FormerMember

What are the odds that two of us, both combat Vets of the same war, who live about 4.5 miles apart as the VA crow flies medically, not only failing to get our medals but lost out to VA indifference for so many years? If two, how many more in the county? State, United States? Berta, it is a crime and I feel that is a very polite way of saying it. Merry Christmas to you, sugar. Got ten chapters of the new book in the can. This one almost deserves its own! And to Gastone- VA has been examining my win at VACO VR&E since September 24th. They have never had a win handed to them on a platter. They aren't sure how to proceed. I sent Jack Kammerer an email and asked for his VISA card to get this rolling. No word back yet. Will keep you in the loop. sir.

Here's a claim I began way back in 2012. I frequently consulted with Carlie on it regarding a number of facets including CUE and earlier effective dates. I can only wish she was here to share in Butch's success. As most know, we cannot claim any ownership of these claims for fear of prosecution by the OGC for representing Veterans without suitable credentials. I am in the process of obtaining mine but in the interim, I cannot own it. This was a long time coming. Let this be the reason every one of you set your sails and ventures forth on the claims path-for yourself or for your fellow Veterans. Theresa could not encapsulate or enunciate the reason any more clearly- never leave a Veteran behind. Period. You represent three percent of the American populace yet you defended 97%. Rejoice in it. If injured in the process, you signed a contract that indemnifies you and provides for your welfare. Do not be ashamed to put in a claim for something promised by those who hired you. My friend Butch suffered needless delay for 46 years because numerous VSOs, friends and acquaintances said they would "take care of it". In the end, his daughter, born while he was in Vietnam, approached me and asked me if I had the mettle. She admonished me not to promise something I had no intention of honoring. Many others had already done that. I made that promise and yesterday it came to pass. We got his c-file We didn't shotgun a claim into the wind and see what stuck. We never even filed until we could see what they did in 1970. I suppose we could have gotten him an earlier effective date of 2012 if we had been willing to begin shooting holes in the dark early on. We preferred to build a claim that would stand the test of numerous appeals. Butch's claim has just begun. 1970 is the prize. His $33,000 in retro is VA chump change. Follow us through this win and NOD/ Appeal and learn how. You win at this poker game with evidence. I cannot begin to emphasize that concept. You never win because you're morally right or deserving. You win because your evidence is unequivocal. Justice may be elusive but when you are right, you prevail-even if the evidence doesn't surface for 46 years. It took that long just to get Butch's Combat Infantry Badge and Purple Heart. Once that was accomplished, the evidence could not be disputed. A combat presumption is the gold standard, Many of you have this and do not understand the significance of it. No American who would risk his life for America should ever have his testimony called into question. If you are willing to die for America, it suffices to say you are a credible witness. I did it backwards and got my combat medal after I won. Had I done it with the medal in advance, it would have been child's play. Nobody was there to tell me. I had no mentors in 1989 and 1994. None of us did back then. Ladies and Gentlemen Veterans, I give you Butch Long- our latest member of the P&T club- an exclusive membership of 255,000 TDIU Veterans who have made the grade. http://asknod.org/2015/12/23/lz-cork-success-after-46-years/ Never in my 26 years of fiddle farting around with this crap have I ever been so honored to have a neighbor like Butch that I could help. He has lived a stone's throw from me for years and I had no clue. Our Vietnam Band of Brothers grows smaller with each passing day. Theresa's Hadit ideal created a Godsend for us here and gave us the gift of a virtual Town Hall to share our knowledge. I beg of you to pay your wins forward as Carlie and Theresa have. I'm the FNG in this with barely 20 years under my belt. Follow our footsteps and make a difference for those who come after us. In the last 8 years, I have watched as many said they would help after their big win. Many promise.I continue to watch and wait for some of them to honor that promise. Your knowledge is the next generation of Veterans law. Without you, it evaporates. Don't let it require each new generation to learn it all over again. Merry Christmas from all of us at asknod and Hadit. Remember too that it is more blessed to share your knowledge than to use us as a Wikipedia and never leave your footprint. Fifteen minutes of Facebook fame is nothing to helping even one Veteran achieve service connection for life. Pay it forward because you can. Because it is the right thing to do. And to all my Vietnam Brethren- Welcome home with Honor, gentlemen.

They pickpocket first timers who arrive without any supporting documentation. They send them out for the C&P that actually "proves" they have it and then pay from that day forward. If you have earlier private records, you could possible win it back to the date you filed. Technically, you are entitled to a year earlier than your filing if it's for AO herbicides. If you ever filed before -ever-for CAD even if it was not a VA-recognized presumptive at the time, VA has to pay you back to that filing-and up to a year earlier if you can show entitlement.

Do not confuse a C&P doctor from QTC as the deciding factor. Each RO has its own in-house VA Examiner. Many are lowly RNs on up to a PA-C. Regardless of their qualifications and schooling, they are hired to do one thing- shoot down the claim if at all possible (or so it would seem). The VA examiner, even though they are often of lesser knowledge and legal training than your MD , are presumed correct unless proven otherwise. This is called the Presumption of Regularity. In 2008, I had my doctor write my nexus for my HCV. It was very probative and he discussed the service medical records from Air America. VA wasn't buying it. They promptly set me up with a QTC doctor. She also opined that it was service connected and even made me strip down to look at my GSW scar as if to prove the transfusion never occurred. VA still didn't buy her positive opinion and sent it out to the chief medical officer for QTC down in Diamond Bar, CA. He hemmed and hawed on both sides but finally did the Benefit of the Doubt game by saying even though there was no written evidence that I had a transfusion after being wounded, I probably would not go out and shoot myself just to get a GSW scar to prove my case. The fact that I came down with hepatitis (not otherwise specified) 89 days after the transfusion somehow never entered the discussion. This is who you are dealing with. So, yes, if they can get 30 pieces of silver into the right hands and a slipshod nexus that blows the right sized bubbles, they will. If it's for tinnitus or hammertoe, I doubt they'd get in a big dither. But then you don't ever want to underestimate these folks. If the monetary settlement is exorbitant, the fight will be epic.

Hey, I have fibromyalgia for 40% and I'm not even faking it. Feels like a taser in about half my joints on any given day. Never seen Iraq. It's secondary to something. Never abandon or wait on anything-ever. You just lose and your indifference is used against you. Get the magic nexus letter and file it. Or send it in and let it fester for 8 years. Then file. They hate that.

A Statement of the Case (SOC) can only be used to inform a Veteran of a denial or denials. Under no circumstances is a SOC used to announce a decision or to grant a claim. That will always occur under separate cover. On occasion, VA has been known to cheap out on postage and mail them both in the same Big Brown Envelope but they will always be two separate documents. A grant will always bear the Seal of the VA and a declaration of what you won, what percentage and the rate you will be paid. A SOC will cite to every pertinent regulation pertaining to your claim and end with a decision statement informing you of the reason(s) why your claim failed and include a VA Form 4107 with instructions on how to file your VA Form 9 with which to perfect your appeal. I don't mean to poke a hole in the happy party but it is essential to know that the imminent reception of a SOC is never reason to celebrate. The VA "technician" at the 800 Prize Redemption Center is allowed to announce a grant but not the particulars. Absent any discussion, I think it's safe to say they denied you. Time to consider getting a real leagle beagle now. Here's 38 CFR § 19.31. While it discusses Supplemental Statements of the Case, it simply reiterates what a SOC or SSOC can and cannot contain: § 19.31 Supplemental statement of the case. (a) Purpose and limitations. A “Supplemental Statement of the Case,” so identified, is a document prepared by the agency of original jurisdiction to inform the appellant of any material changes in, or additions to, the information included in the Statement of the Case or any prior Supplemental Statement of the Case. In no case will a Supplemental Statement of the Case be used to announce decisions by the agency of original jurisdiction on issues not previously addressed in the Statement of the Case, or to respond to a notice of disagreement on newly appealed issues that were not addressed in the Statement of the Case. The agency of original jurisdiction will respond to notices of disagreement on newly appealed issues not addressed in the Statement of the Case using the procedures in §§ 19.29 and 19.30 of this part (relating to statements of the case).

I have a DAV rep but I am working my own claim I basically sign on with them in case I need to go to CAVC OR Even a DRO Hearing, mine is to busy to call at times but may need them later? if he don't answer his pgone I'll just go to his DAV Office its in my VAMC building Let me give you a piece of knowledge Buck. None of the VSOs have attorneys accepted to practice at the CAVC. It requires a real juris doctorate and a $1500 a year registration fee. DAV and the rest do not have these law dogs. The moment you lose at the BVA, that's the end of the trail ride. You are forced to either go to the NVLSP for a pro bono attorney or find one on the private market as I did with Bob Walsh. Too many Vets think they get the legal all the way to the Fed Circus or the Supreme Court. Truth is, there aren't many who practice at the CAVC and a dang sight fewer at the Fed. Circuit. NVLSP has a contract with a few who are accepted at the Supreme Court. Otherwise, you hear Ken Carpenter's dulcet tones arguing most at the Fed. Cir. and even quite a few at the CAVC panel decisions. In 1992, I won 0% +0% for hearing /tinnitus. I lost the big one on my back and DAV never told me I could go to the CAVC. In fact, they never mentioned the place existed. DAV (89-92), AmVets (94-95) and MOPH (2006-2008) all never told me I needed a nexus letter. I finally figured it out myself and won without them. The law has said you needed a nexus since 1945. Seems one of the 46 VSOs would have copped to that and shared it with us all these years. We now have a VCAA, 95 VSOs and still we see 50% of all claims on appeal with VSOs still crashing and burning with one thing in common---no nexus letter. How many of you think that is a coincidence or an unfortunate error? Remember, VSO service reps have to go to school to learn this game. If all you need to succeed is three things and you have a rep who arrives with none, one or two, would you think he was still sharp as a tack? This isn't one of those Maxwell Smart "missed it by thaaaaaaaat much"! games.

Because they can. I've had guys file for a claim and while waiting, send in new evidence. VA promptly opens another claim for the same thing but with one exception. Your effective date is the newer one from the date of the submission of the new evidence. Sometimes it takes years to argue the right date for the $. I've had Vets send in a query on the IRIS system and have the same thing happen. VA is lost in space, folks. It's no wonder they can't find their asses with a methane detector.

<<<Every claimed item, needs to be examined in a C&P exam setting.>>> Not true. I have plenty of evidence to show VA will grant based on private records. My most recent was a private skin survey submitted for the first time at a BVA hearing. The VLJ granted the claim increase from 10% to 30% based entirely on the evidence submitted. He certainly could have remanded it back to the RO for a C&P but I signed a waiver of review in the first instance and he used the private "C&P". And yes, a doctor doing the C&P for VA has no decisional authority. He merely reports what he sees and diagnoses. A VA examiner, usually an ARNP or PA (C) at the RO, is the one who makes the call up or down. This can be rebutted if discovered soon enough. VA often loses these pissing matches when you are using a private doctor with a real M.D. after his name- especially one who is a recognized specialist in the field in question. Vets with good legal representation usually win- but on appeal when they discover a bed pan changer CNA has upstaged a noted John Hopkins specialist.

When you hit the 100% P&T wall, VR&E is hesitant about expending any monies towards a Voc Rehab program into any field. I presume your rating is a true 100% schedular rating as opposed to a TDIU equivalent. VA tends to insert you into the Independent Living Program and try to pawn off cordless phones, grab bars near toilets and showers, can grabbers, sock puller uppers and the like to facilitate Independence. I asked for a computer and all the peripherals in 2011 and had to fight to get it on an administrative review back to DC. I had a great reason-asknod.org. It worked. You could also say you wish to be in communication with the Veterans Community at large and the computer will facilitate that. You do not need a true "vocational" use for a computer. I also asked for a greenhouse and finally won that on appeal to the BVA after four years. With a 100% P&T, VA is going to be deaf to a new rehab retraining program as there is much competition for the $. On the other hand, the ILP program only has 2,700 slots per year with a max expenditure of $180,000.00 per Vet over the 3-year life span of an ILP rehab. plan. My greenhouse ate most of that up. Go in and file. See if they show you the door on a standard job rehab grant. If so, demand the ILP and sharpen up your pencil. How about a woodworking shop with all the saws, sanders and planers? Make wood crafts and sell them at street fairs. Read up on 38 CFR 21.16o and .162, 38 USC 3120 and 3104. I've written about one hundred blogs on the ILP subject and published all my NODs, VA 9s etc. to give Vets a feel for the path to a win. The trick is simple. Refuse to lose. Best of luck. https://asknod.wordpress.com/category/independent-living-program/

SMC K is awarded for loss of or loss of use of an extremity. I just had a real test on this with a friend. In Your case Army man, SMC K is awarded outside any compensation you would normally be given for a disability. You must meet a strict test to receive K for your foot. Ignore your ratings and the percentages. They are immaterial. Here's the test. Can you walk on it? Would it be just as well served if you had it amputated above the ankle and a prosthesis attached? These are the questions that will determine SMC K. If the appendage (from the ankle down) is useless for locomotion or balance, then that constitutes loss of use and you would qualify. If, on the other hand, you could use the foot, in conjunction with your good foot, to stand and balance,then you technically do not qualify. On appeal, if you could prove you could not walk without crutches (not a cane or Canadian crutches- but real crutches under the armpits), then you would prevail. Loss of use is the defining metric. 38 CFR 3.350(a)(2)(i): (i) Loss of use of a hand or a foot will be held to exist when no effective function remains other than that which would be equally well served by an amputation stump at the site of election below elbow or knee with use of a suitable prosthetic appliance. The determination will be made on the basis of the actual remaining function, whether the acts of grasping, manipulation, etc., in the case of the hand, or of balance, propulsion, etc., in the case of the foot, could be accomplished equally well by an amputation stump with prosthesis; SMC Ks are stand alone ratings and are awarded in addition to anything else you may be entitled to. There are no prequalifiers. To me, it sounds like you do not qualify if you are having operations to improve function. Loss of use is not final if you are operating on it to "fix" it.

BVA just uploaded new decisions this AM. Some go to November 10th.

And then there is the rule of nines on scars.

Two different claims. You filed for sleep apnea in 05 but presented no evidence other than snoring. Snoring is not a disease or injury as recognized by VA. To win that argument, you need a doctor to say what your neurologist did but then expand on it and say "And the reason why I believe his snoring is is a symptom of sleep apnea is..." Bald, unsupported statements or assertions with no basis or argument in fact are not probative and will be given no weight." A Merck manual and treatises on the subject that connect snoring to sleep apnea are what is needed for you to win. A nexus letter or IMO is more than a simple statement that it is more likely than less likely. VA will ask their resident ARPN gal (VA Examiner) to write a lovely nexus that says it is not at least as likely as not because the neurologist has not made the sale. She, on the other hand, will take your psuedo-nexus and gut it to pieces now that you have laid out the cards. I suggest a good (private non-VA) sleep disorder specialist to get something on the books to support the correlation and why. The VA clinicians' and examiners' opinions are competent because they are qualified through education, training, or experience to offer medical diagnoses, statements, or opinions. 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(a)(1). Also, their opinions are credible based on their internal consistency and the examiners' duty to provide truthful opinions. The Board further finds that the examiners' opinions are most probative because they considered the Veteran's medical records and discussed his medical history, provided unequivocal and conclusive opinions, and offered clear reasoning. See Nieves-Rodriguez v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 295 (2008); see also Stefl v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 120, 124 (2007).

Most of the positive experiences I have been hearing about (and reading) are by Acting Veterans Law Judges-i.e. 5 year FNG BVA staff attorneys- who are on the VBA's payroll and still have an interest in seeing VA's good name defended. Fortunately, a lot haven't been given the "briefing" until they are "too fair to the Vet too frequently". After that, they straighten up and fly right. They make errors in VA's favor and take Dep. Head Honcho Laura Eskinazi's lead. When she barks, you follow suit. Adhering strictly to the equipoise argument to a fault is a lovely concept that dies early on and then they begin to remand too frequently. Constipation. Vito Clemente is an excellent example of the opposite-a JAG Army Vet judge. He strongly sides with you if your story is solid. If you have wishy washy evidence and a poor credibility problem from some UCMJ hijinks, you're gonna get the hairy eyeball. If you're a combat Vet, you get the royal treatment and a firm handshake from him. I accomplished more before we turned on the microphone (10 minutes) than the ensuing 45 minutes of testimony. I won on both counts based on my own logic and correct law. Mark Hindin is a horse of a different color. The man pointedly ignored the evidence in the c-file before him not once, but twice. I copied each document along with the date stamp for the Travel Board Hearing. A year later, he insisted on an argument that began "Nothing was submitted after the premature SOC." He was spot on correct. It was submitted with the NOD a month earlier than the SOC. Semantics is everything. If you let your little people (those Future Acting Law Judges who work for you) hamburger your cases and just hand them to you for a signature, it makes you look like a boob. But when you do it twice full well knowing your legal reasoning is defective the second time out, then it is malice aforethought. I lost due to his laziness and stupidity. I won based on the law. His revenge was to prolong the claim another 18 months by purposefully continuing to approve only half of it . The AMC followed his orders. Secretary Bob and his krewe believed his holding and handed me a SOC and told me to pee on a flat rock. All because they believed Judge Hindin was right. Veterans arrive in DC with the worst cases that are so underdeveloped as to embarrass me to think VSOs would treat us this way. 75% are defective or thrown out because the Vet's evidence is lame or absent. If no one ever told you how to play rocks paper scissors, you might lose at it. It is not, however, the Veterans Law Judge's fault that the Vet's legal helpers arrived empty-handed begging for the benefit of the doubt. Never blame a VLJ for their rate of denials/wins. Sort it out. A remand might feel like a sucker punch and year's delay but sort that out, too. A remand is a way of the VLJ saying "Why is this here? You forgot to do this, this and this. Fix it and readjudicate it. If you still deny it, fill out the SSOC and send it back to me. And please be quick about it." A remand is another bite of the apple if your legal representatives would recognize it and take advantage of it. An appeal should never leave a Regional Office without the Social Security file on board. It is the cause of 48% of all remands the first time out. There ought to be a box they have to check off on the Form 8 that says "Roger. SSI info on board."

The problem you experience is contained in 38 CFR 3.350(a) Ratings under SMC K. Read this sentence and I will turn it into Vetspeak. This special compensation [SMC K] is payable in addition to the basic rate of compensation otherwise payable on the basis of degree of disability, provided that the combined rate of compensation does not exceed the monthly rate set forth in 38 U.S.C. 1114(l) when authorized in conjunction with any of the provisions of 38 U.S.C. 1114 (a) through (j) or (s). Translated, this means you can have no disability ratings whatsoever and get as many Ks as you want as long as they do not exceed what is paid out as SMC L. Concurrently, you can be entitled to a 100% schedular rating and get as many Ks as you qualify for as long as you do not exceed the SMC L dollar amount. SMC S (which is a compendium of your 100% rating PLUS the $346.84 bump for the SMC S) still permits you to have K ratings -but again- as long as they do not exceed the SMC L barrier. The roadblock will always be the "does not exceed the monthly rate set forth in 38 U.S.C. 1114(l) " when you are also getting SMC S ( or 100% schedular plus more than six (6) SMC K ratings) . For the record, a male can only qualify for seven SMC Ks. A woman can achieve eight because she can have loss of breast(s) as well as loss of creative use of her ovaries for reproduction. For argument's sake, you could be entitled to X number of K's. The only limit is explained in the above paragraph. When you are granted SMC S via a"substantially housebound" interpretation or via the 100% plus 60% (which you qualify for because of your ratings percentages), the SMC L metric kicks in concerning how many SMC K ratings you can have. The VA set the limit by saying you cannot exceed the amount granted under SMC L. Note that they did not say "If your SMC S and all those Ks exceeds SMC L, then we're going to pay you at the "L" rate. They did not. They said it cannot exceed the amount paid for SMC L. SMC L currently pays $3,617.02 for a single Vet. I'm not going to add up your children and spouse. Those would not be included towards the ultimate $ figure limit anyway. If you are a single Vet at SMC S, you get $3,253.67 per month. SMC K is good for $103.23 per month per K rating. Thus $3,253.67 + $103.23 + $103.23 + $103.23= $3,563.36. That is three SMC Ks on top of the SMC S. Note that if you add a fourth SMC K of $103.23 to it, you will exceed the rate paid for SMC L which is forbidden. Nowhere does it say you get to jump to the SMC L pay scale or magically gain entitlement to Aid and Attendance. VA is very stingy with their funds. Qualifying for SMC L is set in stone. BroncoVet enunciated the requirements above. Proving the need for Aid and Attendance is usually decided based on how Form 21-2680 is answered. One missed question on this test disqualifies you for it. If all that was not confusing enough, if you are entitled to any of the SMCs L through O including intermediate rates (1/2 steps), your added-on SMC Ks cannot exceed the rate of payment for O/P, which is $5,075.60 per month. You would have to add the $103.23 "K" multiples for each rate between L-O/P to see where you exceed the O/P rate. An example here would be if you qualified for the N 1/2 rate of $4,808.00 per month and had two SMC Ks. A third "K" would take you over the O/P rate. There are no K ratings after O/P in the R1 and R2 levels of Special Aid and Attendance. To say Special Monthly Compensation is misunderstood is a masterpiece of understatement. It's almost a juris doctorate in its own right. It took me years to understand it and they occasionally change the rules as they did in 2011. When in doubt, Powerpoint it. Parse every "if...then". I can show you how it is technically (and legally) possible to advance to R2 from SMC L based on only two of the requirements of SMCs L-O by legally pyramiding. This (in conjunction with 3.352) is the only regulation in 38 CFR that actually permits pyramiding. SMC has more twists and turns than the Mississippi River. I've even explained it to VA lawyers who get lost in it. I hope this helped.

In the years 1999-2005, VA vigorously tested Vets in the VAMC system for HCV but did not tell them if they were positive. Many of the Vets I helped have retrieved old records via their VAMC ROI showing the lab tests entered into the VISTA VA medical computer. You don't need a FOIA to obtain this stuff. They were dumbfounded VA wouldn't have told them of the results so as to obtain treatment. Do I make myself clear? That's why it took me 21 years to win. This is a cake walk nowadays with a good nexus. We know so much more now because of people like Theresa who gave birth to this. I doubt any of you would even know who Carlie was without these boards. While I got my service connection via a transfusion, I'm pretty sure the potential for the jetgun to crossinfect was a far greater risk for all Veterans of that era. Statistics are steady that Vietnam era Vets were 10% more likely to have HCV than their civilian counterparts. When narrowed down to actual Vietnam Vets physically stationed in-country for a year or more, the odds increased exponentially to 67% of the in-country troops over the ten years (1965-75) studied. This was based on 187,000 Vets both living and dead, identified as having HCV in the survey.

If any of you need definitive evidence for VA claims concerning Hepatitis C and the possibility of infection via a jetgun, I received rather damning evidence useful to your claim submission. https://asknod.wordpress.com/2015/11/28/jetguns-dont-kill-people-but-just-in-case/ Happy Thanksgiving to you all and thank you for being so selfless as to be willing to serve your country. Many hear the call. Some listen. 3% sign the line and raise their hand. I salute you. Alex sends

The intake centers are just that. They turn everything submitted into word searchable .pdfs. That's all they do. After conversion, it's loaded up to the VBMS which feeds all ROs. If they want to farm your Oakland claim out to Fort Harrison, it's instantly available. The BVA has the same access via the AMC. Gone are the days of the FEDEX pony express where they packed up your paper c-file and shipped it to DC. Janesville pushes send and it's instantly available at any of the 56 ROs. So you go to the BVA hearing and present it in person. It now is loaded up at the RO's portal to VBMS but you made a lasting impression on the VLJ in person. The hearing transcript will be added in on top of it and it will all be "at the top" of the virtual c-file. This will be read more than any other thing because it's at the "top" when you open the .pdf in DC when they begin the appeal decision. In my last Travel Board hearing, I presented N&M E of a skin survey nexus supporting a 30% rating for scarring. The VLJ granted it based on the professional appearance and that it didn't have that "ramrod" logic certain doctor/lawyer types use in their pay-per-nexus opinions. You should never tell a rater or a VLJ what rating you are entitled to. A doctor's job is to present a nexus opinion based on medicine without saying "and by the way, that means he deserves a 30% rating". My PA-C buddy did mine for free. I did help him get his 100% for dermatitis but that is beside the point. He is a professional and a skin specialist. He wouldn't lie for me or cook the numbers. His logic for the nexus was well-reasoned. The same logic was applied to my request for 100% for the Porphyria. VA has no comparable rating analogous to it. Phlebotomies cause anemia. The blood is removed much like dialysis but thrown away. The resultant dizziness is not contemplated in any rating. Sensitivity to sunlight is likewise nowhere in a rating. To say it is less than 100% disabling when the VA's own doctor from QTC says it is means a ARPN at the RO is upstaging a MD's diagnosis. If a picture is worth a thousand words, then a face-to-face with an independent Judge with no preconceptions is worth ten thousand. Looking a man in the eye to make your point is still very effective. Judges are very astute and understand body language. They do it for a living. A video conference isn't nearly as convincing. And for the record, having that probative nexus in hand is worth quite a bit. Presenting anything in person is far more convincing than reading it.

One thing you should keep in mind. A BVA hearing (preferably face-to-face) is a awesome point to insert the N&M evidence. If you have signed a waiver of review in the first instance when approaching the BVA, the Veterans Law Judge (VLJ) and his staff attorneys will have a much more open mind. It will be plastered all over the hearing transcript. It will be at the top of the pile in the electronic c-file. Getting VA's attention, in many cases, is the secret to a win. If you submit this through the normal channel via the Intake Center, it won't make as big a splash as it would when you present it in person to the VLJ. You have a statistical chance of 22-25% that you will succeed there. Putting in N&M E ups that by about 10%. Lastly, if the evidence is overwhelmingly probative, the VLJ will be inclined to grant. Remember at this stage with the BVA backlog, they are trying to resolve these rapidly. Presenting it to the VLJ guarantees that the VLJ probably won't send out for another IME.

Wrong forum

One thing few realize about CUE. If you filed in 92 and didn't appeal, the claim "died". If your reopen the same thing in 96 and lose, then take it to the BVA and lose, it's dead. Once it has been adjudicated at the BVA, you can never disturb the 92 RO ruling. You can file CUE on the 96 appeal but not the underlying 92 decision.

https://asknod.wordpress.com/2015/11/18/bva-vlj-ursula-r-powell-hanging-judge/

Look at a different metric. Read only the ones where an attorney is repping the Vet. Ignore the hundreds that are repped by a VSO. In those, all you will read is "You arrived without nexus. We love you, honeychild but you ain't no doctor. You can comment on the color of your skin and the fact that your arm bends in a different direction since the IED but you cannot say it is more likely than less likely that the IED in service was the cause". A lot of Vets seem to think they have a MD after their name and the VSOs march smartly down to DC and let you make an ass out of yourself in front of the Judge (metaphorically since it's ex parte).

R/T.