31Bravo

I recall someone discussing some of secondary conditions related to PTSD.  I even think it was VA's own studies.  Theres good documentation out there about the relationship between the two.  Again it does still require a medical nexus and cases are different on a case by case basis.  It is definitely worth a look see.
Personally I have annotations about the conditions in my SMRs active and guard and the VA C&P doc even did a PTSD DBQ on me, I have yet to receive that file from the VA from my C&P exam.  They were even kind enough to omit it from my law dogs copy.  Sorry ex law dog.  That is going to take some time to sink in.  But I do have a nice recording of the exam.  It;s a stalemate attack though.  But I would love to use it in a scenario where the VA states it is a veteran friendly atmosphere not purposely trying to deny Veterans due benefits. Here's mud in your eye Johnny.
In any case, sleep disturbances, in this reference would mean you have nightmares, day dreams, vivid recollections of past events that you can get out of your head, intrusive thoughts that interfere with daily living and or activities, being at home or at work. Flash backs basically.  If you have a documented stressor and medical records relating treatment, I don't see how the VA can divorce the two,  it kind of goes hand in hand.
Most Veterans have associated major depressive disorders, along with vivid flashbacks.  Smells, sounds, scenarios those kind of things. Some of my buds that went in the first wave going door to door looking for bad guys have some interesting triggers.  I don't get a kick out of this nor do I like bringing it up but knowing some of this information can be helpful in keeping demons at bay and help folks learn how to deal with the ups and downs. Mind you treatment with a good counselor, psychologist and or psychiatrist is recommended.  But everyone is unique and may need different treatment options.
 

USMC VET, heh, I don't know if this might help with your predicament but I thought I would relay the situation.   Long story short I filed for Sleep apnea, sleep disturbances got hosed on both, lack of evidence and no mention in SMRs in any case it's denied on my first filing of the claim.
Then when my DRO hearing happened, related to an increase on my back and Gulf War Claim, they connected certain items to specific illness and conditions.  DRO approved sleep disturbances but not with sleep apnea she tied it in with the Mental claim I had at the time.  She also service connected fatigue to include tiredness but related those findings to my thyroid issues.  Mental sluggishness also got tied in with the thyroid issue.  My point in mentioning this , a Veteran needs to be familiar with what justifies a higher rating for their specific condition, and or injury. As well as take note of what symptoms were in their service medical records.  However, I have to add the decisions/denials also must be looked at. 
Rating for thyroid"
7903   Hypothyroidism  Cold intolerance, muscular weakness, cardiovascular involvement, mental disturbance (dementia, slowing of thought, depression), bradycardia (less than 60 beats per minute), and sleepiness100 Muscular weakness, mental disturbance, and weight gain60 Fatigability, constipation, and mental sluggishness30 Fatigability, or; continuous medication required for control10I may be wrong in this opinion but it is only my opinion from what I've seen in my case.  If these "symptoms" were present but ignored to justify a denial of the initial claim, or lowball, now that they have been "approved" would the ratings for those initial conditions not in fact have changed the initial outcome.  As more of the symptoms for higher ratings and service connections were evident and present.  
Adapt and overcome is what it appears to have been done. Another case of the conjunctions of "and" & "or" used to the VA's advantage.  JMO

Ebenefits is less reliable than an alcoholic, druggie teenager working at McDonalds.  You have 2 choices:
1.  Wait and see if you get any sort of "review" in the mail.
2.  Try finding out by emailing IRIS (nearly as unreliable as ebenefits), calling Peggy (even less reliable), or visiting your VARO and taking your chances.  The only thing reliable at VA is you can count on them not telling you the truth eventually.  
3.  Oh, I forgot.  You can also contact your VSO who will likely want you to become a "life member" in his organization, take your POA, and then not return your calls.  
     While you may get some answers from one of the above, you wont know how relaible any of them are until you get your decision and money in the bank.  

Congratulations help7777 on the WIN! Although I think I may have won just by reading your message. It really spoke to my spirit today. I've been denied, now in remand and fighting this fight since Dec 2010. My soul is weak, spirit is tired. But I think your message just gave me the strength to run on and see what the end will bring. THANK-YOU... SALUTE!

Truth be told!  Only HE is great at ALL times!
Semper Fi.
Andyman

Congrats...........
 
GOD is good.

I typed really Lord to say not by might nor by power, but by Your Spirit Lord I finally can see Job 42 blessing after the storm of fighting for my va appeal decision.  Am currently at 90% sc. 40% back & 50% feet.  With secondary knees from back & secondary from feet. I fought since 2011 for the higher rating for my back which was 10% which received the higher rating to 40% in August & received my secondary knees due to back & then feet went from 30 to 50, with knees secondary.  Which I received 800+ in August due to u was receiving pension, so didn't get a high retro. 
 
Well, my TDIU claim was remanded from the va appeal at the bva appeal court.  Well, today I called the 1800 nuber to be told oh they remanded your claim. However, ebenefits said my bva appeal claim was complete on 30 Nov.  Still no changed seen on my ebenefits letters , which still showed 90%. I said well Lord you have another plan. Because Iris email said one minute I qualify for commisary privileged then another mail said oh we made a mistake. 
Well, the BBE came today said that my bva decision was granted for each appeal. Which, was for back, knees & tdui. Which I already received the back & knees, but I receive the granted decision for my unemp claim, which the paper stated that from March 2011 I should be granted T unemp. Which was a thank yo Lord moment. 
 
Not sure when I will receive anything such as retro or update info at RO in St. Pete. But to type all this is just to say, "though the answer tarry wait for it. In due time it shall be appointed to you". When I gets hard to bear, may the Lord grant you the strenght to press on. 
 

to all the members of hadit.com i want to give a big thanks for all the input. with out the knowledge base contained on this website i would be no where near where i am today ( 100% p and t as of today) full base and commissary access. keep your head down and document document document! dont be that guy who acts like being hurt is ok in the military. it will come back to haunt you for the rest of your life when you dont have the correct medical care for your needs. hopefully everyone has a wonderful holiday season and keeps up the good work. please never stop, get what you deserve for your service. 
 
-BV

The problem you experience is contained in 38 CFR 3.350(a)  Ratings under SMC K. Read this sentence and I will turn it into Vetspeak.
This special compensation [SMC K] is payable in addition to the basic rate of compensation otherwise payable on the basis of degree of disability, provided that the combined rate of compensation does not exceed the monthly rate set forth in 38 U.S.C. 1114(l) when authorized in conjunction with any of the provisions of 38 U.S.C. 1114 (a) through (j) or (s).
Translated, this means you can have no disability ratings whatsoever and get as many Ks as you want as long as they do not exceed what is paid out as SMC L. Concurrently, you can be entitled to a 100% schedular rating and get as many Ks as you qualify for as long as you do not exceed the SMC L dollar amount.  SMC S (which is a compendium of your 100% rating PLUS the $346.84 bump for the SMC S) still permits you to have K ratings -but again- as long as they do not exceed the SMC L barrier. The roadblock will always be the "does not exceed the monthly rate set forth in 38 U.S.C. 1114(l) " when you are also getting SMC S ( or 100% schedular plus more than six (6) SMC K ratings) . 
For the record, a male can only qualify for seven SMC Ks. A woman can achieve eight because she can have loss of breast(s) as well as loss of creative use of her ovaries for reproduction.
For argument's sake, you could be entitled to X number of K's. The only limit is explained in the above paragraph.  When you are granted SMC S via a"substantially housebound" interpretation or via the 100% plus 60% (which you qualify for because of your ratings percentages), the SMC L  metric kicks in concerning how many SMC K ratings you can have. The VA set the limit by saying you cannot exceed the amount granted under SMC L. Note that they did not say "If your SMC S and all those Ks exceeds SMC L, then we're going to pay you at the "L" rate. They did not. They said it cannot exceed the amount paid for SMC L. 
SMC L currently pays $3,617.02 for a single Vet. I'm not going to add up your children and spouse. Those would not be included towards the ultimate $ figure limit anyway. If you are a single Vet at SMC S, you get $3,253.67 per month. SMC K is good for $103.23 per month per K rating. Thus $3,253.67 + $103.23 + $103.23 + $103.23= $3,563.36. That is three SMC Ks on top of the SMC S. Note that if you add a fourth SMC K of $103.23 to it, you will exceed the rate paid for SMC L which is forbidden. Nowhere does it say you get to jump to the SMC L pay scale or magically gain entitlement to Aid and Attendance.
VA is very stingy with their funds. Qualifying for SMC L is set in stone. BroncoVet enunciated the requirements above. Proving the need for Aid and Attendance is usually decided based on how Form 21-2680 is answered. One missed question on this test disqualifies you for it. 
If all that was not confusing enough, if you are entitled to any of the SMCs L through O including intermediate rates (1/2 steps), your added-on SMC Ks cannot exceed the rate of payment for O/P, which is $5,075.60 per month. You would have to add the $103.23 "K" multiples for each rate between L-O/P to see where you exceed the O/P rate. An example here would be if you qualified for the N 1/2 rate of $4,808.00 per month and had two SMC Ks. A third "K" would take you over the O/P rate. There are no K ratings after O/P in the R1 and R2 levels of Special Aid and Attendance.
To say Special Monthly Compensation is misunderstood is a masterpiece of understatement. It's almost a juris doctorate in its own right. It took me years to understand it and they occasionally change the rules as they did in 2011. When in doubt, Powerpoint it. Parse every "if...then". I can show you how it is technically (and legally) possible to advance to R2 from SMC L based on only two of the requirements of SMCs L-O by legally pyramiding. This (in conjunction with 3.352) is the only regulation in 38 CFR that actually permits pyramiding. SMC has more twists and turns than the Mississippi River. I've even explained it to VA lawyers who get lost in it.
I hope this helped.

In the years 1999-2005, VA vigorously tested Vets in the VAMC system for HCV  but did not tell them if they were positive. Many of the Vets I helped have retrieved old records via their VAMC ROI showing the lab tests entered into the VISTA VA medical computer. You don't need a FOIA to obtain this stuff. They were dumbfounded VA wouldn't have told them of the results so as to obtain treatment. Do I make myself clear? That's why it took me 21 years to win. This is a cake walk nowadays with a good nexus. We know so much more now because of people like Theresa who gave birth to this. I doubt any of you would even know who Carlie was without these boards.
While I got my service connection via a transfusion, I'm pretty sure the potential for the jetgun to crossinfect was a far greater risk for all Veterans of that era. Statistics are steady that Vietnam era Vets were 10% more likely to have HCV than their civilian counterparts. When narrowed down to actual Vietnam Vets physically stationed in-country for a year or more, the odds increased exponentially to 67% of  the in-country troops over the ten years (1965-75) studied. This was based on 187,000 Vets both living and dead, identified as having HCV in the survey.  

If any of you need definitive evidence for VA claims concerning Hepatitis C and the possibility of infection via a jetgun, I received rather damning evidence useful to your claim submission. 
https://asknod.wordpress.com/2015/11/28/jetguns-dont-kill-people-but-just-in-case/
Happy Thanksgiving to you all and thank you for being so selfless as to be willing to serve your country. Many hear the call. Some listen. 3% sign the line and raise their hand. I salute you.
Alex sends

Basically its "we have pushed to get claims denied finished and have been putting more and more pressure and less and less qualified people to do so and because they are not qualified to do it we have to oversee them and since we are denying finishing so quickly the appeals backlog is growing exponentially and now we have less time to pay attentions to appeals since we are denying finishing so many claims much quicker.  We believe wholeheartedly that it is in the VA's Veterans interest to rob peter to pay paul and then put a shitload of debt on peter."

I haven't been here in a while.I just wanted to share my success story. In 2010 when I found this wonderful website I was rated at 10 percent and had almost given up.Using this site by reading tips, other peoples battles and using the CFR I successfully went from 10 percent to 100 percent .It took me a few years, first up to 70%, then 90% and finally up to 100%.... I am rated at 70 for PTSD with major Depressive Disorder, 10 for Degenerative Arthritis right wrist,50 for bilateral ples planus (flat feet), 10 for right knee, 10 for left knee, 10 for tinnitus, 30 for sleep apnea and 20 for Diabetes Melilitus ... I did this completely by myself using this site.. I do have the DAV as a representative but the only thing they have ever done for me is send me a letter telling me that I recieved a rating . I recieved it after I received the Official Notification Letter from the VA...I wholeheartedly endorse Hadit.com. in my honest opinion it is the best thing I have ever found.. So hang in there, read and research... Thank You , Hadit.com for a wonderful informative site....

THE FINAL INSPECTION
 
The Soldier stood and faced God,
Which must always come to pass.
He hoped his shoes were shining,
Just as brightly as his brass. 
 
Step forward now, Soldier,
How shall I deal with you? 
Have you always turned the other cheek? 
To My Church have you been true?' 
 
The soldier squared his shoulders and said,
No, Lord, I guess I ain't.
Because those of us who carry guns,
Can't always be a saint.
 
I've had to work most Sundays, 
And at times my talk was tough.
And sometimes I've been violent,
Because the world is awfully rough.
 
But, I never took a penny,
That wasn't mine to keep.
Though I worked a lot of overtime,
When the bills got just too steep. 
 
And I never passed a cry for help,
Though at times I shook with fear.
And sometimes, God, forgive me,
I've wept unmanly tears.
 
I know I don't deserve a place,
Among the people here. 
They never wanted me around, 
Except to calm their fears.
 
If you've a place for me here, Lord, 
It needn't be so grand.
I never expected or had too much,
But if you don't, I'll understand. 
 
There was a silence all around the throne,
Where the saints had often trod.
As the Soldier waited quietly,
For the judgment of his God.
 
Step forward now, you Soldier,
You've borne your burdens well.
Walk peacefully on Heaven's streets,
You've done your time in Hell.'
 
~Author Unknown WGM~
 
 
 
 
 

My claim went to completed on Friday with the VA math number adding up 80%. I owe a big thank you to everyone that has contributed here, for without the combined knowledge of this forum my brief journey navigating the claim process probably would have been much harder and longer. I am a 70 year old Nam Vet who earlier this year decided to face the demons that have been following me since 1966. More important than my claim success is that I am now in treatment and learning to deal with my PTSD and related mental health issues. 
My disabilities are broken down as follows:
PTSD - 70%, Tinnitus - 10%, Skin conditions (Karatoses, Squamous Cell) - 0% SC, Scarring 30%, Bilateral Hearing Loss - Not Service Connected
I was surprised that the hearing loss wasn't service connected at least 0%.  My included service records clearly showed perfect hearing on my entrance exam and hearing loss on my exit exam. In fact I highlighted it to make it easier to find in the documents I submitted. I haven't seen my C&P but the examiner said I was borderline needing hearing aids. What's interesting is that in my statement of support letter I neglected to include a statement supporting hearing loss, Yet there was data in my service records to support it. My point here is that I believe the statement of support is as important, if not more so than any other evidence included in a claim. Skin conditions from sun exposure are notoriously difficult to prove, yet I believe I was successful in making the nexus via the support statement. I'm not going to further clog up claim pipeline by appealing the hearing decision as I'm not likely to die of hearing loss, and one must be almost totally deaf to be awarded a percentage.
In April 2015 I went to a mobile DAV office and submitted my intent to file. At that time my intent was to file for hearing/tinnitus and skin conditions. I also went to my primary VA doc and requested a mental health consult. The VA psychiatrist diagnosed me with PTSD under DSM-5 with some other mental health issues. I also started treatment in May with twice weekly appointments (group and one-on-one). I was hoping to get by without meds, but I am on currently on one now. On July 6th I traveled Los Angeles and submitted my paperwork for a first time FDC through the DAV and the paperwork showed up in ebennies under the unsolicited paperwork submitted with a time-stamp of 7/6. Three QTC C&Ps were scheduled for September (PTSD, Scars, Hearing/Tinnitus). with the last completed on the 23rd. Despite my checking ebennies twice daily my claim stayed in gathering of evidence until 11/12 when it changed to prep for decision, then on the 13th went to completed. The award has an effective date of 4/14 so it looks as if I picked up an extra 12 months of retro for a first time FDC. I will believe all this to be true when the retro hits the bank and I receive the BBE.
Here is a summary of paperwork submitted for each disability:
PTSD - All Va treatment records to date, 3 stressors all with supporting documents (dates, even a letter describing one 1970 incident to my then girlfriend (now wife)), and the dreaded C&P. I was under the mistaken assumption that I wouldn't have to delve into stressors during the C&P because I had Combat Air Crew wings awarded, but I was wrong. It was a long two hours.
Skin Conditions with Scaring Secondary - Treatment records both private and VA going back 7 years, A DBQ completed by a private PA (apparently accepted because I had no C&P for skin conditions), pictures dating back to 1960s working flight lines in shorts with no shirt (or hearing protection, lol), a 1976 picture clearly showing a squamous cell carcinoma on my lip, and a statement supporting noticing it in 1972. I was discharged in 1971. I did have a C&P to measure the scars.
Hearing/Tinnitus - Service record entrance and exit hearing exams, C&P exam - described when I first noticed the ringing in my ears, and how it affects me on a daily basis. Statement in support of tinnitus. I should have included a statement for hearing loss.
All that's left for me on this claim is a trip to Los Angeles to get a copy of the C&Ps to make sure the PTSD rating is the correct one. I have good days and bad days. Today the rating seems fair.
 
Once again, thanks to all who contribute here and thank you for your service.
  
 
 
 
       

James sorry to hear of your issues. All of these SMCs are very confusing to me, but I will say that what Asknod informs us on can be taken as the Words in stone, as I have yet to find someone that knows more then him on these issues. Good luck and keep us posted. God Bless

Bob stated some positive numbers on Fox this morning.
The only real solution is to dismantle the bureaucratic VA and send vets to civilian doctors.

A Good one 31 Bravo! I like that.
Oh I know what ya mean Ms T  it's always twice as hard for someone you loved & cared about and was a decent dear friend.
Hang In there
 
...Buck

Simply finding the word "reconsideration" in regulations doesn't create the obligation. Part 42 that BroncoVet alludes to above is excerpted from a regulation that involves fraud. As such, it is not on point. It does, however, illustrate the existing Motion For Reconsideration(MFR) at the BVA level. The humor in all this from my perspective is simple. Why would you want to wait around for up to a year in the hope that the VSR (not a DRO, mind you) will change his/her mind? If the error was blatant and glaringly obvious, a NOD will still provoke the same de novo review -and from a higher, more seasoned source such as an RVSR or DRO. A NOD will get you in line for a BVA appeal sooner than waiting for a reconsideration that might be denied. Reconsiderations should be used by homeless/financially challenged Vets who are ably represented by competent legal help. It is a quick pathway to resolving what should be a slam-dunk claim. It can only be advantageous to you if your  housing situation/medical status is precarious. VA will always move these claims to the top for immediate action. Otherwise, Lotzaspotz is dead on. Why wait for a reconsideration (and its attendant de novo process) when you can file the NOD and accomplish it sooner if they deny?
<<<<Once I file an NOD, the VA's obligation to assist is gone.  From that point on, to the BVA, it is an adversarial situation.  Recon before that leaves them obligated to assist, as the 1 year appeal time frame still is running, as well as, (if it applies) the initial submission of the intent to file, and the 1 year time frame that I have to submit new evidence, is still (also) running.>>>>
Always remember, the duty to assist rests with the trier of fact (RO and BVA) in a claim. They cannot cease in this regard unless it is filed as a CUE. CUE has its own set of codicils. Basically, there is no duty to assist in a CUE claim because a clear and unmistakable error can only involve a closed set of facts that led to the denial. To simplify, calling CUE freezes the record as to what was contained in it when you utter  the word "CUE". You cannot add new evidence to a CUE claim.
I'm not sure where pwrsim unearthed the argument that VA suddenly is off the hook for the duty to assist once a NOD is filed. That is not the way the Statute and Regulation read. Vets enjoy a much higher level of justice and the duty to assist never ends.  Nonadversarial,  Veteran friendly law with a full duty to assist doesn't cease until you get to the CAVC and the Fed. Circuit. Additionally, VA is not obligated to consider the benefit of the doubt argument in CUE. In that regard only does the duty to assist cease. 
 I beg each and every one of you to be very careful in dispensing advice here. Telling other Vets the duty to assist evaporates when the NOD is filed is incorrect and can harm a Veteran's claim. Likewise, always cite to the regulation or statute that your argument rests on so that others reading it can use the information. Shafrath v Derwinski 1 Vet app.589 (1991) is the go-to cite of the VA's duty to assist. It reinforced precedence re the duty to assist for VA claims in 1991 and has never been overthrown. If anything, newer precedence has built off of that and granted us even more and stronger protections relating to the duty to assist. A classic example of this is the most recent CAVC ruling in Gagne v. McDonald  decided ten days ago. I attach it below to illustrate what the real duty to assist  means in a claim. 
 There is a place for reconsiderations in the legal amphitheater but it is narrow and involves extreme circumstances I discussed above. VA's new technique to reduce the backlog by "developing to deny" your claim to hurry it out the door and off the books is not going to aid you time-wise in a request. That advice may not apply to small ROs like Fort Harrison and Sioux Falls where the backlog is not so stupendous. For the rest of us, a reconsideration or a NOD is still an equally slow boat to China. Simply put,  the difference between a NOD and a reconsideration will be one year or more less waiting for an appeal at the BVA if the reconsideration is denied.  Each Veteran, based on the strength and unique facts of his/her claim, is the only one who can decide which path to choose. There is no blanket set rule or advice that covers all of us.
Gagne_14-334.pdf

I checked my bank account this morning and was very happy and surprise to see my retro already in there.  My DRO appeal closed on the 10/23/15.
I'm still waiting on BBE  for all the details.  Smiling from ear to ear!!! I wish everyone luck on your DRO review.

VA is welcome to bandy about terms like "reconsideration" but they are bound by 38 USC and 38 CFR. Turning to Part 19, where these mechanisms are described and defined, take a look at §19.26:
§ 19.26 Action by agency of original jurisdiction on Notice of Disagreement.
(a) Initial action. When a timely Notice of Disagreement (NOD) is filed, the agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ) must reexamine the claim and determine whether additional review or development is warranted.(b) Unclear communication or disagreement. If within one year after mailing an adverse decision (or 60 days for simultaneously contested claims), the AOJ receives a written communication expressing dissatisfaction or disagreement with the adverse decision, but the AOJ cannot clearly identify that communication as expressing an intent to appeal, or the AOJ cannot identify which denied claim(s) the claimant wants to appeal, then the AOJ will contact the claimant to request clarification of the claimant's intent. This contact may be either oral or written.(1) For oral contacts, VA will contact whoever filed the communication. VA will make a written record of any oral clarification request conveyed to the claimant including the date of the adverse decision involved and the response. In any request for clarification, the AOJ will explain that if a response to this request is not received within the time period described in paragraph (c) of this section, the earlier, unclear communication will not be considered an NOD as to any adverse decision for which clarification was requested.(2) For written contacts, VA will mail a letter requesting clarification to the claimant and send a copy to his or her representative and fiduciary, if any.(c) Response required from claimant—(1) Time to respond. The claimant must respond to the AOJ's request for clarification within the later of the following dates:(i) 60 days after the date of the AOJ's clarification request; or(ii) One year after the date of mailing of notice of the adverse decision being appealed (60 days for simultaneously contested claims).(2) Failure to respond. If the claimant fails to provide a timely response, the previous communication from the claimant will not be considered an NOD as to any claim for which clarification was requested. The AOJ will not consider the claimant to have appealed the decision(s) on any claim(s) as to which clarification was requested and not received.(d) Action following clarification. When clarification of the claimant's intent to file an NOD is obtained, the AOJ will reexamine the claim and determine whether additional review or development is warranted. If no further review or development is required, or after necessary review or development is completed, the AOJ will prepare a Statement of the Case pursuant to § 19.29 unless the disagreement is resolved by a grant of the benefit(s) sought on appeal or the NOD is withdrawn by the claimant.(e) Representatives and fiduciaries. For the purpose of the requirements in paragraphs (b) through (d) of this section, references to the “claimant” include reference to the claimant or his or her representative, if any, or to his or her fiduciary, if any, as appropriate.(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 501, 7105, 7105A)(The Office of Management and Budget has approved the information collection requirements in this section under control number 2900-0674)
[71 FR 56871, Sept. 28, 2006] One thing in Part 19 you will not find is any reference to "reconsideration". § 19.27 discusses it somewhat further but again, never uses the term "reconsideration" § 19.27 Adequacy of Notice of Disagreement questioned within the agency of original jurisdiction.If, after following the procedures set forth in 38 CFR 19.26, there remains within the agency of original jurisdiction a conflict of opinion or a question pertaining to a claim regarding whether a written communication expresses an intent to appeal or as to which denied claims a claimant wants to appeal, the procedures for an administrative appeal, as set forth in 38 CFR 19.50-19.53, must be followed.§ 19.50 discusses Administrative appeals but again the elusive word  reconsideration is not mentioned.§ 19.50 Nature and form of administrative appeal.(a) General. An administrative appeal from an agency of original jurisdiction determination is an appeal taken by an official of the Department of Veterans Affairs authorized to do so to resolve a conflict of opinion or a question pertaining to a claim involving benefits under laws administered by the Department of Veterans Affairs. Such appeals may be taken not only from determinations involving dissenting opinions, but also from unanimous determinations denying or allowing the benefit claimed in whole or in part.(b) Form of Appeal. An administrative appeal is entered by a memorandum entitled “Administrative Appeal” in which the issues and the basis for the appeal are set forth.(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 7106) The long and the short of it is simple. VAROs are under the gun to rid themselves of the backlog and have set the end of 2015 to reach it. If you file for a mythical reconsideration at the RO without filing a NOD, you are at risk of "timing out" on the one-year suspense date for your NOD as the above BVA decision I cited to shows. You are also at the mercy of brain dead raters who can't comprehend what it is you desire. In the new World of VA, certain documents are now "action documents". I refer to the 21-0958 NOD. Sending in a 4138 to protest on is not going to evoke much of a response. If the claim were still in its infancy and being developed-yes. It would be added to the "evidence for" pile hopefully.  If you were going to employ this tactic, I would suggest you do so under the tutelege of an attorney who is in constant contact with your rater on a fairly regular basis. In the alternative, I would visit the RO and present the reconsideration request verbally, as well as in writing, to the rater personally. If the idea is to motivate VA to change the decision in your favor, you have to be hands on and proactive. Simply sending in a request for a recon is not going to elicit what you hope for. If that were the case, the myriad requests and endless reams of paperwork I sent them to reconsider my case would have been addressed somewhere between April 1994 and February 2015.  I think reconsiderations could be a valuable tool but absent any legal mechanism to describe their existence and parameters, they appear to be somewhat nebulous. I work with laws and regulations. Merely stating that a reconsideration process exists at the AOJ level without a regulation to support its existence is disingenuous. I cannot argue the existence (or absence) if I cannot cite to it. In the context of sending in new and material evidence to provoke a reconsideration following a denial, the path is well known and used frequently by attorneys. However, they sit on it like a mother hen and push hard. Most are employed where financial/medical hardship exists and there is a concerted effort to resolve the claim promptly at the local level. VSOs do not do this as a rule. Again, with the backlog, the chances of it be reviewed de novo in that suspense window of one year following denial is a problem. What good is an adjudicative tool if it has a hand grenade attached to it?   If I had a dollar for every erroneous piece of advice VA handed me, I'd be filthy rich. The best was when I won in 2008. The rater called me up to tell me I was now 100%. Since I was, why should I pursue any additional claims to get my rating higher? The 100% ceiling had been reached and there simply was no more money to be had, right? He never mentioned SMC S. VA law also says that if you depend on VA legal advice to your detriment and are substantially harmed, you have no recourse for remuneration. That's why we are allowed VSOs and attorneys to protect and advise us. So, in summary, if you file a request for reconsideration and VA fails to act on it within the year of the denial, your claim is final and closed for failure to file a NOD. Game, set and match. Looks pretty nonadversarial and Veteran-friendly to me. 

Helm v. McDonald is not on point. Mr. Helm lost at the BVA in 2002. In 2013, eleven years later, he opted to file a Motion for Reconsideration (MFR) to the BVA to revise the 2002 decision. They declined to do so. He then filed a Notice of Appeal (NOA) to the CAVC within the 120-day window of said MFR refusal. The problem is glaringly obvious. The law says you have 120 days to file the NOA following a denial at the BVA. Assuming, arguendo, that Mr. Helm had filed his NOA following a refusal to grant a MFR in 2002, he would have preserved his right to an appeal at the Court. You cannot come back at some distant time in the future and expect equitable tolling for a Notice of Appeal you never filed in a timely matter-or at all- within that 120-day window in 2002.
There simply is no case law on MFRs at the Agency of Jurisdiction. The path exists, but only at the BVA, Granted, you can come back anytime, much like a CUE filing, and ask for the MFR at the BVA. There is no statute of limitations on asking for a MFR. MFR grants are also about as rare as hen's teeth. The window of opportunity at the CAVC is carved in stone and absent a really good "the dog ate my homework" story, you still have to exercise the right within 120 days of the BVA declining to grant a MFR. 

For your information:
https://asknod.wordpress.com/2015/10/23/varo-requests-for-reconsideration/

VA graced me with my claims file today. I requested it back in the fall of 2014. Not bad for VA, huh?

38 CFR 3.350(i)(1)(2) or 38 USC 1114(s)(1)(2).