Ricky

I would caution one to remember: The simple statement that "your claim is with the rater" or the rating team is working on it etc......... only means that the pre-determination team has done what they feel to be all they can do so the C-File has moved into the rating area. It does not mean that a live, breathing and caring person has it in their hands. It simply means that the file moved. What they did not and can not tell you is that you file is only one of 6 thousand files sent to the rating area. It could be next or it could be number 5399. The computer does not have such detail that is releasable to the public so the contact team can only tell you what specific area the file is sitting in at the time of your call. The sometimes statement of should receive a decision in 60 days is kind of a standard one. It normally holds off the vet another 60 days before they inquire again. If they really told you that it was in the rating area and it could be anywhere from the next day to 12 months before a decision is made most could not handle this answer. Also just because the claim has made it to the rating area does not mean it will stay there. The predetermination team may have missed something so the rating team or rater may have to send it back to perdetermination for additional development. Not trying to bust any bubbles, but that is just the system.

I think Vike's statement did tell the vet how to win. The statement "not fit" don't mean a da___ thing to the VA. To get the 100 percent for depression or based on IU the vet must be declared unemployable. The IMO has to outline the affects of the disability on the vet to support the unemployable statement. So basically what Vike did was tell it like it is while stating what was needed to win the claim at the desired disability level. I am pro vet also Army. I have been threatened with removal from some pro VA sites on the internet. You know the ones where the vet is always wrong - or if VA did not approve his claim on the first go around then the vet is simply lying cause the VA never makes any mistakes. I agree with you that we have to provide the vet with the information needed to succeed in his/her claim which is what the requirements are. When I read Vike's post it seems to me that is exactly what he has done.

Hey Rick - I guess that makes you a TexGeorge. Wow hahahahahahahahaha My problem with all of these state benefits is the residency requirements. For instance - Georgia was my home of record for 22 of my 25 years. I was born and raised there so being the good citizen that I am I wanted to pay my taxes there. The last three years of my service I decided to retire in Alabama. Although I meet the disability requirements for the state benefits for education for my daughter I do not qualify cause the rule is that I had to be a resident of Alabama upon enlistment. Kinda makes me want to move back to good ole GA. However, in checking with the GA vets department I was told that since I am a citizen of Alabama moving back into GA I no longer meet the requirements for the GA state education assistance. I guess I kinda put myself into a catch 22 situation. Alabama sure don't complain when they suck up my and the spouses check for those state taxes. Seems as though there should be some kind of reimbursment deal or something between the states cause I know there are thousands of vets out there in the same boat. This is the only benefit worth caring about in Alabama. The others: 100 percent will get you a reduced tax on the first 7500.00 of your property taxes and even that is based upon an income requirement; 100 percent will get you a 1.00 fishing liscene; Forget about hunting, I guess if you are a disabled vet you should not be hunting; anything less than 100 percent will get you a disabled vet tag for your car after you pay for the plate and ad volorem taxes!!!!!!!!!!!!!! They have SO's in many of the counties to help you free of charge to assist you with your VA claim who tell you when you walk in that you should be happy with the 10 percent the VA already gave you and you need to quit trying to clutter up the system!!!!!!! Jez, I guess I do get a lot of benefits. I wrote my rep for my district asking his support in changing the laws in the state - he replied "I will forward your concern to the commander of the Alabama department of veterans affairs so they can help you". Just think for 50 years I thought it was the state congress and senate that develop and changed laws within the states, I glad he found the time to correct me on this issue and direct me to the real power holder in the state. Oh well, I guess I don't have anyone to blame but myself. I should have checked all of this out before retirement.

Alabama's relief is equal to nothing. There is some but I think you have to be 100 percent and over 65. It sucks.

I think Gary stated it very well. These guys and gals working at the VA, most are disabled vets just like us, started out loving their job. However, over the years, the politics of the system made them feel they were working in some sweat shop across the border. Then we as vets tried to push the envlope to far sometimes with far out claims. They in the begining really went over the claims trying to support the vet, but like I said they were simply beat down by the management within the system. You know the ole "do more with less" syndrome that the boss supported cause he had his nose so far up his boss's butt simply trying to get that yearly bonus. Then when they had to deny the far out claim we went back and beat the hell out of them with words, such as worthless, incompentent, lazy etc....... so most of them simply said to hell with all of you, you are just trying to get a handout and they just started mass producing the claims. The only problem is that eventhough they went into this mass production mode, we simply appealed all of the far out claims and submitted more only to clutter up the system. In the end we all lost as it takes sometimes 2 years to get a simple one issue 20 percent disability claim approved. JMHO

Just my opinion - I spent 25 years serving our country. Promises were made to me about health and dental care - However, they did not come through so now I pay almost 500 bucks a year for family health care which I think is a good deal. My friends in the private sector pay anywhere from 2500 to 4000 per year plus very expensive copays. Based upon this I feel the Govt held true on the promise to me on health care. Now dental is another thing - it sucks and is expensive. Now for veterans - co-pays based upon salary is a good thing. Take me for example. I am SCed for a few items which if I decided to use the VA health care system they would cover at 100 percent. But why should they? Although I struggle with my disabilities daily, I have a very good job which rewards me with a very good salary. So what would be wrong with me having to pay a small enrollment fee to access 100 percent coverage of all my medical care? I only support this because my being capable of paying the enrollment fee may, just may allow the system to cover another vet who is not as forunate as I am. You know with the rising costs of health care the system will one day run out of money and may not be there for any of us and I do not want to see that. If you are 100 percent and drawing SSD then I say no enrollment fee. If you are 10, 50 or 100 percent schedular, working and make xxxx amount of dollars then I feel you should pay these small enrollment fees so the totally free care can go to vets that do not/can not work. Same goes for Non SC'ed guys - whats wrong with paying a small fee to have access to a 100 percent coverage medical plan? Maybe it would assist in cutting out some of the long wait times at hospitals some complain about. The key here would be that the funds would have to be returned directly back into the health care system. My mother-in-law who worked 28 years at a nursing home, draws 801.00 per month SS and she has to pay 1200.00 a year for health care and that don't include her co-pays or drugs. Now she has had a supplemental plan for years to cover drugs and co-pays but she pays 187.00 per month for that so her total out put for health care coverage is almost 3600.00 per year. Now this don't mean much cause I can not compare her to a vet, but it makes me jump with joy knowing that my entire family is covered for a little less than 500.00 per year. Even if I was not retired from service having to pay the va 250.00 per year for total health care coverage would be a blessing compared to her. Same with meds - if you make x amount of salary then whats wrong with paying 25 bucks a month for 5000.00 dollars worth of meds?

charles - Rick gave you good advise. 100 percent disability for mental problems are hard to get. Once received, it provides that you are incapable of any employment type relationships. I am sure that if you display any attemp to work with a 100 percent based upon mental status you will surely loose your rating. Bottom line is fight for the perm status and stay away from employment. I know it is hard. You are the only one that can make this decision. If you can truthfully work then go for it and accept the rating that VA gives you. You should apply for SSD ASAP.

Thanks Terry, I have and I am sure I will continue to learn a lot from the prospective that you provide in your posts. Keep them coming.

Berta - in past posts you have provided the names of some excellent medical reference books, some of which are used by the great VA. I can not find them could you please summarize thems agian. Thanks

100 percent on the first go around!!!! You and hubby rock. You are right - there are the most loving, caring and helpful experts in the world right here on HADIT. Make sure yall stay with us and please tell hubby to get control of that DMII so he can enjoy his success for many years to come. God bless him for his service.

Hey - that is my treating facility..... You can bet ole Sec Nick really wants to down play this one. It could be his demise with the new congress. They may be able to twist the Prez's arm enough to send ole Sec Nick job hunting. After all he is the one that stood on the hilltop like a belly full lion the last time thumbing his nose at the public and the vets saying "hey I told you I have it under control and no vets were hurt." I think he said that if congress would give him some more money to play with he would insure this did not happen again. Well just like always, shit happens, GAO says it is all doinked up, Sec Nick says give me more money and I will fix it, money is issued, it dissappears and ole Sec Nick and the rest of the VA management community thumbs their noses at everybody. I wonder what happens to all of the additional money he gets to fix problems since none of them gets fixed? Well, I guess some manager in the Montgomery VARO bought a new boat or SUV this year with some of it. That is why they have a 42 percent remand rate and over 6000 claims pending. They don't have time for that work stuff, they are too busy playing with their toys bought with that fat bonus check which was funded in part with that extra money. I HOPE SEC NICK BITES THE BULLET ON THIS ONE. I KNOW HE WILL COME OUT SMELLING LIKE A ROSE AND MAKE A MINT IN BEING SOME KIND OF CONTRACTOR WORKING ON VET ISSUES - BUT AT LEAST HIS POWER WILL BE GONE AND MAYBE WE WILL GET SOMEONE MORE WILLING TO FIX SOME THINGS. Does it appear that I don't like ole Sec Nick? Yep you got that right. THEY DON'T REALLY GIVE HIM MORE MONEY, THEY JUST ALLOW HIM TO TAKE THE FUNDS NEEDED OUT OF THE VARIOUS POTS OF FUNDS THE VA ALREADY HAS LIKE VETERAN HEALTH CARE. AT LEAST THE COMPENSATION FUNDS ARE PROTECTED SINCE THEY ARE NOT CONSIDERED DISCREATIONARY BUDGET ITEMS.

Thanks guys - Please lets not argue among ourselves. Terry, with good reason, truly believes that a vet should move a claim away from the RO as quick as possible. Sometimes I agree with him. This maybe one of those times as you can tell from my original post that the DRO has already had a hack on the claim and did a yada yada yada job on it that took only five months from start to finish on an appeal that should have taken at least 18 months to get through it. My request for a DRO hearing was done upon receiving this very lacking SOC that the RO issued. Although I have new evidence to provide on the claim I do not feel that anything will come out of the hearing except for satisfying my own desire to meet these people face to face. Six is also right in stating that the keep it at the RO attitude is a good way to go. I have read so many stories on Hadit and multiple other sites where the DRO at the hearing was willing to help resolve the issues and the claim was approved immediately after the hearing. I think this happens cause most of the senior DRO's are tied up with exteremly complicated cases so the majority of us get the new trainee who really don't know his butt from a hole in the ground. Therefore, you get a piece of sh---- work. Management at the RO simply hacks off on the thing for all they see is a completed claim which adds to their stats with in turn produces that bonus check for them. At the hearing, you are more than likely going to get one of the senior guys and for the time period of the hearing you have his full attention. There no phone calls, demands from the front office for meetings, no stack of hundreds of claims to distract him etc..........Bottom line is that both of you are right, there is a time to and a time not to. We all just have a different opinion as to when that time is. SO I WANT YOU GUYS TO MAKE UP NOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! As for the comments I will try to answer some of the questions that came up. -I DO NOT HAVE A SO. DON'T WANT ONE, WON'T GET ONE. Unless I can go to another state and find one willing to travel to Alabama (North Alabama). -I will without fail focus on the hearing. Although this is a personal desire to see these idiots face to face, I will be professional, cool and claim, and present my case in a logical manner. I will discuss the evidence that I have provided and ask why none of it was used as probative evidence in support of the claim and present my argument as to why I feel that it should be. I will ask to be provided what evidence the VA used to deny the claim and how such evidence out weighed the supporting evidence (no negative evidence was sited in the SOC to support the denial). I will provide new evidence that has been obtained since the issuance of the SOC. I will ask why the new evidence (medical summaries, medical statements, employer statements) I sent in June, August and November 2006 has not be acknowleged by the VA (no SSOC has been issued.) My Wife and oldest daughter who has lived with us while going to school the past three years will be with me and testify on my behalf. My 14 year old daughter wants to testify but I do not think I will allow her to. I think she feels the anger most during my rants and raves (due to my disabilities). Prior to all this crap happening to me, she and I were a team. You can imagine being the youngest child at home with mom and pop after they have matured and learned all about this child rearing thing on the two oldest test models. Mom and pop are really chilled out now so life at home is really living the life of Wiley (hahahahahhaha). So she feels betrayed by this crap. It has taken her best buddy and turned him into a raving a---hole and she wants them and the world to know about it. I have one folder for each of the disabilities that are on appeal. The first sheet contains my hearing notes/outline which I will use to keep me and the DRO on track. Each folder contains all evidence I have on that disability. It is numbered, highlighted and tabbed (Berta I learned this from you during my first days on Hadit). I like to keep very good records (comes from my law enforcement duties) so I will ask the DRO if I can tape record the hearing for my records. I know the hearing audio will be transcribed and I can obtain a copy of it but I want my own audio of the hearing. I have been is courtroom settings, grand jury hearings etc... so I fully understand the need to keep it professional and by all means keep a cool head while providing truthful testimony to support your desired outcome. I hope others take a look at the post and provide their insight. Eventhough I can pull off the conduct of the hearing, VA law, rules and regulations are a different kind of animal. One that I have not been able to tie down as of yet so my faith is in my Hadit family. I have learned a lot about the VA by being a member of this site. I remember when I first clicked on Hadit during my first search on VA claims. My search terms were "screw the VA" hahahahahahahahhaha. Well after reading several posts on the old site that night I became a member and said to myself, holy cow batman, this VA crap is complicated but these guys seem to know what the hell they are doing. That is the moment that I needed Hadit more than I realized. Thanks guys.

I am preparing for my upcoming DRO hearing which I know will be followed by a BVA hearing. This is my opening argument for both. Any ideal or suggestions will be appreciated. Hopefully it will not be to harsh cause it only speaks of the truth and facts: I am here today to blah, blah, blah...... and to present additional evidence and arguments in support of my appeal. First I must bring up the fact that the rating decisions and SOC involved in this case are inadaquate. Title 38 US Code, Section ______, 38 CFR, Part _____ Section ______ and M21-R (I am looking for the numbers for these, I know they exist but don't have them on hand), provide in part that decisions issued by the VA must contain a Reason and Basis containing enough information and written in a language that such will allow a normal veteran to understand the reasons for the denial and allow him to properly to prepare an appeal to the denial. This has not been done in this claim. Neither the rating decision nor the SOC contained a properly prepared Reason and Basis. Neither contained any language that would explain to the veteran (me) why the evidence of record prepared by treating generalized and specialized physicans did not support the claimed disabilities; nor did either provide a conclusive or definite reason for the denial. Both contained generalized one sentence denials that was not supported by any evidence to support such an action. Therefore, this appeal has been processed by the veteran without a true knowledge of the reasons for denial and I would ask that as part of this hearing the VA provide me with such information. The above will be used in both hearings. The following will be used only in the BVA hearing: You will notice that in the submission of the perfected appeal, I provided several reasons for the appeal of each disability claimed. In my request of actions to be taken by the board you will notice that I asked for a specific rating percentage and that the board ajudicate the claim without remand to the RO. The reason I have requested this specific action to be taken is that any further action requested of the RO for this appeal will simply result in additional wasted time and money for the VA, the veteran and the U.S. taxpayers. The RO has shown by its past actions in this appeal its desire to continue to be apathetic in the processing of this claim. Their actions have spoken loud and clear as to their attitude towards this claim. As an example I provide: As you can see from the written correspondence provided to me by the RO, normal processing time for a NOD at this RO is 14-18 months depending on the complexity of the claim. It is assumed that this means a claim containing 1-4 issues would be processed within the 14 month timeframe and a more complex claim would require additional attention, therefore requiring the additional 4 months to process. As you review my claim you will discover that it contains 10 seperate issues, two of which center around neurological problems that stem from a disease that is not well understood by the medical community. However, the NOD on this claim was received in the mailroom at the RO in late August 2005. The RO issued a SOC denying all claimed disabilities in late January 2006. IT ONLY TOOK 5 MONTHS FROM MAILING TO RECEIPT OF THE SOC. 5 Months to process a 10 issue, medically complex appeal. That is amazing. Blah, Blah, Blah - I will add more as I go along. I am not trying to be a smart a--- by doing this, I just feel that the board needs to realize that the actions of the RO were defecient and leads the veteran to believe it was due to simple apathy on their pare. Plus it is fact and not just some fiction I made. I still laugh every time I look at the SOC. It is a carbon copy of the rating decision and both do not provide any explanation as to why none of the evidence was considered probative etc........

Vike, yep as I stated any insight is a great help. I will keep the meeting short and to the point. Hopefully it will work out. Once again thanks

Vike - sorry but as you can see I was having a problem with dates last night. The claim was actually filed in Mar 2001. The rating awarding the 0% was received in Jan 2002 at which time I filed a NOD. The SOC was issued in Feb 2003 which reaffirmed the Jan 2002 0% rating. Basically I added this info just to show how their later decisions was kinda of whacko when they changed the effective dates. I fully understand their decision on the VA 9 (July 04 letter) so up until this point there was no problem. Yes sir, the July 05 "strange" rating decision states that the 0% rating is continued with an effective of Feb 04 the date of the claim. As you stated this is a mute point since it was a 0% rating and no actual money was involved. It is just strange that they would change the effective date. The hypertension was part of the claim. This is the very first claim that I filed upon retirement. The claim contained a request for service conntection for - hypertension, skin disorder, Spuring of the lower back (L5) and hemmroids. Hypertension received 10 percent, all others received 0 percent. The evidence of record for the back claim is: SMR's documenting injury while in service, my original statement of the effects of the disability, the original C&P, the worthless (due to my error) VA 9 outlining my lay statement as to the the increase and the C&P from May 05. The original C&P stated "mild limited range of motion, but no pain present". This is what started the ball game. Under the old general rating formula for injuries of the spine, the subjective term "mild" should have received a 10 percent rating. The general rating formula was changed in 2002 so it does not pertain to my claim since it was reopened in Feb 2004. The wording from the denial provided that "although there was a mild limitation of forward flexion present, there was no pain present during the examination......" Now I could not find such wording that required "pain to be present". This would not meet the CUE standards as the word mild is too subjective therefore it would fall under the "different interpertation" rule that my VARO likes to throw around so this is water under the bridge as far as I am conserned. The second C&P which was conducted based upon my statement claiming that the back problem had increased since the last C&P provided that "forward flexion was 45 degrees, with additional limited range of motion upon use." All other measurments were 5-10 degrees shy of normal. As I stated the original denial used the old general formula (pre 2002). However, this one should have been rated under the new general formula which provides that "forward flexion greater than 30 degrees but less than 90 = 20 percent. Now when they issued the SOC in the area where they list the requirements that must be met for a paticular rating they provided the rating criteria for both the old and new general formula. However, in the reasons and basis they did not provide any explanation for that action nor did they provide any details on which formula they used (they did not provide any explaination at all for their actions in the SOC nor the Jan 06 rating decision). Looks like they applied the old general formula and was looking for the word "Moderate Limitation of Motion". However, as I said the only thing in the reason and basis is the wording from the last C&P and it was word for word. There is no other evidence in the file concering the range of motion or anything else pertaining to the back disability. Sorry I confused everyone with my original post and now I have submitted another full length book. The bottom line is - Claim was reopened in Feb 2004, 10 percent was approved in Jan 06 with an effective date of Jan 06. Now I am off to a hearing due to the fact I believe the rating meets the 20 percent rating level and the effective date, per the law and regulations is, the date the claim for reopen is. Thanks for any input and I promise not to persent my whole blasted claim again. I know all of you is wondering why I am not using a SO. The state SO, a one man show in my area, said he could not handle any more claims, the other three major ones, one which was so drunk when I went there I could not understand him, said, you are doing ok, just file your NOD and see what happens!

oops, I see what you mean now. The date should read April 06 Not April 05!!!!!!!! Brain Fart on my part hahahahahahahaha Gez.... if I keep going here I am going to have a hundred replies to this post from me to me!!!!

Carlie, the Apr 06 date is based upon a reply to an IRIS inquiry that I sent Monday. They said my request for the DRO hearing is set to be place on April 06 calander. However, I agree with you and will not hold my breathe until I get the official notice in writing via snail mail. Being placed on the "April 06 calander" could mean many things. Maybe it is just the time it will scheduled and the april calander could contain hundreds of cases scheduled for hearing.

Wow, I just did a serach on the BVA site for EED and my RO. There were a lot of appeals in this area, however, the first 25 that I opened were either remanded or the vet died waiting on appeal.. Looks like I may have my work cut out for me if I am to win this thing before I die.

As I prepare for my upcoming hearing which should be in Apr 05 according to IRIS I would just like for someone to give me a quick sanity check on the reason for my argument of EED on a Back Issue: 2002: File claim for back strain. Feb 2003 SOC issued: Disability SC'ed at 0 % effective 2002. Feb 2004 - Being the dumb butt that I am I failed to timely file VA 9 (mixed up the one year requirement for a NOD with the 60 day requirement to perfect appeal). So I filed the VA For 9 at this time. July 2004 - VA sent me a letter saying hey dummy, sorry but the VA 9 was not filed in a timely manner. However, being the good guys that we are, we will use your VA form 9 dated 17 Feburary 2004 as a reopened claim it you want us to. August 2004 - Sent VA a letter told them that yes I wanted the VA 9 to be used as my request to reopen the claim. August 2004 -May 2005 - received those stupid "we are working on your claim letters" May 2005 - Had C&P for increase in rating for hypertension and back strain. July 2005 - Received strange rating letter. 0% for back strain continued with an effective date of Feb 2004 ( 0% had already been awarded in 2002 so I don't know how or why they changed it). Aug 2005 Filed NOD 27 January 2006 SOC received - 0% is continued with an effective date of 31 January 2005?????? (Once again they continued the rating but changed the effective date) 30 January 2006 Blue rating form received - It stated that due to a different interpertation of the evidence the disability rating is increased to 10% with an effective date of JANUARY 31 2005????? Now I am really confused. Do I perfect the appeal per the SOC or do I NOD this rating? Well I did both. In Feb 06 I perfected my appeal and included the back rating percentage and the effective date. In August 2006, after consuming much rum due to the confusion caused by the floating effective date, 0% continued by the SOC and the 10 percent awarded I filed a NOD to their 27 Jan 06 rating. Even though, as stated above, I had already perfected my appeal and included the back issue on the VA 9, I could see the VA just dropping the issue cause the regulation states that I must first file a NOD upon receipt of a rating decision to start the appeal. Hell I don't know casue by now they have me totatly confused. My NOD consisted of (1) based upon evidence (to include the May 2005 C&P) the disability met the requirement for a 20% rating (2) The EED should have been Feb 2004, the date of the reopening of the claim by VA. Well now they have decided to give me the DRO hearing that I requested. I wanted the hearing cause I do not feel this cluster f#$%^ can be straightened out with only the written word. So at my hearing my arguments will be: 1- increasing the percentage to 20 percent. I will focus on the fact that the C&P in May 05 provides that forward flexion is limited to 45 degrees. The regulations provides disability ratings, as of 2002, for the back that are firm and in black and white. In general it states that if forward flexion is XXX the the rating is YYY. No if's and buts about it. I do not see any need for other IMO's on this one for the C&P verifies the forward flexion. I guess that I could additional IMO's that provide the forward flexion is limited to 45 degrees but 45 degrees is 45 degrees no matter what doctor says it. Now if it was a question of I claimed a greater amount of limitation of motion then I could see getting an IMO but this is not the case. I simply want them to use the evidence their doctor provided. 2 - The EED issue is and will be a ball of confusion to unravel. 0 percent was effective 2002. They officially reopened the claim in Feb 2004. Since the original filing they changed the effective dat twice without any ryhme or reason. Upon increasing the rating they once again reset the effective date to the date the rating decision was issued. Title 38 and CFR 38 provides that the effective date is the date the disability began and is normally the date of receipt of the claim (my interpertation). Its pretty plain to me....Claim was officially reopened effective Feb 2004, no dates were missed, therefore, the Effective date is to be set at Feb 2004. My plan is to present the prevailing law and regulations, and walk the idiot through the time line. Any additional ideals from you guys will be appreciated. Sorry for the long post.

Hey Jim, retirees do get a little. In the past VA simply withheld dollar for dollar even though you should have received CRDP. DFAS and VA have finally been forced to see the evil of their ways and have supposedly fixed the problem. Bottom line is that since you have already received the retirement pay which DID NOT include the authorized CRDP then, VA should not withhold the normal dollar for dollar amount. Do a search on CRDP backpay and you will find some posts that will help you understand this. Also search the DFAS Retiree Pay Site for updated information.

You know sometimes you just gotta stop and look back. We are really the luckiest people in the world. By this I mean that our service has given us many good stories to remember. Even though the event may have been bad - no one else in the world except a vet could have experienced it (not talking about combat stressors). Take one of my uncles. He was in VN and had been shot in the rear end. His story was that one night while in the boonies, he had to take a crap so he wondered off a bit. Dropped his drawers and took to the required business. Prior to finishing his work he decided to have a cigarette. As he squatted drawing puffs, rifle fire broke the silence and an round hit him square in the butt. I read the investigation of the incident and it seems as though a fellow soldier saw the cigarette fire as it got bright from the puffing and fired. We die laughing at uncle Sammy as he tells his story over and over. Now no one but a vet could have such loving memories hahhahahaha... the reason for my story is that Larry has the right ideal about all of this VA crap.... even though he just got shot in the butt by the VA's pen, he was cool calm and collected and I am sure this will someday this will be just one of those funny stories he can relay to younger vets..... one that only a proud veteran could experience. Keep a chugging Larry, for by using your example we will all succeed one.

From looking at your time line I think you are one step ahead of yourself. 8/14/06 Rt knee condition is denied. 9/5/06 filed nod. I called in several weeks and the RO denied getting it. I went to my rep and he called and confirned they didn't have it, So he faxed it to them and we called again in a week and was told it was in the computer. If you just filed the NOD on 9/5/06 it is very unlikely that they have acted on your NOD at this point. Most NOD's take 12 to 18 months and yours has only been pending 4 Months. Call the 1-800 number and find out the status of your NOD. I think you will find out that it is still pending. A SOC will not be issued until they deny you NOD.

redo, redo, redo, remand remand remand, thats the problem with this F@#@@@ system now. Why don't they just do it right the first time around!!!!!!! Yep they may do them to the T upon return from the BVA if they do them. I have seen many where they just hold the records for 8-12 months then return them to the BVA without ever doing the requested exam. Why should they care? The Ro's thumb their noses at U.S. Code so what is going to happen to them for telling the BVA to sit on it and rotate? nuting....... Don't beat me up for talking bad bout the VA just venting....

I am gulf war guy with a 14 year old that was born with spinal bifida. Now once upon a time they were looking at this but nothing ever came of it. I fully understand the ins and outs of coping with a disabled child but to file a claim that has no merit is kinda of crazy. After all we already have 600,000 back logged cases with much deserving vets waiting 3-5 years on their earned compensation. Don't mean to make you mad, but please don't clutter up the system any more than it already is with unjustified and unwarranted claims. Thanks

Hey dawg - my bubble has been bursted many times. I think when I fell from the air I hit the ground with my head and that is what is wrong with me hahahahahahahahahahaha. Seriously just stating my opinion which comes from dealing with the dumb buts at my RO. Just knowing what they will require cuts the claim process in half. Not saying it is right but it is a fact of life. You brought up some good points and they will be filed away in the 1/3 of my brain that still functions.