FormerMember

At our last NOVA conference (Portland 09/ 12/2019), AMO director David McLenachen suggested we  start filing our client's CUE claims on the 526EZ as it captures the most data and ensures being uploaded. VA will accept it on the 995 because there is no designated form yet. In Section IV (4), under current disabilities, put in Motion to Revise the xx/xx/xxxx decision denying entitlement to (earlier effective date/ denial of DM II/ etc.  If the decision has a "In Reply Refer To: 346/DEJ" designator in the top right of the denial letter, make sure you include that and the notification letter's date in the current disabilities area in Section IV.
Best of luck.

At our last NOVA conference (Portland 09/ 12/2019), AMO director David McLenachen suggested we  start filing our client's CUE claims on the 526EZ as it captures the most data and ensures being uploaded. VA will accept it on the 995 because there is no designated form yet. In Section IV (4), under current disabilities, put in Motion to Revise the xx/xx/xxxx decision denying entitlement to (earlier effective date/ denial of DM II/ etc.  If the decision has a "In Reply Refer To: 346/DEJ" designator in the top right of the denial letter, make sure you include that and the notification letter's date in the current disabilities area in Section IV.
Best of luck.

Paul, you have no idea how much they've earned it. We all have,assuming arguendo, we have legitimate claims. Vets who come to me have usually reached the end of their rope-both financially and mentally. This is why I chose primarily to help my Vietnam Veteran brothers over more recent Vets. Most of us got 0 to 10% when we came home for things you get 60% for now. It took me from 1989 to 2007 to discover why I kept losing. When I finished up in 2015, VA ended up paying me over $450 K in retro. That provoked me to get my accreditation to do the same for others. Being admitted to the CAVC  to practice there was the ultimate honor to me. There are only 35 or so of us allowed to do this and most work for the OGC (027). There's no doubt I'm going to Hell for my shenanigans in Vietnam but I'm going to make life absolute Hell for the VA until I punch out. 

Here's another one.
https://asknod.org/2019/12/31/vba-seattle-carry-on-my-wayward-son/

Paul, you have no idea how much they've earned it. We all have,assuming arguendo, we have legitimate claims. Vets who come to me have usually reached the end of their rope-both financially and mentally. This is why I chose primarily to help my Vietnam Veteran brothers over more recent Vets. Most of us got 0 to 10% when we came home for things you get 60% for now. It took me from 1989 to 2007 to discover why I kept losing. When I finished up in 2015, VA ended up paying me over $450 K in retro. That provoked me to get my accreditation to do the same for others. Being admitted to the CAVC  to practice there was the ultimate honor to me. There are only 35 or so of us allowed to do this and most work for the OGC (027). There's no doubt I'm going to Hell for my shenanigans in Vietnam but I'm going to make life absolute Hell for the VA until I punch out. 

Paul, you have no idea how much they've earned it. We all have,assuming arguendo, we have legitimate claims. Vets who come to me have usually reached the end of their rope-both financially and mentally. This is why I chose primarily to help my Vietnam Veteran brothers over more recent Vets. Most of us got 0 to 10% when we came home for things you get 60% for now. It took me from 1989 to 2007 to discover why I kept losing. When I finished up in 2015, VA ended up paying me over $450 K in retro. That provoked me to get my accreditation to do the same for others. Being admitted to the CAVC  to practice there was the ultimate honor to me. There are only 35 or so of us allowed to do this and most work for the OGC (027). There's no doubt I'm going to Hell for my shenanigans in Vietnam but I'm going to make life absolute Hell for the VA until I punch out. 

Here's another one.
https://asknod.org/2019/12/31/vba-seattle-carry-on-my-wayward-son/

Fifty years in the making. Five filings since 1971. Welcome home, Bob.  A truly fitting Christmas present.
Remember the magic words: " leave no one behind".
https://asknod.org/2019/12/29/vba-portland-you-know-it-dont-come-easy/

Fifty years in the making. Five filings since 1971. Welcome home, Bob.  A truly fitting Christmas present.
Remember the magic words: " leave no one behind".
https://asknod.org/2019/12/29/vba-portland-you-know-it-dont-come-easy/

Fifty years in the making. Five filings since 1971. Welcome home, Bob.  A truly fitting Christmas present.
Remember the magic words: " leave no one behind".
https://asknod.org/2019/12/29/vba-portland-you-know-it-dont-come-easy/

Here's a different view of CUE. To me, finding a CUE is easy. Proving it was such is the challenge. The higher the financial remuneration due, the harder the VA will fight it. This one is going to be a big one. It's like fishing with hand grenades. With access to the VBMS, your job of sorting out the claims file chronologically is done for you. 
https://asknod.org/2019/12/13/friday-the-13th-what-else-could-possibly-happen/
 

Here's a different view of CUE. To me, finding a CUE is easy. Proving it was such is the challenge. The higher the financial remuneration due, the harder the VA will fight it. This one is going to be a big one. It's like fishing with hand grenades. With access to the VBMS, your job of sorting out the claims file chronologically is done for you. 
https://asknod.org/2019/12/13/friday-the-13th-what-else-could-possibly-happen/
 

<<My attorney requested direct review with no hearing with submission of new evidence.>>  You have three choices: 1) direct review of existing evidence; 2) submission of new evidence or 3) request for hearing with submission of new evidence. Sounds like you took #2-new and relevant evidence (IMO).
Each appeal is taken in turn regardless of how many contentions are filed. My record was 23 contentions and it took a 13 months even though it was advanced on the docket. (9/2018 to 10/2019).
From the briefings we've been getting from Chairman of the Board Cheryl Mason, direct reviews and old legacy are the ones they want to get moving soonest.  WW2/Korea/Vietnam Vets get a slightly higher priority aside from advanced on docket appeals. 
 My guess is you'll see it within two years -by 3/2021. They hired about 400 new staff attorneys after the new AMA kicked in. Each VLJ has between 8-12. Obviously, the ones who ask for a hearing are going to wait the longest. I filed a 10182 asking for AOD and a hearing about April. I got a Jan.6th, 2020 face to face in DC with one. I expect it will be a year even with the AOD.
VA miscalculated and figured everyone would go to the HLR-at least at first before a NOD to the BVA. Turns out Vets chose the BVA 5 to 1 over HLR so we have a bunch of HLR ROs doing nothing in St. Pete, Houston and Seattle. They call them DROCs -Decision Review Office Centers.  But then when did the VA ever do something right?

Agreed on the newer Dustoff association. I was referring to the old Vietnam-only Dustoffs. Very different group. They have their own reunions every year with no one post RVN allowed. I get an honorary even though I didn't do that. I was FAC backseater/interpreter as well as a chieu hoi boy on the loudspeaker for Psy ops. VA said I was never in RVN-let alone Laos- from 1975 to 2007. And then one day I was. VA will pay for that bitchslap until I die. I figure I've cost them a billion or more by getting so many Vets IU or 100 schedular over the last eleven years.  

There seems to be some continuing confusion here at Hadit on SMC requirements for Aid and Attendance. SMC L covers A&A. Look at §3.350(b) and you see:
(b) Ratings under 38 U.S.C. 1114(l). The special monthly compensation provided by 38 U.S.C. 1114(l) is payable for anatomical loss or loss of use of both feet, one hand and one foot, blindness in both eyes with visual acuity of 5/200 or less or being permanently bedridden or so helpless as to be in need of regular aid and attendance.
The only other rating for aid and attendance is R2 which is "a higher level" of A&A. It is covered in §3.352(b):
 
(b) Basic criteria for the higher level aid and attendance allowance.
(1) A veteran is entitled to the higher level aid and attendance allowance authorized by § 3.350(h) in lieu of the regular aid and attendance allowance when all of the following conditions are met:
(i) The veteran is entitled to the compensation authorized under 38 U.S.C. 1114(o), or the maximum rate of compensation authorized under 38 U.S.C. 1114(p).
(ii) The veteran meets the requirements for entitlement to the regular aid and attendance allowance in paragraph (a) of this section.
(iii) The veteran needs a “higher level of care” (as defined in paragraph (b)(3) of this section) than is required to establish entitlement to the regular aid and attendance allowance, and in the absence of the provision of such higher level of care the veteran would require hospitalization, nursing home care, or other residential institutional care.
(2) A veteran is entitled to the higher level aid and attendance allowance authorized by § 3.350(j) in lieu of the regular aid and attendance allowance when all of the following conditions are met:
(i) As a result of service-connected residuals of traumatic brain injury, the veteran meets the requirements for entitlement to the regular aid and attendance allowance in paragraph (a) of this section.
(ii) As a result of service-connected residuals of traumatic brain injury, the veteran needs a “higher level of care” (as defined in paragraph (b)(3) of this section) than is required to establish entitlement to the regular aid and attendance allowance, and in the absence of the provision of such higher level of care the veteran would require hospitalization, nursing home care, or other residential institutional care.
I think the problem arises with the VA Form 21-2680 which is a form used by a  VA examiner to investigate qualifying for SMC S  as being substantially housebound or the need for A&A. Note my use of the word "or". SMC S is essentially a two-part test for a) 100% + an additional 60% separate and distinct from the 100% or b) being substantially housebound in fact. There is no mention of a&a in SMC S under §3.350(i) nor would there be as it is rated as SMC L.
As I like to point out, SMC is very complicated. Just when you think you have it figured out, you discover you don't. Imagine VA examiners. They need a M 21 calculator to figure it out and then cannot even accomplish that. I've had to fight for every SMC O leading to R1 or R2 except for one (R2) in Manila. It took a long fight at the local VARO level because they kept trying to use a PN DBQ to deny LOU of the lower extremities. Their view was if you could get out of bed, pivot and fall back into  a wheelchair, you did not suffer LOU of the lower extremities. Jensen v. Shulkin (§3.809) put paid to that insanity.

The true crux of this discussion is still unknown. Ray AO has failed to answer and illuminate us as to whether the SA is secondary to the PTSD. The Diagnostic Code (DC) for SA is 6847. As BroncoVet points out, the rater can go either way on one of these. SA  is a totally different Diagnostic Code from DC 9411 (PTSD). As such, it can be rated either separately as a stand alone rating or it may be secondary to the PTSD in the instant case. It all depends on how it was filed and claimed. A Confirmed Rating Decision (CRD) ,which VA doesn't send you with your decision, explains each diagnosed illness and the Diagnostic Code.
If you SA is secondary to the PTSD, the DC would be a compound DC under §4.27. In this case, if it was secondary, the DC, it would be 9411-6847 and the the CRD would list it as a secondary. If so, it would be a crap shoot as to what the rater would do. Most will deny the SMC because they use what's called a SMC calculator which is shorthand for "deny". The SMC calculator is pathetic and always ends up in VA's favor against you. As for being substantially housebound under §3.350(i)(2), VA will use anything and everything they can summons to deny on that sub-section. God forbid you went to the VAMC every month for medical treatment. That would be proof you are NOT housebound in their minds.
I have a rating for Hep C at 100%. I have a lot of secondaries relating to it which add up to 60% or more and VA won't give it to me based on them. However, I have a separate 100% for Porphyria Cutanea Tarda (from AO) rated as dialysis due to the need for frequent phlebotomies so I obtained my SMC S from that.  
The general rule is what the CRD states. I attach one here below for members to review. I see a lot of BVA decisions cited on these HADIT pages. Please remember that unless the facts of the case  mirror your case in every respect, they are useless to cite to- i.e. they are useless for precedence. However, they do give you an idea how the BVA will rule because their Purple Book demands stare decisis.
In my Vet's case below, the VA threw everything but  the kitchen sink into the SMC S rating (which is illegal) but it's immaterial as I got this Vet SMC L for loss of use of his lower extremities. As I say, each case is unique and each rater is an unknown quantity. That's why we often have to appeal to get it corrected. This was the first time I ever won a Loss of Use  at the RO (WACO) without a fight up to the BVA.
 
Johnny Vet CRD redacted.pdf

Currently, the M 21 1MR forbids what MrPain7 alleges as being possible via regulation or statute.  DROs regularly forbid what you describe. In fact, they only permit one 100% "bump" under §3.350(f)(4) OR one 1/2 step bump under §3.350(f)(3) but never both and certainly not multiple applications. 
IV.ii.2.H.6.a.  Proper Application of 38 CFR 3.350(f)(3) and 38 CFR 3.350(f)(4)
Apply the provisions of 38 CFR 3.350(f)(3) or 38 CFR 3.350(f)(4), whichever is appropriate, only once in a rating decision.   Important:  Concurrent entitlement to SMC under both 38 CFR 3.350(f)(3) and 38 CFR 3.350(f)(4) is prohibited.    However, the Secretary's regulations say no such thing. Notice the use of the plural of "permanent disabilities" in (f)(3) which is missing in (f)(4).    (3) Additional independent 50 percent disabilities. In addition to the statutory rates payable under 38 U.S.C. 1114 (l) through (n) and the intermediate or next higher rate provisions outlined above, additional single permanent disability or combinations of permanent disabilities independently ratable at 50 percent or more will afford entitlement to the next higher intermediate rate or if already entitled to an intermediate rate to the next higher statutory rate under 38 U.S.C. 1114, but not above the (o) rate. In the application of this subparagraph the disability or disabilities independently ratable at 50 percent or more must be separate and distinct and involve different anatomical segments or bodily systems from the conditions establishing entitlement under 38 U.S.C. 1114 (l) through (n) or the intermediate rate provisions outlined above. The graduated ratings for arrested tuberculosis will not be utilized in this connection, but the permanent residuals of tuberculosis may be utilized.
(4) Additional independent 100 percent ratings. In addition to the statutory rates payable under 38 U.S.C. 1114 (l) through (n) and the intermediate or next higher rate provisions outlined above additional single permanent disability independently ratable at 100 percent apart from any consideration of individual unemployability will afford entitlement to the next higher statutory rate under 38 U.S.C. 1114 or if already entitled to an intermediate rate to the next higher intermediate rate, but in no event higher than the rate for (o). In the application of this subparagraph the single permanent disability independently ratable at 100 percent must be separate and distinct and involve different anatomical segments or bodily systems from the conditions establishing entitlement under 38 U.S.C. 1114 (l) through (n) or the intermediate rate provisions outlined above.
This is what we call a matter of first impression legally. It has never come before the CAVC or CAFC yet and many of us eagerly await a case. I repeat- you can have SMC L and have one 100% rating independently ratable that will advance you to SMC M. You will never get a RO to grant an additional 1/2 step bump to M 1/2, nor will you ever get to O this way except from N. SMC O is very explicit on what you need. Note below there is no provision for advancing to SMC O by simply throwing more 100% ratings at SMC L.  If you qualified for N, then you could get the (f)(4) 100% bump to O but the requirements for N are pretty rough. You can get to SMC O also by having N1/2 + a SMC K.
 
(e) Ratings under 38 U.S.C. 1114 (o).
(1) The special monthly compensation provided by 38 U.S.C. 1114(o) is payable for any of the following conditions:
(i) Anatomical loss of both arms so near the shoulder as to prevent use of a prosthetic appliance;
(ii) Conditions entitling to two or more of the rates (no condition being considered twice) provided in 38 U.S.C. 1114(l) through (n);
(iii) Bilateral deafness rated at 60 percent or more disabling (and the hearing impairment in either one or both ears is service connected) in combination with service-connected blindness with bilateral visual acuity 20/200 or less.
(iv) Service-connected total deafness in one ear or bilateral deafness rated at 40 percent or more disabling (and the hearing impairment in either one of both ears is service-connected) in combination with service-connected blindness of both eyes having only light perception or less.
(2) Paraplegia. Paralysis of both lower extremities together with loss of anal and bladder sphincter control will entitle to the maximum rate under 38 U.S.C. 1114(o), through the combination of loss of use of both legs and helplessness. The requirement of loss of anal and bladder sphincter control is met even though incontinence has been overcome under a strict regimen of rehabilitation of bowel and bladder training and other auxiliary measures.
I'd welcome anyone to show me a proven BVA or CAVC case (not just hearsay) where the VLJ or Justice awarded both entitlements or even multiple entitlements of both (f)(3) and (f)(4). It's easy to just baldly state how this works. It's quite another situation entirely to give examples proving your point. Simply put, if what you said was true, MrPain7, we'd all know about it. I've asked for both bumps before for several Veterans but my clients ended up with R1 so it mooted the point of the claim for (f)(3) and (4). 

Tune in tomorrow afternoon for the how and why of DRO hearings. Tips and tricks. Where to find N&ME to present. What works and what doesn't. How come he won and I didn't ? and more
https://asknod.org/2017/02/15/hadit-com-radio-show-dro-hearings/
 

Currently, the M 21 1MR forbids what MrPain7 alleges as being possible via regulation or statute.  DROs regularly forbid what you describe. In fact, they only permit one 100% "bump" under §3.350(f)(4) OR one 1/2 step bump under §3.350(f)(3) but never both and certainly not multiple applications. 
IV.ii.2.H.6.a.  Proper Application of 38 CFR 3.350(f)(3) and 38 CFR 3.350(f)(4)
Apply the provisions of 38 CFR 3.350(f)(3) or 38 CFR 3.350(f)(4), whichever is appropriate, only once in a rating decision.   Important:  Concurrent entitlement to SMC under both 38 CFR 3.350(f)(3) and 38 CFR 3.350(f)(4) is prohibited.    However, the Secretary's regulations say no such thing. Notice the use of the plural of "permanent disabilities" in (f)(3) which is missing in (f)(4).    (3) Additional independent 50 percent disabilities. In addition to the statutory rates payable under 38 U.S.C. 1114 (l) through (n) and the intermediate or next higher rate provisions outlined above, additional single permanent disability or combinations of permanent disabilities independently ratable at 50 percent or more will afford entitlement to the next higher intermediate rate or if already entitled to an intermediate rate to the next higher statutory rate under 38 U.S.C. 1114, but not above the (o) rate. In the application of this subparagraph the disability or disabilities independently ratable at 50 percent or more must be separate and distinct and involve different anatomical segments or bodily systems from the conditions establishing entitlement under 38 U.S.C. 1114 (l) through (n) or the intermediate rate provisions outlined above. The graduated ratings for arrested tuberculosis will not be utilized in this connection, but the permanent residuals of tuberculosis may be utilized.
(4) Additional independent 100 percent ratings. In addition to the statutory rates payable under 38 U.S.C. 1114 (l) through (n) and the intermediate or next higher rate provisions outlined above additional single permanent disability independently ratable at 100 percent apart from any consideration of individual unemployability will afford entitlement to the next higher statutory rate under 38 U.S.C. 1114 or if already entitled to an intermediate rate to the next higher intermediate rate, but in no event higher than the rate for (o). In the application of this subparagraph the single permanent disability independently ratable at 100 percent must be separate and distinct and involve different anatomical segments or bodily systems from the conditions establishing entitlement under 38 U.S.C. 1114 (l) through (n) or the intermediate rate provisions outlined above.
This is what we call a matter of first impression legally. It has never come before the CAVC or CAFC yet and many of us eagerly await a case. I repeat- you can have SMC L and have one 100% rating independently ratable that will advance you to SMC M. You will never get a RO to grant an additional 1/2 step bump to M 1/2, nor will you ever get to O this way except from N. SMC O is very explicit on what you need. Note below there is no provision for advancing to SMC O by simply throwing more 100% ratings at SMC L.  If you qualified for N, then you could get the (f)(4) 100% bump to O but the requirements for N are pretty rough. You can get to SMC O also by having N1/2 + a SMC K.
 
(e) Ratings under 38 U.S.C. 1114 (o).
(1) The special monthly compensation provided by 38 U.S.C. 1114(o) is payable for any of the following conditions:
(i) Anatomical loss of both arms so near the shoulder as to prevent use of a prosthetic appliance;
(ii) Conditions entitling to two or more of the rates (no condition being considered twice) provided in 38 U.S.C. 1114(l) through (n);
(iii) Bilateral deafness rated at 60 percent or more disabling (and the hearing impairment in either one or both ears is service connected) in combination with service-connected blindness with bilateral visual acuity 20/200 or less.
(iv) Service-connected total deafness in one ear or bilateral deafness rated at 40 percent or more disabling (and the hearing impairment in either one of both ears is service-connected) in combination with service-connected blindness of both eyes having only light perception or less.
(2) Paraplegia. Paralysis of both lower extremities together with loss of anal and bladder sphincter control will entitle to the maximum rate under 38 U.S.C. 1114(o), through the combination of loss of use of both legs and helplessness. The requirement of loss of anal and bladder sphincter control is met even though incontinence has been overcome under a strict regimen of rehabilitation of bowel and bladder training and other auxiliary measures.
I'd welcome anyone to show me a proven BVA or CAVC case (not just hearsay) where the VLJ or Justice awarded both entitlements or even multiple entitlements of both (f)(3) and (f)(4). It's easy to just baldly state how this works. It's quite another situation entirely to give examples proving your point. Simply put, if what you said was true, MrPain7, we'd all know about it. I've asked for both bumps before for several Veterans but my clients ended up with R1 so it mooted the point of the claim for (f)(3) and (4). 

In order to obtain SMC at the O rate, you need two SMCs between L and N. An example would be the need for aid and attendance at the L rate and loss of use of the upper or lower extremities at  the L rate. The only other way is to be in receipt of SMC N 1/2 with at least one SMC K award. VA DROs tell me we are only allowed one "bump" under §3.350(f)(3) or (4) based on the M21-1MR. However, the Secretary's regulation doesn't say that. It will be a matter of first impression at the Court should any Vet arrive there with this unique confluence of disabilities. 
SMC is one of the most difficult concepts to absorb. I studied it for almost 5 years before I even began to feel proficient enough to do one of these. I would guess there are probably no more than 10 VA attorneys who do this successfully. A good friend of mine (Robert Chisholm) of CCK law firm is the absolute master of SMC. 
You could have 20 100% schedular ratings but would still only be entitled to SMC S. To try to understand this, I always suggest reading this article explaining it. https://asknod.org/2013/02/27/special-monthly-compensation-what-is-it/
SMC is the only rating system which actually allows pyramiding of disabilities to "leapfrog" ahead to SMC R1 from SMC O.
 

You sure can qualify for SMC L. You just need a nexus opinion from a Doctor saying you need the aid and attendance of another as you are a danger to yourself or others. PTSD at 100% can be extremely mentally disabling. You might make poor decisions such as walking away and leaving the stove on after making a grilled cheese sandwich. You risk burning the house down. Look at the requirements to attain 100% for 38 CFR §4.130 DC 9411 (PTSD):
100%
Total occupational and social impairment, due to such symptoms as: gross impairment in thought processes or communication; persistent delusions or hallucinations; grossly inappropriate behavior; persistent danger of hurting self or others; intermittent inability to perform activities of daily living (including maintenance of minimal personal hygiene); disorientation to time or place; memory loss for names of close relatives, own occupation, or own name.
 I've helped several attain SMC L in combination with other deficits. Getting the appropriate doctor's letter  (nexus) is the way you accomplish it. You will never be awarded this with less than a true 100% schedular rating. I'm sure others here may have a different take on this. My advice is based on my litigation experience with Vets I represent.
Best of luck.

You sure can qualify for SMC L. You just need a nexus opinion from a Doctor saying you need the aid and attendance of another as you are a danger to yourself or others. PTSD at 100% can be extremely mentally disabling. You might make poor decisions such as walking away and leaving the stove on after making a grilled cheese sandwich. You risk burning the house down. Look at the requirements to attain 100% for 38 CFR §4.130 DC 9411 (PTSD):
100%
Total occupational and social impairment, due to such symptoms as: gross impairment in thought processes or communication; persistent delusions or hallucinations; grossly inappropriate behavior; persistent danger of hurting self or others; intermittent inability to perform activities of daily living (including maintenance of minimal personal hygiene); disorientation to time or place; memory loss for names of close relatives, own occupation, or own name.
 I've helped several attain SMC L in combination with other deficits. Getting the appropriate doctor's letter  (nexus) is the way you accomplish it. You will never be awarded this with less than a true 100% schedular rating. I'm sure others here may have a different take on this. My advice is based on my litigation experience with Vets I represent.
Best of luck.

You sure can qualify for SMC L. You just need a nexus opinion from a Doctor saying you need the aid and attendance of another as you are a danger to yourself or others. PTSD at 100% can be extremely mentally disabling. You might make poor decisions such as walking away and leaving the stove on after making a grilled cheese sandwich. You risk burning the house down. Look at the requirements to attain 100% for 38 CFR §4.130 DC 9411 (PTSD):
100%
Total occupational and social impairment, due to such symptoms as: gross impairment in thought processes or communication; persistent delusions or hallucinations; grossly inappropriate behavior; persistent danger of hurting self or others; intermittent inability to perform activities of daily living (including maintenance of minimal personal hygiene); disorientation to time or place; memory loss for names of close relatives, own occupation, or own name.
 I've helped several attain SMC L in combination with other deficits. Getting the appropriate doctor's letter  (nexus) is the way you accomplish it. You will never be awarded this with less than a true 100% schedular rating. I'm sure others here may have a different take on this. My advice is based on my litigation experience with Vets I represent.
Best of luck.

VA Claims Insider is not accredited. The VAOIG and VA Accreditation are both preparing to drop the hammer on all these fly-by-night  "Vet Helpers". Expect to see a Congressional Statute in the works soon making it illegal to poach Vet's compensation checks.  

Here's a good one. Fresh off the VBMS Computer. Thailand Vets can win. It takes finesse. 
https://asknod.org/2019/11/11/veterans-day-2019-udorn-rtafb-my-band-of-brothers/