FormerMember

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<The veteran that was awarded 100% most likely have something you don't, a medical opinion with a solid medical rationale. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Problem solved. We have been saying this since the advent of DBQs. There is no box to check that says "It's more likely than less likely that Mr. NHB's injuries/diseases are related to his service in the USAF". It took me 14 years to get that through my thick skull because my VSO ''disremembered " to tell me I needed one. After reading BVA decision number 2,065, it suddenly dawned on me why some Vets win and some lose. Thank you Pete992 for once again cutting the Gordian knot and explaining this VA medical mystery.

The law is fairly dispositive and inviolate. It's called res judicata. If you filed a CUE for a poor decision and used a particular line of logic for your reasoning and lose, you are precluded from filing a CUE using the same logic yet again. However, you are free to use an entirely new theory as to why the decision is faulty as many times as you want. You are entitled to dream up endless reasons as long as they do not overlap, intersect or mimic prior theories. VA, of course, will usually throw them out or deny you the right in most cases forcing you to a higher court for an up or down on the viability of a new theory. CUE claims require finesse. You have to shape and polish them carefully. You have to put aside your personal biases and refractive thinking that tell you you're inherently right. You have to convince the VA, the VLJ or the CAVC- not yourself. Many of us are blinded by the "rightness" of our plight and VA's perceived intransigence on it. Build a CUE claim the way you would if you were the VA. Be your own Devil's advocate and attempt to destroy your own argument as they do. Demolish the basis for it by questioning the "manifestly changed the outcome" thrust at the end. A winning CUE claim is one that argues itself and cannot be viewed as anything other than error to any who view it later. Berta is the past master of this in my book, I've only won one and don't even relish the idea of fighting my Air America one remaining from 1989. One thing's for sure. It's more fun than winning a regular claim. Feeding crow to your adversary is a dish best served chilled-with all your friends there to laugh along with you...

As long as you are still within the window of the aforementioned 30 days from the date of the letter, submit the information pronto and get it in to one of the two intake portals with a post date of less than the 30 days. Ignore the denial letter for the moment. If you are given 30 days and you can show you complied, it will be easier to win it down the road when you do get to the BVA or the Court arguing a CUE. I saw one like this at the CAVC recently and they bounced it as a reversal because VA did the same exact thing. If it's past the 30 day suspense date already, then you're going to have a problem showing you complied with the original terms of the request. Any time VA pulls this or a similar stunt, ignore the problem and continue with the original request. As long as you timely comply, they cannot hang you with a denial that will stick. It will take time but you'll win. Do this first and then call Bob. Don't let the 30 days expire waiting for something positive to happen. Remember, if you let the 30 days slip by with no compliance, VA can argue (and win) that , well, yeah, they stepped on their necktie when they prematurely denied you but the whole thing is moot because you never complied in the 30 day window as required anyway.VA calls that harmless error . Lawyers call it estoppel.

Something all of you should realize. Once you submit a VA 9, that is the substantive appeal. Period. No more VARO decisions. If you do submit N&ME with it, it will not provoke a de novo review. VA will merely acknowledge you sent it and send you the SSOC as a formality relisting all the same reasons you are not going to be receiving a retro check from them. A SSOC is a continuing denial of a decision after a SOC that you rebut. Once the VA 9 is filed, this completes the requirements for the substantive appeal and prepares the claim for appeal and the move to 810 Vermin Ave. NW. If you are repped by a VSO, the 646 is merely a "I read it and it's good to go." from the representative. Any N&ME you submit will supposedly be sent to DC but I prefer to send it myself just in case Murphy's law and VA shredders get the best of it. I rebutted my SOC last October regarding a claim and got the SSOC back. I sent in the VA 9 immediately after. I filed my Writ in January and suddenly, in 45 days, the Seattle VA, with no N&ME, reversed their decision and granted my CUE. This is the only time I've ever seen a change in heart after a VA 9 filing and incidentally the only CUE I've ever won. Secretary Bob blew me off so the Writ was the last resort. VA is slowly changing but it will be years before they have all the bugs out of this system. Unfortunately, it seems they just keep introducing more daily.

Yep. They said the same thing about me. I finally got the AirAm records and showed them the ER records at the civvie hospital. Same exact language in 1989- acute and resolved before separation. My SF 92 says "active major left hip pain- cause unknown. VA never commented on that. The word chronic was even in there on a physical eval for Flight duty. Funny how they can see acute so far back in the past. The operable metric for a win is simple. Your doctor says "It's more likely than less likely he got it in service. His entrance exam says he was good to go." Presumption of Soundness is the hot ticket up at the CAVC these days. And like Pete says, it's the doctor's call on how, when and where. All you need is the SMRs with it in service and you're already in high cotton.

Here's one to warm your heart. Mark began in 99. They ignored his request for an informal claim filing while at the VAMC. He did it in 2001. His VSO forgot to file the VA 9. End of claim in 2006. Start over. Denied all the way to the BVA where he won-as he should have. Then the long road to the proper ratings. I advised him to file only for the Hep C and let the secondaries slide until he got the big banana. Worked just like a charm. SMC S was the goal and we have arrived. Mark just picked up a sweet 69 Corvette to celebrate. https://asknod.wordpress.com/2015/06/11/varo-marks-opus-whats-behind-door-3/ Leave no one behind means what Theresa said it does. More of you should hang around after you win and learn this poker game. It's very rewarding for the advocates.

Fat A waiver of review (in the first instance) is a document you file to prevent VA ping pong with your appeal. Used to be that if you went off to BVAland and they discovered a problem, you entered the Remand zone and it took a year round trip to get fixed and returned to the BVA for a decision. Occasionally this happened several times and the decision times were elongated to years and years. In 2013, they passed a de facto regulation to curb this and a waiver of review now is an accepted practice in all but the most egregious cases. We still recommend it be filed to erase any doubt. A VA 21-646 is a VSO form that basically says the service representative you gave your POA to has read the file, the review etc. and gives his blessing for it to be sent to DC. Considering they really don't know what they are doing, it is immaterial. Unfortunately, without it, you claim will sit in the "not ready for primetime box" until it is signed. Sometimes they forget and it sits there for months. BV As for "Vike", I only have one thing to say. VA law (and regulations) are immutable as a stone wall. 20.302(c ) is a regulation applicable to VAROs but is contained in Part 20-among the regulations affecting the Board and general appeals info. It hasn't changed in decades so it's difficult to understand how a very educated DRO could make such a horrendous mistake consciously. Obviously, the sixty day limit screamed at me when I saw it. That, alone, could damage untold Veterans claims had they depended on it.

Pete, for years I would have advised the same. With the current choke point at the BVA extending out further and further, however, getting it done at the local level is almost paramount unless you have a house in Rome and time to burn. The SSOC poker game is a fine wire to walk. You have to have nerves of steel to do it and ice water in your veins to keep on filing SSOC rebuttals. Avoiding that two year trip (or more) to DC is infinitely preferable than watching it grow cobwebs at the VARO waiting for a VA 8 and transmittal. Remember, the moment you file the 9, it's put on ice for the BVA. To me, this SSOC rebuttal game is high stakes DRO poker without a DRO review. Keep in mind, none but the highest and most knowledgeable raters (read DRO) will be involved in the ratings so it is tantamount to a review. Vets are going to have to relearn how to do this to play keep away from the BVA. It can be won in most cases at the RO level but keeping it there long enough to get eyes on the pertinent and definitive evidence is the problem. You've watched this dog and pony show for as long or longer than me and must see that we need a new way to skin a cat, Rebutting this SOC/SSOC game is going to be like having to hang ten on a surfboard. You have to keep looking over your shoulder at the breaking edge of the wave. Fortunately, you have 30 days instead of 3 seconds. I don't know that I'd trust a VSO with it. Like we used to say about M-26s--there ain't no 1004.

We're way past choosing a DRO review here. The gentleman (Fat) is discussing his substantive appeal (VA 9) and what- or how- he should approach it. The time to choose a DRO review or traditional appeal was way back when you filed the NOD years and years ago. First, you have sixty (60) days to file the VA 9 from the date stamped on your SOC. That's sixty sunrises and sixty sunsets if you're number challenged. It has to be postmarked so or you lose. If you decide to submit new and material evidence to the RO, a new decision will begin immediately. This doesn't take another 2-3 years to get a SSOC. It occurs usually within 90 days. You may win based on this de novo (brand new) decision and never have to go to the BVA. It has happened before. Attorneys are famous for this one. Now, should you decide to submit new evidence and the VA denies yet again and issues you a SSOC, you do not have 60 days to answer it as the author above suggests. You have 30 days in which to file the VA 9 from the date stamped on the SSOC -assuming you have not filed the VA 9 yet -see 38 CFR 20.303(c ). Remember, the VA 9 merely formalizes the Appeal and prepares it for certification with the VA 8 . To CYA, always use a green card to prove you mailed it. The whole idea of an appeal is predicated on the fact that you and the VARO will never see eye to eye and it's time to move the circus to DC. Be sure and mail it to the intake center designated as the one that services you. Do not ever mail anything ever again directly to your VARO. Those days are gone. Everything has to be digitized. Do not ever file it on eBennies because the chances of Murphy's law intersecting your claim are enormous. Do it on paper and let them digitize it in a word-searchable format for your c-file. If your eBennie filing accidentally goes to Ebay, VA will tell you politely that you had 60 days and you missed it. If you file a VA 9 with new evidence, chances are the RO will merely send it all to DC without doing any de novo review whatsoever. They're lazy. If you fail to include a waiver of review with the VA 9, any small defect, such as the VARO forgetting to include your SSA records, will cause the BVA to remand it about a year later and an additional one-year delay for them to obtain them and send them back to the BVA. I personally suggest Vets obtain their own SSI/SSD records and submit them at the outset if they are going for TDIU. This way they are a matter of record and you do not have to discover in 2017 that VA sent the c-file to DC without them. I don't know the posture of your claim. If you already had a DRO review and are in the 60-day window following the SOC, and have no additional evidence to submit, saddle up the VA 9 and get a good seat on the Group W (wait) bench. They'll call your docket number in about two years. If you already had a DRO review and the SOC is the product of it, get that VA 9 in and go to DC and be quick about it. There's nothing more you can do at the local level. That's what the DRO was hopefully going to accomplish. I have always rebutted my SOCs and have yet to win one. I also rebut my SSOCs and am equally empty-handed on that one too. I won an increase on one claim this spring after my VA 9 with no new evidence but that was due to my Writ at the Court. The increase still was not for the whole enchilada (100%) so I had 30 days to file another VA 9 to comply with the SSOC lowball grant because it did not grant what I was asking for. That is so rare as to be statistically inconceivable. Sum it up. 1) No mo' evidence = VA 9 pronto with proof of mailing to Cheeseville or Newnan. Or 2) File SOC rebuttal w/ new evidence within 60 days to Cheeseville/Newnan and wait (with proof of mailing), If you win, you may have to file a new NOD to argue any low ball rating but let's not get the champagne out just yet. Best of luck and remember those time limits. They are inviolate and you could lose a lot of hard work (and retro) by missing it by even one day. VA is merciless on equitable tolling. clear prop

Know also that your failure to file the NOD within one year of the 2001 denial effectively terminated that claim. Even if you won tomorrow, your effective date would be the 2009 reopen unless they did something wrong. CUE is the only way besides using 38 CFR 3.156 (c ) to achieve that earlier date. It's called finality. If you objected to the denial in 2001, you should have filed a disagreement. You in essence said you agreed with their findings. As for having an injury in 9th grade prior to service, the metric employed is that it had to increase in disability while you were in service and be documented in order to obtain service connection. The presumption of soundness only applies to a clean bill of health at induction. If they find out you were injured before service and it was not revealed, this blows the presumption. See Bell v. Derwinski (1992) Personally, I doubt you'll be able to recoup the 2001 date absent any administrative irregularity on VA's part. Sadly, we learn the way to a win after a few losses.

CUE decisions are given to experienced raters and DROs because of their legal complexity. It requires good typing skills to enter the metrics into the computer. How else can the M 21 Cray supercooled computer generate the proper answer? This is why the average time for a rating is longer. You have to wait longer for an intelligent life form to examine it.

Yeah, and about that reduction you mentioned.>>>>>https://asknod.wordpress.com/2015/06/07/cavc-kinder-v-mcdonald-actual-improvementof-functioning-in-everyday-life/

See the attached for a more detailed prognosis on where you are headed. Most VA folks will tell you to roll up the carpet and go home with no fight. Ignore them. If you know you are not "better", then defend it. Any unopposed reduction will soon be met with another one. I've seen that frequently. One thing that will hurt you but you can use is no meds and little interaction with shrinks. It's called avoidance. Ignore the gun issue or it will bite you on the ass. VA can seize on it and try to do the Fiduciary switch on you. Focus on the security clearance as the "issue". DSM-5_Changes_Sweeton.pdf Best of luck to you.

I have Vets who come to me with a solid 10+ year rating for something who receive a "We are proposing to reduce your _____________ from 50% to 30%. You have 60 days to pitch a bitch." No exam-nothing. I think they have "reminders" that pop up on their c-files and tell them to revisit these claims with no apparent reason the Vet can discern. I do not, nor will I ever condone cheating. With that said, I find silence is golden to be the best cure. If they ask you how much your drink, tell them your religion forbids it. Don't lie and say you don't drink or smoke. Simply make a broad, general statement. If asked for your pain level, tell the truth but qualify it for the record. Example "Well, today it's about a 4 but last week I was a mess with most days at 7/10". Nothing would give me greater pleasure than to turn in my $39 K a year comp. for my old job as a builder. Most of the comments here are altruistic but the fact remains that VA loves to reduce if they think they can roll you. Many fail to NOD the reduction and end up having to refile later to get it back. If you halt the advance with a NOD instantly, you get to keep the rating until they can rustle up two C&Ps showing a clear improvement. Most diseases or injuries are chronic like back, hepatitis C and the like but some are amenable to improvement. VA likes to prey on these folks-especially if they are underrepped by a VSO or pro se. I do not know how many rating decisions on this I have read on appeal at the BVA where they quote you chapter and verse from the VA Vista medrecs saying "Hey, the guy said he was good to go. We believed him". Diarrhea of the mouth is the blame for most reductions. VSOs are quite fond of telling you to sky down and shut up for fear of losing what you have. If that were the case, Berta and I would be in the basement on ratings. And for the record, if you get better, you should get a reduction. I've been hornswoggled (one time) by a druggie who lied about his past on HCV. He won on appeal after I got him all the way to the DRO review with no luck. I found out later about the lies. I won't reveal his falsehoods to VA. I keep the same solid Green Wall of respect for my brothers and sisters. With that said, when I see obvious manipulation, I egress the situation as quickly as possible to avoid any appearance of sanctioning the mistruth. Quite frankly, I see a few here that appear to be asking for instructions on how to game the system from time to time. That disturbs me. Compensation is not a reward. It is not a jackpot like Las Vegas. It is remuneration for the inability to work. I call my method the Mirror Test. Can you look yourself in the mirror and say without a contrived answer that you are owed this rating? Here's another insight: https://asknod.wordpress.com/2012/02/02/lettuce-depression/

A combo diagnostic code like DC 5010-5295 is a "built up" analogous rating. VA doesn't do a lot of ICD code other than to winnow it down to a VASRD code. So look at 4.27 first to understand it. https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/38/4.27 Right about the time where it says "Great care must be exercised..." is where the VA examiners go off the tracks. This is your problem. https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/38/4.71a-----DC 5010---Arthritis, due to trauma, substantiated by X-ray findings: Rate as arthritis, degenerative. I think the sub rating of 5295 is a typo. VASRD currently has no 5295 but that is not to say they didn't have it in an earlier revision and changed/deleted it. Here's 5296 (the closest). Search through the ratings on the back in the 5200 range and see if you find the exact same language VA rater used to rate with. Often, I find they copy it verbatim but fail to actually list the Diagnostic code in these "rate by analogy" things.

Censorship is not your friend, Thersa. I never do it on my site. I may not like the tenor, but as long as it doesn't touch on politics or religion. it deserves a voice. I'm not sure how to approach this one. Someone is not being forthright with themselves or me and is casting the blame off. I refuse to rise to de bait (sic). I'll use small font so as not to offend anyone. Clear prop

Sing the Jeopardy Song? This is like trying to watch a bullet in flight. It's being remanded back to the RO. There's nothing to know yet because the remand action has not been accomplished. You could call or email Allison to see if they could "take it up a notch". If you are in danger of financial ruin or medical hardship, they can move it to the front of the line. One of my buddies quit renting and bought a motor home. Bingo. No address = Instant homelessness. Oakland gave him his 100% in 46 days. There's always more than one way to skin a cat. Best of luck, sir.

I've seen VA change a diagnostic rating code in an attempt to lower a Vet's rating but they always get busted on appeal to the CAVC -so it proves the adage of Appeal until you can't go any higher (Win or Die). Try this read to get an idea of what they can and may try. https://asknod.wordpress.com/2014/02/13/cavc-mekus-v-shinseki-idle-hands-are-the-devils-workshop/ You need to file for a higher rating to provoke the change in DX code number though. It would also be best to specify the correct DX code as well if you plan to stir up the hornet's nest. Lower back strain is not a medical term but more a condition. Look at your ratings sheet if you have one that shows your actual Dx Code. If there is none (VA is fond of that one) you have to parse the exact language they used in the back ratings language in your grant to find what code you are actually rated under. When you find that, you have the key to what the next higher ratings criteria are. Could be they are lowballing you under the wrong code, too. I see that a lot. Make sure where you're going to jump before the green light above the door comes on. Never trust the VSO jumpmaster. P.S. to Andyman73. I expect you'd do the same for me (or any of us) if our circumstances were reversed. An interesting thing about Veterans is they can become fast friends in short order because of their shared experience. You can't join this club later in life after you've changed your mind.

So I read this as a Schafrath v. Derwinski duty to assist violation, correct? And you are proposing to let them clothesline themselves with their new "If you want to do a FDC, you have to be proactive about obtaining your own evidence for us instead of us doing it." Further, you propose to let them fail to obtain needed evidence necessary to prove your claim ( that you, yourself, may have in your possession) so that you can spring a failure in the duty to assist later on at the appellate level. The fault with that line of reasoning is that the best it will provoke is a remand from wherever the error is caught (DRO review, BVA decision or CAVC). This will delay the claim for an inordinate time and deprive you of a higher rating while you wait for them to readjudicate it below at the Regional Office level. Remember, neither the CAVC nor the BVA is a Court of Equity and doesn't do ratings. They must remand to the local yokels to do the actual ratings.

When in doubt, read the pertinent regulation or statute: § 20.1403 Rule 1403. What constitutes clear and unmistakable error; what does not. (a) General. Clear and unmistakable error is a very specific and rare kind of error. It is the kind of error, of fact or of law, that when called to the attention of later reviewers compels the conclusion, to which reasonable minds could not differ, that the result would have been manifestly different but for the error. Generally, either the correct facts, as they were known at the time, were not before the Board, or the statutory and regulatory provisions extant at the time were incorrectly applied. (b) Record to be reviewed— (1) General. Review for clear and unmistakable error in a prior Board decision must be based on the record and the law that existed when that decision was made. (2) Special rule for Board decisions issued on or after July 21, 1992. For a Board decision issued on or after July 21, 1992, the record that existed when that decision was made includes relevant documents possessed by the Department of Veterans Affairs not later than 90 days before such record was transferred to the Board for review in reaching that decision, provided that the documents could reasonably be expected to be part of the record. © Errors that constitute clear and unmistakable error. To warrant revision of a Board decision on the grounds of clear and unmistakable error, there must have been an error in the Board's adjudication of the appeal which, had it not been made, would have manifestly changed the outcome when it was made. If it is not absolutely clear that a different result would have ensued, the error complained of cannot be clear and unmistakable. (d) Examples of situations that are not clear and unmistakable error— (1) Changed diagnosis. A new medical diagnosis that “corrects” an earlier diagnosis considered in a Board decision. (2) Duty to assist. The Secretary's failure to fulfill the duty to assist. (3) Evaluation of evidence. A disagreement as to how the facts were weighed or evaluated. (e) Change in interpretation. Clear and unmistakable error does not include the otherwise correct application of a statute or regulation where, subsequent to the Board decision challenged, there has been a change in the interpretation of the statute or regulation. (Authority: 38 U.S.C. 501(a), 7111)

A newer diagnosis that supplants an earlier one can never be grounds for CUE. CUE is always based on the EOR (Evidence of Record) when the claim was decided. If doctors were allowed to opine in retrospect at will, justice would never coalesce around a precedent. It would, in essence, create an arena of endless readjudications as new facts or medical science developed a way to look into the remote past.

This is the new VBMS at work. A completely automated claim with word-searchable .PDFs as Braille to lead the blind raters to a correct decision. In the old VA model, before they got busted and forced into electronic conformity with the rest of the US Govt., they could operate their paper system and it appeared to manipulate it into delays that separated evidence from c-file until after a decision had been rendered. This gained everyone (except the Vet) time to appeal it and ensures work for everyone-for eternity. $45,000/ year VSO service reps in funny hats across the fruited plain are not amused by VBMS. It's far too fast for them. Add in attorneys and you can see why they are losing membership and being marginalized. I can see it here at work subtly in that there are far more success stories on an annual basis than in previous years. The days of taking 21 years (and still counting) to get it right are getting far fewer -as they should. VBMS is the USS Enterprise at Warp 5 because it is now a matter of bytes electronically with enough space to move from Point A to Point B. Except for a little human intervention to ensure everything is proper, the computer spits out the decision based on the W-S .PDFs. It cannot cheat. If it did, it would have to come up with a reasons and bases section predicated on illegal law. You can't not program 38 CFR and 38 USC into it. That, and the M-28 1MR, as actually written and correctly interpreted, absent any "human intervention", will probably yield USB Allison Hickey's perennial rejoinder "125 days and 98% accuracy by 2015". At that time, bonuses might be in order but not before. Being an eternal optimist born on April Fool's day, I say hooray.

Dear Joseph, Wowser. There's so much wrong with this, I'm not sure where to begin. <<<At the end of each communication, VA threatened to dismiss my claim, if I did not comply.>>> Impossible. You obviously read more into it than was there. If you have it in writing, I can guarantee you hundreds of thousands of dollars in equitable relief from VA Secretary Bob McDonald. <<<<Unsatisfied with these diagnoses, VA requested some of the doctor’s change their diagnoses. These requests were illegal and fraudulent, they are also in the record, much to VA’s chagrin and I suspect that of the doctors involved.>>> Again. Impossible. If VA was foolish enough to send a commo to a doctor ordering him/her to rescind a dx, it would be in the c-file. I see no mention of you saying you have possession of same. The CAVC Record Before the Agency (RBA) does not support your version of the claim. VHA doctors are not at the beck and call of the VBA. <<<<<<At one point an examiner stated I was not credible because I had “requested” so many C&P exams.>>>>> You are not allowed to request an exam. VA is the only one who can order one. It also has to be in conjunction with a pending claim. If you show up for one before you file your claim with an 8-page summary of why you should be awarded PTSD and the exact rating %, VA will get the idea you didn't just fall off the turnip wagon and might be in this for the $. <<<<Disabled American Veterans (DAV) was recommended to me and I made numerous efforts to enlist the help of DAV, only to be rejected by Mr. K.G. in his condescending manner>>>> Again, improbable. Unless you actually had a POA with another VSO, DAV would have snapped you up for the $250 POA fee from VA. They are driven by money. The BVA decision rebuts your statement. It states you were repped by DAV. <<<< I retained representation by B&M, a veteran’s law firm in Bethesda, MD. During that time, the Court decided I also needed to be represented by a service organization. >>>> Impossible. You can only be represented by one entity at a time. First of all, VSOs do not have attorneys-ergo they do not go to the CAVC to represent anyone. If Bergmann and Moore offered to represent you at the CAVC, it was for the limited objective of pro bono work on the appeal. Unless you contracted with them for post-CAVC work on the remand, that would be the end of your business relationship with them. Second, A CAVC judge cannot order you to be represented by anyone <<<<The Court assigned DAV to my claim and my attorney and VA jointly agreed to remand the matter.>>>> Impossible. The CAVC assigns no one to anyone and has no control over who represents you legally. You're horribly mistaken or subject to flights of fancy. Please reread your CAVC reversal (13-0218). You will find no mention of this and a review of the docket run doesn't show it either. <<<My attorneys were well paid for their service. >>>> What have you been smoking, cowboy? The lodestar for EAJA fees tops out (in 2015 $) at $187/hour. A good ambulance chaser can get $450/ hour or 40%. You must not be in the loop on VA law dog fees these days. 20% is the law determined by Congress. You contracted with B&M for pro bono only at the CAVC. They didn't get 20% of anything. <<<After months of nothing, I inquired about the required expediting only to be told they “only pay lip-service to that law”. >>> I hope you have that on audio tape or in writing. File it with your Extraordinary Writ of Mandamus and you'll have your $ in 60 days- including sanctions. Gotta be proactive in this game. You can't sit on the front porch with a pair of binoculars watching the mailbox. <<<Then they offered to prevent this continued injustice and see that the Court’s orders were carried out… for a 1/3 share… which was over 5 years of benefits.>>> This is libelous and untrue. No VA attorney can charge more than 20%- period. The attorneys at Bergmann and Moore, while perhaps not the brightest lights on the Christmas tree, are officers of the court. They are obligated to obey the law. If any one of their staff offered this to you, they would lose their license not only to practice VA law, but their credentials at the CAVC,the Fed. Circuit and the Supreme Court as well. Further, they would be disbarred from practicing law entirely in the state they are incorporated in. I could almost believe this tale of woe until you stated that. If you have it in writing, which I know you do not, I'd like to put you in touch with any number of attorneys who would die to have your case. They would be famous for life and Bergmann and Moore would have to take down their shingle. <<<In desperation (I’m about to lose my home), I recently sought ‘un-official’ advice from another service organization, since DAV still refuses to assist me.>>> File a notice of financial hardship with the Ft. Harrison VARO and send them proof of eviction, unpaid bills, foreclosure statement, etc. You'll have it accomplished in about a month. Better yet, call or email Allison Hickey and explain this faery tale and she'll have it done in three days. I'd skip the part about Bergmann offering to do it for 33%. You'd get more traction telling them Glen Bergmann was abducted by aliens in his youth. Or, if they do, they will investigate B&M up one wall and down the other. If your allegation is untrue, you are liable for slander and they can sue you--and they'll win. <<<Too… I wonder how CAVC Judge S. would feel about “lip-service” to the law and his order.>>> The only CAVC Judge with the last name of S. is Judge Mary Schoelen. I have met her personally and trust me when I say she did not have a sex change operation unless it occurred after April 18th of this year. Are you sure you aren't talking about an encounter with some Judge "S." over at Social Security? There's so much wrong about this story as to impugn your credibility. First of all, the moment you enter the CAVC, all your privacy goes out the window. I know. It sucks but that's the law. I looked up your case, sir. It's right here (CAVC 13-0218) and I find nothing by Judge Schoelen "assigning" a DAV rep to your claim. Glen Bergman was awarded $14,500.00 for representing you- hardly an exorbitant settlement for his services from 3/27/2013 when you hired him through the EAJA dance December 9th, 2014. Your BVA decision (02-05 667) clearly shows you were represented by the DAV during the whole claim at Fort Harrison, Montana so either you disremember what happened or you have a grudge against the DAV. Nowhere in the BVA decision does it reflect that any doctors' false diagnoses or revisions of prior diagnoses about your mental state. It is important to stick with the facts so we teach other Vets how to accomplish this. Wild-eyed reports of treacherous lawyers and evil DAV reps are not a positive example of responsibility when reporting back what happened. I understand you suffer from severe PTSD but that cannot be the predicate for grossly misrepresenting the history of your claim. No one, least of all Vets, benefits when you distort the true facts. In this case, anyone with a elementary school education can follow your trail of breadcrumbs and see the inconsistencies. I don't mean to bash you or demean you. I merely wish to point out this is a forum to teach from-not to malign VSOs or the VA. As for Mary Schoelen, the Judge is unimpeachable. She comes from a military family and has the utmost respect for law. She would no more order a Vet- any Vet, for that matter- to obtain VSO representation. Good lord, Peter. She comes to us from the best of judicial outfits- the NVSLP and NOVA. Are ya kiddin' me? I could see her suggesting you go out and get better legal representation than B&M but even that would be highly unlikely due to her professionalism and judicial mores. If you don't know the gender of your Judge, you may have had trouble digesting the rest of the facts. The VA and the VLJ attacked your credibility for a number of reasons. You claimed Seaman Boyll died right there in front of you from his burns but he didn't die for three more days. You did not cite this as one of your stressors when you filed the claim earlier. You see the problem? It looks to VA like you were making it up as you went along. I, for one, believe you because you are a fellow Vet. VA doesn't just buy into that logic. Every one of us is trailer trash and out for a quick compensation buck in their eyes. Let's not give them any more ammunition to think that. And as a last footnote. Mr. Bergman asked for reversal in the Appellant's brief-not another remand. You stated above "My attorneys began again saying remand was "the best I could hope for", but this time I refused, up front, to accept a remand and insisted they read my statements concerning VA’s fraudulent prosecution of my claim and seek reversal of VA’s denial of benefits." Whereas Mr. Bergman stated "On appeal, Mr. S. submits that the Court should reverse the Board’s denial of PTSD service connection, and its finding that the Secretary satisfied the duty to assist. The Court should also hold that the Board erred by not remanding for compliance with its prior remand instructions, and failed to provide an adequate statement of reasons or bases." Law is a matter of record. In your case, there is a wealth of it. You cannot reinvent it or view it through rose-colored sunglasses. Mr. Bergmann won your claim in it's entirety. Had you allowed him to pursue it to it's logical conclusion at the Fort Harrison VARO, you would not be in financial straits now. That is the difference between DAV LeagleBeaglezoom.com and a good VA attorney. You get what you (don't) pay for. J1VO

The NPRC (National Personnel Records Center -the one with no smoke detectors or sprinkler systems) has three filing areas most Vets are unaware of. Sick call records (outpatient) are located in one area and what you most often get when you ask for your SMRs (or STRs now in the current vernacular). However, there are separate files for your military records and another for inpatient medical where you were in a hospital for a surgery. These are also in separate buildings. When you ask for your records from NPRC, it behooves you to ask for all of them. Govt. employees tend to take the path of least resistance and send you the bare minimum they can get away with-including sending it to the VA when requested. This may be why you got short-sheeted back in the 80s. I've had to write to Landstuhl Hospital to get some stuff on one Vet whose inpatient stuff was never forwarded to the NPRC after he separated in 1972. There it sat until we queried them. One thing you'll never find are other govt. agency records at the NPRC like this one.