Jump to content

mbl22885

Second Class Petty Officers
  • Content Count

    67
  • Donations

    $0.00 
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

5 Neutral

1 Follower

About mbl22885

  • Rank
    E-4 Petty Officer 3rd Class

Previous Fields

  • Service Connected Disability
    0
  • Branch of Service
    Air Force

Recent Profile Visitors

867 profile views
  1. I applied for and was approved for SMC L in 2015. I also applied for and was denied entry into the post 9/11 caregiver program in 2015. I'm aware of the 2 year statue of limitations, but I have circumstances that would allow for an argument that would allow for an argument that I wasn't aware until recently. I know that this is kind of light on details, but I'm not exactly sure what to put and how to proceed. Is a denial over entry into a caregiver program potential grounds for a FTCA lawsuit though?
  2. https://cck-law.com/news/special-monthly-compensation-explained/ http://www.militarydisabilitymadeeasy.com/specialmonthlycompensation.html Both of the above claim a veteran is entitled to R1 when I tried looking in the m21 and the CFR, and I couldn’t find anything to back this up. Has anyone ever heard of someone qualifying for R1 based on the above or know if there’s something I’m missing in the m21 and CFR? Thank you in advance. PS I called the law firm and an attorney is supposed to call me back.
  3. https://cck-law.com/news/special-monthly-compensation-explained/ http://www.militarydisabilitymadeeasy.com/specialmonthlycompensation.html Both of the above claim a veteran is entitled to R1 when I tried looking in the m21 and the CFR, and I couldn’t find anything to back this up. Has anyone ever heard of someone qualifying for R1 based on the above or know if there’s something I’m missing in the m21 and CFR? Thank you in advance. PS I called the law firm and an attorney is supposed to call me back.
  4. I currently have a 40% rating for Fibromyalgia that was initially rated as scheduler. All I know is that the QRT for my jurisdictional VARO did a full claims review on my file and the Fibromyalgia changed to permanent. The only reason I know this is an inquiry team member had called me about an unrelated issue and offhandedly mentioned it to me. I did an ebenefits chat session so as to preserve all of this in a pdf. I know this is to my benefit, but aren't they supposed to inform me of the change in some official big envelope way?
  5. Decision turned out okay, but definitely not what I wanted. I've done everything to this point and the toll ends up effecting my family. Does anyone know of a good lawyer that has extensive experience when it comes to CUE and SMC?
  6. Copy that. WWP was representing me, but they pulled out on me right at the end. Even had their National Service Director arguing with me via e-mail on a Friday night for 3 hours. I'm the son of a Vietnam Vet who had a VSO who is the son of a WW 2 Vet that had I don't even know what. Can't really let the WWP ditching me at the last second go, you know?
  7. I have a weird situation involving a couple of CUE claims . Right now the claim is at preparation for notification, but when it was pending decision approval , all of a sudden I had two separate SMC L ratings. The two separate SMC L ratings are still showing with the claim at preparation for notification. Should I be getting really happy or is this some kind of glitch most likely?
  8. My entire claims history is currently being reviewed by the St. Pete VARO Quality Review Team. Not quite sure what to make of that.
  9. john999, The SAH/SHA grant is basically dependent on loss of OR loss of use in the extremities. I faced the same problem you did, which was/is the VA not recognizing pain,fatigue,weakness, etc as loss of use. Per the information contained in the picture above, the VA is required to recognize the symptoms we experience with our conditions as functional loss (i.e. loss of use.) If you still have the decision letter concerning your claim for a housing grant, I'd suggest you check it to make sure they didn't apply the above pictured information to your claim. If they didn't, you have a CUE claim. You have a CUE concerning the decision regarding your claim for a housing grant as it's a pretty safe bet that whoever made your determination did not consider the info above when making your decision. If you have a VSO, they're probably not going to be able, or willing, to help you. I'm not sure on how to properly file a CUE claim at the Regional Office level, but hopefully someone with experience with that will chime in. The Directors Office phone # for the St. Pete VARO is 727-319-5900. I would call them and tell them your situation, as well as that you understand according to "The provisions of 38 CFR 4.40 and 4.45 concerning functional loss due to pain, fatigue, weakness, or lack of endurance, incooordination, and flare-ups, as cited in Deluca v. Brown and Mitchell v. Shinseki" your housing grant claim was decided in error due to the rater of your housing grant not considering and applying the above under 38 CFR 4.59.
  10. I ran into a number of problems related to recent claims filed and ended up reaching out to my RO. Someone from their inquiry team responded with the following. I've actually had interactions with him before (he is a former rater) and he was extremely helpful (including in this instance), and two claims showed up on ebenefits as reopens for an earlier effective date for SMC L and SHA. The claim for an earlier effective date for SMC L was cancelled on 09/27/17 and now shows as this on ebenefits . Beyond the cancellation, they changed the "disabilities claimed" to "Claim for P&T status." This is from another e-mail sent by the St. Pete VARO Inquiry Team member. As it was explained to me, in essence the CUE claim changed from an earlier effective date for SMC L to a request for permanent and total status, which makes no sense as I already am permanent and total regarding this disability, and as the correspondence from the VA Inquiry Team member shows, there was never a legal or valid CUE claim filed for anything related to my permanent and total status. I know the claim was cancelled due to speaking to a number of VA employees, to include someone from my VA District Office. I was able to send her the conversations with the St. Pete Inquiry Team member showing how CUEs were filed on my behalf by said St. Pete Inquiry Team member who has previously worked as a rater. She was as perplexed as I was, noted the situation was "weird," and commented on how if a RO decides to take an action like a cancellation they are required to provide a note/summary explaining the action to the District Office, which the St. Petersburg VARO had not done. She said she was sending them a note with a deadline of October 2nd to provide a response explaining the actions taken and that someone from the RO was to call me. She also noted that there was nothing in her system that she could see that showed the CUE claim as being one for an earlier effective date for SMC L. I have a VSO, but they haven proven to be less than effective when it comes to most things. I've actually received responses from the Regional Office before they have. I even had someone from the VSO District Office contact me yesterday to tell me this situation was "normal." They've repeatedly given me false information on a number of things as well. I'm only putting this here in hopes of avoiding the "What does your VSO say" or "You need to get a VSO" posts. Any advice? Previous experience with a similar issue?
  11. Ebennies. I haven't really looked into va stuff hardcore in a while and I'm honestly beat down most days that I couldn't dedicate the time and energy to go hardcore again, but I knew about the vas duty to infer and the m-21 letter jumble it falls under. So I started ebenefits chats and iris inquiries seeking info and got the bs answers you'd expect. Then I'd save the conversations as PDF files and submit them as part of my claim and say "the va is obligated by law to assist veterans in claims and these are the resources we are provided." Eventually (and not easily) I found the updated m-21 word jumble for the vas duty to infer, and it was basically the same thing as before except they had removed "duty to infer" and replaced it with "issues within scope." And it's legalise, but it's legalise that's incredibly favorable for veterans. One of the main favorable things is that the va is supposed to give the available evidence a "sympathetic reading," and the VA hardly ever applies any of this. And the VSOS know this. It's why they tell vets who get to 100% scheduler to not try for more. So I raised hell with whoever I could think of. State senator, WWP and IAVA, Presidential Veteran complaint line, direct e-mail to the president, and so on.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

{terms] and Guidelines