TiredCoastie

All I can add to this discussion is that the "request for reconsideration" route did not work very well for me, and I wound up appealing anyway. And because I wasn't satisfied with the decision on the request for reconsideration, I appealed that two. So now I have some sort of dueling, swirling mixture of appeals in the system and am actually doing both simultaneously but without the RO really saying I'm doing both. My bad - I didn't find Hadit in time to prevent this. I will say that I had a NOD and a request for reconsideration in the system at the same time. At least, I was fighting to prove the NOD was filed in a timely manner while and then after the request for reconsideration was considered. BUT, I saved the original claim date and actually obtained two CUEs for EEDs from missing the original informal claim. I know you've made up your mind, and that the lawyers aren't going to help you (hint: they don't see enough money in it for their time), but I'd NOD every single contention for which you are not satisfied. Do it yourself. If you want it done right, in this case, you cannot delegate.

So...now that I've read this Fast Letter and tried to reconcile the Fast Letter with advice to include a Waiver of AOJ Review of any additional evidence...is there any wonder it takes a community of dedicated veterans to figure this stuff out. Wow! Have I got this right - I don't need to include a waiver for AOJ review now with my Form 9 because that waiver is already automatically in effect per the Fast Letter? Instead, I would have to specifically ask for AOJ review of any new evidence I submit if I felt that I could get a good answer faster through the RO - a.k.a. the infamous "Waiver of BVA Review"? This makes my head hurt. Ow.

Roger on all, Carlie! Thanks! I think my chances of increasing the disability rating to 50% is lower than 50%, but it costs nothing to try and everything to throw in the towel.

Been meaning to get back to you, Berta, John, and Pete, with a word of THANK YOU SO MUCH! I appealed for an EED on several contentions and was awarded the ED of my informal claim after the RO CUEd themselves. Thanks to your support and advice, this is one more win in a larger campaign. May God bless you!

Thanks, Carlie! The grant reads: The evaluation of atypical migraine headaches is increased to 30 percent disabling effective (date, which was wrong but later CUEd and corrected). An evanulation of 30 percent is assigned from (same wrong date, now fixed). We have assigned a 30 percent evaluation for your atypical migraine headaches based on: Characteristic prostrating attacks occurring on an average once a month over last several months A higher evaluation of 50 percent is not warranted unless the evidence shows the condition is very frequently completely prostrating and prolonged attacks productive of severe economic inadaptability. What I've shown is that I have prostrating attacks on average of between 2 and 3 a month on average. Some months I have not had any. Some months I've been down on five days. My rationale for the Form 9 reads like this now: My atypical migraine headaches should have been rated at 50%, not 30%. A review of the all the evidence provided including the two VA Forms 21-0960C-8 from Dr. (X) should have resulted in 50% rating. The information she provided, my other medical records, as well as my headache logs show that I have very frequent prostrating attacks. Dr. (X) specifically indicated that I was having severe economic impacts by stating that I cannot work while having a severe migraine. Considering that I have up to 5 days a month in which I am incapacitated and must nap in a quiet, dark room, the evidence shows I meet the 50% disability criteria specified by 38 CFR §4.124a. While I may be incapacitated for up to five days a month, I am mentally challenged many more days, especially in the afternoons. Please see my extensive headache log printed from MyHeatheVet. I have changed my employment search as a result, looking for part-time work that would be more flexible around my condition. I have not been very successful. I have not been able to find adequate relief of this condition to improve it very much with little prospect of improvement. My medications for this conditions include a butterbur root extract herbal medication along with metoprolol tartrate (25 mg twice daily) to address arterial spasming associated with migraine and 200 mg of magnesium citrate. My rescue medications are Tylenol, 162mg of aspirin, and 200 mg more magnesium citrate. I have tried a variety of preventative and rescue medications in the past without a lot of success, and my neurologist, Dr. (X), is fairly comfortable with this approach. This rating decision has also been appealed through my Notice of Disagreement on the subsequent claim decided on (date), with the NOD received on (date). Don't know if this will carry the day or not, but would greatly appreciate any additional approaches you think I could throw in there.

Thanks, guys. This is a little like a hot potato exercise. Thanks to the way life has gone, I don't have time to get to an attorney before the Friday filing deadline. But having to sit down and think through it again, after your responses, has helped me with my arguments. One of my two main contentions are that my migraines are rated at 30%, and I think they should be at 50%. The question will be whether or not they produce severe economic impact. Proving that for me rests on the statement made by my neurologist that I cannot work when flattened, which occurs up to 5 days per month but averages around 2. I don't know how much stronger a case I can make. I feel like I'm only a reliable employee in the morning due to the time when the migraines, if they get bad enough, take over. Meanwhile, on those days they don't completely take over, I'm hampered from doing a good job. This is going to be a difficult argument to make, but -- thanks to talking this through with you all -- I think I've got more ammunition. The other is a condition that causes cerebral thromboses resulting in TIAs. I've been on blood thinners for several years. I originally claimed TIAs only (which is actually the claim decision I'm appealing now; second NOD has not yet appeared for processing although they say they've got it via IRIS), then added additional evidence for the cerebral thrombosis via a new DBQ on a "request for reconsideration." In their decision on the "reconsideration claim," the VA again denied service connection for the TIAs and did not SC this newly reported condition either although solid evidence was provided - in fact they didn't even mention it which amounts to a denial. One point the VA makes is that no long term disability persits. Sure, BUT...shouldn't they at least service connect the condition that clearly arose during my last years on active duty and came out strongly in my first year after discharge, then rate me at 0% then? If I'd actually had that stroke with permanent damage (rather than a simple lingering tingling and numbness in a portion of my face), this would be cut-and-dry. I almost had a stroke trying to figure out the underlying condition... Gastone, you're right that I'm not going to get much further with a percentage and that's OK. If the migraine increase is successful, I might eck out enough to round up to 90%. Unless some entity at some level decides that I've got a significant ratable disability from the cerebral thromboses, or the new-and-material evidence filed after this Form 9 is the hospital and doctor records from an actual stroke, I don't think my rating is going to hit 100%. I have considered TDIU, but would rather work even at a reduced level if I can find the work that fits my disability. At worst I can still sit at my computer and write books...and ask AskNOD if that pays! No, the bigger issue is that the cerebral thomboses can kill me or leave me severely and profoundly disabled. If they do, I have a wife and a developmentally disabled child. They deserve to either have the way paved for 100%+ & A&A or DIC. My wife and child are the bottom line in this fight. Honestly, I would not be in this far along today if it weren't for Berta, AskNod, Carlie, John, and bunch of the other elders, fellow sufferers, and insiders who have counseled so many through this site, and am truly grateful for the wisdom passed on that got me this far. As an aside, I did get a couple of CUEs out of the RO when they reviewed my initial NOD, granting SC/rating increase back to the original claim date, so agree that the second look through the RO isn't always a complete waste. This victory was the result of help from Hadit. Semper Paratus!

Thanks, Stretch. Guess in my case it's the one side against the other - "yes, it is!" versus "no, it's not!" They've thrown back the same rationale in the original decision and are sticking by that. So my hope and prayer is that the BVA will seem my argument differently and decide in my favor. I don't have any additional evidence or any other argument to make other than what I've already made. I did separate the two contentions I'm appealing and numbered them for ease of those trying to figure it out.

Not only am I a TiredCoastie, but now confused one as as well! USCG always really stood for "Uncle Sam's Confused Group" anyway. Guess I'm just trying to figure this out as well. I've got to get my Form 9 in the system before the end of next week and was trying to figure out where to send it. Sounds like there is less handling of any documents sent if they go directly to the "Evidence Intake Center" rather than the RO, which will just resend them down to one of the two places anyway...which may mean that the documents will be inprocessed faster with less probability of getting lost in the shuffle? But the directions on the Form 9 say to send the Form 9 to the RO... So which directions do I follow? Should I send it to both and let them straighten out the duplication? And, seeing as my Form 9 is looking a lot like a reiteration of my NOD, should I just fax it and hold on to that fax receipt as proof of timely filing? Or is there benefit to mailing a fresh copy for scanning? My thinking is that the fax machine system is probably automated, so that whatever arrives by fax is already scanned and can just be uploaded into my C-file even if it's not as clean as something that was scanned on site. But with the US Government, one can never be too sure...

So I've appealed several denied conditions for service connection or the rating received and have been sitting on the SOC in part waiting to see what my second appeal will do and in part dealing with an unrelated ongoing family crisis. Whew. So this weekend, I've got to get the Form 9 completed and filed. I think I did a pretty good job describing why the RO's decisions were wrong in my NODs but the SOC shows that they sticking by their determinations. Should I rewrite those descriptions or, seeing as nothing has changed since I filed the last NOD, would it be OK to just copy and paste my rationale into the Form 9 and fire it off? Or would it be beneficial to add more meat quoting BVA decisions?

That's outstanding news! Hopefully it doesn't take a huge amount of time to get your retro.

Amazing how the RO is blowing this off. If you haven't sent a copy of the shutoff notices to your VSO along with the threats from the mortgage company, there's never a better time than today. Seems like they ought to be enough to get a decision to you ASAP. Of course, copies, mail, etc cost money.

Or ever, Chuck. We don't live in a perfect world. If we did, we wouldn't need VA benefits in the first place.

It's important to keep in mind that different federal departments and agencies within those departments operate differently than one another with different sets of standards and levels of concern for specific situations. DOJ is not the DVA is not the DoD.... It's a lot like every service being different with strengths and weaknesses. So what we experience from the VBA isn't necessarily what we can expect from the VHA or what we might experience within or from the DOJ, DHS, DOT, DoD - whatever alphabet soup.

Good anaysis, Rootbeer. There is a lot of finger pointing between the union and management. Lots of money has been dumped into the VBA both in terms of VBMS and new employees and then some. The overall number of claims held by the VBA, assuming those numbers are accurate, has dropped significantly since the high water mark of over 843,000 in July, 2012, to 510,954 this past Monday - almost 40% fewer on hand after 25 months. From that measure then, something is working even without revamping the entire system. But is it working well? Multiple measures point otherwise. The problem is that there is evidence that the appeals backlog is getting larger and larger. Either that means that 1. Veterans are better educated on their disabilties and how those disabilites should be service connected and rated or 2. The rush to reduce the backlog is increasing the error rate. So the RO can speed to an answer ("speed" is a relative term and for those who have waiting months and years for a claim to close - you don't have to say it, I know) but it takes time to make a good decision. It reminds me of a guy I used to work for. When someone came running into his office, hair on fire, demanding something, he would say "You can have it good, right, or now. Pick two." Do most of those employees want to make a good and right decision? Sure. Basic pride in one's work dictates that most employees will do their best in a descent environment and especially within a culture in which achieving the best is rewarded and celebrated. Even in poor workplace environments, more often than not a sense of pride in one's work will drive a better product. The original question this posting was whether or not the VBA could achieve a zero backlog in 2015 - which was and remains a great question. I wonder now if the better question is whether or not a veteran can receive what he or she thinks is a satifactory answer within five years?

Hey 7796, it seems like what I thought was correct. There is a rating decision drafted but it has not yet been approved for whatever reason. I'm surprised that anyone would tell you what the draft decision says because it could change either way. Some VAROs are faster than others. At our local one that services our geographic area, the situation can be much like what you're experiencing. For my last claim, they farmed it out to a different RO to get the decision through. eBenefits showed that it went out there on a Monday and was finalized before Friday...after several drafts of a decision based on the status changing sometimes multiple times a day. The rater you spoke with may have been from a VARO more like the one that finalized my last decision (of course, there is a NOD in on that one but I can't argue with the speed at which a decision was produced!). Could your VSO push it through? Sure, they could try to turn up the heat. They aren't likely to do that on your behalf, though, IMHO. There are only so many "silver bullets" in their six-shooter and those only get used on very special occasions. At best, they'll send an email to a rating supervisor and express the need to move it through - or will tell you they did and who knows if that's really true. I'm not saying that your situation isn't important or even desperate...but that the VSO isn't necessarily one to rock the boat. They have to work with those same people day after day - and going to war over one vet might, in their view, damage their ability to advocate for every vet. Unfortunately, that means that many or most VSOs don't advocate very well. Take a look at the Monday Morning Workload Reports sometime: http://benefits.va.gov/REPORTS/detailed_claims_data.asp These statistical workload reports show (supposedly) how many claims each RO has at the end of the past week/first thing Monday morning. Some have fewer and seem to move claims faster (that's faster relative to others...not necessarily what any of us would call "fast") based on the percentage that are "overdue" as well as the new pages that have the average processing time for each RO. Some are overwhelmed and move at glacial speed. All I'm trying to do here is explain a probable "why" you haven't seen a claim decision yet. I can only imagine how I would have been 3 1/2 years ago desperately waiting for my initial claim to process - so I could feed my family - if someone from a different RO would have told me that at their RO, I'd be done already. You're doing an awesome job keeping your cool. Now if you are in severe financial difficulty - defined by very specific criteria - your claim ought to be able to be moved now. If they're blowing that off, IMO, you need to get after your VSO. If your VSO can't or won't fix it, fire them and get another...or do it yourself. God bless and hang in there!

I think you should submit copies of your SMRs as evidence with a new claim but make sure you write a letter explaining that you are reopening the past denial based on the finding of your SMRs per 38 CFR 3.156©. http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/retrieveECFR?gp=1&SID=6d8f3661149f8bb72c1e7c03735fa252&ty=HTML&h=L&r=SECTION&n=se38.1.3_1156 Do you have a way to show that you've been receiving treatment or care for your disabilities? Can you obtain those records? Can you get a doctor to fill out a DBQ form? Would the doctor make a written statement tying your current disabilities to those you had on active duty? Just trying to help you make your case as air-tight as possible... The whole "duty to assist" thing doesn't seem to hold up, so it's no wonder your records were never obtained or considered. You've got to be your own advocate, do as much work for them as possible, etc just to be successful. What that does is place vets like you, who were homeless for a while, at a significant disadvantage. Those who need help the most can't get it because they don't have the resources to successfully navigate the system.

Exactly where does your claim stand within the VARO? Has the decision been signed as approved by however many decision makers are required to sign it? If a rating decision has been crafted but not finally approved, that might be your hold up. Sounds like it's stuck in someone's inbox waiting for approval from what you've been told. Don't be too surprised if your claim's decision bouncing back and forth several times between the rater and whatever approving official(s) is/are involved before they come to a final conclusion and decision. If the claim has been approved, signed, and is waiting for distribution, that can occassionally take a while. Sometimes it's really fast. My last couple of claims, though, required some amount of time to make it's way through the mailing system inside the VARO -- Christmas holidays really slowed things down -- or somehow just plain hung up -- an IRIS inquiry email freed up the large white envelope with a later date stamp on the letter than eBenefits showed the claim closed. But if your VSO says 60 days until a formal decision, then it's probably not stuck in the mail room waiting for Labor Day to pass.

Your SMR should be at the archives in St Louis. Requesting a copy will not impact the processing of your NOD, which will happen at your servicing VARO. These are totally separate entities. http://www.archives.gov/st-louis/military-personnel/ If you do not have a copy of your SMR, you need to get it from the archive and review it ASAP. There is a lot of value in reviewing your C-file as well, which *should* have a complete copy of your SMR. The problem comes when the copy in your C-file is either incomplete or has parts from someone else's records. Sounds like your C-file was way too light if you're still looking for a copy of your SMR. I was strongly encouraged to make a copy of my SMR before leaving active duty, which I did. In fact, I was encouraged to make two copies by a very squared away National Service Officer. One copy I gave to the VARO with my initial claim. The second copy is in our personal files here at home. It's come in handy for follow on care not related to disability compensation. In fact, I just pulled an old test result out earlier this summer to show some specialists.

That's right. The NOD will have little to no bearing on the reconsideration claim. Even if, by some chance, the appeal slows down the claim, you're protecting a very important original filing date. Chances are that it won't. If the claim is close to done, the RO won't even get to your appeal before they decide the claim. Like I wrote before, it's literally taken MONTHS just to get an appeal to show up in eBenefits and receive a letter from the RO that they've got it for action. Do not trust the RO to get it right this time. They could, though. If you like the decision, you don't have to pursue the appeal any further. The NOD preserves your ability to do something about it while protecting, again, that original filing date. Do not trust eBenefits when it gives you a projected timeline. That's completely spurious, bogus, wrong...you pick the term you like...but it's completely untrustworthy. Someone could pick it up today and push it through. You could see a decision around Christmas-time. If you can, file today. Like others have written, sent it certified mail, return receipt requested. It will cost you between $6 and $7 and is worth every penny.

Submitting a NOD does not have any bearing the claim requesting reconsideration. In fact, they'll probably complete the claim before they inprocess the appeal. This is in my personal experience. It will take several months for the RO to start work on the NOD, even just getting it logged into the system and an appeal started. DO NOT WAIT any longer. I submitted my NOD by US Postal Service on the last possible day. That hand stamped certified mail receipt has been golden...I've sent at least three copies of it to the RO to prove that my NOD was timely. It took a while, but they found it, acknowledged it, and began to process it. Meanwhile, the reconsideration claim finalized and now there's a second NOD in on that decision...which is still waiting to be inprocessed after almost three months.

Thanks, Chuck! If the VARO can resolve the veteran's concerns through some sort of process that keeps the claim from going to DC and generates the right answer, then to me it doesn't matter what the process is called. Of course, they could have gotten it right the first time and just called it a "claim." My first NOD, I had to send several letters to the RO explaining that I did intend to appeal and, based on the postmark, the appeal was timely. They initially called that NOD evidence filed in support of a claim that was in process at that time. Judging from the months after receipt that it is taking for my NODs to be acknowledged or accepted as appeals, there's no telling how many "appeals," "requests for increase," whatever-they-want-to-call-it there are somewhere in the system. Like the secret wait lists for medical care, it seems like there could be a growing number of appeals out there that are somewhere in the RO and C-files, acknowledgable as timely, and otherwise unprocessed.

Hey everyone. Just looking at the statistics, the VA lost momentum through the summer. Right now, instead of a mid-summer projection, they'll be fighting hard to get it done by the end of September next year. Hard to say why, but if more active duty separate during the spring and summer than fall and winter, that would mean more claims during those periods. Plus, it's summer vacation season. The VA could pick it back up and plow through claims faster after Labor Day, but they'll have to really step it up to get through enough claims to make any kind of legitimate claim of "achieving their objective" in 2015. Meanwhile, the number of appeals nation-wide on the Monday Morning Workload Reports only increased by about 100 since the beginning of July. Based on the amount of time it seems to get a NOD accepted as an appeal along with the increasing numbers of us filing appeals against the trickle of appeals that are decided, this statistic doesn't seem accurate.

Not sure what you're asking, Pete. Do you want to have the decision reviewed prior to submitting a NOD or new and material evidence? Are you looking to have a bad decision overturned more quickly than through the appeals process? I have no idea if this would work, but someone, maybe Asknod, was saying that we can get things turned around sometimes through an IRIS email request. You might want to pose your question to your RO via IRIS and see what you get. Just a suggestion and no idea if it would work or not. The danger is that anything you submit could be binned as either an informal claim or an appeal. Those options don't seem to be what you're aiming for...

What if a vet doesn't have PTSD, is 100 P&T from other disabilities, and can work a little on his own schedule like K02 is thinking about? Is that as risky? When the VA rep came through the TAPS class, she said that if a vet applied for TDIU and is paid at 100%, he can't work. If the vet is rated at 100% due to disabilities, that vet is permitted to work.

I've used the new form for the reasons Chris and Fat discuss above. I've also added continuation pages describing why their decisions were wrong for which the new form includes a block to include how many additional pages. I've done this for a couple of reasons - 1. I'll leave out some important factoid if I don't use the form. 2. I don't want to give some data entry clerk difficulty inputting my information into VBMS or whatever system. Asknod is right that the "duty to assist" clause has fallen out (or maybe never inserted?) from the VA's system. We veterans are now on the hook to do a great deal of leg work, including make their forms do for us all of what those forms need to do. Sometimes that costs real $$$. Tried to get your records from a hospital recently? I've spent upwards of $50 here and there if not more upon occassion. Not everyone can make that kind of investment in a better rating decision in money or in effort. If the VA requested them in an expeditious manner, that effort would be at no cost to the veteran. It's the "least of these" who probably need the help the most that then get left behind. As the hurtles get higher and the wait times for a final decision (post-appeal) get longer, perhaps more of us will not complete the course to obtain justice? Meanwhile, has anyone actually gotten a call or email from the VARO to discuss their NOD/appeal?