cloudcroft

Mark, I don't know if your MEDICAL records are here, but if you don't have these records you should...they my have info to help you locate your medical records. About "the great big fire" (were you talking aout the fire in St. Louis "destroying" records?)...have you read this webage? http://www.nvlsp.org/Information/ArticleLi...LOSTRECORDS.htm or this one? http://www.archives.gov/st-louis/military-.../fire-1973.html Sometimes a vet is told his/her records were "lost in the fire" when they certainly were NOT! Read all the info on this nvlsp website and do some of the things it says. Also, if all else fails -- or don't wait and just do this NOW at the same time you are doing the other things -- write one of your CongressCritters to make an inquiry of the VA to find/release your medical records...he/she will ask about your records and if nothing else, get a clarification re: what's up with them. Usually, this inquiry will slow down your claim because your C-file has to be located and taken out of line, but since you do not HAVE an active claim (I guess) but it is a dead-in-the-water claim, you've nothing to lose with an inquiry. Or if you still get nowhere, maybe you can get a Court Order for the VA to find/release your medical records: "Court Order: Access to military personnel and medical records on file at the National Personnel Records Center, may also be gained pursuant "to the order of a court of competent jurisdiction." Subpoenas qualify as orders of a court of competent jurisdiction only if they have been signed by a judge. To be valid, court orders must also be signed by a judge. Authority for these requirements is 5 U.S.C. 552a/b (11), as interpreted by Doe vs. DiGenova, 779 F. 2d 74 (D.C. Cir. 1985), and Stiles vs. Atlanta Gas and Light Company, 453 F. Supp. 798 (N.D. Ga.1978)." ...cited from http://usmilitary.about.com/cs/generalinfo/a/milrecords.htm Here are some other sites that might be useful re: information and finding your records: http://www.archives.gov/veterans/evetrecs/index.html http://www.archives.gov/st-louis/military-...d-form-180.html http://members.aol.com/forvets/htomr.htm Some of these sites have similar info, but I listed them anyway. You can sort through them...and there are even more sites about military records. Good luck, -- John D.

Flatbroke, I would call the VARO right away (probbly Tuesday, right after Veterans Day) and say the long drive is tiring and painful due to your back, and ask if there is ANY WAY both C&Ps can be scheduled for the SAME DAY...peferably both exams in the morning or both in the afternoon. Be polite but persistent in trying to accomplish this, even if you have to talk to someone higher up the chain-of-command there at VARO who may be able to make it happen. Good luck, -- John D.

In this case, "perfect" is being used as a verb. As I understand it, "perfecting a claim" is the process of accumulating and organizing your claim's evidence, to get it ready to submit to the VARO for a decision. It's the stage of the claims process that comes after meeting the "well-grounded" requirements of a claim although there usually isn't any distinct line between one and the other since most vets send in all their evidence at the very beginning...but often you get additional evidence later and send it in as you get it. Or the VA takes a while to locate records. In these cases, you can't send in everything up front. You could say that meeting the well-grounded criteria for a claim is Phase I of the claims process and perfecting your claim is Phase II...even though you can really be doing both at the same time. But I mention the two "phases" because if a claim is not well-grounded, the VA has no duty to assist and will just deny said claim right up front. If the claim IS well-grounded, the VA's duty to assist then begins. So this phase of perfecting a claim is you getting your evidence together and the VA has to help you get any medical records re: your claim. It doesn't mean having a "perfect" (used as an adjective) claim. Hope that makes sense, - John D.

Ricky, I, for one, am not angry...just stating the situation. I do, however, look forward to two "free" Starbucks outings each month because due to my disablity, I hardly EVER go out...and if I stay home TOO much, as I tend to do, it only makes me even more socially-isolated and squirrelly, which is not good re: maintaining interpersonal relationship skills. Sometimes, even talking to waitresses/waiters -- and sounding "normal" doing so -- is difficult if you don't keep in practice by getting out of the house once in a while. -- John D.

jan, I'm a Chapter 61, but nowhere even close to the years YOU put in and so much deserve. Was medically discharged from the Coast Guard (at 30% USCG Permanently Retired list) after only two years' service...so, if they ever get that "2.5% per year of service" thing going, I should get maybe $10 a month for my USCG retired pay. Not bad. Can't wait. But you know, I COULD have done something else instead of going into the USCG and spending 2 years of my life there -- I could have spent those 2 years doing something else in the civilian world that may (or maybe not) have worked out better for me -- but even so, being in only two years, getting at least SOMETHING in retired pay seems not unreasonable. Whatever it is...I'll take it. Besides, $10 is two Green Tea Frappuccinos (or Pumpkin Spice Frappuccinos, considering the present season) at Starbucks...I'll still take it. -- John D.

tssnave, 1. Yes, you are correct: The evidence must be in a state "of relative equipoise" before the "Benefit of Doubt" rule can be applied. If there is NO MENTION of this rule of BoD being applied in your decision letter, then it wasn't...because it WOULD have been stated (at least the BVA would state it but perhaps the VARO is not as thorough, I don't know). But anyway, if it wasn't mentioned, the preponderance of the evidence must have been either for you (if you won) or against you (if you lost)...there was no balance of evidence existing and so BoD does not apply. If you think the evidence WAS/IS balanced -- neither tilting one way or the other -- then put together a rebuttal explaining why...unless you believe the evidence tilts in your favor. In that case, you can't ask/argue that BoD applies because it doesn't. 2. I don't have the links, they need to looked up. 3. It might be more productive researching BVA cases for such keywords as "reasonable doubt" and "benefit of doubt" instead of looking up VARO decisions...IF you even can find them. Searching CVA cases for those keywords would be the best as they are legal precedent, whereas BVA cases are not (but BVA cases are still VERY useful). Good luck, -- John D.

There is no VA rule/regulation re: "Reasonable Doubt" (RD) that I know of, but there IS a VA rule/regulation re: "Benefit of Doubt." (BoD) BoD, however, only applies in one particular situation, and this has already been discussed in-depth before...look up the earlier posts (do a search) here. I think people get confused on this and try to apply BoD where it was never meant to apply, and so it doesn't apply. -- John D. EDIT: I looked online and it appears that these two terms -- RD and BoD -- are used to mean the same thing (rule) and defined identically. Still, it only applies in one situation. -- JD

But BoA doesn't care about "legal," so they are really just being hypochrites at their customers' expense. A Doublestandard: One standard for illegal foreigners and another standard for real Americans. All because of corporate greed to make more money off everyone. What true patriotic American businesses they are. -- John D.

No, I have never tried to use my VA card for ID at a bank. Yeah, that sure DOES suck, especially when Bank of America has absolutely no problem whatsoever dealing with illegal aliens and accepting THEIR sorry Mexican forms of "identification," which may be forged or at least bought from corrupt Mexican officials. What sorry, greedy, immoral, low-lifes, rip-off-their-own-customers banks are...but a necessary evil because you have to have one so your VA Disability check can be auto-deposited. Pete: I hate crowds, too -- I get agitated and hostile when people are too close to me like that, like being in a herd of animals or something -- but here in TX you can renew your DL online (and DLs are even free for some disabled vets, those rated 60% or more)...I suspect others states are likewise. Or, get a state ID card which will also be an official picture-ID. -- John D.

Carlie is right: The reopened 1994 claim would have -- if it was eventually won, and aside from a CUE happening in the 1994 decision -- a 2007 ED, not 1994. -- John D.

Pete, Did you contest it and file for an EED to get those 2 years? -- John D.

TMK...definitely NOT! Retro pay can be a HUGE amount...mine was "small" at only $75K, but I've heard of some vets getting $300K and such. -- John D. EDIT: Sometimes, the retro will go back even farther than the date you filed, IIRC, up to one year PRIOR to your filing date if it is determined that your disability or disability worsening could be traced back that far. This is where some vets file a claim to get this EED. I don't know if I got it, but I decided to let well-enough alone and didn't contest my EED.

Arch, It sounds like you have a pretty good understanding of your condition and also a heads-up grasp of surgical risks vs. value gained. In the NOD you are going to do, state all of what you posted here -- including the QTC C&P incident (the doctor may blame the fiasco 100% on you) -- in said NOD and in more detail since you will have the time and space to do so (multiple pages if necessary). I haven't been reading a whole lot of good things from vets who post about C&P exams contracted out to QTC...most are negative. Good luck, -- John D.

Rick, I was! But it was marginal employment. And I was told by a former member here (a VA employee) it's fairly rare that it happens....sort of like the rarity of getting TDIU without a rating or not meeting the minimum schedular requirements (I'm referring to the "extra-schedular" situation you cite in your post's last paragraph, §4.16b). I don't know which of those two is more rare: Getting TDIU while working (marginally) or getting TDIU extra-schedularly. But it does certainly seem that in MOST TDIU claims, §4.16a is routinely applied whereas §4.16b hardly ever is. Anyway, that's why we need to define what "working" means when we use the word...whether it is gainful or marginal employment. "Working" as most people use it here means a regular job with regular full-time hours and making decent money, but "working" can also mean working erratically (which would result in a very low income) or in a protected environment...i.e., marginally. The OP is in the former category so despite some physical problems, they are not presently severe enough to preclude gainful employment...as he is demonstrating since he IS working gainfully. They MAY be, however, at some point in the future. Again, the OP should look more into the subject, especially if he (or anyone else reading this) is looking at applying for TDIU now or some time down the road when their disabilities get worse. Of course, I am talking about SC disabilities only causing unemployability, not non-SC disabilities causing unemployability. I would think that the OP also would not be able to get SSDI at this point due to their requirements being even stricter than the VA's. -- John D.

Yes, "TDIU newbies" should research the topic first...we have discussed all this many times over in other threads here, and not that long ago. We've even covered the technical possibility of getting TDIU even with no rating yet, let alone not meeting the schedular requirements, even though this is extremely rare. So more research by some posters would be very appropriate as well as being highly productive. -- John D.

I agree... He can FILE for TDIU while he is working [i.e., "substantially gainful employment," which I assume his present job certainly is]...but will he GET it? Definitely not. -- John D.

That's already been answered. Besides, as you said, it's already been sent in so it doesn't matter. I'm done with it. -- John D.

I don't know what you had...I was talking about foreign M.D.s wanting to practice here in the US. To my knowledge, D.O.s are a "home grown" product...they go to American rather than foreign schools...I don't think there even ARE any foreign D.O. schools. And don't sell PAs short...besides, they must work within the supervision and authority of a doctor. NPs are similar but I believe they have more autonomy. Whatever, some C&Ps do NOT require a "real doctor." -- John D.

If foreign doctors can pass the VERY difficult USMLE exams, they are competent doctors. But they'e also supposed to pass an English proficiency exam, too. Maybe this exam is too easy. -- John D.

"Therefore, it was clear to me that the examiner was not qualified to conduct this exam, based not only upon his poor command of English, but also upon his unfamiliarity with the condition that was the basis of the veteran's claim." "I was just wondering about the language aspect of all this, and if anyone ever successfully challenged their C & P exam based on the fact that the examiner couldn't understand what they were saying and vice versa." -- vaf Then contest it...don't "wonder" about it any further. As Nike used to say, "Just do it." -- John D.

No, but I did have a Pakastani shrink, who DID speak English pretty well, write up a C&P like he had examined someone else, not me, so I challenged that because it wasn't accurate. Got a 2nd C&P. If you have things written in your C&P you didn't say, or things you did say that weren't included, then challenge it on that basis alone, whether the person spoke good English or not...but DO cite that as the likely reason for any errors you saw and are challenging. Regardless of the reason, however, no one should accept a flawed C&P! In short, definitely challenge it. -- John D.

Sorry for being OT like some others here, but I wanted to comment... I agree...I buy mine here when they aren't sold out (have what's left of a 5-lb. bag in my freezer): http://www.smithfarms.com/ First started drinking it in 1974. Besides getting great fresh right-off-the-trees roasted Kona coffee beans, I am pleased that my purchase helps support a local (in Kona) VERY small business (basically a husband and wife) and people who care about their trees, the wildlife on their small plantation, etc. And at great prices -- even when shipping is included -- compared to any prices on Kona coffee being sold locally (IF you can find it) and in most other places I have found online. One last thing: Lots of so-called "Kona" coffee is a ONLY A BLEND of maybe 10% Kona beans and 90% some other beans...only buy 100% Kona coffee. Caveat emptor. -- John D. P.S. Kona also produces something else that is top-drawer...but it's illegal. -- JD

deleted -- John D.

Pete, Maybe I misunderstood him...he's not very clear at all. And I'm not sure what YOU are saying exactly, either. Is it just me? I thought his C&P GAF was 51 and later he goes in for some regular appointment (I have to guess here) at Behavioral Health (BH) and gets a GAF of 45...so we're talking about 2 GAFs because I doubt someone actually changed the original C&P GAF of 51 to 45. Never heard of that, and it sounds illegal also, to "edit" the records like that. So I thought he got the 45 GAF after the C&P. And I didn't see the word "exam" given re: the GAF of 45 so I took it as just a routine appointment SINCE the C&P exam. So that was my guess what he was saying...I had to fill-in the blanks so maybe I got it wrong. So a single GAF of 45 from one routine visit isn't going to make much impact...and they have a fudge-factor built-in anyway because they are subjective: One BH person may give a 45 and another a 50. Aside from that, I was talking about GAFs showing trends, not taken individually OR out of context. Maybe none of us in this thread are making sense... -- John D.

Well, I guess I'll answer since no one else is after 33 views... Short answer: No, not at this time. I'd use it LATER though, if you need to show a downward trend of your GAFs (if that's what's happening since your last C&P, I don't know). This "later" would be when/if you need to rebut any denials...you could cite lower GAF scores to show you are NOT improving (if that's what you were trying to prove). What's really important is your GAF's "behavior" over time...does it pretty much stay the same, is it moving upwards or downwards over time, or is it up and down somewhat randomly (like stock-market graphs)? If your GAF is fairly low and staying that way, OR, moving downwards, then that would argue for a higher disability rating. Of course, if it's moving upward over time, that means you appear to be better and that definitely wouldn't help trying to get a increased rating. And since the VA seems to use high GAFs against vets and ignore the low ones, that's not good. So for now, just this one GAF of 45, I'd keep it in mind and use it later if you need to, as part of any rebuttal you make to any SOC you may receive. I haven't been following your posts (or anyone else's, I just read some and respond) so I don't know your GAF history (don't have the time to follow everyone's claims) so I am just responding to your question here. But I see you're rated at 60% and I assume for a mental disorder. GAFs of 50 and 40s should definitely help you get a rating of 70%, unless all you have is low GAFs and nothing else to support them...or vice versa. -- John D.