as the BVA's own private regional office who can write up decisions and SSOCs so they don't have to wait for a one year remand back to your RO. When you sign a waiver of review, this allows the AMC to do a quick fix and send it back to the VLJ for a final decision pronto. At least that's how it's supposed to work. Recently, everything went into the automatic waiver of review in an attempt to reduce the BVA backlog. I spoke with VLJ Brad Hennings at the Las Vegas NOVA Hugfest and he tells me they've eliminated Laura Eskinazi's rocket docket program as well as the "Acting" VLJ program. Seems it took too many staff attorneys away from their regular duties to VLJs in order to do a few of their own. Turns out it also slowed things down instead of the opposite. Now they are biting the bullet and hiring more VLJs as they should have when VBMS was born. CPS has been around since 61. It was a major checkpoint/obstacle on the road to TDIU for decades. Now they try to "control awards" for $ in Fenderson staged ratings after a big CUE screwup. Any request for extraschedular automatically has to cross Murph's desk and he doesn't grant very many. He's a nice guy, 6'3", weighs as much as a buffalo and is as bald as Kojak.He smiles a lot and pretends to be pro-Vet but all VA honchos do that when they're denying you.

A good VA lawyer would never allow a DRO review to be conducted off the record. Navy 4 life's link states this: A veteran can request an informal hearing in person, by telephone, by fax, e-mail or in writing. The DRO should document the request with Form 119. An informal conference may be held in person at the Regional Office, by telephone, or by video conference. The conference is informal in nature, and the rules of evidence do not apply. Note the use of the verb 'can', not shall. Can implies being physically able to accomplish something. 'Shall' is a term of compliance. Please also note the sentence: The conference is informal in nature, and the rules of evidence do not apply. The idea is to win at the Regional Office level. You go in to a DRO review from a position of strength. You are right and merely there to inform the DRO that the VA is wrong. To me, it is immaterial if he believes me. I wouldn't be there arguing if I was begging for a gift. If the DRO is a butthead and refuses to listen to the case or controversy, you definitely want this in the formal record for the next trip up the ladder (BVA). The DRO's job is to maximize any benefit he can award by law. This is not a pissing match but a meeting to help Joe Veteran. Unfortunately, from experience, I know VA "shades the truth" or purposefully misinterprets some of the evidence. Sometimes they simply overlook it. This is why you are there. You walk them through it. You do what Buck said above and mostly you should be polite. Telling the DRO he must have been raised by wolves is right out.

Yeah, I did a class on it last week in Vegas. Let me find it and I'll send it over. You can't publish it but I can let you look at it.. It's copyrighted.

BVA has a ninety day letter they issue (or are supposed to). I doubt most VSOs would tell you. It is the yellow flashing light to say that you have...yup... ninety days in which to submit anything you need to win the claim. On the dawn of the 91st day, the "no more evidence " light goes on. The staff attorney reads your tea leaves and studies the chicken entrails. If Aries is in Gemini's House, you win.

Buck, if they sent you a transcript, it was recorded. I had one in 1991 and I found the transcript in the c-file in 2009. That was the first indication it had been recorded. I don't have a clue where the microphone was either. I do not recall even being given a choice of on or off the record back then.

Carefully allocate your time to cover all your issues. I always lay out what I want to accomplish off the record with a DRO before we start. The actual hearing is just for the transcript in case you have to appeal. Most will give you an hour to present it. I've had others who will let you ramble on for 90 minutes. Brevity is the ticket. If you keep pounding in a point over and over you lose your audience. As much as I hear the pros and the cons of formal versus informal hearings, a complex case should always be on the record. If you have a tenuous claim that plows new ground like a claim for stomach cancer from Agent Orange, you will want it in the transcript at the BVA when you are denied. Certain claims like HCV due to jetguns are never approved at the AOJs. They simply do not have the authority to grant it. Similarly, the larger the retro payment, the more inclined a DRO is to punt to the BVA on fourth and 20. If it goes over $25 K, they need three signatures ([A]VSCM, Director and rater). Sometimes the VSCM or Assistant VSCM are leery of giving all that money away without a fight. Remember too that nobody gets in trouble for denying you with no good reason. There simply is no accountability for purposeful error in VA jurisprudence. This a primary reason why we have so many denials. Well, that and VSO service officer ineptitude.