free_spirit_etc

I received my initial denial - dated November 8, 2007. I submitted the evidence they requested in the VCAA letter in June 2008, prior to the end of the one year deadline to submit the requested evidence. Though I have requested they readjudicate my claim based on my submission of evidence within the one year time-frame, they now deny receiving the evidence. Though I still think I have the right to have my claim re-decided (and remain open) as I submitted the evidence requested in the VCAA notice within the time-frame (and have a signed certified mail receipt - plus a copy of the IRIS I sent to let them know I had sent it) - I filed a NOD. I did receive a letter dated October 17, 2008 telling me they were working on my claim for Compensation. The deadline to submit my NOD was November 8, 2008. I mailed my NOD November 7, 2008, certified mail, return receipt requested. I also had the post office postmark the letter while I was there to assure the postmark was legible. I sent an IRIS to the VA on November 8, letting them know I had sent my NOD by certified mail, the receipt number, a copy of the online tracking showing it had been processed at the post office - along with a request to receive a date stamped copy for my records. The response told me they could not send me a date stamped copy, but that I would receive a response. I received a decision today telling me my NOD was not timely, as a decision was made on my claim November 8, 2007, my NOD was not received by them until November 12, 2008. (The day after Veteran's Day). (It also said they attached information on how to appeal - but they didn't attach anything..) I keep reading on the BVA sites: http://www.va.gov/vetapp08/files4/0826555.txt "When these rules require that any written document be filed within a specified period of time, a response postmarked prior to expiration of the applicable time limit will be accepted as having been timely filed. In the event that the postmark is not of record, the postmark date will be presumed to be five days prior to the date of receipt of the document by VA. In calculating this five day period, Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays will be excluded. 38 C.F.R. § 20.305(a). In computing the time limit for filing a written document, the first day of the specified period will be excluded and the last day included. Where the time limit would expire on a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday, the next succeeding workday will be included in the computation. 38 C.F.R. § 20.305(;)." Do they have any justifiable reason to dismiss my NOD as untimely? Aside from the fact that I have evidence that I SENT it on November 7, 2008... And that I let them know IN WRITING by IRIS ON November 8 (the deadline) that I was filing a disagreement --- shouldn't the five day presumption apply? (The 8th was a Saturday, the 9th was a Sunday, the 11th was a holiday. According to the above procedure for calculating the mailing date - the presumed mailing date should be November 4, 2008). So even if they manage to lose my postmarked envelope -- shouldn't their acknowledgement of receiving it on November 12th count as evidence of timely filing? I am not quite sure why they didn't go by the date of the postmark, or use the five day presumption when they issued the decision to dismiss my appeal, except that they are the VA and that's what they do... Am I missing something? Free

Hi! It's me again. I guess it is time to start dealing with the VA again. The break has been semi-pleasant. Berta - thanks for the contact numbers for the Chicago RO. VSCM Suzanne Lowe 1-312-980-4307 is actually the signature on the IRIS. So does this mean everyone just uses her name on the IRIS - so you don't know who you are dealing with? Also - I was able to access the IRIS before. Now they all say my access is "forbidden." I guess I will send them an IRIS to ask them to stop forbidding my access to my IRIS

Woo Hoo! Betty my Buddy!!!!!! (waves at Betty!) I knew you'd have my back!!! Free

I didn't get return receipt - but I tracked it and said it was delivered. I even included that in the IRIS (multiple) discussing this - " I also would like to follow up to ensure that the additional evidence I sent in the same package, by certified receipt mail number 7006 2150 0001 8139 2391 - Delivered at 11:25 AM on June 9, 2008 - has been associated with my claim file." I didn't buy the return receipt when I sent it - because it costs extra - and you might not need it - but you can ORDER it after the fact, if they deny they received it -- it just costs a bit more then (but less, in the long run, than buying one each time). Free

ACK! Your case sounds awful too. I have found that most government agencies seem to want to pretend they didn't get things they don't want to deal with. I was concerned about the How do you prove WHAT you sent - also. The receipt you get from the Post Office - the one that shows what you paid - has the WEIGHT of the item on it. So if you can prove you sent SOMETHING of that weight - and your stuff you SAID you sent WEIGHS that amount - it seems like it would be kind of hard to deny you sent THAT - unless they have a process to weigh incoming mail before they throw it away - and then they stamp a buch of crap of equal weight with the same date stamp and stick in in your file. And to me - if you can prove you sent something - and they have nothing in the file that is date stamped that shows you sent something other than what you said you sent - then it seems like that would HELP your case. And again - keep the post office payment receipts - the WEIGHT is on them. Free

Berta, It is the Chicago RO. I thought it was ridiculous that they denied receiving the stuff I sent by certified mail - but told me to just use regular mail. Most likely because they don't want me to be able to prove I sent something. But I was pretty proactive when I sent it. I sent an IRIS to them them I sent it AND the certified mail receipt number. We had several back and forth responses - where I kept maintaining that I SHOULD have my case re-decided as I had sent evidence in within the one year deadline AND had asked for an extension (though they never responded, aside from telling me that they sent it up to the Claims Adjudicators to check the regs to see if I could get an extension BEFORE the one-year deadline to ssubmit evidence had expired). So I am not coming WAY after the fact saying I sent something they said they didn't receive. I had several exchanges with them ABOUT the evidence I sent - and never ONCE did they even MENTION they didn't get it - until I asked point blank in this IRIS (since they informed me they never received the OTHER item I sent WITH the evidence). Of course we had several exchanges about THAT item also - and they didn't inform me they didnt' get it. I think it must take them a good month or two to lose things permanently. Then they act like they didn't get it. But dang it - to me the correct response to me would have been to re-send the evidence with the proof of certified delivery. NOT telling me to just use regular mail because they will pretend they didn't get the certified mail either. And again, I didn't just send it off in the first place. I sent an IRIS and TOLD them I sent it and the receipt number., There is no call now for them to act like they didn't get it - and act like it is my loss. Had I NOT sent it certified - that would be something else. Had I not sent follow up IRIS telling them I sent it and LISTING WHAT I sent - that would be another matter. I get SO frustrated with their la dee dah attitude on this. And this is NOT a NOD - I still have until October to send that in. BUT I have asked time and time again to have my case redecided - so that I don't just file an NOD - go through YEARS of waiting - get to the BVA - only to have it REMANDED because they did not grant me the redecision I am entitled to when I send additional evidence within one year of the VCAA letter. As I still don't have an IMO - as I still don't have the other half of THEIR medical opinion I have been trying to get for over a year - they will deny my case again. But still - at least I will have my son established on the claim - as I sent evidence of his disability within a year. And I will hopefully NOT have to have a remand from the BVA merely because they did NOT redecide my case when I sent evidence in within one year of the VCAA as required by law. I do not have a representative at this point. I have talked to the Illinois Veterans - and think I will most likely appoint them. Free

I received my VCAA notice in June 2007. I kept asking for an extension of time to submit evidence, due to the VA NOT sending me a copy of my husband's C-file until right BEFORE that deadline - though I had requested it in June 2007. I never heard one way or another on the extension - though I asked several times. So I DID submit the addtional evidence I HAD by CERTIFIED mail - BEFORE the deadline. I also sent an IRIS that informed them of the certified mail being sent - and outlined what evidence I submitted - PLUS I informed them I sent them a copy (as they requested) of the Doctor Report - of which I only had the front page - and I was requesting the back page - as this is the medical report that was used to deny my claim. We had a few more IRIS back and forth about that - They asked for the DATE of the medical report, I told them - the copy I SENT you didn't HAVE a date - THAT is one of the problems - there is NO date OR signature on the PART of the report I had. I also informed them I had not received any decision on my request for extension - and that I had sent evidence by the one year deadline - but still wanted an extension for an IMO - AFTER the send me the rest of the doctor report. They told me I had no active claims except for the burial claim. I have a few IRIS back and forth asking about THAT - and letting them know I had sent the evidence within one year - and I thought it would be readjudicated. They just kept telling me that I had one year to file an NOD - but NEVER mentioned they did NOT receive the evidence I refered to (BY CERTIFIED MAIL RECEIPT NUMBER) in my IRIS. And we played around with the getting the rest of the doctor report - again, with several IRIS about the CERTIFIED MAIL RECEIPT NUMBER. They finally said they had forwarded it to the Privacy Officer to get my a copy. Still - No copy. I followed up with an IRIS. Was told they did NOT receive the copy I said I sent. No one MENTIONED that in all the IRIS a couple months ago - when we were discussing the certified mail package I sent. And they STILL keep telling me I have to file an NOD - and fail to acknowledge my requests to have my claim readjudicated as I sent additional evidence within one year. SO when they said they didn't have the copy of the partial doctor report I sent - so they could find the rest of the report - I asked point blank - Do you have the OTHER evidence I sent in the SAME package. I even copied and pasted some of the previous IRIS where I had informed them that I sent the stuff - and the receipt number. Got my response today. "We carefully reviewed your file and we have no record of the information you submitted on 6-09-08. If you have additional information to submit, please resubmit by regular mail. It is not necessary to send it certified mail, sending certified mail does not offer any real advantage. If you wish to appeal our decision, you have one year from the date of our notification letter to submit your Notice of Disagreement and initiate the appeals process. Submitting additional information will not start an appeal and we have not received the information you sent." WHAT??? They are saying they do NOT have the evidence I sent by CERTIFIED mail - but now want me to resubmit it by REGULAR mail as "sending certified mail does not offer any real advantage." What is that? I am concerned because I sent evidence in regard to my son's disability / dependency in that packet. Now they will say they did not receive it within a year. What is this stuff about sending it by certified mail offering no advantage? They have lost my husband's dscharge physical. They have lost my burial claim. They have lost my father-in-law's burial claim. They have lost all the evidence I sent in June 2008 - and the copy of the parital doctor's report - and they are telling me to send things by REGULAR mail???? I am hoping that my certified mail receipt AND all the IRIS that I told them what I sent - gave them the receipt number - and they never mentioned they didn't get it until now - will help establish I DID send it. And should they be advising vets/ dependents to NOT use certified mail (especially when they lose the certified stuff)? Free

I try to avoid calling the 800 number. It seems like they just tell you whatever... and then the next person tells you a different whatever... As far as the calls go - it seems the people who have been the most "helpful" (or seemed to be so) also gave me inaccurate information. I prefer the IRIS. Not that it is any more accurate - but at least you have a written record of what you asked and what they told you. Free

I am not real clear on the Veteran's Watchdog article. Though the author refers to the widow being denied benefits because the vet wasn't 100% P&T -- the two things that come to my mind are: 1. It is highly likely if the Vet dies, he would die from the lung cancer and / or diabetes and / or complications -- which have been SC due to Agent Orange. If they were the cause of, or materially contributed to his death - his widow would be eligible for DIC -- as the vet's SC condition caused, or contributed to his death. 2. If neither of these conditions caused or contrinuted to his death - then she would not be eligible for benefits because he had not been rated 100% for TEN YEARS --regardless of whether it was from the SC condition(s) or Unemployability. I am not quite sure what point the author was trying to make. As it seemed to me to have more to do with the ten years than the type of disability. And in this case - he was indicating the vet would die from cancer. His cancer was SC'd. That equals DIC. If a vet dies from a SC'd condition - that was only 10% disabling for 1 month - that STILL equals DIC - because the SC condition caused, or contributed to, the veteran's death - regardless of how disabling it was, or how long they were rated. And retro also counts - under "entitled to recieve" Free

It looks like the 100% SC is the driver, and 100% by reason of Unemployability is an equivalent route http://www.warms.vba.va.gov/admin21/m21_1/...3/ch03_secd.doc M21-MR, Part IV, subpart iii, Chapter 3, Section D 18. General Information on DIC Payable in NSC Death Cases Introduction This topic contains general information on Dependency and Indemnity Compensation (DIC) payable in nonservice-connected (NSC) death cases. It includes information on considering entitlement to DIC under the provisions of 38 U.S.C. 1318 identifying qualifying disabilities under 38 U.S.C. 1151 and 38 U.S.C.1160 determining when DIC is not payable under 38 U.S.C. 1318, and establishing a surviving spouse’s entitlement to DIC under 38 U.S.C. 1318. Change Date November 16, 2006 a. Considering Entitlement to DIC Under the Provisions of 38 U.S.C. 1318 Pay Dependency and Indemnity Compensation (DIC) under the provisions of 38 U.S.C. 1318 to a surviving spouse or children in the same manner as if the death were service-connected (SC), if a veteran was in receipt of, or entitled to receive, compensation for a totally disabling SC disability for ten or more years immediately preceding death continuously for a period of not less than five years from the date of separation from service until death, or for a period of not less than one year immediately preceding death for a former prisoner of war who died after September 30, 1999. Important: A total rating based on individual unemployability (IU) meets the total disability requirement under 38 CFR 3.22. b. Reference: This benefit is payable under the authority of 38 U.S.C. 1318.

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/us...18----000-.html TITLE 38 > PART II > CHAPTER 13 > SUBCHAPTER II > § 1318. Benefits for survivors of certain veterans rated totally disabled at time of death (a) The Secretary shall pay benefits under this chapter to the surviving spouse and to the children of a deceased veteran described in subsection (;) of this section in the same manner as if the veteran’s death were service connected. (:( A deceased veteran referred to in subsection (a) of this section is a veteran who dies, not as the result of the veteran’s own willful misconduct, and who was in receipt of or entitled to receive (or but for the receipt of retired or retirement pay was entitled to receive) compensation at the time of death for a service-connected disability rated totally disabling if— (1) the disability was continuously rated totally disabling for a period of 10 or more years immediately preceding death; (2) the disability was continuously rated totally disabling for a period of not less than five years from the date of such veteran’s discharge or other release from active duty; or (3) the veteran was a former prisoner of war who died after September 30, 1999, and the disability was continuously rated totally disabling for a period of not less than one year immediately preceding death. © Benefits may not be paid under this chapter by reason of this section to a surviving spouse of a veteran unless— (1) the surviving spouse was married to the veteran for one year or more immediately preceding the veteran’s death; or (2) a child was born of the marriage or was born to them before the marriage. (d) If a surviving spouse or a child receives any money or property of value pursuant to an award in a judicial proceeding based upon, or a settlement or compromise of, any cause of action for damages for the death of a veteran described in subsection (a) of this section, benefits under this chapter payable to such surviving spouse or child by virtue of this section shall not be paid for any month following a month in which any such money or property is received until such time as the total amount of such benefits that would otherwise have been payable equals the total of the amount of the money received and the fair market value of the property received. (e) For purposes of sections 1448 (d) and 1450 © of title 10, eligibility for benefits under this chapter by virtue of this section shall be deemed eligibility for dependency and indemnity compensation under section 1311 (a) of this title.

Hi! I've been taking a break from the Bureaucrats --but had to pop in a see if Betty was behaving! This is my personal opinion - and I would certainly check it all out before I would say for sure ---but...... I would say if the vet is 100% SC for 10 years - DIC The 100% IU is another route to get it. But for some reason the VA seems to hold a vet with 100% SC disability (who CAN work) in a "higher status" than a vet who is 100% by reason of being unemployable due to their SC condition. Just my opinion - but seems that way to me. The regs also say "was recieving OR ENTITLED to recieve..." - so if you fall short of the 10 years the widow can go back and try to show that you were "entitled" to recieve 100% prior to the time you were recieving it. If you really want to protect your spouse - try to make sure you blantantly die from something that is obviously SC -- it makes it much easier - and has no time frame. ;) Free

Yeah. I wouldn't trust this at all. The times I saw this applied in BVA cases - it didn't seem to work to the vets favor - It was more like - The RO accepted the NOD as a substantive appeal. But if they did that - then the case was remanded BACK to the RO to see if there was anything else they could accept as the NOD (which they probably later decided - NO - so the case could be dismissed because the vet didn't file an NOD). But in actuality - the vet DID file an NOD - the RO accepted it as a I-9 instead - sent it on to the BVA - so the vet could wait a couple years for them to remand it back and then say - Oops - we took the NOD to be a I-9 - so that means you didn't file an NOD. (except they leave out the ooops part...so the vet thinks it is their own fault). The BVA is SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO specific about the I-9 being filed on time and correctly - and the vet pays the price if it is not. Unfornately, it seems the RO doesn't have to pay a price when THEY mess it up. Only the vet. And in some cases, such as yours - I wonder if it is a mistake at all - or an attempt to mess up the claim by making the appeal the focus - instead of the claim itself. That's one of the reasons I have pushed for the RO to re-adjudicate my claim - since I sent evidence in within a year of my VCAA. I don't want to go all the way through the process - only to have the BVA decide that I was denied due process of having my claim re-adjudicated when I submitted evidence within the time frame - and remand it back to add a couple more years to my claim. Free

I am counting this one as a success. We are not there yet. But I got a notice that my son and my Requests for ALJ Hearings have been received by the Hearing Office for Social Security. That's probably because I SENT them DIRECTLY to the Hearing Office, since it "somehow" never got forwarded there in 5 months. I think whomever was handling our claims was trying to dismiss our appeals - and therefore keep our claims out of the reach of the adminstrative review process. So I went around them - and RE-submitted our Hearing Requests DIRECTLY to the Hearing office. So I breathe a sigh of relief that we might actually be out of the spider web now. Thanks to all the had it helpers! Free

Berta, I remember reading a few BVA cases on appeals where the RO had taken the NOD to be the "formal" appeal - but then the BVA remands to the RO to see what the RO considered to be the NOD - or if the NOD had ever been filed. Seems like a game to me. If the VET files an NOD - and the RO takes it to be an I-9 of sorts - and thus, passes the appeal up - I can't see how the vet can be penalized for not filing what the VA didn't even know was needed. I know things I have read say the I-9 does NOT have to be on the actual form - but has to have the same information. But again - it seems like a game if the RO misconstrues what was actually sent and then the BVA remands it back to the RO to see if the person had actually filed what they were supposed to. I know you DID file the I-9 ALSO. But maybe the RO was trying to throw the claim off - or tie it up - with the "what did she really file?" game. Free

http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions/04-7020.pdf The 1989 version of 38 C.F.R. § 4.16© read: n cases in which the only compensable service-connected disability is a mental disorder assigned a 70 percent evaluation, and such mental disorder precludes a veteran from securing or following a substantially gainful occupation . . . the mental disorder shall be assigned a 100 percent schedular evaluation. CURRENT ONE § 4.16 Total disability ratings for compensation based on unemployability of the individual. (a) Total disability ratings for compensation may be assigned, where the schedular rating is less than total, when the disabled person is, in the judgment of the rating agency, unable to secure or follow a substantially gainful occupation as a result of service-connected disabilities: Provided That, if there is only one such disability, this disability shall be ratable at 60 percent or more, and that, if there are two or more disabilities, there shall be at least one disability ratable at 40 percent or more, and sufficient additional disability to bring the combined rating to 70 percent or more. For the above purpose of one 60 percent disability, or one 40 percent disability in combination, the following will be considered as one disability: (1) Disabilities of one or both upper extremities, or of one or both lower extremities, including the bilateral factor, if applicable, (2) disabilities resulting from common etiology or a single accident, (3) disabilities affecting a single body system, e.g. orthopedic, digestive, respiratory, cardiovascular-renal, neuropsychiatric, (4) multiple injuries incurred in action, or (5) multiple disabilities incurred as a prisoner of war. It is provided further that the existence or degree of nonservice-connected disabilities or previous unemployability status will be disregarded where the percentages referred to in this paragraph for the service-connected disability or disabilities are met and in the judgment of the rating agency such service-connected disabilities render the veteran unemployable. Marginal employment shall not be considered substantially gainful employment. For purposes of this section, marginal employment generally shall be deemed to exist when a veteran's earned annual income does not exceed the amount established by the U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, as the poverty threshold for one person. Marginal employment may also be held to exist, on a facts found basis (includes but is not limited to employment in a protected environment such as a family business or sheltered workshop), when earned annual income exceeds the poverty threshold. Consideration shall be given in all claims to the nature of the employment and the reason for termination. (Authority: 38 U.S.C. 501) (It is the established policy of the Department of Veterans Affairs that all veterans who are unable to secure and follow a substantially gainful occupation by reason of service-connected disabilities shall be rated totally disabled. Therefore, rating boards should submit to the Director, Compensation and Pension Service, for extra-schedular consideration all cases of veterans who are unemployable by reason of service-connected disabilities, but who fail to meet the percentage standards set forth in paragraph (a) of this section. The rating board will include a full statement as to the veteran's service-connected disabilities, employment history, educational and vocational attainment and all other factors having a bearing on the issue. I think you have a case for the fact that you have ALWAYS been "unemployable - as you have NEVER had substantial gainful employment - you have ONLY had marginal employmment! And from 1983 you have been unable to even maintain the MARGINAL employment. I would think that the current regulation would apply to your claim. I am not sure what year they changed the regulation from the 70 percent factor. If that is within the life of your claim - it may apply retroactively. And again, I think you have the same basis for being awarded SC back to the first application - which denied SC, but granted you were disabled for Pension purposes in 1983 - as they had for granting an effective date in 1992. Your SMRS were not in your record in 1992. They were not in your record in 1983. I don't think they went far enough back on the effective date. The point that you FIRST applied for benefits and were denied - because the medical evidence to show the anxiety started in service (your SMRS) were not in your file - should be the effective date of the claim. Free

Berta, They did send me the VCAA letter. It wasn't extremely specific - but it was sent June 7, 2007. That is why I made sure I sent the evidence I had by June 6, 2008 (within one year) and asking for extensions on the IMO. I do not understand why my claim is not considered to be pending since I sent evidence within the one year period. They are trying to say they already denied me - and my next step is a NOD. My point is that I sent evidence within one year - and requested an extension - and THEIR next step is to grant or deny the extension - and readjudicate the claim on the basis of evidence sent within one year of the VCAA. I guess an NOD might serve the same purpose -- since the claim would be readjudicated (kind of sort of) by a DRO. But I notice lots of remands on due process stuff. I do not want to get all the way to the BVA - only to have them remand it to the RO because my claim wasn't readjudicated when I sent evidence within one year of the VCAA. I do not have a VSO yet. I hesitate having to deal with one more person who may or may not give me the run around at this point. Free

Berta, It looks like I have the medical records except for the discharge physical and the second page of the medical opinion used to deny my claim. Our RO tells you that it takes AT LEAST six months to get a copy of your C-file. I don't quite understand why I have to send in ANOTHER written request over my signature to get a copy of the second page of a report that was not included in the C-file. They asked me to send them a copy of what I had - so they could find it. I sent them a copy. Now they said I have to request it in writing and give them the date it was written. I would think that my response to their IRIS to send them a copy of what I had - stating that I am sending them the copy, and asking for the rest of it, would be a written request over my signature. But again, this might be something a Congressman could easily handle...and they are much less likely to play cat and mouse with them. Free

I am thinking that the 70% mental rating being granted 100% TDIU has now changed since then (but still could be in play for Betty's claim or an earlier effective date) - but the parts about the evidence of record showing unemployability IS a claim for TDIU is still in effect. Free

To me, it seems very strange that a C&P examination could reverse a diagnosis of sleep apnea that was made after a sleep study. If the vet had a sleep study done to diagnose the sleep apnea - what basis did the C&P examiner use to change that diagnosis. I see that chronic episodic hypoxia can mimic apnea... But wouldn't the vet have the same basis for the claim of a sleep disorder, regardless of whether the C&P doctor wanted to call it something different? The symptoms the vet experiences would be pretty similar. Free

I think this is an important factor. I don't expect much help from a Congressional Inquiry into actually being awarded benefits. I would imagine even indicating that they had not considered such and such evidence, or that I should be awarded benefits based on this or that - would most likely just result in a letter explaining how they made whatever decisions they did based on law. However, I would expect a Congressional Inquiry to be helpful in matters such as the procedures invovled in processing claims - and whether they are following those. I imagine if I ask the Congressman to help assure that my resubmitted claim for burial benefits gets processed and not lost - that the Congressman will get a letter informing him that they are processing the claim. But I also expect that it will be processed this time - and NOT lost. I would expect that if I ask a Congressman to inquire as to whether I can get the second page of the medical opinion used to deny my claim - they will actually LOOK for it - instead of just telling him I got the whole record and that I have to send them the date of a form THEY did not put a date on before they can help me. I am hoping that if I ask them to acknowledge that the evidence I sent June 6, 2008 was within one year of the June 7, 2007 notice - they will be able to acknoweldge that. And I am hoping if I have a Congressman check on the status of my multiple requests for extension of time to submit evidence based on the VA's FAILURE to send ME the material I needed for almost a YEAR - that they will AT LEAST grant the extension or deny it - rather than act like I never asked. So I AM hoping that an inquiry will help me - not so much in getting benefits granted, but in getting the VA to at least answer the questions that have been asked. I might also ask the Congressman to check on the status of the money the VA reclaimed from my bank account in August 2007 - though a VA transmission to STOP the reclaimation process, as I was entitled to the payment as a surviving spouse, was placed in my record in June. Again, I imagine the Congressman would get a letter telling him they are diligently working on it. However, they might also be motivated to actually diligently work on it at that point. My claim might grind to a halt - but it isn't moving very fast anyway. I wouldn't even mind slower - as long as it stands a better chance of actually being done correctly. Free

Yes. I am aware of that...that it might not make anything better. I would imgaine to get the best results - it would be best to keep the inquiry pretty specific. It is my understanding that most often the Congressperson just forward what you send them - and the VA answers those questions. My husband sent a Senator Inquiry - about the closing of his claim. Though the VA still maintained the claim had been closed and reopened, (and was not on appeal) - at least they ANSWERED the Senator - and stated that it HAD been closed and the reasons. They totally ignored my husband's own inquiries into the matter. So it seems like if you are trying to at least get an answer - a Senator can help. In this case, I might ask the Senator / Congressman to inquire 1. As to whether the evidence I sent by certified mail June 6, 2007 was timely submitted in response to my June 7, 2007 VCAA notice. 2. If I can receive a copy of the second page of the medical opinion that was used to deny my claim. 3. If the VA would try to obtain a copy of my husband's discharge physical...which should at least get a specific response as to whether the discharge physical can be found - instead of all the general run-around telling me I have received the entire record, but that neither admits or denies that his discharge physical is in his record. (And I do think this is an important factor in my claim - as we are claiming for post-service diagnosis of an illness - but the evidence of my husband's physical condition at the time of discharge is missing.) I might also ask the Congressman to resubmit my claim for burial benefits - in hopes that the VA won't lose this one. I was hoping that if I kept my inquiry pretty specific - that I would have better results than if I just rattled off every problem I have with the VA. Free

Berta, I requested both at the same time. I requested a copy of his C-file to INCLUDE his medical records - and to SPECIFICALLY include his discharge physical...in June 2007. After viewing his claim file in July 2007 - I sent a request for a copy of his discharge physical as a LIMITED request WHILE I was waiting for the C-file...since I was not able to view the discharge physical on my appointment, as it could not be found. I am not sure they looked for it. They said I got to view the whole record - and if his discharge physical was of record - it would be in there. When I received my denial letter in October 2007, I requested a copy of the medical opinion on which the denial was based. I was told in February 2008 that I would receive a copy of that while I was waiting for the entire C-file. I received the entire C-file in May 2008. It does not include his discharge physical - and it only includes the first page of the medical opinion - (which says "over" at the bottom. I am still trying to get the second page of that opinion. They told me to send a copy of the opinion I was referring to. I sent that. But now they said they need the date of the opinion to be able to find it. The part of the opinion I received does not HAVE a date. I did get his other SMR's - and copies of other medical records. Free

Good idea! It also puts the IRIS communication IN THE FILE. ONE thing I like about using IRIS is you have a record or who said what to whom IN WRITING. BUTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT.. I noticed the C-file did NOT included IRIS threads. So I sure don't want to count on the idea that because I wrote it and they responded, it will be in the file. The way they have been losing my stuff...even sending it in doesn't guarantee anything either. But I was surprised to find that THEY had not included the IRIS IN the file. Free