stillhere

Stillhere----glad you came back to us-
YES a CAVC remand is Far better then a denial because a remand opens the claim up for more evidence.
I had a local vet who had two CAVC cases and a law firm who did not even read his BVA decision carefully.
I read it, did some research, went over his SMRs many times ( all handwritten)and asked him to get his private doc to agree with my lay medical opinion.
The private doc did ,after a little battle, with me, and didn't even charge for the IMO.
This was long ago, a local vet.
I also filed a NOD on the legal fees,with evidence,and gave personal testimony as to how I helped him,   and he never called me again so I assume the BVA did not award those CAVC lawyers  the fees  they claimed, when I was the only person- to include his dumb vet rep-( same one I had for a while who asked me to help with the claim) who ever took time to really look into his SMRs and medical situation.
There is a 5 point criteria any lawyer must follow to get paid from a CAVC case. I based the NOD on that.
 
His BVA decision held a medical word I never heard of before in the first paragraph ....I googled it and then I knew he would win his claim!!!!!
Sounds like your lawyer is on the Ball!
"Oh by the way I am still meeting veterans from Vietnam who have not filed and yet have DB2, heart disease and others that are covered!"
Yeah, we still see them here from time to time.....It is a disgrace that even when some of the VAMC docs and nurses KNOW they have a AO presumptive,and KNOW they were incountry Vietnam, they dont even suggest that they file a claim.
 
 

Everyone helping a vet on TDIU claim should read this, and of course the veteran doing their own claim!



Stillhere

Congrats Debbie!! I got mine today too! Maybe just maybe we vets are starting to learn how to play their game or we have beat them down!!

Absolutely! Every piece of submitted evidence was supported by 38 cfr regs. Its amazing how raters ease those decisions around and thru the regulations. Veterans have died on the streets, on mental wards and prisons because of indifference and downright meanness. Hopefully, my outcome will inspire others to hold on a bit longer. Remember, its a waiting game. If you are a VV--some may feel that you are on your way out. Say no to that. Stay around until you have to crawl to the bank.       GBA

Way to stay the course!! So sorry you had to wait so long!
But you are finally looking at your disabilities being properly compensated for!
 
Stillhere

I know they the waiver maybe 5-6 times and have  an attorney but
I knew a decision was made before the attorney knew. I will be glad when
I finish with these mother suckers. I told yall they play dirty and write the rule book
as they go along to fit their needs then we cant do a darn thing about it but wait,
wait, and wait some more.

Pete, no one is crazier than anyone else here. Allow me to revise and extend my comments. You always have the right to request VA reconsider anything they decide negatively. You may call it a plea for sanity, a rethinking of something that is obviously erroneous or a request to reaccomplish a defective train of logic based on a lack of evidence or misinterpretation of what was before them. You are free to do this any way you wish-be it a MFR bottle in the ocean or a NOD (or Admin. review-see below).
Over the years, I have caught raters utilizing the wrong regulations, ignoring the right ones or making equally obvious errors regarding case or controversy. The problem arises when they have no time to revisit the error short of the Veteran filing a NOD. There are exceptions to every rule. A smaller RO like Sioux Falls or Fort Harrison is easier to approach in this regard before a NOD is filed. It works best if the letter requesting the MFR is sent within days of the receipt of the defective decision. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. Some raters feel that once they have spoken, the next words out of their mouth are "SOC". You cannot reason with them. There is no one-size-fits-all for this problem. But make no mistake, sir. There simply is no "Request for Consideration" or similar legal tool you can file that will give you the assurance that VA will reconsider within the 12 months accorded you to file the NOD. That is the error I point out. 
I actually have high hopes that VA would someday move towards a true Court where a Veteran could arrive and present his case in person with witnesses and corroborative evidence. VA would be free to rebut the evidence and or present their own doctors to inveigh and testify otherwise. After this, a decision that was clearly and unmistakably correct would be rendered. You would be free to add rebuttal evidence you developed during the "trial" so as to avoid even needing a NOD. This semi-ex parte proceeding need not be formal like a Perry Mason trial with "sustained" or "overruled" shouted repeatedly. What it might do is give more weight to a gastroenterologist's nexus letter who has 25 years in the business over a VA examiner with an ARNP suffix opining that the hepatitis was not identified until 2001 and therefore that is the beginning of the disease. You cannot apply Maxson v. Gober to every set of circumstances. Hepatitis C takes three decades to manifest. Unfortunately, VA Examiners are not gastrodcos so we end up with these defective ratings.  Allowing poor, uneducated misleading theories into the process simply forces hopeful Veterans into the untenable position of thinking it can be fixed quickly short of a full-blown NOD. Having VSO reps touting this as a viable panacea where it simply does not exist is deceptive and dangerous.
We all know a NOD  almost guarantees a 16-20 month pause in the process but it does entail a new decision which is, essentially, a motion for reconsideration. A DRO review is identical inasmuch as it also grants a de novo decision but takes 3 years if you're lucky. Holding out the unreasonable hope that this can be repaired by writing in and asking for it is not viable for most of us. Surely you realize no two claims are alike to any degree such that one sets the metric for all that follow. What I perceive happened in your case is the self-styled "MFR" your friend submitted merely brought to the attention of the rater the error he committed. The wrong would have been righted eventually. The "MFR" merely called attention to the error short of having to actually file a true request for Administrative review in the form of a NOD.
There are innumerable legal mechanisms that most Veterans are unaware of short of a NOD. A true, stand alone administrative review is one that comes to mind. If you are convinced, and statute and regulation bear you out, you may file a request for Admin. review under 38 CFR §20.400 requesting a reading on the statute or regulation in question. This often can be done in far less than 12 months and frequently corrects a rater's brain fart. It is done at the VACO in DC, and, as such, actually is also a de novo review in its own right. I did it on my VR&E Independent Living Program request for a computer in 2011. I cited to OGC Precedent 34-97 that described my very same circumstances. It took three months from beginning to end. The VA filed it for me with my cite to the precedent and they promptly bitchslapped the VR&E gomer. I got my computer a month or two later. 
Pete, I deeply respect your expertise in this field but I am a pragmatist. If I thought a MFR was the ticket, I'd be pounding the typewriter into the night and advising the rest of you to do so. Failing that, I suggest you saddle up the horse and ride over to the RO. Park yourself in the waiting room with the largest bag of Fritos manufactured and ask to speak to the rater who screwed it up. Tell them you're disabled and have all day. No rush. 
Someday, VA may get their house in order. Until then, we'll continue to try to locate shortcuts and advise Vets of them. Pretty crazy, huh? 

In my opinion I see no reason for the BVA actually!
Our claims should be handled by real courts and subject to regular laws that are general used in any malpractice  type or injury court.
The hocus pocus that the BVA is the only way to help vets is as much BS as the VA health care is the only health care that should/can treat veterans!
Our country needs to stop treating veterans as a totally different society. We are as much if not more a part of our country as anyone and should be judged that way!
Stillhere

In my opinion I see no reason for the BVA actually!
Our claims should be handled by real courts and subject to regular laws that are general used in any malpractice  type or injury court.
The hocus pocus that the BVA is the only way to help vets is as much BS as the VA health care is the only health care that should/can treat veterans!
Our country needs to stop treating veterans as a totally different society. We are as much if not more a part of our country as anyone and should be judged that way!
Stillhere

In my opinion I see no reason for the BVA actually!
Our claims should be handled by real courts and subject to regular laws that are general used in any malpractice  type or injury court.
The hocus pocus that the BVA is the only way to help vets is as much BS as the VA health care is the only health care that should/can treat veterans!
Our country needs to stop treating veterans as a totally different society. We are as much if not more a part of our country as anyone and should be judged that way!
Stillhere

In my opinion I see no reason for the BVA actually!
Our claims should be handled by real courts and subject to regular laws that are general used in any malpractice  type or injury court.
The hocus pocus that the BVA is the only way to help vets is as much BS as the VA health care is the only health care that should/can treat veterans!
Our country needs to stop treating veterans as a totally different society. We are as much if not more a part of our country as anyone and should be judged that way!
Stillhere

Navy04, you wrote: "due to So many Vets Over Medicating and Taking advantage of the Pain Medications, the VA has to treat all Vets like this." 
One of my most important activities for the rest of my life is to strongly rebut any inaccurate/false statements which either unfairly portrays veterans as drug abusers or attempts to shift the blame for the overuse of narcotic medications on to the backs of veterans rather than at the feet of the medical professionals who prescribe them.  By blaming the actual victims, your statement does both; and it really infuriates me!  You are giving cover to VA malfeasance and criminal negligence!  In other words, you are the problem-not the solution!  Where is there any documented evidence of "So many Vets Over Medicating and Taking advantage of the Pain Medications?  There isn't any!  Yes, there are some examples (Candyland for instance) that have been blown completely out of proportion by the press.  VN veterans like myself are oh so painfully aware of just how damaging and demoralizing these grossly inaccurate characterizations can be! 
The entire drug Class structure is based on outdated religiously motivated puritanical moral opinions-not sound medical judgment.  Don't believe me?  Do some research on the criminalization of marijuana which will lead you to the history of cocaine and opium usage and subsequent criminalization. More damning is the fact that most of our current drug laws are grounded on antiquated racial bigotry as opposed to scientifically substantiated research.  Start your own research with: Harry J. Anslinger.
If a veteran "over medicates" because of the poor quality of, or lack of timely access to, VA medical care, it is certainly not the fault of the veteran.  The substance most likely to be used to "over medicate" is abundantly available and legal in all 50 states-alcohol.  Later tonight, mass over medication will occur all across the world with very predicable consequences, but until the inevitable carnage begins, it will be perfectly legal.
The VA does not "have" to treat all vets in any way other than to provide them with high quality medical care including prescribing appropriate dosages of narcotic medications necessary to treat a veteran's chronic pain.  Period. The VA is failing miserably at its Congressionally mandated obligations to veterans across the board with the grossly ironic exception of its administration of Veterans' cemeteries!   The VA did not become dysfunctional this year or last; it has been that way for decades.  There is such a dearth of personal integrity and courage in so many VA employees at all levels of that corrupt organization that some sharp US Attorney should bring RICO charges against many of the Directors and other senior executives.  The same can be said of our elected officials-R, D, and I, but unfortunately the US Constitution protects them from any consequences for their malfeasance except to vote them out of office.  Unfortunately, that does not appear likely.  Veterans have been voting against their own best interests for as long as I can remember.
People do not "Take advantage" of pain medications!  However, some most certainly misuse and abuse them; and some doctors prescribe them inappropriately.  Have you ever stopped to think why they might be doing this?  Might not it be because the VA health care they are receiving is woefully inadequate or just flat unavailable?  Might it be that their pain is the type that cannot be seen? It has been proven unequivocally that legitimate chronic pain patients are the LEAST likely to abuse or misuse pain medications AND they are the LEAST likely to become addicted!  Notably, long term chronic pain treatment using narcotics may provoke the development of a tolerance to a particular medication which can be mitigated by periodically substituting another medication; or taking a strictly supervised "drug holiday" during which no narcotics are taken for a predetermined period of time.  Don't take my word for it, do some investigation before making such unfounded and unsupportable accusations.  And while you are at it, look into the deadly drug cocktail the VA was handing out to this generation's veteran that was actually killing them rather than helping them.
If this post comes across as harsh and intolerant, it is supposed to be just exactly that!  I will not tolerate mental abuse of veterans any more than I will tolerate their physical abuse; and I will harshly condemn both. In my opinion your post, probably unintentionally, promotes the former.
I am very willing and able to engage anyone, regardless of position or credentials, on this subject at any time or place.  However, I am giving fair warning--come at me fully prepared with factually sustainable arguments, because I certainly am prepared!  I have suffered from the most excruciating pain known to medical science multiple times daily for 45 years.  The pain caused by my condition is so exquisite that it has led many others with this condition to commit suicide often not during an attack but just in anticipation of the next attack or, like me, a lifetime of attacks. This condition has effectively prevented me from leading a productive life even though I have been blessed (or more accurately--cursed) with an IQ higher than 99.9999923799% of humanity (tested by MENSA with results 16 standard deviations above norm using the Stanford-Binet scale) and almost total sensory recall (eidetic memory).   The condition abruptly ended my much desired career as a Marine officer.   It destroyed personal and romantic relationships. It destroyed opportunity. For example, I worked on a large scale project at subsistence level compensation--but with substantial equity in the finished project.  At a crucial stage in the project, I was experiencing 6-8 attacks daily and was unable to fulfill my responsibilities.  The other equity holders reluctantly gave me the ultimatum of either bringing the attacks under control within 3 months or lose my position and equity.  After attempting every (I balked at exploratory/investigative brain surgery) procedure and medication (some quite dangerous) known at the time to even remotely benefit people with my condition as an inpatient at the U of Washington Pain Clinic with no appreciable improvement, I lost not only my position and equity (ultimately worth several million dollars), but my opportunity to participate in future projects (one of which exceeded $1 billion) with these extremely industrious and talented people.  At that point, I became a vested NFL member--NFL=No Friends/Family left who could/would employ me.  Don't think for a moment that I am trying to impress you or evoke sympathy, because I am not.  I've learned to live with my disappointments;  and I have made another life for myself. Life gave me a gift that had the capacity of dissolving all of the bitterness created by being betrayed by the people I served. The point that I am making is that untreated or under treated pain can even destroy the lives of people with all the capability and benefits our society has to offer.  Pain robs its victims of the one precious thing in this world that cannot be replaced--time.  If prescribed and used appropriately, narcotic pain medications can prevent some of that theft.
I am sure there are tens, if not hundreds, of thousands other NFL members.  Our horrendously stupid invasion of Iraq coupled with our pathetic mismanagement of the war in Afghanistan is producing thousands more. Tagging our newest generation with the "drug abuser" label will only swell those ranks.  There are many veterans seeking answers here on hadit whether or not they join and post.  Please consider the damage a post like yours can needlessly inflict on them.  It is difficult enough to maintain self esteem without taking unwarranted hits from our peers.  Also, think of the effect that perpetuating the drug-abuse myth has on possible employers of these young men and women.
So, Navy04, chronic pain and its treatment by the VA, including the use of narcotic medications, is extremely personable to me as I presume it is to many other veterans on hadit and elsewhere.  Please be careful with your words--they have consequences!
Semper Fi!

Like yourself, I have  a 2009 docket date, and am waiting at the BVA.  The crazy part of this is this is "normal" for VA.  Since you also have a 2009 docket date, Im gonna assume VA did a "lightning fast" move from your NOD to BVA certiification in "just" one year.  Lets also assume that you get a BVA decision promptly and VA again moves lightning fast and implements your decision and awards you money which arrives in lightning speed of "only"  one more year.  This means you could move from filing your NOD to getting your retro in "just" 8 years.  Does anyone else think waiting 8 years on VA to appeal is anything less than nuts? 

Trying to read the minds of the VA and how they may or may not handle your claim whether it be approved or not to hasten the speed or not? Is a crap shoot totally! As the old saying goes on hear "go fishing" or find a good book. Calm down relax but definitely stay on top of your claim!
 
Good Luck!
Stillhere

logged into ebennefits on the 4th Dec. and showed Administrative case processing? Had shown with VLJ since Oct. 15. So I am probably not looking at anything before the end of the year? No Christmas present I guess and surely don't want a denial!!
to all my christian friends and those who believe in Christmas I wish you a very merry Christmas and a Happy New Years!
to others I wish Happy holidays and a wish for Peace between religions! Please!
 
Stillhere

Hey all,
 I have been doing some reading in my spare time and while attempting to better myself in all areas of my life (certainly a constant struggle which I find I have little energy for-a lot) I happened upon a quote by William Hazlitt. When I read this quote, I immediately thought of my early years in my claim process when I was very ignorant of the processes that we must embrace and oftentimes overcome when dealing with the VA; and quite frankly, this would apply in pretty much every area of our lives:
"The way to secure success is to be more anxious about obtaining than about deserving it."
When I read this and applied it to my situation regarding my claims process, I came to realize that although I knew I deserved it (it still makes me squeamish to use that phrase), I still didn't understand the need for me to "set a fire" about obtaining the results that I needed. Back in 2008, I was under the impression that the VA would see my issues and grant and life would be merry. Obviously, most of you know, and I NOW know that was a very farcical way of thinking. 
It wasn't until my first denial letter and reading through the fanciful footwork of the VA that I began to comprehend the battle I was going to be facing. Shortly thereafter, I found this website and can I say, "God bless T-bird and all of you" who contributed to my education in the ways of the VA.
I found that I had to set aside my ideas of "deserving" it and had to become "...more anxious about obtaining..." the success of my claim. For many of us and myself included, being anxious meant that we had to become enraged and furious at the misapplication of the law that was so evident in many, if not most of our claims. But more importantly, if there was no other benefit, it caused me not to let my claim rest in the hands of the VA, or the VSOs, or to Hadit.com, or to chance; but rather to myself, and for me personally, to my Lord who knew that I truly was deserving. Sometimes, being anxious means we have to educate ourselves on the ins and outs of the processes. It also means asking for help which I am thankful that I did. The majority of my knowledge came from this group, dedicated to helping other veterans and their families out with experiences shared and utilized.
I am the one, and you are the one, that only can secure the success of your claim. If the evidence is there, then it is up to me hand walk it threw the process. Don't leave it up to the VSO and obviously don't leave it up to the VA. Sure,  I may not like it, but I'm the one that has to gear up (yet again) for a fight. We can cry and clamor the day long about how it not to be that way, but it is. Looking back, had I not received the encouraging and profitable words here to keep up the fight, I'd have not carried on. 
I guess I said all that to say that we use the resources that we have here on hadit.com, our VSOs, and even the VA, but it boils down to how willing and how hard am I going to fight to make sure that my claim sees success? And that's a question that we all have to ask on a personal basis. I could have claimed ignorance and thus, defeat. But if I had educated myself and fought and fought, and fought some more to the full extent and still lost, I'd have gone away with knowing that I had done my best. 
And that, my friends, is what I deserve.
Thanks for letting me post my little say!
Semper Fi,
Sgt. Wilky

He should also look at filing to have his hearing loss and tinnitus reopened.
Has he ever had the AO exam at the VA? If not get him in there quick as you can too!
I am always surprised when I find vets from Vietnam that have not filed for AO mainly because they don't want to deal with the VA. That is exactly what the VA wants! Please tell him he earned the rights for his benefits by serving his country and get him in the loop!
Thank him for his service and tell him for me please "Welcome Home"!
Stillhere 

After a long battle of 5 years and 3 months my appeal was finally granted in full. I am now 100% P&T! The BVA hearing was in April 2014. The decision from that hearing was a complex remand which was handed down to the AOJ in Oct 2014. The VARO finally granted the appeal today, one year and a month later. I would like to thank  everyone here, most notably asknod who got me started and pointed me down the right path. He stayed with me every step of the way. A big thank you goes out to my attorney. It was her tireless pursuit and tenacity that brought about this favorable outcome.

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.
  
 
 
 
       

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....

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

Buck,
Sounds like usual govment BS! IF they had asked me that years ago I probably wound have answered " because by law I am entitled to 1 free copy of my C file" just to be vague!
I am not familiar with all these new forms mumble jumble but I have always found any answers I needed in CFR 38 if you quote that word for word, they have no legs to stand on!
Another good answer would be the FOI act!
 
Stillhere
Your welcome on the heads up for SMC s amount, wish it was 1,200! 

Call me Bob (Big Mac) recently attributed to all us Vietnam Vets with our whining and over-the-top propensity to file claims suddenly. Yeppers. Blame it on Vietnam Vets-the 855,000 who are still alive and somehow managed to survive this long. 

I'm always honest with my doctor & anybody else cause I cant hide it for who
I believe in the ALL MIGHTY. I tell my doctors I smoke it its in my records  what I do ,but all my medical tests be
""Keep doing what you are doing"" everything look GREAT. Its just not for everyone just like anything else
but I also don't take anymore narcotic or any type of pain meds either. Its one or the other pills or pot
I take less medicine, I was taking two pills for blood pressure now one every other day and the old man
wake up better"".lol  very sorry for the rant

As you may know, the VA can not "substitute" their own unsubstantiated opinion, for that of a qualified medical professional on medical issues.  
    Further, if the VA does reject a competent medical professional opinion, they have to give a reasons and bases as to why they rejected said opinion.  
    If they dont do this, above, this is a "Colvin" violation.  Example:
    You go to the audiologist for a hearing exam.   YOur audiologist opines, "The Veteran's hearing loss is at least as likely as not due to noise exposure in military service".  
     VA denies you.  The decision maker states that, "its been xx years since military service" so, therefore, your hearing loss cant be related to military service.  
    Do you see the Colvin violation?   This decision maker invented his own criteria, disregarded a competent medical opinion and substituted his own (unsubstantiated) opinion.    The audiologist already provided the nexus.  If the decision maker decided to reject this audio opinion, he would need a great reasons and bases for rejecting this opinion, such as maybe 2  audiologists who offered a conflicting opinion, especially if these audiologists did a more thorough exam and read your history.   But this must be stated in the R and B as to why this medical professional opinion was rejected. 
Here is one attorney's opinion of Colvin, there are others:
https://veteranclaimsresearchcases.wordpress.com/2009/04/07/bva-rendering-its-own-medical-opinions-colvin-v-derwinski-no-90-196/
 
NVLSP opines that "Colvin" is one of the "Top 10" cases as follows:
VA Can’t Base Denial on its Own Medical Judgment Colvin v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 171 (1991) Colvin stands for a now deeply embedded and fundamental principle of veterans law—the VA may use only independent medical evidence to support its benefits decisions. The VA may not use the medical opinion or judgment of the VA rater or BVA Veterans Law Judge to support a decision. For many years prior to Colvin, VA decisions were based on the findings of VA physicians who were part of the decision-making process. A doctor employed by VA would not only provide the medical opinion that would be used to decide the claim, he or she would participate in deciding whether to grant or deny benefits. This practice of having VA doctors play a decisionmaking role was ended by Colvin. The Court held that: If the medical evidence of record is insufficient, or, in the opinion of the BVA, of doubtful weight or credibility, the BVA is always free to supplement the record by seeking an advisory opinion, ordering a medical examination or citing recognized medical treatises in its decisions that clearly support its ultimate conclusions . . . . This procedure ensures that all medical evidence contrary to the veteran’s claim will be made known to him and be part of the record before this Court. Colvin, 1 Vet.App. at 175. But advocates must watch out . . . even though the formal procedure of having a VA doctor play a decisionmaking role stopped after Colvin, VA raters and BVA Veterans Law Judges persist in relying on their own medical judgments to decide claims. For example, the VA and BVA may often make a determination that an
 “TOP 10” COURT CASES FOR ADVOCATES in-service injury was “acute, without chronic residual disability.” However, the degree of injury and whether any disabilities resulted from the injury are medical assessments that the VA and the Board are not competent to make unless there is independent medical evidence to support that conclusion. This means that in many cases the VA’s determination that an in-service injury was acute and did not result in chronic disability may violate Colvin. Another common problem is that the VA may dismiss favorable medical evidence of record without citing to medical evidence in the record or medical literature to support its rejection. A good rule of thumb based on Colvin is that if there is a VA-made medical conclusion—not directly based on a medical examination report, advisory opinion, or medical literature— the conclusion may be erroneous because the VA has no independent medical support for its findings. Decisions containing unsupported medical conclusions should be appealed. Low Threshold for Who Receives