FormerMember

Praise the Lord and pass the Waiver. Thank you Carlie. Am I the only one besides Carlie who has heard of a Waiver of Review? Please, Ladies and Gentlemen Vets. If you do not know what you are doing on a claim, refrain from offering advice to others. They may inadvertently take your advice and lose or delay for years a claim that could be resolved sooner. MPsgt. has already been pickpocketed on this once by either the VA or a VSO officer or it would appear so. It is difficult enough trying to feel your way through this and put your trust in others. VA is a past master at Remand ping pong. VSOs allow this to happen. When it gets to the BVA, keep it there until you win. If not, proceed to the CAVC and win there. The idea is always to help. Our motto should be Hippocratic-First do no Harm.

Or... cut the Gordian Knot and sign a Waiver of Review and let the Veterans Law Judge review the new evidence (if any) and decide without remanding it back to the RO for a one-year round trip remand for a de novo decision. How did this get so far down the road with no DRO review? When they send you your initial denial, it clearly asks you which path you would like to pursue- i.e. 1) traditional appeal or 2) DRO review. This is years before you get the SOC or file a Form 9. I'm confused here. Is the VSO lost in space or am I missing something? You say you filed your NOD in December 2011. Did you ask for a DRO Review then? Or, I guess, more appropriately, did your service representative ask for one? As for your travel Board Hearing, I sure hope you plan to speak. That's why you asked for it, right? You have to impress upon the VLJ who hears your case that you are honest and above board. This is your golden opportunity to convince this individual that you are, for all intents and purposes, unemployable. Every piece of info you have corroborating this should be with you when you testify. Chances are, your Service Rep. is inundated with Vets as you mentioned and no one knows the facts of your case better than you. Best of Luck, sir.

All diseases for presumption of exposure are listed in 38 CFR § 3.309(e) but it leans on the precepts of 38 CFR § 3.307(a)(6) as to applicability to the individual case: (e) Disease associated with exposure to certain herbicide agents. If a veteran was exposed to an herbicide agent during active military, naval, or air service, the following diseases shall be service-connected if the requirements of § 3.307(a)(6) are met even though there is no record of such disease during service, provided further that the rebuttable presumption provisions of § 3.307(d) are also satisfied. AL amyloidosis Chloracne or other acneform disease consistent with chloracne Type 2 diabetes (also known as Type II diabetes mellitus or adult-onset diabetes) Hodgkin's disease Ischemic heart disease (including, but not limited to, acute, subacute, and old myocardial infarction; atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease including coronary artery disease (including coronary spasm) and coronary bypass surgery; and stable, unstable and Prinzmetal's angina) All chronic B-cell leukemias (including, but not limited to, hairy-cell leukemia and chronic lymphocytic leukemia) Multiple myeloma Non-Hodgkin's lymphoma Parkinson's disease Acute and subacute peripheral neuropathy Porphyria cutanea tarda Prostate cancer Respiratory cancers (cancer of the lung, bronchus, larynx, or trachea) Soft-tissue sarcoma (other than osteosarcoma, chondrosarcoma, Kaposi's sarcoma, or mesothelioma) I sure don't see sinus on there but look at 38 CFR § 3.307 --(a) (a) General. A chronic, tropical, prisoner of war related disease, or a disease associated with exposure to certain herbicide agents listed in § 3.309 will be considered to have been incurred in or aggravated by service under the circumstances outlined in this section even though there is no evidence of such disease during the period of service. No condition other than one listed in § 3.309(a) will be considered chronic. And (6) (6) Diseases associated with exposure to certain herbicide agents. (i) For the purposes of this section, the term “herbicide agent” means a chemical in an herbicide used in support of the United States and allied military operations in the Republic of Vietnam during the period beginning on January 9, 1962, and ending on May 7, 1975, specifically: 2,4-D; 2,4,5-T and its contaminant TCDD; cacodylic acid; and picloram. You are free to get an IMO that says chronic, compensable sinus problems are directly attributable to the magic orange fertilizer. I've seen Vets get SC for diseases that are not listed in that manner. The secret handshake and the nexus opinion(s) from the doctor(s) is the tiebreaker. Remember, if it's in equipoise, or there is no evidence from that nasty VA examiner to rebut it, you win. Fat chance. The RO will never grant but you'll get it on appeal...eventually. Fortunately for you, the VA's backlog is swirling around the drain and almost gone which would sure speed up a FDC about now. As an aside, I came home in '72 after two tours. I quit coughing up blood by late '71 but I wasn't near any more aerial spraying by then. I had two sinus surgeries afterwards in '75 and '76. My cavities had narrowed and trapped air every time they got irritated by dust/pollen. I still get occasional migraines from it. The silver lining in the cloud is the IHO will discover it's directly related to TCDD exposure in an aerial format about 2065 and spend hundreds of thousands of dollars looking for any Vietnam Vets or their offspring who might be eligible. VA will not sleep until they make sure they give you everything that's coming to you. They're nonadversarial, too. Win-win for Vets, huh?

Read the fine print on the contract. If (a big if) you file an informal claim, you have a year to complete the filing and the date of claim will be the moment you clicked it on ebennies. That's the hook. It will apply to about 10% of any new claims that fall inside the window. Caution. Retro $ are smaller than they appear in mirror. Wake up. Who, exactly, do you think you are dealing with here?

You are very right. My draft number was 39 out of 79 called in Virginia in 1969. I would still have gone as 11B cannon fodder but simply elected to enlist in the AF sooner. Why walk when you can fly, right? Levity aside, I simply don't see anything to be gained by everyone getting a piece of paper saying they brushed their teeth with 2,4 D, 2,4, 5 T toothpaste. A lot of trees will be sacrificed on that throne. I'm not a tree hugger but it seems it would cheapen an award that is handed out like Mardi Gras necklaces 45 years late. I still have an ax to grind with VFW over their refusal to admit V- Vets in the 70s because Vietnam was a "conflict- not a war." Worry more about the fact that the IHO intends to shut down research on any new AO diseases in 2015. Period. We are yesterday's news. A footnote in History.

It's a day late and a dollar short for asking the Government for AO recognition. With only 367,000 of us left of approximately 2.9 million, it would appear that ship has already sailed. Add to that all the others from Thailand, Laos, Cambodia, Korea, Johnson Is. Okinawa, Guam and probably a short ton of bases here in CONUS, everybody and their mother would be wearing some form of medal, gold star, have a trophy wall with a certificate or be honored at a Vets' gathering. No thanks. I know what I did for two years over there and sometimes cringe when I remember. I know, too, that some of my diseases are AO-related. With another medal and $4.25, I can get a white chocolate macadamia nut with whipped creme in Vende size. We're yesterday's news, ladies and gentleman. We're a rumor in our own room; a legend in our own minds. Let's worry about service connection for these issues and work towards leaving no Vet behind. Medals and Certificates of Exposure don't improve the bottom line for sick Vets. Advocating for those left alive is where the action is. The last thing I need is another Dog and Pony show telling me how wonderful I was or that they wish to thank me for my service. Shoot. They don't have to thank me. It's part of the job of being an American citizen-or should be. Besides, wild horses couldn't have kept me out of that sandbox in 1970. When you're 18, the smell of cordite is Chanel No. 5.56-eau d'stress. When you're 62 and at Stage 4 cirrhosis, you worry about the here and now. It's now 2013 and we know infinitely more about AO. Let's put it to good use and help those Vets still alive and their spouses prepare for the future. I think that was the whole idea for most Vets' help sites.

Pertinent things you need to know: A rating based on fraud is never protected. I'm not implying yours is. This is a generalized statement. Working while on TDIU is okay if it is within the parameters Broncovet mentioned above with the addition to being a "family business" where it might be perceived as a "make work" job for a family member. If there is no measurable improvement over five years the rating is stabilized and essentially protected. If the rating is over ten years old, it is completely protected and impervious to reduction (absent fraud). VA is often behind and takes a while to catch up when you are doing something wrong. However, they are inexorable. If you do not have the P&T rating, you are always subject to "reinspection" to determine if the disease/injury has improved subject to the strictures of a protected rating (38 CFR 3.957). Now, because you returned to work so closely following the IU rating, VA will inevitably scrutinize it with an eye towards reducing it. They will attempt to prove fraud. Be prepared. Because your ratings picture is still in flux, expect a rude surprise. VA will attempt to utilize the work info as a lever to lowball your remanded ratings from the Court as well as the BVA. Their rationale will be germane, too. You worked so just exactly what does that say? You are not as disabled as you claim to be. I make no judgements here other than to point out what they will look at. I foresee a rocky road ahead with some rude surprises and a wealth of new appeals for denied increases and/or reductions. Remember, a reduction that does not reduce your monetary award is legal and does not need a 60 day evidentiary development nor a hearing (3.105(e)). The various scenarios associated with that are numerous. VA will argue that if you are capable of work (and working) and still on IU, you are in a precarious position. One last observation. Your status of your claim is still in flux-. i.e. it is not final. It is still being promulgated judging from what you have described. Any time you have two different adjudicative bodies remanding to the AOJ for rerating and clarification, you are a far cry from a stabilized rating. VA can, and may, still argue that your P&T was CUE due to incomplete information and the judicial posture being in flux and unclear. Vets regularly find out that what they read into the regulations and statutes is at variance with how VA interprets it. Clarification often comes after 5-10 years of litigation, appeals and JMRs. It ain't over until the AOJ sings. Your Regional Office is merely clearing its throat and preparing to sing yet again.

Yeppers. Flat rate of 20% maximum is set by law. Any moneys recouped from EAJA funds are to be subtracted from it. You pay $50 for filing fees at CAVC (if an appeal is necessary) and any fees for copying/ postage. Period. If he/they state it is higher than that, they are blowing smoke rings. Be careful.

The only thing worse than getting shot at and missed is getting shot at and hit. It hurts like hell when the adrenaline wears off and you suddenly realize it. You'll make it. You're Navy tough. Appeals do take years. Most of us have been through it and came out the other side in one piece. That's why you have us to help you carry the water. Vets do that for each other. Like Tbird said up above on the logo- Leave no one behind. You found your way here. That's half the battle. Clear right

<<<Then if you happen across one that has ever heard of, seen or buys and reads the VBM, it's about time to fall down and kiss the ground.>>> Well. That's a fine how-do-you-do. Now who's going to get the hot chocolate off my monitor screen? Do you know how much that hurts the inside of your nose?

Meghp0405 I don't think John had a "bad experience" with a VSO, per se. I think it is just endemic that ignorance reigns among the ranks of VSOs. Consider it a "two-tiered" operation.This much I know. There is a hunter/gatherer employee version who does nothing but collect POAs. S/he occupies a desk at the office and does intake. It's a Walmart "meet and greet" job. If you were to delve a little deeper, you would realize how shallow their knowledge is. A three week course with no "final exam" and 40 hours of training with refresher courses annually does not a sharp NSO make. Filing claims for Vets is an awesome responsibility. Phraseology can be a make or break part of it. Knowledge, above all else, is king in this industry. Quite frankly, I haven't met any who fill the bill. I'm sure they exist somewhere and are not all that rare but I personally haven't met one. I had a one-on-one social interaction with a VFW NSO in Pennsylvania recently. He called me out and asked for names and ratings for some of the Vets I had helped get 100% + on VA claims. I gave him the info and asked him how many he had accomplished. His number was ambiguous and he could not or would not supply names-suddenly citing security and privacy policies. When pushed, he admitted his "post" had done this collectively. It was not a personal accomplishment. In fact, as an official "rated NSO" capable of representing Vets, he drives the VFW meatwagon and picks up Vets for transportation to appointments at the VAMC. That is all he does besides collect POAs and answer the phone. While this is an admirable endeavour, it isn't on a par with actual cutting edge, claims adjudication. After a long week of eliciting the truth out of him, it turns out he has never actually engaged in working claims for Vets other than his own claim. They have an experienced cadre of three who are the shield bearers. These three, in turn, consult with a regional supervisory staff who give them advice and their marching orders. CFR knowledge? They don't need it. That's why they have supervisors. NSOs, left to their own devices, are woefully unsuited to the task of defending Vets. Hillary Clinton's touchy-feely It Takes a Village is far more apropos as an analogy where VSOs are concerned. I have had three. Each was from a different VSO and each was used at a different time for different claims. Each one had the same outcome. DAV provided me with a well-meaning but extremely overworked NSO who was ill-equipped and unknowledgeable. They managed to eke out a "win" for me at the BVA in 1992-0% and 0% for hearing/tinnitus. It was an open and shut case easily proved at the RO by my audiograms. Why it went to DC is a mystery. What they did not win was my back claim. It was well-documented by SMRs which DAV did not take advantage of or use to rebut VA. My NSO was not a Veteran. AMVETS in 1994, were clueless. Any question I asked about AO had to be referred to National Hqrs. The answers were garbled and my NSO abruptly moved on to become a used car salesman in the middle of the claim. No one was assigned to take his place. My claim died for lack of a timely Form 9 filing. My NSO was not a Veteran. MOPH is probably a stand up organization in most places but not here in Seattle. My NSO told me it was futile to file any AO claims as VA simply wasn't granting them. Why try? Same for Hepatitis C claims. He mistakenly believed STDs and tattoos were willful misconduct and thus not compensable. They are not but that is immaterial. I don't have any tattoos and I've never had the clap or VD. Why he felt that was pertinent escapes me. He never explained it. I discovered almost by accident I needed a nexus letter to connect my disease to service. Again, my NSO was rude and said everybody knows this is required. I obtained one and they claimed they filed it. None could be found in the C-file. I refiled it myself directly with VA and was told if I went around him again, they would drop my representation. When I explained I was too ill to work, he handed me a Form 21-8940 for TDIU. With a 0%/0% rating, I strongly doubt VA was going to grant TDIU. My NSO was not a Veteran. I decided to go it alone with my meager intelligence and won everything. This illustrates little. My desire to win drove me to learn what was needed. I don't see that in NSOs. They seem to be comfortable with filling out forms and warming seats. I have called many VSOs to ask procedural questions about proper filing protocols. Every last one has asked me to call their "chief legal honcho" between the hours of ____ and ____ on (pick a weekday) and pose the question to him. Some of them have had to research what I consider bright line rules and get back to me. This does not inspire confidence in the process. It's not much of a testimonial to the viability of VSO jurisprudence. Every legal venue has its pitfalls. VSOs exist to help unknowledgeable Vets file claims. If they are legally challenged in their own right, they can hardly be of assistance to us. Having a NSO go into a VA hearing with you and beg for benefit of the doubt is a fool's errand yet it happens day in and day out. I'm sure they mean well but so did Chicken Little. After 23 years of attempting to obtain justice from VA, one thing is glaringly obvious. VSOs work hat in hand with the VA. Collusion is too strong a word but there it is. The hierarchy exist at the whim of Congress and VA. They get free room and board at VAROs. They are paid by the government for every signed POA they turn in. They get no bonus for a win. They get no black mark for a loss. They are not fired if a deadline for filing an appeal comes and goes unanswered. They are generally inaccessible for consultation and if they were accessible, it would be a waste of time due to their lack of knowledge. Face it. When a NSO tells you to file for HCV as a residual of Agent Orange, you are in trouble. This happens day in and day out. Nowhere in 3.309(e) will you find HCV listed as a presumptive yet you see these on appeal at the BVA from the Big Six every year in droves. You see Vets being led to the slaughter every year by the same outfits with no nexus letter. In each case the VLJ politely says " Lay testimony is all well and fine but the Vet has no medical training so he cannot opine as to the etiology of his illness or injury. On the other hand, the VA examiner has reviewed the C-file and stated s/he feels it is not at least as likely as not that the injury sustained in service is not related to the current malady. As this is the only medical opinion on record, the Board will accept it." Where, pray tell, is the Vet's IMO? Why is it that the VSO has not performed due dilligence and provided him with one to rebut the VA? 50,000 Vets represented by VSOs appeal every year. Fewer than 25,000 possess a valid nexus or IMO. What, pray tell, is the purpose of the VSO/NSO if not to prepare the Vet for this with the tools to win? Legal scholars and VSOs have known for over one hundred years that we need three things to prove our case. Nevertheless, it seems to be news to each and every one of the VSOs I deal with that you cannot win without them. While VA is not in the habit of fighting you to the mat on a presumptive for DM2 and AO, they fought me tooth and nail over Porphyria from 1994 to 2008. My VSO neglected to go into the minutiae regarding the requirement of having to manifest it to a compensable degree within a year of leaving RVN nor did they point out I could win it on a direct basis. The mantra was simply "File! File! File!" Somewhere in America there are compassionate, caring VSOs with lots of legal acumen, Megh0405. I have no doubt. Just because I have never witnessed it does not rule it out. I believe the world is round but the evidence I see points to a flat earth. In closing, I must share that the Tacoma, Wa. American Legion NSO who repped my best friend (before I took over as a silent partner) showed up after three years of silence and being AWOL after he finally won at the BVA. He wanted a group photo of them all for his trophy wall (in the bar). Keep in mind that this gentleman had not filed anything for them since Tom's Form 9 in 2008. He didn't show up for the Board videoconference hearing. No one from AmLeg was present in DC to shepherd his claim through. Nothing. This is the second one I've heard of personally for a photo op. I'm hoping Senator Tennis shoes shows up on my doorstep with CBS in tow and wants to present me my retro check for my 1994 claim. Publisher's Clearinghouse doesn't hold a candle to these chowderheads. If you are a NSO, I apologize if I have impugned your good works. It may be you have an abundance of legal acumen. Experience tells me most don't but you get tarred and feathered by the company you keep. Thank you for not being selfish and choosing to serve America. Only 7% of us hear the call and sign up. I apologize also for putting this in a SMC forum, but since you queried Mr. Basser on it, I felt the subject was fair game.

Which VARO? I'll look it up.

Be very careful what you ask for. Sending it to VACO might sound innocuous but it may create a six-month delay in implementing it. Or, after 3 months, they'll decline to offer an advisory opinion and begin anew on a brand new C&P. Either way, you have inserted a delay. Always remember 1) VA will attempt to misinterpret what it is you seek; and 2) will act on it even if they don't plan on offering an advisory opinion. This is the H2IK sequence (Hell if I know). They employ it to great effect in delaying or slowing things down so they can CYA. I've seen this often where a Vet asks for a DRO hearing. After being ignored for about a year or more, he asked for a BVA Board hearing if they weren't going to give him his DRO hearing. Six months later, he got the notice that he had elected to abandon his DRO hearing request. Period. He never did get one. He still hasn't been scheduled for the BVA hearing yet.

What, Carlie? And forgo a warm, intelligent conversation with the technician at the Prize Redemption Center after being on hold for 53 minutes? Ebennies is sooooo impersonal. a

Yes and no, John. I tried for two years and even pursued the dreaded DRO dead end. VA just wasn't buying one of those antique Macklem decisions locally. Neither was the BVA. Often, when you approach the CVA, the General Counsel looks at their cards again and decides to fold. OSC here looks like he had his house in order and got it all locally. I'm surmising that because nobody but Sen. John McCain's son is going to get the First Class treatment he is in the time frame he claims. I have no idea when he filed the original, but the smart money says it was well within 5 years. It took me five plus from my filing in 2007 just to get to the CVA and another year before Will Gunn and Co. folded. CUE is a horse of a different color.

<<<<<<<<<<<<<I received a phone call from the Reno VARO.>>>>>>>>>>> If you receive a call from the VARO, it means the claim(s) is still at the VARO unless you are a Senator's son. If the claim were still at the BVA, you would receive a phone call from one of their wonderful staff updating you on the progress/location.The BVA doesn't promulgate financial decisions. <<<<<<<<<<<<He confirmed that in fact the appeal and claim were decided on June 13, 2013 and were with the “Promulgation Team”. He explained that this stage is where they prepare the letters and authorize the money both for monthly payment and retros. I asked him how long this takes and he said no actual time is assigned but his guess based upon his experience is about 90 days. >>>>>>>>>>> If your claim had been decided at the BVA in your favor, 90 days would be about right for the "promulgation of the award" and a check in the bank account but you would have received a copy of your BVA decision(s) by now. You usually get them in short order to facilitate an appeal to the CAVC within the allotted 120 days. Strikes me that this never left the Reno area. If you win a remand, reversal, vacate and remand, or a set aside and remand at the CVA, it takes, on average, six months from the legal decision there to get it back to the VARO. It has to make a stop at the BVA for a John Hancock from the BVA Judge who screwed it up first. Then it's back to Fort Fumble for a lather , rinse, and repeat. If a decision was made at the BVA, it would result in a 8-10 page decision. You would have a citation number as well as a Docket number. You would have signed a waiver of review for the RO if new evidence was involved. You would also have had it in your hot hands within a week of the date it was decided. VARO chuckleheads use the word "appeal" loosely. In the eyes of the VARO, an appeal is any decision contested- be it for ratings percentage or outright denial. The CVA considers an appeal as one that has been finally decided by the BVA. Big difference. Going up to the DRO review is merely not willing to take no for an answer. It is not, however, an appeal in any way shape or form. If the Reno boys did all this, they need a month-minimum- from the date they decide you're right to get all the signatures together (two). If the amount currently owed exceeds $25,000.00, then they require three signatures-including one from the Veterans Service Center Manager. From there it goes over to accounting to figure out the smallest amount they can get away with paying you legally. A claim decided June 13th would put your BVA decision in your hands by the 19th of June at the latest. On the other hand, if the decision was made in Reno by a RVSR or DRO, you could expect a ratings decision and the paper by August 15th-25th. You'll see the deposit before the rating paper. VA is almost 2 years out on docketing BVA appeals right now. SOC's following NODs are running 16-20 months. SSOCs are slightly less. VLJs are now instructed to crank out one (1) decision per day no matter what. Do the math. 50,000-plus appeals every year and going up astronomically. Current backlog from just 2012? About 46,000. 72 designated VLJs. Approximately 40 Acting VLJs (staff attorneys) authorized to play dress up judge for up to 90 days. 112 (approx.) decisions a day Monday to Friday-excluding national holidays. 560 decisions a week including rubber band remands coming back after more development. Forty weeks X 560 =22,240 decisions a year. BVA cleared out about 48,000 last year left over from 2011. They did this via a lot of remands for more development. This bumped the average up to 44,000 decisions (2 per day) but half were just put off for another day. Think Wimpy and Hamburgers.

Only rarely does VA give you the correct info. The brain-dead "technicians" who man the 827-1000 Prize Redemption Center have no clue what is afoot unless the info is ancient history. BVA usually does not award ratings unless your appeal is a denial of an increased rating. If they reverse the VARO, they can increase or rate appropriately. It still would go back to the RO for the write up and the actual financial revisions. The cash register is at the Regional Office. Sometimes I think VA thrives on handing out misinformation.

Go here and scroll down to FAST Letter 09-52 and download it. It request VA to seek your records for Special Ops. http://asknod.wordpress.com/va-forms/ Another thing you need to understand is that VA does not generously hand out top drawer ratings without a little nudging. If they think they can roll you and the medical evidence is "iffy" or allows for some wiggle room, they will lowball you every time. Rebut it by submitting the medrecs that support a higher rating. You also need to see the Diagnostic Code rating percentages on TBI to get a better idea where you fall in it. In the interim, if they sandbagged you with a couple of 0% ice creme cones with no ice creme, you are entitled to a 10% rating ( 38 CFR 3.324). Few know of that little trick. § 3.324 Multiple noncompensable service-connected disabilities. Whenever a veteran is suffering from two or more separate permanent service-connected disabilities of such character as clearly to interfere with normal employability, even though none of the disabilities may be of compensable degree under the 1945 Schedule for Rating Disabilities the rating agency is authorized to apply a 10-percent rating, but not in combination with any other rating.

You have to prove a filing was made before the expiration. A Certified Mail receipt will do it. That's cutting it pretty close.

Time to hire a good attorney. Contact the NVLSP (National Veterans Legal Services Program). They are pro bono and it won't cost a dime. They'll straighten it out. Fix it pronto before they appoint a fiduciary. I hope you kept the receipt numbers for the IRIS communications. They have an identifier on them that will prove your contentions. http://www.nvlsp.org/ Good luck, sir

There's still one glaring error. They are asking for permission to talk directly with the Vet and cut out the middleman (VSO/agent/ law dog). That's a Bozo no-no in 50 states (Miranda, anyone?)

This begs the question of which RO he's filing with. The operable phrase is definitely "We shall see what happens."

File this one under Be Careful What (and how much) You File For. Mr. Rilenator has attained an impressive list of claims ratings (30) and the VA has been more than fair (undoubtedly) in granting them. But for one episode of diarrhea of the piehole, he would have escaped closer inspection. Any time you assay to obtain all these entitlements, you automatically draw closer scrutiny to your claims. VA is, and always has been, vindictive to a degree. When forced by medical records, or other incontrovertible evidence, to grant this many ratings, they automatically go into porcupine mode. Here, it has backfired on the gentleman. It usually does. Absent any way to deny a large majority of them and marginalize him to a 10% tinnitus dog bone, they are coming around full circle and doing what they can to head him off at the pass. This is what they do and I don't need to remind any of you that they do it well. They've had over 200 years to perfect their technique. This is in no way meant as criticism. Remember that as you read this. It is merely an observation of VA's proclivity to search for something- anything- to impede your access to that which they have granted you. They know full well in this day and age that this shabby treatment will inevitably end up in some Veterans help forum or social media outlet such as Hadit or Facepage. It will become a sotto voce admonition to other Vets to be more restrained and respectful of the process. Witness the hanging of Keith Roberts which is still ongoing as we speak. http://asknod.wordpress.com/2012/01/18/roberts-v-shinseki-a-miscarriage-of-justice/ I don't propose to preach and tell others how to file their claims or even which ones to file but I will add one comment. File for what will kill you. File for what is going to get worse in the future. File to attain the P&T. File to attain the SMCs if you are entitled. Filing for a long laundry list such as this will gain you no more money and will just incite the VA to get out the magnifying glass and the tweezers. This claim has everything but the kitchen sink in it. Add it up. In sum, you could have still attained all you seek financially without flat feet, sleep apnea, et al. The library of 10%ers will not result in any life threatening diseases. They may facilitate an Aid and Attendance rating 25 or 30 years in the future but little more. VSOs like the DAV are into spaghetti filings. They know VA's default setting is deny. They are taught to shotgun 30 claims against the wall of the RO and see which ones stick. Here, virtually all did. And, because you have amply demonstrated by your disabilities (and your own comments), the enormity of all of them is so overwhelming that you rely on your son for "assistance". I don't condone or approve of what the VA is up to but anyone can see your DAV rep has provoked this. It may have been unintentional. Regardless of the minutiae of the reasoning or causes, you have a hard road ahead of you to rebut your very own words. You need professional legal help and you will not find it at DAV. Your ratings are so numerous and large that their sum, on paper, makes you look wheelchair-bound and mentally incompetent- even without your mentioning you son's involvement in your finances. For what it's worth, I suspect they would have gone after you with the Fiduciary broomstick absent the comment anyway. It would appear the VA has taken your very advice and "documented everything" including the remark about finances. You cannot retract the comment. Similarly, you cannot object too strenuously about the ratings and it would do no good. That is a finding of fact and you cannot CUE yourself. However, you can file a NOD on one of them ( I suggest the TBI)and get an attorney to prevent the inevitability of a fiduciary. If you are married (and it appears you are not), you could argue for the spouse to be that fiduciary. The argument for the son might not be as persuasive but I would allow an attorney to make any judgements in that regard. As for a VSO to combat this? Well, ask yourself how you got here first before you answer that. Best of luck and I do mean that altruistically.

Jez, what excellent advice. Put the form on your Yahoo calendar for filing each year in order to remember, too. You one smart feller, John. I'm going to steal that one for my site. In fact, download a pile of them, fill them all out chronologically and sign them. If you punch out, makes sure the wife puts you in the chest freezer and keeps filing them. If they get too inquisitive, she can thaw you out, tuck you in and call the meat wagon. Do I need to mention that is a joke?

I have read numerous CAVC decisions documenting this phenomenon. Being TDIU, one is always susceptible to being called back in to be reexamined within the first 5 to 10 years. After a certain period, they award P&T but until they do, one false step like this will provoke exactly what you are describing. Assuming you have not changed your mailing address since this began in 2002, VA will use the Presumption of Regularity to say they mailed it and you got it (regardless of what happened). The Veteran's Presumption of Normal Intelligence states you wouldn't blow off something this important and probably didn't get the letter. In order to combat it, you have to refile the form they wanted and get on ebenefits and upload some serious documentation medically to preserve that original TDIU. Any way you look at it, you're in for a slugging match. I have no doubt you will get it back but you're entitled to an unbroken chain of compensation. VA will eventually regrant it but will reinstate it effective when you eventually heard about it and complied. You can fight it to the CAVC and you'll win in 8 years. VA is willing to spend a million denying you $20 K in back pay and will. They do it every day. You might try a VSO but I'd consider that a last resort. The IRIS or ebennies avenue may get a much quicker response. Fix it now. Don't let it fester. Never forget the Congressional Inquiry hand grenade either. 38 CFR §4.13 states: Effect of change of diagnosis The repercussion upon a current rating of service connection when change is made of a previously assigned diagnosis or etiology must be kept in mind. The aim should be the reconciliation and continuance of the diagnosis or etiology upon which service connection for the disability had been granted. Applicability of 38 CFR § 3.103 (a)(b)(2). 38 CFR § 3.103 (a) deals with procedural due process and appellate rights. Section (a) states: (a) Statement of policy. Every claimant has the right to written notice of the decision made on his or her claim, the right to a hearing, and the right of representation. Proceedings before VA are ex parte in nature, and it is the obligation of VA to assist a claimant in developing the facts pertinent to the claim and to render a decision which grants every benefit that can be supported in law while protecting the interests of the Government Section (b) (2) describes the reduction of ratings: (2) Advance notice and opportunity for hearing. Except as otherwise provided in paragraph (b)(3) of this section, no award of compensation, pension or dependency and indemnity compensation shall be terminated, reduced or otherwise adversely affected unless the beneficiary has been notified of such adverse action and has been provided a period of 60 days in which to submit evidence for the purpose of showing that the adverse action should not be taken. 38 CFR §3.105 states: (e) Reduction in evaluation—compensation. Where the reduction in evaluation of a service-connected disability or employability status is considered warranted and the lower evaluation would result in a reduction or discontinuance of compensation payments currently being made, a rating proposing the reduction or discontinuance will be prepared setting forth all material facts and reasons. The beneficiary will be notified at his or her latest address of record of the contemplated action and furnished detailed reasons therefor, and will be given 60 days for the presentation of additional evidence to show that compensation payments should be continued at their present level. Unless otherwise provided in paragraph (i) of this section, if additional evidence is not received within that period, final rating action will be taken and the award will be reduced or discontinued effective the last day of the month in which a 60-day period from the date of notice to the beneficiary of the final rating action expires. One thing necessary is a medical examination for something like this, not just a Form 21- "fill this out and send it in". But then we're talking the VA here, not Social Security, huh?