paulcolrain

I have had one from Dr. Anaise....very well written and quick turnaround (2 weeks tops).

@Tbird I understand your point but why do every time I post information on here
they think I am lying or every time its another point or seems negative to your Moderator
its a problem and they answer all questions? Does anyone else have a chance to answer
or give their experience for filing claims and the short cuts to claims

PC, a somewhat difficult read, however; the Remand was very interesting educational. Whatever did you use to attach the SSOC, a real pain.? Pdf's are much easier to open and read.
The Medical Evidence that was either lacking or missing in the RO Certified Appeal, that the BVA Judge addressed in the Remand was very educational, regardless of the continued Denial.
What did your American Legion Rep say regarding the SSOC dated 02/24/2018? You're now well past the "30 day" Appeal period of the SSOC Decision, correct. The EED Denial appears substantiated by your Medical Symptomology EOR as stated in the SSOC.
It's been awhile, am I correct in the following? You're 80% SC trying to get to 100% CSC with Increases to your bi-lateral Radicular SC and an EED back to the original Claim Date in 2004? You've never filed for,  nor been Denied IU?

The top of Page 9 of the BVA decision says they awarded 100% Nov 29, 2014 for the psychiatric disability.
 "I am super grateful for the huge retro payment, but feel it's a lowball because I think they should have also granted IU as I was awarded ssdi 5 months prior to the 2003 va denial, solely on my service connected disabilities.  Anyway, here's my BVA grant, "
I don't get the TDIU-70% either.
Also I did not see in the BVA decision any mention of any SSA award.
If the VA never received notice of this award , they did not have to consider it.
Are you able to scan the recent  decision from the RO ,that explains the retro, and attach it here? (cover C file # name prior to scanning it) (maybe the $$$ hit the bank before that letter has arrived)
Something does seem odd here---an SSA award solely for service connected conditions, should usually garner 100% SC- and the BVA award does state the 100%.........
BY THE WAY:
" This was won because I overcame presumption of regularity, VA did not inform me of rating denial back in 2003."
You had quite a victory on that!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I commend you for doing all you could to get this rectified, while dealing with so much personally.
And we sure never see many vets who succeed on Presumption of Regularity.
Your BVA case should help other vets if they have the same problems you had.
Thanks for attaching it here!
Did you ever formally file for TDIU?
I know that is an odd question, because they don't award TDIU without a claim for it- but something is wrong here---
Yet, as long as the cash is correct -something you need to check over,-maybe their recent retro award will make some sense.
Copngrats-you did an exemplary job on all of this!
 
 
 

SO MIAN POINT WAS ,,, DO NOT DO A DRO REVIEW IF YOUR SERVICE VET REP SAYS GO FOR APPEAL.  THIS IS REAL BIG.... THIS MEANS IM SAYING TO ALL VETS TO SKATE  OUT OF THE DRO REVIEW ... NOW,,, IF SOMEONE TOLD YOU THAT YOU CAN WIN WITH THE DRO THEN OK BUT,,,, YOU ARE ONLY SMART TO TO SIGN THE I9 PUSHING IT TO BOARD OF VETERANS APPEALS., REASON IS,,,, ONCE YOU DO THAT THE RO WILL SAY OH xxxx,,,, THEN THEY WILL PUSH FOR ALL OF TYPES OF HEARINGS BUT AT SAME TIME KEEP YOUR PLACE ON DOCKET. SO,, SAY F-U TO DRO REVIEW THEN FILE YOUR FORM 9 AND LET THE RO DEAL WITH YOU AS YOU ASK FOR A PRINT OUT OF YOUR SUBSTANTIATED APPEAL. THIS WORKS FOLKS.. THATS WHY IM SAYING IT... THE ABSOLUTE MAIN POINT FOR BEGINERS IS THAT YOU REALLY WANT YOUR DOCKET NUMBER NOT YOUR DRO REVIEW. IM JUST TRYING TO HELP.!

Call this number before they shutdown on 9/11 since they were helping to many vets.202-530-9470 let us know why its been taking this long and what they recommended.

Call 800-827-1000 (Peggy). Get them to initiate a reconsideration based on the information that was contained in the record when they processed your claim.
You can get a reconsideration. Its in the law now, so its legit. Fill out a VBA-21-4138-ARE form. Detail the exact nature of the dispute, include references to all info that the rating official had when they processed your claim. If there is new information that supports that information, include it as attachment and upload it all into EBenefits. It took mine 4 months. My case was dealing with lumbar spine and neuropathy of both legs. They low-balled my left leg. I documented references to the severity of the condition, and noted that according to the USC and CFR, that my leg should be rated 40% and not 10%. They gave me the 40%. 
Notice that you have 12 months to appeal. Don't wait to long if you want to appeal because if they dont process this fast enough, it will eat away that year so stay alert.

get the appeal going with the BVA
take some time and get some money together for a good IMO
be ready to hand the new IMO to judge.
file for hardship advancement on docket if you can..

I hate cameras.
 
 
***update***
My attorney is going to pull the DRO hearing request, stating the results at the St. Pete VARO haven't been so good.
Going to request a SOC to be issued so the form to get me in the BVA waiting line can be filed.
Happy my attorney is going this route.

Thanks, Paul.  This is good advice.  

UNITED STATES COURT OF VETERANS APPEALS
No. 94-242
Guido DeLuca, Appellant,
v.
Jesse Brown,
Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Appellee.
On Appeal from the Board of Veterans' Appeals
(Argued July 31, 1995 Decided September 22, 1995 )
Susan Paczak for the appellant.
Amy S. Gordon, with whom Mary Lou Keener, General Counsel; Norman G. Cooper, Assistant General Counsel; and Adrienne Koerber, Deputy Assistant General Counsel, were on the brief, for the appellee.
Before NEBEKER, Chief Judge, and KRAMER and STEINBERG, Judges.
STEINBERG, Judge: The appellant, Korean conflict veteran Guido DeLuca, appeals an October 28, 1993, Board of Veterans' Appeals (BVA or Board) decision denying entitlement to an increased disability rating for a left-shoulder disorder, currently evaluated as 20% disabling. Record (R.) at 9. Both parties filed briefs. This is the second time this case has been before the Court. The BVA decision currently here on appeal was issued pursuant to a May 1993 Court decision vacating a June 1991 Board decision and remanding the matter. For the reasons that follow, the Court will vacate the October 1993 Board decision and remand the matter again.
I. Background
The veteran served on active duty in the U.S. Army from October 1952 to October 1954. R. at 51. He asserts that his entire left side, including his shoulder, was injured "when a shell exploded near him" during service. Brief (Br.) at 7; see also R. at 100-01. A service medical record (SMR) dated July 1954 records the veteran's complaint of "shrapnel" in his foot (R. at 38), but there is no diagnosis of or treatment for a shrapnel injury noted in his SMRs (see R. at 23-51, 100, 107, 144). In March 1984, the BVA recommended that service connection be awarded administratively by the Veterans' Administration (now Department of Veterans Affairs) (VA) for "arthralgia of the left shoulder". R. at 145. ("Arthralgia" is "pain in a joint", Dorland's Illustrated Medical Dictionary 147 (27th ed. 1988).) A February 1985 VA regional office (RO) decision granted service connection for left-shoulder arthralgia, effective from February 1982, rated 0% disabling. In an April 1987 decision, the Board granted entitlement to a 10% disability rating for left-shoulder arthralgia, effective from February 1982. R. at 206, 208.
A private orthopedist, Dr. Levine, in a March 1989 medical report, noted an impression of "scapulothoracic bursitis, left arm", and found the patient to be "totally asymptomatic" at that time. R. at 255. The veteran also submitted an April 1989 statement from a private physician, Dr. Scherer, who stated that when he had evaluated the veteran in September 1988 "he was having constant throbbing pain [and] was unable to raise his left arm above his head and in fact he could only abduct his arm at 45ø from the body"; the physician further noted that "it is going to be a chronic problem and it does tend to flare [up] at times although he will have some good days." R. at 212.
A June 1989 VA medical examination report diagnosed a "[f]rozen [l]eft shoulder" and "arthritis [of the] cervical spine (C 5-7)". R. at 218. An April 1990 VA medical examination report noted that left-shoulder abduction was 50ø, anterior extension was 40ø, posterior extension was 35ø, and internal rotation was "only slightly limited". R. at 246. The "impression" was "frozen shoulder syndrome on the non-dominant side with some degree of psychogenic overlay" and that "restricted mobility . . . was in part due to voluntary guarding." R. at 247. A June 1990 VARO decision increased the left-shoulder rating to 20% disabling, effective May 1989. The BVA denied a further increase in the rating in a June 6, 1991, decision (R. at 312), and the veteran appealed to this Court.
In May 1993, the Court issued a memorandum decision vacating the June 1991 BVA decision and remanding the matter for "prompt further readjudication, consistent with this decision, on the basis of all evidence and material of record and all applicable law and regulation". DeLuca v. Brown, 6 Vet.App. 321 (1993) (mem. dec.). The Court ordered the Board to consider the application of 38 C.F.R. § 4.40 regarding functional loss due to pain; 38 C.F.R. § 4.45 regarding weakness, fatigability, incoordination, or pain on movement of a joint; and the Court's decisions in Schafrath v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 589 (1991), and Ferraro v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 326 (1991).
The October 1993 BVA decision currently here on appeal was issued pursuant to the Court's May 1993 memorandum decision. The record does not indicate that the BVA undertook any further factual development on remand, or that the veteran submitted additional evidence or comment. The BVA determined that §§ 4.40 and 4.45 did not provide for an increased rating for the veteran's left-shoulder disability because that disability had been rated under 38 C.F.R. § 4.71, Diagnostic Code (DC) 5201, which "contemplates the functional loss resulting from pain on undertaking motion." R. at 12. The BVA further determined that § 4.45 did not provide for an increased rating in the instant case because "[w]eakened movement and excess fatigability usually are associated with muscle injury"; because "ncoordination is usually associated with disease or injury affecting the peripheral nerves"; and because this veteran's disability was not associated with "nerve injury" or "muscle injury, as such, to the left shoulder girdle". R. at 12-13.
II. Analysis
A. 38 C.F.R. § 4.40
In its October 1993 decision, the BVA cited DC 5201, which provides the following disability ratings for limitation of motion of the minor arm:
To 25ø from side . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30%
Midway between side and shoulder level . . . . 20%
At shoulder level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20%
38 C.F.R. § 4.71, DC 5201 (1994). The Board found that no increase was warranted in the veteran's 20% disability rating because the April 1990 VA examination report had indicated that his left-shoulder anterior extension was 40ø and abduction was 50ø and these motion ranges more closely approximated the 45ø which constitutes motion to "[m]idway between side and shoulder level" than they did the motion range to 25ø required for a 30% rating. R. at 10-11; see 38 C.F.R. § 4.7 (1994) ("Where there is a question as to which of two evaluations shall be applied, the higher evaluation will be assigned if the disability picture more nearly approximates the criteria required for that rating. Otherwise, the lower rating will be assigned.").
The regulation for musculoskeletal-system functional loss in § 4.40 provides:
Disability of the musculoskeletal system is primarily the inability, due to damage or infection in parts of the system, to perform the normal working movements of the body with normal excursion, strength, speed, coordination and endurance. It is essential that the examination on which ratings are based adequately portray the anatomical damage, and the functional loss, with respect to all these elements. The functional loss may be due to absence of part, or all, of the necessary bones, joints and muscles, or associated structures, or to deformity, adhesions, defective innervation, or other pathology, or it may be due to pain, supported by adequate pathology and evidenced by the visible behavior of the claimant undertaking the motion. Weakness is as important as limitation of motion, and a part which becomes painful on use must be regarded as seriously disabled. A little used part of the musculoskeletal system may be expected to show evidence of disuse, either through atrophy, the condition of the skin, absence of normal callosity[,] or the like.
38 C.F.R. § 4.40 (1994) (emphasis added). The BVA stated that it was not necessary to rate the veteran's pain separately under § 4.40 in the instant case because "where a diagnostic code, such as 5201, provides a compensable rating for limitation of motion of a major joint, that compensable rating contemplates the functional loss resulting from pain on undertaking motion" (R at 11-12), and thus, the Secretary concludes, the Board did apply § 4.40 sufficiently (Br. at 10). In support of its conclusion, the Board cited 38 C.F.R. § 4.14, "Avoidance of pyramiding", which provides:
The evaluation of the same disability under various diagnoses is to be avoided. Disability from injuries to the muscles, nerves, and joints of an extremity may overlap to a great extent, so that special rules are included in the appropriate bodily system for their evaluation. Dyspnea, tachycardia, nervousness, fatigability, etc., may result from many causes; some may be service connected, others, not. Both the use of manifestations not resulting from service-connected disease or injury in establishing the service-connected evaluation, and the evaluation of the same manifestation under different diagnoses are to be avoided.
38 C.F.R. § 4.14 (1994).
The Board's and the Secretary's interpretation is that, because pain can cause limitation of motion, any regulation that specifies a rating for limitation of motion ipso facto includes a rating for pain, and thus the application of _ 4.40 in the instant case would constitute pyramiding of ratings. The Secretary asserts that, although "the BVA may have been overbroad in its discussion regarding [DCs] involving limitation of motion", the Board was nevertheless correct in its assertion that pain was considered in rating the veteran in this particular case. Br. at 10. The Secretary cites the April 1990 VA medical examination report which noted that the veteran's range of motion was affected by "voluntary guarding" (R. at 247), and argues that, "[c]onsequently", the veteran's "pain was considered in determining the appropriate evaluation for his disability". Br. at 10. In fact, the Board stated specifically:
In the present case, the veteran's complaints of pain have been considered . . . . We note that the examiner indicated that the veteran's range of motion was limited by guarding. Thus, the presence of or anticipation of pain in the left shoulder prevented the veteran from attaining fuller range of motion than demonstrated on examination. The veteran's current award is based, in part, on his left shoulder pain which inhibits left shoulder motion.
R. at 12.
Range of motion undoubtedly can be affected by pain in certain situations, and a limitation of motion due to pain might indeed be reflected in a rating under DC 5201. However, _ 4.40 specifically refers to disability due to lack of normal "endurance", provides for a rating to be based on "functional loss . . . due to . . . pain", and states that "a part which becomes painful on use must be regarded as seriously disabled" (emphasis added). Furthermore, _ 4.40 provides that "t is essential that the [rating] examination . . . adequately portray the . . . functional loss" (emphasis added). The veteran has testified under oath that his arm becomes painful on use during the winter months and causes him to miss work (R. at 14, 235-36), and there is medical evidence that his shoulder condition will flare up at times (R. at 212).
The April 1990 VA examination relied upon by the BVA merely recorded the veteran's range of motion at that time, and did not indicate consideration of the factors cited in _ 4.40, and required by _ 4.40 to be considered and portrayed in the rating examination, as to functional loss on use or due to flare-ups. See Voyles v. Brown, 5 Vet.App. 451, 453 (1993) (Board decision "specifically noted the limitation of motion" but "failed to make any findings as to the extent of the appellant's pain on motion" pursuant to __ 4.40 and 4.45 (emphasis added)); see also Ferraro, 1 Vet.App. at 330. When a medical examination report "does not contain sufficient detail", the adjudicator is required to "return the report as inadequate for evaluation purposes." 38 C.F.R. § 4.2 (1994); see also Bierman v. Brown, 6 Vet.App. 125, 129 (1994) (medical examiner must "furnish[], in addition to the etiological, anatomical, pathological, laboratory[,] and prognostic data required for ordinary medical classification, full description of the effects of disability upon the person's ordinary activity") (quoting 38 C.F.R. § .10 (1994)); Schafrath, 1 Vet.App. at 595. Accordingly, the case must be remanded for the Board to obtain a new medical examination which complies with the requirements of §4.40, and the medical examiner must be asked to express an opinion on whether pain could significantly limit functional ability during flare-ups or when the arm is used repeatedly over a period of time. See Voyles, 5 Vet.App. at 454. Because DC 5201 provides for a rating solely on the basis of loss of range of motion, these determinations should, if feasible, be "portray[ed]" (§4.40) in terms of the degree of additional range-of-motion loss due to pain on use or during flare-ups. Cf. Lathan v. Brown, 7 Vet.App. 359, 367 (1995) (in ordering medical opinion on remand in dependency and indemnity compensation case, VA should "consider the feasibility of requesting that the physician express in percentage terms the probability that the veteran's service-connected disability caused or contributed to death").
The Court holds that DC 5201 does not subsume 38 C.F.R. §4.40, and that 38 C.F.R. § 4.14 does not forbid consideration of a higher rating based on a greater limitation of motion due to pain on use including during flare-ups. See Schafrath, 1 Vet.App. at 592-93 (holding that BVA's failure to consider § 4.40 was improper when that regulation had been made potentially applicable through assertions and issues raised in record); see also Quarles v. Derwinski, 3 Vet.App. 129, 139-40 (1992).
B. 38 C.F.R. § 4.45
The Court's May 1993 memorandum decision noted that 38 C.F.R. § 4.45 "provides that in rating disabilities of joints, `inquiry will be directed to' `[w]eakened movement', `[e]xcess fatigability', `ncoordination', and `[p]ain on movement', in addition to limitation of motion." DeLuca, 6 Vet.App. at 324. The October 1993 BVA decision declined to apply _ 4.45 in the instant case on the grounds that "[w]eakened movement and excess fatigability usually are associated with muscle injury" and "ncoordination . . . is usually associated with disease or injury affecting the peripheral nerves of the upper extremity", whereas the veteran's left-shoulder condition "has never been associated with muscle injury as such" and there was no "nerve injury". R. at 12-13. The Secretary adopted this argument. See Br. at 11. The Board cited the report from Dr. Levine, which stated that no significant atrophy of the left-shoulder girdle was found, and the 1990 VA medical report, which "described no weakness of movement or excess fatigability of the left shoulder girdle musculature." R. at 13. However, the 1990 VA medical report did not specify that there was no weakness of movement or excess fatigability of the left shoulder girdle musculature; it did not address these issues. R. at 245-47.
The Board's reading of _ 4.45 cannot be sustained. The plain language of _ 4.45 indicates that "[w]eakened movement", "[e]xcess fatigability", and "ncoordination" do not refer solely to muscle and nerve conditions. First, the title of the regulation is "The joints", not "The muscles" or "The nerves". Cf. 38 C.F.R. § 4.50 ("Muscle injuries"); 38 C.F.R. § 4.51 ("Muscle weakness"); 38 C.F.R. § 4.52 ("Muscle damage"); 38 C.F.R. § 4.53 ("Muscle patterns"); and 38 C.F.R. § 4.54 ("Muscle groups"). Second, the first sentence of the regulation refers to the "factors of disability" of "the joints", and does not refer to muscles or nerves. Third, the parenthetical in paragraph © following "[w]eakened movement" refers to "muscle injury, disease or injury of peripheral nerves, divided or lengthened tendons, etc.". If "weakened movement" were intended to refer exclusively to muscle or nerve disability, the regulation would not mention "tendons" and would not say "etc.". The purpose of the list is to indicate that muscle and nerve disabilities are merely two of the factors that should be considered. Fourth, paragraphs (d) and (e), while referring to "[e]xcess fatigability" and "ncoordination", do not limit their application to muscles or nerves. Accordingly, VA's interpretation of its regulation, even if that interpretation predated this litigation, see Tallman v. Brown, 7 Vet.App. 453, 463-65 (1995), is in conflict with the plain meaning of the regulation and therefore entitled to no deference. See Combee v. Principi, 4 Vet.App. 78, 91 (1993) (administrative agency's interpretation of regulation may be entitled to deference where meaning is unclear and interpretation "sensibly conforms to the purpose and wording of the regulations") (quoting Martin v. Occupational Health and Safety Review Comm'n, 499 U.S. 144, 151 (1991)), rev'd on other grounds sub nom. Combee v. Brown, 34 F.3d 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1994); Combee v. Brown, 5 Vet.App. 248, 257 (1993) (Steinberg, J., dissenting) (agency interpretation of regulation is not entitled to deference if inherently unreasonable).
Additionally, the medical records in this case do not expressly establish that there is no involvement of muscles or nerves in the veteran's disability. Therefore, it was error for the Board to so conclude based on its own medical judgment. See Colvin v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 171, 175 (1991) ("BVA panels may consider only independent medical evidence to support their findings" and may not "refut[e] the expert medical conclusions in the record with [their] own unsubstantiated medical conclusions").
Consequently, in the examination ordered on remand, the medical examiner should be asked to determine whether the left-shoulder joint exhibits weakened movement, excess fatigability, or incoordination, and such inquiry should not be limited to muscles or nerves. See Bierman, supra. As noted above, these determinations should, if feasible, be expressed in terms of the degree of additional range-of-motion loss due to any weakened movement, excess fatigability, or incoordination. Cf. Lathan, supra. (The Court notes that an evaluation of "pain on movement" pursuant to _ 4.45 would seem in this case to be duplicative of the _ 4.40 requirement that pain on use must be evaluated.)
C. Applicability of Schafrath v. Derwinski
The Court's May 1993 decision directed the BVA to consider Schafrath, supra. The Board decision attempted to distinguish Schafrath by stating that in that case the veteran had complaints of pain for which he was not being compensated because he had a noncompensable rating, whereas in the instant case the veteran is being compensated by his current 20% rating for his disability due to pain. The Secretary adopted this argument. See Br. at 13. In light of the Court's holding that DC 5201 does not subsume 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.40 and 4.45, the Board's conclusion is flawed. See Quarles, supra. On remand, the Board must consider the application of Schafrath, Quarles, and Ferraro, all supra, to the veteran's claim.
D. Reasons or Bases
The Court stated in its May 1993 decision that "[d]etermination of whether the application of sections 4.40 and 4.45 entitles the veteran to an increased rating requires factual findings as to the extent to which the veteran's left-shoulder pain and weakness cause additional disability beyond that reflected in the measured limitation of his left-shoulder motion." DeLuca, supra. The Board's statement of the reasons or bases for its October 1993 decision was not adequate under 38 U.S.C. § 7104(d)(1). The Board did not explain how pain on use was factored into its evaluation of the veteran's disability in terms of limitation-of-motion equivalency under DC 5201. For example, the Board found that the veteran's testimony was credible that in the winter months his shoulder condition caused him to miss "2 or 3 days of work a week". R. at 14. Yet, the Board did not explain how this impairment of the veteran's employment was evaluated under DC 5201 and § 4.40. Cf. 38 C.F.R. § 4.10 ("basis of disability evaluations is the ability . . . to function under the ordinary conditions of daily life including employment"; medical examination must furnish "full description of the effects of disability upon the person's ordinary activity. . . ; person may be too disabled to engage in employment although he or she is up and about and fairly comfortable at home or upon limited activity") (emphasis added).
III. Conclusion
Upon consideration of the record and the submissions and arguments of the parties, the Court vacates the October 28, 1993, BVA decision and remands the matter for expeditious further proceedings, on the basis of all applicable law and regulation, and issuance of a readjudicated decision supported by an adequate statement of reasons or bases, see 38 U.S.C. §§ 1310, 5107(a), 7104(d)(1), 7261; 38 C.F.R. § 4.71a; Fletcher v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 394, 397 (1991) -- all consistent with this opinion and in accordance with section 302 of the Veterans' Benefits Improvements Act, Pub. L. No. 103-446, § 302, 108 Stat. 4645, 4658 (1994) (found at 38 U.S.C. § 5101 note) (requiring Secretary to provide for "expeditious treatment" for claims "remanded" by BVA or the Court). See Mason v. Brown, __ Vet.App. __, __, No. 93-1111, slip op. at 25-26 (June 26, 1995). On remand, the appellant will be free to submit additional evidence and argument on the remanded claim, and the Secretary will be free to seek further development. See Quarles, 3 Vet.App. at 141. A final decision by the Board following the remand herein ordered will constitute a new decision which, if adverse, may be appealed to this Court only upon the filing of a new Notice of Appeal with the Court not later than 120 days after the date on which notice of the new Board final decision is mailed to the appellant.
VACATED AND REMANDED.

bronco you have been there for me in all the questions i have needed so,,, i by no means am an expert but ive spent last 7 years looking at past bva decisions regarding eed. and i think ours are similar.
look at this post i got
when are you NOT in appeal status?
 
the reason i say look at is because,,, in 2004 they couldnt find any at all STRs... then all of a sudden they found them in 2009.... my latest bva award gave me back till 2004 but the ro still insitsts 2009 cus in there records it shows i claimed reopen/ increase.... i never did.... they just found records then awarded and any correspondence i gave to them after was recorded as wanting increase not recorded as argument for initial grant of service. dont forget the concept of KISS.....( KEEP IT SIMPLE STUPID) LOOK INTO YOUR RECORDS AND FIND THE ANSWER...

If you currently have an actual Medical Condition that has worsened and that has previously been Rated by the VA as SC @ 0%, it's certainly time for you to file an FDC for an SC Increase.
Per VA Regs, filing for an Increase of an existing SC condition regardless of the original Award date puts a possible "Inferred IU Claim" on the table.
If and when you care to, how about the back story about how you think the VA Screwed you over?
The Corps 10% MH Discharge doesn't automatically translate to a VA 38 CFR 4 Rating Schedule of 10%. If you have a VA SC 0% Award, there has to be a C-File record containing the Award and the "EOR" (Evidence of Record) that was used to make the SC 0% Decision.
Semper Fi

The important thing is that you have documentation of all of this.   My advice, since it sounds like you are currently "zero percent" service connected, would be to apply again for that disability in the letter and any other disabilities that you think are service connected.    
If awarded, then you could seek an earlier effective date by appealing the effective date back to 1988.  I cant speak for 1988, but nowadays, the VA has a particular order.  They award Service connection, then disabiity percentage and last is the effective date.    I really dont think you will likely get back pay any other way.  The VA does not have good records NOW, let alone back in 1989, and nothing usually happens unless its documented.  
There may be a stautute of limitations here.  If someone owed you money in 1989, then you should ask for that money then, and not in 2017.  This said, Vets do get back pay sometimes for more than 7 years, provided they have a documented disability and a documented effective date longer than 7 years ago.  It is really not all that unusual for Va to take longer than 7 years to process a claim, especially with appeals.  Im currently in appeals for a 2002 claim and, yes, Im represented by an attorney and 6000 dollars of attorney fees have been paid by EAJA.  I wont ever have to pay those, unless I get retro above 30,000 dollars.  I will be quite happey to pay my attorney 20 percent of any retro over 30,000 USD.  
I agree you probably dont always want to rely on DAV's interpretation, but I do agree that is "one interpretation" of your case, but its not the most beneficial to you.  
You have a right to dispute any reduction in disability percentage, but, if you do not do so, it becomes final in a year.  So, by 1990, your appeal period for your disability reduction ended.   To over come your failure to file a NOD, you would need to "raise the standard of review to the CUE level".   That is, you would have to prove clear unmistakable error in 1989.  Without looking at your file, I have no idea how you would prove Cue from a doctors reoport in 1994.  
As I explained, your best shot is to re apply.  Then if awarded, and you are unhappy with the effective date to appeal it within a year.  I do agree the award letter is compelling..others may agree and you may just get a (new) award letter based on that.  Maybe.  Often they "continue" a previous rating, and you may get some kind of letter for that.  
All of this said, you are likely better off to at least take your paper work to an experienced Veterans lawyer, and see what they say.  They will give you advice for free.  They will review your file and decide whether or not to offer you their services.  If the attorney does offer his or her services, then ask them why they think your case is good (or bad), and what they would plan on doing to get you your retro.  
Then you can decide whether to hire the attorney or not.  A list of attorney's who practice Veterans law are here: https://vetadvocates.org/welcome/find-an-attorney/
As far as paying the attorney, you wont have to pay until you get paid.  Also, if this goes to the CAVC (likely) then EAJA act reguraly awards EAJA fees to VEts who win.  This would mean you would have little or no attorney fees, as EAJA would pay them.  

Your Timeline seems to be missing actual VA Comp Claims Filings. Did you ever file an actual VA Comp Claim for the Disability that got you Discharged in 01/1989?
Do you still have the Condition (Mental or Physical?) that got you a Medical Discharge? Why the apparent lack of follow-up, 05/94 to present?
If you have a C-File located at your VARO, filing the FOIA, will get the CD in about 12 - 13 months.
You could talk to a VA Attorney or "for Fee" Claims Agent, you just can't hire them until you have an  Appealable Decision. If you signed a "POA" Power of Attorney with DAV or any of the other VSO's, a VSR should be able to access your C-File on-line and copy any of its contents. Certainly, beats waiting a year for the FOIA CD.
If you've been treated at your local VMC Hospital, visit the Medical Record Dept (in the basement) and do another FOIA for your VA Med Records. You should be able to get a searchable CD within 20 min, unless they're extremely busy.
During your next visit to the VMC, check in with the Vet Learning Center on the 1st Floor, sign up for MHV (My Healthy Vet) on-line Access and E-Benefits Access. You could also do it at your RO.
Semper Fi

Than you sir.  I am going through a FOIA request through the VA.  There may be a different approach, but that's where I am.  I also went to the va release of information office in Tampa, and requested (all) records since my inception.  He said it would be placed on a cd and mailed to me.  I do appreciate your help, and glad to know you got what you deserved on your rating

I do not trust the DAV. If I had trusted the DAV, I would be at 0% compensation, instead of 100% SC. It appears that VA appealed your 10% rating a 2nd time and brought this back to 0%. You need to get copy of your VA claim File and proceed from there. You may be owed compensation back to 1988.  If the VA appealed your 10% rating from 1991 in 1994, there should be some record in you C file. When you get your C file and review it, then post again on forum with any questions. Yes, you may want to file the 21-4138, but not until you see what is in C file. This is just my opinion.

My Basically States
 
To whom it my concern,
 
    My name is Dr. So and so and I have been treating Mr. blah blah for the last 10 years, I have diagnosed him with PTSD on Multiple occasions and it is more likely than not caused by his military service, one such example would be an aircraft crash he was involved in. He exhibits hypervigilance, outbursts of anger, insomnia, as well as many other issues I have also provided in my notes. It is my opinion that Mr. Blah Blah's PTSD hwas caused by his time in Military service.
 
 
This is in no way exactly how my doctor wrote it but it kind of sums it up how she said it so that there is no questioning it was caused by Military service in her opinion. Also she is a Psychologist doctor PsyD, not just a PHD which I think also helps

And,
A young 25 year old veteran rated at 100% for PTSD, dies of a heart attack, no DIC
Same young 25 year old veteran rated at 100% for PTSD and an addition 0% or heart disease, dies of heart attack, wife gets DIC.  A little over $1200 bucks for the rest of her life.
Nuff said,
Hamslice
 

DIng, Ding, Ding,,,,,,,,
Hamslice
 

Saved for later

That is Great News Paul!
The actual decision will tell you more.

Drill down on the CFR. Find out the exact words used and look at dates of changes. All changes have to be posted in the Federal Register, but usually cornell law will give you dates. The table of amendments are listed on appendix A at the bottom

The discrepency here is likely explained by the different dates.  VA law is in constant flux, so I recommend you look up the dates for each and the most recent one should prevail.

You are still "in appeal" for 60 days AFTER your BVA decision.   If you do NOT file a NOA to the board decision, the boards decison becomes final and your appeal ends.  It continues, however, if you timely file a "notice of appeal" to the CAVC.  
If you have a recent BVA decision, this is the perfect time to get an attorney.  Perfect.  You send an attorney your bva denial, and they will decide if they will represent you in an appeal to the CAVC, but you must hurry.  You have 60 days to file a notice of appeal.  This means you have to send it to an attorney, get him to send you a fee agreement.  Sign it and return it to him, and then he has to file a NOA.  Sixty days is not long to do that.