Jump to content


Second Class Petty Officers
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

7 Neutral

About 4mydad

  • Rank
    E-4 Petty Officer 3rd Class

Previous Fields

  • Service Connected Disability
  • Branch of Service
  • Hobby
    Fighting for my Dad's compensation on the VA Hamster Wheel, Watching my son play travel baseball

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Hi ErinNick, I am currently working on an appeal for my dad's claim granted in April 2016. We have appealed the effective date and have also opted into RAMP. I also appreciated the ability to get updates on ebennies, however, all of that has changed with RAMP. You will be better off checking vets.gov. It will give you a timeline of RAMP opt in dates, etc. If you do not have an acct with vets.gov it is similar to ebenefits. Just thought I would chime in just in case you didn't know there was an alternative place for info. Not too much info there . . . it will scare you and say that your appeal has been "closed", however, everyone's says that if you opted into RAMP. We opted in in May and it gives a date of Sept 18 to appeal to court. We have been told that is actually the 125 day mark. (has nothing to do with court) I will be happy to answer any questions . . .
  2. Awesome Navy4Life . . . so happy that you received the benefits that you deserve. I did request an informal hearing. Sounds like we are in similar boats! I think I will opt in if I do not hear anything soon. Keep us posted when you hear something! Just curious . . .do you have a status update on ebenefits or vets.gov? His appeal says "Being reviewed by DRO" on vets. gov, but no status change on ebenefits. Still says VARO received NOD on 8/2016. Ugh.
  3. I do remember one of your posts about filing the CUE through IRIS. So, if I receive a SOC denying an EED for this NOD, I should then use one of your templates to explain the possible CUE? Will this void any of his rights like benefit of the doubt, etc? But at the same time submit a Form 9 to reserve the appeal to a higher court? Thanks! Beth
  4. Wonderful! Thanks as usual Ms. Berta. This is within the appeal period but I was hoping to just try to cover in the NOD before having to go the CUE route because of the uphill battle. We are blessed to have you~!
  5. Also, I remember looking up the pes planus (flatfoot) diagnostic code used in 1983. It was the same. Now, I can't remember where I found that . .. but it seems like it was effective in the 1950s?? I think 5276 has remained the code since.
  6. Oops. That was a typo. I meant to put 5276 not 5279 (I did it correctly on the NOD though-lol)
  7. I think they are denying his claim because his exam did not show evidence of foot problems but they never examined them! So frustrating! Statues.pdf
  8. I think 5276 should have been used because his lay evidence states constant pain in feet. When the rater looked into SMR is states that he was "diagnosed with pes planus" Since that is a specific code used for rating at that time, I think they should have assumed that what was because of his constant pain in feet-rather than vague foot injury. His denial letter states . . . "he complained of his feet going flat on 7-16-68 while in basic training. He was followed frequently for complaints of foot pain without any actual pathology being noted. There are several diagnosis such as stress fractures of the feet but non of these were supported by xray. We finally see a diagnosis of flat feet in 10/68 . . . " The rater noted that he was diagnosed with flat feet in service. Seems like that would be obvious assigned rating. (to anyone outside of the VA I guess-ugh.)
  9. Hi Ms. Berta- The Rating Decision letter states that injury to both feet, ankles, and knees are not considered SC. (checked box) I think they only gave him a combined rating of 10% for the SFW scar of the chest and left thigh. (rating decision cont sheet) He claimed injury to both feet. The VA used 5299. (his lay evidence on the request for compensation was constant pain in feet) However, pes planus (flat foot) should have been used (5279) since he was diagnosed and treated for the first time while in service. (not on entry exam, but "foot trouble" marked on separation exam). This is all over the SMR. They even mention being diagnosed with flat foot. Bilateral Acquired pes planus is a min rating of 30%. I feel that he should have received that considering his SMR and that it was documented in the rating decision. Claim History Summary and 2016 Rating Decision.pdf
  10. Trump is the only man for the job . . . he will restore law and order and I feel like he has veterans' best interests at heart. I typed my letter to him and the new Secretary last night. Will mail first thing in the morning Ms. Berta. Great suggestion.
  11. I apologize that some of the scanned copies are out of order. The page numbers are at the top for reference. I am attaching one more below Rating Decision Footnotes.pdf
  12. Hi Ms. Berta- I asked you and the other contributors about this claim 2 years ago when I first received his c-file. You, asknod, and others gave me some great points. Since then I feel I have a better grasp of what mistakes were made with the decision. I am attaching the rating decision and the footnotes I sent with the NOD as well as copies of the exam and most recent C&P exam from 2015 that was used in the granted award in 2016. Please let me know if you have any questions or if I need to send something else. Thank you sooo much! 1983 Rating Decision.pdf 1983 VA Exam_0001.pdf 2016 C & P Exam DSC.pdf Ratings History.pdf Potential CUEs throughout Claim History updated.wps
  13. THanks Gastone! Actually he received a full grant at max rating for the conditions we claimed decided April 2016. I am only appealing the effective date of this decision. And yes, I submitted all of the necessary supporting docs from his c-file arguing an earlier effective date. I am just concerned that so many of us are showing “DRO reviewing appeal”. I just hope that actually means something rather than just a default setting for a mass set of appeals. Thanks for the input! i will keep everyone posted as we hear back from VARO. Thanks!
  14. The NOD I submitted for my dad reads "A DRO is reviewing your Appeal" as well. This was a recent change (about 2 weeks ago) Several people have mentioned this . . . I really hope it means something rather than a large status change for many in the system. The NOD we filled is for an earlier effective date and was submitted 8/2016. Ugh.
  • Create New...

Important Information

{terms] and Guidelines