Capt.

Hello All,,,,,,, Ok ,,,,, I know what all other dept other than VA have done to me on FOIA request. I can accept the eneptness of the dept in question ,not giving me what I request. Got plenty of those " sorry we do not have" , "perhaps if you will check with"....blah, blah, blah..... letters. With the VA if a Veteran is requesting Cfile and or information on a piece of evidence , I cannot follow how it can be deemed a claim as there is no diagnostic code assigned to it to formerly and legally make it a claim. It still may slow the process for the FOIA request but I cannot see in the regulations what makes it a claim and legally to be called one has to have a diagnostic code assigned to it. Hopefully some of our other Veterans who have the answers will chime in. My gut call at the moment is that FOAI will not be a claim but assigned a formal request of record type search that has protocall and law as to how it is looked for and who looked and discovered the resultive evidence and material record as stated in the FOAI and in alot of cases............. what was not discovered from the resultive evidence and material record. Ok...... Maybe we can get some more answers from others besides myself who have used the FOIA to gather important documents and records for our claims. NEVER GIVE UP. God Bless. C.C.

Hello Autumn,,, YES,, you are right. They must repond to your request. It does sound fishy that your VSO did not bring anything up. That is one reason I do not have one anymore. John asked if you got your VCAA letter. This is a violation if you did not. Did you or your rep send the information to the VA certified mail with return receipt??? This could be the problem. Every piece of mail I sent to the VA without using certified mail never was received. That should tell you something is wrong. Try and look for your VCAA letter. You can use search here on hadit archives for VCAA letter samples and topics as it has been discussed here before. Be patient and thorough and it will work out. Above all,,,,,NEVER GIVE UP. God Bless, C.C.

Hello Deanbrt, I am sorry for your delays at the VA, but do want to bring something up. I do not believe that the VA will treat your FOIA as a claim and do the usual stalling techniques that all of us are aware of. The FOIA has not given you an oppurtunity to participate in an award of benefits thru the claims process. A FOIA is a specific request by law to search for and deliver any records that you were specific in your written FOIA request. All depts of government have a FOIA officer that will oversee the legal request that person has initiated. It appears what you asked the VA to do is to search for your written documents that should exist (unless shreddergate is still on). The only problem I see with a FOIA request is that it may allow your file to be moved from whatever position and whatever state it is to search those records. I personally believe that while you are waiting in a decision mode of VA that everything should be left alone until after a decision to keep your position and file inorder so that the VARO decision teams/DRO can adjudicate it. I have over 15 FOIAs to numerous agencies and only a couple of them produced records at all. It usually sent me on a wild goose chase and I never got to catch one and eat it for dinner. I mean Atomic Energy commission, US ARMY, US ARMY FORT DIETRICH, EPA, and so on ...... FOIAs to the VA are still a tool that can be used to force information to be released. However the person or dept giving the information out can still " miss" some evidence or "overlook" it. Case in point. I FOIA the Atomic Energy Commission for anything , all documents pertaining to SM1A Nuclear Reactor, Fort Greely , Alaska. They replied back they have no documents or knowledge of an SM1A Nuclear reactor at Fort Greely....... HUH...... I personally assigned the quarters to the personnel that TDY from Atomic Energy Commission that had to work on the reactor while it decided to have a runaway resulting in its entombment while I was there in 1971-73. I have plenty of other dept . thankfully that I have all the information I need. Another case in point is I have FOIA for spraying records thru the National Records giving the form numbers.....they are posted in archives here at Hadit under AO and latest AO thread. No luck. My point is though the law under FOIA says they are to turn over such request and must make all available efforts to comply, it still can fall thru the cracks and be "nonexistant". You are not the first to have FOIA problems and I do feel that eventually you will be able to receive what you have asked for, it may slow your decision process down. The VA can still move your file for anything that needs to be look at or pulled from the file and that is where the problems lie when the Veteran does anything during the process, that may make someone open it other than the decision officer. I am sorry for a lengthy post but we probably should do a FOIA topic as it is a tool that can be used . For me it has not worked as I wanted it too because of sensitive data which will keep any FOIA request underwraps....period. Hang in there and be patient. Get your decision so you can move to the next step and address any errors or discrepancies then. NEVER GIVE UP. God Bless, C.C.

Hello John,,,,, Yes , I have been waiting for a long time .......... 5yrs for most of my claims.....with NODs since 2009 , and no service connection. Now facing Pulmonary Hypertension and the Heart and Lung transplant situation to go along with IHD, PN, IBD, and a list of other claims that are secondary , including depression and anxiety from pain and problems with Immune System and seeing VA Rheumatologist to help...... Yes trying to work but it is an uphill battle to try and stay in the workforce being self employed. The VA still is demanding payment for CO_Pays for all of the treatment and drugs...... I wonder how they will feel on the copays if I go with the transplants. HHHmmmm I am trying to live long enough to run the bill up to 2 million. Went over a million June 2010 so its all about the money for sure. NEVER GIVE UP.... God Bless, C.C.

Hello John and Carlie.....Its just a shame that we cannot live as long as Adam and Eve, and Enoch and Noah did ..... we might then be able to outlast the VA and its timeliness on the claims issues. You are right John,,,,,,"how long , Lord how long"????????????????? NEVER GIVE UP . God Bless, C.C.

Hello John,,,, You are right and thats why I wanted to make sure that I clarified, this is an individual decision because each situation is different and thats why I wanted to list it with questions so other veterans here reading this can try and see what possible timeline they may be in. I did not list his PTSD claim also as he had several other claims on hold waiting. And the VA fuzzy math has to be used also like what it did to your claim also. I think most of us would be "forced" into the TDIU part of the claims process just because of the VA failure to "process" each claim correctly and in a timely period. I just wanted to make sure that each Veteran looks at his or hers claim with a broad scope. I am in a position that TDIU might have to be used if the VA does not accurately adjudicate my claim and the common untimliness of the VA decision process just flat overtakes me. I am hoping that the 100% P and T schedular will be used and not having to use the TDIU road. It is still anybodys guess as to what the VA will do as you are well aware of to what they did to you. The PTSD award and work issue ,can really hammer a Veteran and his ability to work and the way the VA could and has come back to haunt the Veteran and his award criteria. It is a huge can of worms that I hope I never have to be a part of. Thankfully I have some other issues that will outweigh any PTSD situations with the VA and myself . And I don't mean to shed a light on it that it is not a serious issue but one that may not effect MY ratings or schedulars down the road personally. Each Veteran is a unique part of the claims process and much thought and suggestions from all confidants here among our wonderful family at Hadit, should be considered. Some as you pointed out, are more desparate and dealing with the "time is of the essence" situation. Thanks again John for pointing this out. With each thought and each decision every veteran should remember to .....NEVER GIVE UP. God Bless, C.C.

Hello Autumn, Yes, you should receive a letter notifying you that the VA has received your information and that they are working on it. I would suggest that if you do not get a notice fairly quickly to send another letter, remembering that everything should be sent Certfied mail with return receipt so as to not have any problems. You are only one of many and the Veteran must press the issues and make sure they cover their actions and process. NEVER GIVE UP. God Bless, C.C.

Hello All,,,,,,This is a toughy. Our members contributing have made some very good recommendations. All of them need some careful consideration. I would like to ask that you may want to look at your claim from these points. 1. If you file a new claim is it going to possibly get you a high schedular percentage to possibly offset a delay in your decisions on other claims under appeal or at the DRO/VARO? Anytime you are having the VA looking at your claim , a new claim can easily remove you from the decision process and may "start you at the bottom of the pile" routine? 2. Will the claim give you a possibility of reaching 100% with maybe a P and T award. It is always better to have 100% P and T rather than 100% TDIU? The reasoning here is you can still work or have a chance to earn money or paycheck with a 100% P and T . With TDIU rating at 100% , you run the risk of loosing your rating if you work at all and the VA finds out about it. Many veterans do not consider this when having the choice or they just apply for the TDIU. Yes you must consider how sick you are and the possibility of a long wait for your decision. It is one that needs CAREFUL consideration and the repurcussions of the decision you make. If the VA has "missed" some of your evidence and a FAULTY decision has been made, then the appeal process will have to be used. More time again. If you are at an age that considers possibly leaving the workforce , and your injury/diseases are moving rapidly to causing you a no work situation then TDIU may be your only logical option. One that could be but not always quicker. A new claim can be filed later, as the Earliest Effective Date is not as important as a younger , "healthier" veteran who has more time available to fight the appeals process. 3. I do want to point out you have several things working in your favor from what you posted. A. You are a Vietnam Veteran and the VA is trying to clean up the backlog with some priority given to these Vets. B. You already have some claims pending for diseases/injuries that could easily give you more than enough schedular percentages to put you at or over 100 percent. C. The new presumptives adding IHD, Parkinsons, B cell Leukemia would affect you. Your CAD is to be considered as IHD. Carotid Artery Disease, Atherosclerosis and Ischemic Heart Disease are one of the same. I would concentrate on that claim and make sure your IMO is written to cover it as the relationship to Agent Orange and IHD/CAD/Atherosclorosis has now been accepted by VA to PRESUMPTIVE which will result in an award for you. Due to your circumstances I believe the VA should rate you and your award should cover enough to put you over the 100 percent rating. If you go for the TDIU at this point it seems to me that you are maybe jumping to conclusions and not allowing your evidence and record to speak for itself. Having to send in a letter every year on your employment status to the VA to verify your TDIU just sounds like more work that you really don't need. And it keeps the VA continuously looking at your file for years to come. I would rather have it put to bed with a 100 percent and maybe a chance of P and T and not a TDIU. I have discussed this with my VA attorney as I have some claims that are very similar as to the problems you are facing. She agrees also with my suggestions and reasoning. Soooooooooo,,,,,,at the present I would concentrate on that IMO for your CAD / IHD so as to tighten the noose allowing you the award to be decided thru the CFR and schedular under the Presumptives understanding that, due to your Vietnam service , it puts you closer to a decision from the VA than others who are not Vietnam nor not having Presumptives working in your favor. TDIU is an ancillary award and totally different than your schedular rating of 100% or more and a possible P and T rating. Schedular is almost always a better route than the TDIU road. Is a new claim going to give you enough schedular to really be worth the extra time of waiting considering that you have these other highly winnable claims already under consideration? Ok ..... just some things to ponder and hope that I am right in my logic and reasoning which lately have been hard to facilitate for me. Above all the key thing to remember is ..............NEVER GIVE UP. God Bless, C.C.

Hello Carlie,,,,,, THANK YOU for the reminder as I can truthfully say that I have forgotten alot of the things you reposted ...... The DCs. and CFRs are always slipping by me...... My old mind just can't recall all the stuff that goes on here at our family gathering..........HADIT.com. Sure love my brothers and sisters... Expect some more members down here near the border..... Its spreading for sure. NEVER GIVE UP. God Bless, C.C.

Hello CCC, I would like to encourage you to make an attempt to Freedom of Information Act the bases that you think your husband may have been stationed at where AO might have been. I have posted the Training seminar with those personnel in attendance and the places the individuals were stationed. However trying to get your hands on: DA Form 2785-R Installation Natural Resources Management and DD 1532 Pest Control Summary Report MAY BE VERY DIFFICULT........... but should you FOIA for these documents and request the years for them you may ACCIDENTALLY get them if someone just messes up. These are the forms that would prove any veterans case. They were used nearly every time a chemical was applied such as AO on most bases. Even those overseas. However the DOD is very reluctant to release these even with FOIA request. I will not discourage you from trying as it might work for you. It would be awesome if one of our Veterans could produce some of these reports that he or she used in their claim just to be able to see one person who got the records. I can tell you that I have had no success with FOIA on my request but believe that Fort Greely is just one base that is so SENSITIVE that DOD is not going to cooperate with anything to do with that place. I do not believe that it will be as difficult for you as it has been for myself and Jerrel Cook. Both of us have tried to get material from Fort Greely and it has been limited. What I have posted is a miracle in itself to have made it this far. Please understand that AO may remain active for many years and you can pull up research on this subject. James Cripps is another person who has much knowledge on this subject. It takes evidence and IMOs to link it and though it is better to have the years in question line up with the active years , it is not necessary with the right scientific evidence and IMOs. Connecting the dots is what has to be done. Your claim does not have to have specifically listed only as Agent Orange. It may be listed as Herbicide and the Environmental reports need to say 2,4,5,T , or 2,4,5,DD,,,or D , 2,4,5,DDT, which will suffice to the DOD requirements. Sometimes the backdoor approach is best. For instance, I went to the Alaska Dept of Environmental Conservation and found a huge amount of Evidence that the DOD did not want to see hit them in the face. Please try and use your state agencies with regards to these types of chemicals. The EPA usually trys and backfiles the issues. Try to use ATSDR records searches too. I hope this will help you in your effort to get this resolved. I also believe that you will need IMOs and someone to "package" this in a way as propel it toward a favorable decision with the VA. Above all please.............NEVER GIVE UP. God Bless, C.C.

Hello Bonzi ,,,,I was wondering this myself and may be taking a trip soon as I smell the award buzzards circling over me. I always want to have a chance to get VA help abroad if I go. Thank you again. NEVER GIVE UP. God BLess, C.C.

Hello CCC... Your welcome..... Please remember that Agent Orange was outlawed in 1975 so your dates need to be before that. However if he was involved in some type of exposure to say a dump or burn pit then it could be active for years later. It will take a cadre of evidence from buddy statements to doctors IMOs and Smrs. to collectively connect the dots. Agent Orange may remain in the ground and very active and deadly for decades according to Dr. Arnold Schectter who James Cripps and I both used in our claims. James won with his and mine is in adjudication process. Your husband has IHD and another presumptive from the VA list of Agent Orange. You need to get your claim filed and continue to develope it as best as can be. Jbasser and I were talking and he and I suggest you go back to the SVR radio show and find James Cripps show. Remember James Cripps was at Fort Gordon and he was an MP also ..... I hope this helps out . God Bless,,,,,,NEVER GIVE UP. C.C.

Hello CCC, I have posted in below link that showed Fort Carson on the spraying seminar list from the 1973 list with people in attendance and the name of the post. BINGO , you said your husband was stationed there ..... Can you prove that with Military Record or other evidence. Check the list again and see if he was somewhere else. I also want to state that Peripheral Neuropathy does not have to meet the presumptive issue and that sometimes the DIRECT exposure issue should be used. I have post both Dr. Durham and Dr. Yu opinions , now in BVA records which were the IMO evidence needed to swing Benefit of a Doubt , 38 CFR , 3.102 to the Veterans favor. I am posting the BVA case showing the record and Dr. Yu s opinion. Read it very carefully. Citation Nr: 0529441 Decision Date: 11/02/05 Archive Date: 11/14/05 DOCKET NO. 02-05 373 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Houston, Texas THE ISSUE Entitlement to service connection for peripheral neuropathy, claimed as due to exposure to Agent Orange in service. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: Texas Veterans Commission ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD D. M. Casula, Counsel INTRODUCTION The veteran had active service from January 1967 to January 1969. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) from a September 2000 RO rating decision which, in pertinent part, denied service connection for peripheral neuropathy, secondary to herbicide exposure. In February 2003 the Board issued a development memorandum and notified the veteran that the Board would be developing evidence concerning his appeal, pursuant to regulations in effect at that time. Subsequently, those regulations were invalidated, and as a result, in July 2003, the Board remanded this matter for further evidentiary development. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The veteran had active military service in the Republic of Vietnam during the Vietnam era, and is therefore presumed to have been exposed to Agent Orange, or other herbicide agent, during his service in Vietnam. 2. The weight of the competent medical evidence of record is in approximate balance as to whether the veteran's peripheral neuropathy was incurred as a result of exposure to Agent Orange or other herbicide agents during service. CONCLUSION OF LAW Giving the benefit of the doubt to the veteran, peripheral neuropathy was incurred as a result of exposure to Agent Orange or other herbicide agents in service. 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 1110, 1116 (West 2002); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.307(a)(6), 3.309(e) (2005). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION A. Duty to Notify and Assist The Veterans Claims Assistance Act of 2000 (VCAA) describes VA's duty to notify and assist claimants in substantiating a claim for VA benefits. 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 5100, 5102, 5103, 5103A, 5107, 5126; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.156(a), 3.159 and 3.326(a). In this case, in letters dated in May 2001, December 2003, and June 2004, the veteran was notified of the duty to notify and assist requirements of the VCAA. However, in light of the result here (a full grant of the claim for service connection), the Board finds that a detailed discussion of the VCAA is unnecessary. Any potential failure of VA in fulfilling its duties to notify and assist the veteran is essentially harmless error. B. Service Connection for Peripheral Neuropathy Service connection may be granted for a disability resulting from injury or disease incurred in or aggravated by active service. 38 U.S.C.A. § 1110; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. In this case, the veteran contends that he was exposed to Agent Orange in service, and that such exposure caused his peripheral neuropathy. The statute pertaining to claimed exposure to Agent Orange is 38 U.S.C.A. § 1116. Regulations issued pursuant thereto provide that, if a veteran was exposed to an herbicide agent during active service, presumptive service connection is warranted for the following disorders: chloracne or other acneform disease consistent with chloracne; Type 2 diabetes mellitus, Hodgkin's disease; multiple myeloma; non-Hodgkin's lymphoma; acute and subacute peripheral neuropathy; porphyria cutanea tarda; prostate cancer; respiratory cancers; and, soft-tissue sarcoma (other than osteosarcoma, chondrosarcoma, Kaposi's sarcoma, or mesothelioma). 38 C.F.R. § 3.309(e). Presumptive service connection for these disorders as a result of Agent Orange exposure is warranted if the requirements of 38 C.F.R. § 3.307(a)(6) are met, pursuant to 38 C.F.R. § 3.309(e). Acute and subacute peripheral neuropathy must have become manifest to a degree of 10 percent or more within a year after the last date on which the veteran was exposed to an herbicide agent during service. 38 C.F.R. § 3.307(a)(6)(ii). The law further provides that a "veteran who, during active military, naval, or air service, served in the Republic of Vietnam during the period beginning on January 9, 1962, and ending on May 7, 1975, shall be presumed to have been exposed during such service to an herbicide agent . . . unless there is affirmative evidence to establish that the veteran was not exposed to any such agent during that service." 38 U.S.C.A. § 1116(f). Review of the veteran's service personnel records confirms that he served in the Republic of Vietnam during the Vietnam era. Because the veteran served in Vietnam during the appropriate period of time, and there is no affirmative evidence demonstrating that he was not exposed to Agent Orange or other herbicide therein, he is presumed to have been so exposed during service. In addition to the foregoing presumption provisions, which arose out of the Veterans' Dioxin and Radiation Exposure Compensation Standards Act, Public Law No. 98-542, § 5, 98 Stat. 2725, 2727-29 (1984), and the Agent Orange Act of 1991, Public Law No. 102-4, § 2, 105 Stat. 11 (1991), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has determined that a veteran is not precluded from establishing service connection with proof of actual direct causation. Combee v. Brown, 34 F.3d 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1994). The Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims has specifically held that the provisions of Combee are applicable in cases involving Agent Orange exposure. McCartt v. West, 12 Vet. App. 164, 167 (1999). Hence, the veteran may establish service connection for peripheral neuropathy by presenting competent evidence which shows that it is as likely as not that the disorder was caused by in-service Agent Orange exposure. 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303. With the above criteria in mind, the evidence will be briefly summarized. Service medical records show no complaints of or treatment for peripheral neuropathy. Post-service treatment records show that the veteran was first diagnosed with peripheral neuropathy in June 2000. In a September 2000 letter, the veteran's private neurologist, Dr. Yu, noted that the veteran presented in August 2000 with a three- to four- year history of slowly progressive bilateral lower extremity pain and numbness. The diagnosis was sensory polyneuropathy. The RO has denied service connection on a presumptive basis for peripheral neuropathy, claimed as due to exposure to Agent Orange, based upon a finding that the veteran has developed peripheral neuropathy only in the recent past, and that acute or subacute peripheral neuropathy was not diagnosed within a year of his last exposure to a herbicide agent. 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.307(a)(6)(ii), 3.309(e). While it is true that the veteran's peripheral neuropathy may not be service connected on a presumptive basis in this case for the reasons espoused by the RO, this does not prevent the veteran's claim for service connection for peripheral neuropathy from being considered for direct service connection under Combee. In that regard, the Board notes that there are both private and VA medical opinions of record which support a finding that the veteran's peripheral neuropathy is related to exposure to Agent Orange in service. In August 2000, Dr. Yu (the veteran's private neurologist) opined that the veteran's symmetric sensory polyneuropathy was "possibly due to toxin exposure". In September 2000, Dr. Yu noted that extensive workup to rule out causes of sensory polyneuropathy had been negative, and opined that the veteran's toxic exposure to dioxin was the cause of his sensory polyneuropathy. On VA examinations in May 2003 and June 2005, the examiner noted that the veteran had undergone an extensive workup to determine any underlying etiology for his sensory peripheral neuropathy, but the detailed workup was negative. The VA examiner then opined that the veteran's sensory peripheral neuropathy was at least as likely as not causally related to exposure to Agent Orange in service. The Board notes that in June 2005 the VA examiner also reviewed the veteran's claims file in conjunction with the VA examination. The Board also notes that there is no negative or contrary evidence of record, to suggest that the veteran's peripheral neuropathy was not due to exposure to Agent Orange or was due to a cause other than herbicide exposure. Both the veteran's private neurologist and the VA examiner agree that the veteran's detailed workup was negative for finding the etiology of his sensory peripheral neuropathy. Thus, given the positive medical evidence in support of the veteran's claim and considering the entire evidence of record, the Board finds that a reasonable doubt is presented as to whether all the elements for service connection for peripheral neuropathy, as a result of exposure to Agent Orange or other herbicide agents, are established. Accordingly, without finding error in the RO's action, the Board will exercise its discretion to find that the evidence is in relative equipoise and conclude that the claim may be granted. 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.102; Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49 (1990). ORDER Service connection for peripheral neuropathy, as due to exposure to Agent Orange in service, is granted. _________________________ ANDREW J. MULLEN Veterans Law Judge, Board of Veterans' Appeals Department of Veterans Affairs Citation Nr: 0606156 Decision Date: 03/03/06 Archive Date: 03/14/06 DOCKET NO. 04-19 301 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Phoenix, Arizona THE ISSUES 1. Entitlement to service connection for peripheral neuropathy of both lower extremities, claimed as nerve damage to the legs and feet and also as circulatory damage to the feet as due to Agent Orange. 2. Entitlement to service connection for skin cancer, claimed as spots on the face, arms, and hands that tingle and also as nerve damage. REPRESENTATION Veteran represented by: Arizona Veterans Service Commission WITNESS AT HEARING ON APPEAL Veteran ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD J.W. Kim, Associate Counsel INTRODUCTION The veteran served on active duty from March 1963 to March 1966, including service in the Republic of Vietnam. These matters come before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal of rating decisions by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Phoenix, Arizona. In a January 2003 rating decision, the RO denied service connection for peripheral neuropathy of the left and right lower extremities. In a December 2003 rating decision, the RO continued the prior denials of service connection for peripheral neuropathy and denied service connection for skin cancer, claimed as spots on the face, arms, and hands that tingle and also as nerve damage. The veteran timely perfected an appeal of these determinations to the Board. In September 2005, the veteran testified before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge at a Board hearing at the RO. The issue of service connection for skin cancer, claimed as spots on the face, arms, and hands that tingle and also as nerve damage, is addressed in the REMAND portion of the decision below and is REMANDED to the RO via the Appeals Management Center (AMC), in Washington, DC. FINDINGS OF FACT Resolving all reasonable doubt in favor of the veteran, peripheral neuropathy of both lower extremities is related to service, specifically to exposure to Agent Orange. CONCLUSION OF LAW Peripheral neuropathy of both lower extremities was incurred in active service. 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 1101, 1110, 1112, 1113, 1116, 5107 (West 2002); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.307, 3.309 (2005). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION Initially, the Board finds that the agency of original jurisdiction has substantially satisfied the duties to notify and assist, as required by the Veterans Claims Assistance Act of 2000. 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 5100, 5102, 5103, 5103A, 5107, 5126 (West 2002 & Supp. 2005); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.156(a), 3.159 and 3.326(a) (2005). To the extent that there may be any deficiency of notice or assistance, there is no prejudice to the veteran in proceeding with this case given the favorable nature of the Board's decision. Service connection may be granted for disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by service. 38 U.S.C.A. § 1110 (West 2002); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a) (2005). Service connection may also be awarded for a chronic condition when: (1) a chronic disease manifests itself and is identified as such in service (or within the presumptive period under 38 C.F.R. § 3.307) and the veteran presently has the same condition; or (2) a chronic disease manifests itself during service (or within the presumptive period) but is not identified until later and there is a showing of continuity of symptomatology after discharge. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(b) (2005); see 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.307, 3.309 (2005). A veteran who, during active military, naval, or air service, served in the Republic of Vietnam during the Vietnam era, and has a disease listed at 38 C.F.R. § 3.309(e), shall be presumed to have been exposed during such service to an herbicide agent, unless there is affirmative evidence to establish that the veteran was not exposed to any such agent during that service. 38 C.F.R. § 3.307(a)(6)(iii). If a veteran was exposed to an herbicide agent during active military, naval, or air service, the following diseases shall be service connected if the requirements of 38 C.F.R. § 3.307(a)(6)(iii) are met, even though there is no record of such disease during service, provided further that the rebuttable presumption provisions of 38 C.F.R. § 3.307(d) are also satisfied: Chloracne or other acneform disease consistent with chloracne; Type II Diabetes; Hodgkin's disease; multiple myeloma; non-Hodgkin's lymphoma; acute and subacute peripheral neuropathy; porphyria cutanea tarda; prostate cancer; respiratory cancers (cancer of the lung, bronchus, larynx or trachea); and soft-tissue sarcoma (other than osteosarcoma, chondrosarcoma, Kaposi's sarcoma, or mesothelioma). 38 C.F.R. § 3.309(e); 66 Fed. Reg. 23,166, 23,168-69 (May 8, 2001). The term acute and subacute peripheral neuropathy means transient peripheral neuropathy that appears within weeks or months of exposure to an herbicide agent and resolves within two years of the date of onset. Note 2, 38 C.F.R. § 3.309(e). The veteran contends, in essence, that he has peripheral neuropathy of both lower extremities due to exposure to Agent Orange during service. He asserts that symptoms developed in approximately 1970 and that they have gradually become worse, but that he did not seek treatment until April 2002. The record shows that the veteran served in the Republic of Vietnam during the Vietnam era. Thus, exposure to Agent Orange is presumed. 38 C.F.R. § 3.307(a)(6)(iii). Initially, the Board notes that only acute and subacute peripheral neuropathy are recognized by VA as diseases associated with exposure to Agent Orange. 38 C.F.R. § 3.309(e). In this regard, the record shows that the veteran does not have acute or subacute peripheral neuropathy as defined by VA regulations. The fact that the veteran is not entitled to the foregoing regulatory presumption of service connection does not preclude an evaluation as to whether he is entitled to service connection on a direct basis or entitled to presumptive service connection for a chronic disease. See Combee v. Brown, 34 F.3d 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1994). After review, the Board notes a December 2002 VA neurological disorders examination report and a July 2003 letter from Dr. Durham, the veteran's private treating physician. The VA examination report reflects the examiner's difficulty in determining the etiology of the veteran's peripheral neuropathy. The examiner stated that there is no clear cut evidence that exposure to herbicides caused the veteran's peripheral neuropathy and acknowledged the discomfort of defining the veteran's disorder as a neuropathy of unknown etiology. The examiner explained that unfortunately many peripheral neuropathies are of unknown etiology and to arbitrarily assign one to a caustic agent does not seem to be the best medical decision. Dr. Durham begins his letter by noting that he has taken several comprehensive histories from the veteran and can find no other type of exposures either personal or industrial that could potentially account for the veteran's neuropathy. He also noted reviewing the veteran's VA medical records, including the above examination report, his own medical records, VA's Guide on Agent Orange Claims, and the veteran's rating decision. Dr. Durham acknowledged that the veteran's claim was denied because he did not complain of symptoms within the very short time period cited by VA after exposure to herbicides. He stated that it is clearly documented in the medical literature that neuropathy can be latent for a period of up to decades, and a denial based on short term exposure and short term initiation of acute complaints seems to be somewhat arbitrary. He opined that, given that the veteran does not have any evidence of any of the other major problems with which neuropathy is often associated, there is at least a 51 percent probability that the veteran's neuropathy may be directly linked to exposure to dioxin/Agent Orange. The Board acknowledges that the veteran's claims file was not made available to Dr. Durham. The Board observes that review of the claims file is only required where necessary to ensure a fully informed examination or to provide an adequate basis for the examiner's findings and conclusions. See VAOPGCPREC 20-95; 61 Fed. Reg. 10,064 (1996). In this case, the Board finds that resort to the veteran's claims file was not necessary because the veteran provided an accurate account of his medical history, thus ensuring a fully informed examination. In this regard, the Board observes that the veteran's account as related to Dr. Durham essentially reflected the evidence of record at that time. Further, Dr. Durham did review several pertinent documents, including the VA examination report. Given the above, and resolving all reasonable doubt in favor of the veteran, the Board finds that the veteran's peripheral neuropathy of both lower extremities is due to his exposure to Agent Orange during service. ORDER Service connection for peripheral neuropathy of both lower extremities is granted. REMAND The veteran contends, in essence, that he has spots on his face, arms, and hands that tingle due to nerve damage from exposure to Agent Orange. He also contends, in essence, that he has had skin cancers also from exposure to Agent Orange. After review, the Board observes that further development is necessary prior to adjudicating this claim. In an August 2004 statement, the veteran indicated that he had submitted copies of medical records from two dermatologists. The Board observes that the above medical evidence is not of record. In light of VA's notice of the existence of outstanding medical evidence, the appeal must be remanded. Accordingly, the case is REMANDED for the following action: 1. The RO should attempt to obtain and associate with the claims file medical records from the two dermatologists referenced by the veteran in his August 2004 statement. 2. After all evidentiary development has been completed, including a VA examination if deemed necessary, the RO should readjudicate the issue of entitlement to service connection for skin cancer, claimed as spots on the face, arms, and hands that tingle and also as nerve damage. 3. If the benefit sought on appeal remains denied, the veteran and his representative should be furnished a supplemental statement of the case and afforded an appropriate opportunity for response before the claims file is returned to the Board for further appellate consideration. Thereafter, the case should be returned to the Board, if in order. The Board intimates no opinion as to the ultimate outcome of this case. The veteran need take no action unless otherwise notified. The veteran has the right to submit additional evidence and argument on the matter the Board has remanded. Kutscherousky v. West, 12 Vet. App. 369 (1999). This claim must be afforded expeditious treatment. The law requires that all claims that are remanded by the Board of Veterans' Appeals or by the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims for additional development or other appropriate action must be handled in an expeditious manner. See 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 5109B, 7112 (West Supp. 2005). ______________________________________________ K. OSBORNE Acting Veterans Law Judge, Board of Veterans' Appeals Department of Veterans Affairs Once again these 2 important cases showed you do not need to have been treated in service , and the acute (one year) and subacute (two year) ruling. I also want to show another case that was decided under the presumptive but it was pointed out in the BVA record that the DIRECT route of service connection can be used. Please see : Citation NR. 0617909 Decision Date 06/19/06 Docket Number 04 -13 564 Under Section III Analysis " Although the presumptive route to service connection is foreclosed, the veteran is certainly free to seek to service connection for peripheral neuropathy via the DIRECT route, by showing that his peripheral neuropathy is related to service." See Combee, supra. If you read further on this awarded case, you will see that ...."The Board finds that the Medical opinions specific to the veterans case outweigh any general views expressed in the Statement of the National Academy of Sciences. Accordingly , with the evidence supporting the veteran's claim , service connection fro peripheral neuropathy is warranted." I would like to encourage you about the importance of researching your husbands file and records and gather the evidence to propel his claim. Your main hurdle right now is to connect the dots and to get at least one or more Independent Medical Opinions , (IMO) that will state .....something like...... "It is my professional opinion that Mr________ disease stated or several diseases stated was AS LEAST AS LIKELY AS NOT CAUSED BY HIS EXPOSURE TO AGENT ORANGE/HERBICIDES while in service in the military at.....whatever places he was at. It is important that the Medical examiners need ALL of your records , not just medical but also any environmental or Medical journal opinions or peer reviews that will link the disease to the chemical. It is also important to have your Medical examainer also specifically list those reports that he reviewed. I hope this helps you and also know that there are some veterans that have been searching for ideas. Please use Hadits wonderful historical research library here at the site. You can view past content such as from me or Berta or any others , or you can search the site for data . Whatever you do please remember it takes time and hard work with patience. And above all please remember to NEVER GIVE UP. God Bless, C.C. Dr. Durham AO BVA Case.htm

[ Hello CCC, Berta , Jbasser, Chuck , Boomer First thank you all for your research and study to bring documents to the attention of our Veterans and their families. As many of you know my battle with AGENT ORANGE outside of Vietnam is proving quite interesting. Both Jerrel Cook and I were stationed at the infamous Fort Greely. And both of us are suffering from nearly identical same list of diseases . To name a few, AO IHD, CAD, ATHERSOSCELROSIS, PERIPHERAL NEUROPATHY, RESTRICTED LUNG DISEASE/COPD, PULMONARY HYPERTENSION, INFLAMMATORY BOWEL DISEASE , DRY EYES, AND some others that I will leave off for now. 2 of our members have already passed away last year. One from this site and the radio show. Mr. Carlos Hope . I am going to first say that James Cripps is the first award inside the CONUS for agent orange and DIRECT exposure issue not presumptive. This is the only sure way to make it work. Berta has posted another from Alabama . James was at Ft. Gordon Georgia which is on the list of known AO bases. I have posted the list a couple of years ago here in the AO section of Hadit and now thru an all day search of the names that showed up on the Materials Training Seminar Conference from Sept 1973 . If you read the list with the names on it you will see only the location with no specifics. So that means you have to look up the location to find a more accurate description. What I have done is simply made it more accessible to at least know where each place is in the Unitied States. I would use wikipedia to fine tune all there is to know about the location. OK ,,,so if you go to the list and see the number to the left you will see the name of the person to attend and the installation he is from . What I have done to make it alittle easier is put location to the number linking the person and location for to help. It took nearly 5 hours just for this part. Remember the DOD is not going to make it easy. US ARMY MATERIAL COMMAND INSTALLATIONS AND SERVICES 10-14 SEPT 1973 Col. William Trefz(PLEASE SEE ATTACHMENTS) 1.Sunflower Army Ammunition, Johnson County, Kansas 2.Ft Monmouth, Monmouth County, New Jersey 3. Milan Army Ammunition, Tennesee 4. White Sands Missile Range , New Mexico 5.Riverbank Army Ammunition , Modesto , Calif. SUPERFUND 6.US Airforce Academy, Colorado Springs , Co 7.Jefferson Proving Grounds, Madision Indiana 8. Sierra Army Depot, Herlong , California, 50 miles northwest of Reno Nevada 9.Rock Island Arsennal , Rock Island , Ill On Mississippi River between Davenport Iowa and Rock Island Ill 10.Fort Richardson , Anchorage Alaska 11.Lexington Bluegrass Army Depot, Kentucky 12.Fitsimmons General Hospital, Aurora, Colorado 13.Sharpe Army Depot , San Joaquin , Calif SUPERFUND 14. Rock Island Arsenal , Rock Island Ill between Davenport Iowa and Rock Island on the Mississippi River 15.US Air Force Academy Colorado Springs, Colo 16. Sacremento Army Depot, Sacremento , Calif 17. Watervliet Arsennal, on the Hudson River , New York 18. Fort Wainwright, Alaska 19. Pueblo Army Depot, Pueblo , Colorado 20.Joliet Army Ammuntion Plant , Elwood , Illoinois 21. US Airforce Academy , Colorado Springs , Col 22 Fort Huachuca, Arizona 23. Pine Bluff Arsenal, Arkansas 24. Fort Monmouth , Oceanport, New Jersey 25.Sacremento Army Depot, Sacremento Calif 26 Iowa Army Ammuntion Plant, Des Moine County, Iowa 27. Jefferson Proving Ground, Madision, Indiana 28.Dugway Proving Ground , Utah 29. Anniston Army Depot Bynum Alabama 30. Charleston Army Depot , Charleston South Carolina 31. Granite City Army installation. Madison Count Illionois (Greater St. Louis Area) 32. Lone Star Ammuntion Plant, Bowie County , Texas SUPERFUND 33 Redstone Arsenal (Marshal Space Flight) Huntsville , Alabama 34. Fitzsimmons General Hospital , Aurora, Colorado 35 Picatinny Arsenal , Picatinny Lake , Lake Denmark, New Jersey 36. Franford Arsenal, Philadelphia, Pennsylvannia 37. Volunteer Army Ammunition, Chatanoga, Tenn 38. Aberdeen Proving Ground, Aberdeen , Maryland 39. Granite City Army Installation, Madison County, Illionois 40.US Air Force Academy. Colorado Springs Colorado 41.Kansas Army Ammuntion Plant, Parsons, Kansas 42. Fort Wainwright, Alaska (Central) 43. Savanah Army Depot , Savanah, Illionois on the Mississippi River 44. Letterkenny Army Depot, Franklin County Pennsylvania 45.FORT GREELY , Alaska 46. Anniston Army Depot , Bynum Alabama 47. Savannah Army Depot, Savannah Illionois 48. Franford Arsenal , Philidelphia , Pennsylvannia 49. Savannah Army Depot , Savannah , Illionois 50. Aberdeen Proving Grounds , Aberdeen Maryland 51. Cornhusker Army Ammunition , Grand Island , Nebraska SUPERFUND 52. Letterkenny Army Depot, Franklin County , Penn 53. Holston Army Ammunition , Kingsport , Tennessee 54. Seneca Army Depot, Seneca County, New York 55. Atlanta Army Depot , Atlanta, Georgia 56. Milan Army Ammunition. Milan ,Tennessee 57. Fort Carson, El Paso County , Colorado 58. Harry Diamond Labratories, Charles County , Maryland 59. Tooele Army Depot, Tooele County , Utah 60. Longhorn Army Ammuntion, Harrision County, near Marshal , Texas 61. Rock Island Arsenal between Davenport Iowa and Rock Island Illionois 62. Ravenns Army Ammunition, Windham Ravenna, Ohio 63. New Cumberland Army Depot. Harrisburg Pennsylvania 64. Natick Labratories , Natick , Massasschusetts 65. Rocky Mtn. Arsennal, Commerce City , Colorado 66. HQ US Army Alaska, Fort Richardson , Alaska 67. Holston Army Ammuntion , Kingsport , Tennessee 68. New Cumberland Army Depot, New Cumberland, Pennsylvannia 69.Harry Diamond Labratories , Maryland 70. Red River Army Depot, 19 miles west of Texarkanna , Texas 71. Badger Army Ammunition, Baraboo , Wisconsin 72. US Air Force Academy , Colorado Springs , Colorado 73. Newport Army Ammunition Plant , Terri Haute , Indiana (VX NERVE AGENT PRODUCTION SITE) 74.US Air Force Academy , Colorado Springs, Colorado 75. Rocky Mountain Arsenal, Denver Colorado. 76. US Army Tank Automotive , Warren , Michigan 77.Aberdeen Proving Grounds , Aberdeen, Maryland 78. Indiana Army Ammo Plant. Jeffersonville, Indiana 79. Lexington Bluegrass Army , Lexington Kentucky 80. US Air Force Academy, Colorado Springs, Colorado 81. US Air Force Academy , Colorado Springs, Colorado 82. Fort Wingate Depot, Gallup , New Mexico 83. Red River Army Depot, Texarkanna, Texas 84. Lima Army Modification , Lima , Ohio 85.US Air Force Academy, Colorado Springs, Colorado 86. White Sands Missile Range, New Mexico 87.US Air Force Academy , Colorado Springs, Colorado 88.Anniston Army Depot, Bynum , Alabama (VX SARIN AND MUSTARD GAS PRODUCTION PLANT) 89. Pueblo Army Depot, Pueblo , Colorado 90. Sierra Army Depot, Herlong , California 91.Tooele Army Depot, Tooele, Utah 92. HQ US ARMY ALASKA, FORT RICHARDSON , ALASKA 93.Twin Cities Army Ammo, Ramsey County, Minn 94. US Air Force Academy, Colorado Springs , Colorado 95. Lousiana Army Ammo Plant, Webster and Boosier Parrishes, Doyline, Louisiana 96. Fort Richardson, Alaska 97. Yuma Proving Grounds, Yuma , Arizona 98. Fort Huachuca , Arizona 99. Radford Army Ammo, Kingsport , Tennessee 100. US Air Force Academy , Colorado Springs , Colorado 101. Lake City Army Ammo, Independance , Missouri 102. Port Monmouth, New Jersey 103. Army Material and Mechanic Research, Watertown, Massuchusetts 104 Tobyhanna Army Depot , Tobyhanna, Penn 105.Alabama Army Depot, Anniston , Alabama 106. Fort Huachuca, Arizona 107. US Air Force Academy, Colorado Springs , Colorado 108. FORT GREELY , ALASKA 109. Yuma Proving Grounds, Yuma , Arizona 110. Fort Richardson, Alaska 111. US Air Force Academy, Colorado Springs , Colorado 112.Redstone Arsenal, Alabama 113. US Airforce Academy, Colorado Springs , Colorado 114. Savannah Army Depot, Savannah , Illionois 115. US Airforce Academy, Colorado Springs , Colorado 116. US Airforce Academy , Colorado Springs, Colorado 117. Aberdeen Proving Grounds, Aberdeen , Maryland 118. Charleston Army Depot, South Carolina 119.US Airforce Academy, Colorado Springs, Colorado 120. Tooele Army Depot, Tooele , Utah I hope this will help to identify some other places not listed with DOD. It is also helpful because you may know some of these folks whose name is listed by the number. I knew Harold Teiken from Fort Greely and worked with him. Maybe this can reach some whose names are here to help them with any health related military exposure issue. I will point out that the Fort Greely reservation and all EPA records are now joined into the Fort Wainwright , Alaska records. So the link that Boomer posted will not show that . This happened in 1995 when the US Army Strategic Missile Defense Command was titled and assigned to Fort Greely. A brand new agency and if you look at Fort Wainwright under the EPA superfund list in Boomers link you will see how the acreage jumped to nearly 900,000 acres. This is because when Fort Greely was give to Fort Wainwright jurisdiction is added 657,000 acres from Fort Greely. The Missile Defence command at Fort Greely was assigned about 1700-2000 acres for its agency and the resultive Interceptor Missile Program .....aka ......STARWARS.... So it will not be easy to find alot of the old contamination problems there at Fort Greely like before. However I would like to point out that you can still use the Alaska Dept. of Environmental Conservation records stored at the Fort Greely Restoration and Advisory board and other ADEC records listed all the Agent Orange site and storage with METHOD I II or III cleanup , remediation efforts and their controls on each site. This is very important. I would also look at the new report I posted last month....the one that was taken down by ????? outside of Hadit and then mysteriously put back up. The 49th Missle Defense Command and the 2007 Environmental baseline report which shows the Agent Orange sensitive contaminated areas as well as the storage bldgs use. Very good close up shots and aerial/satellite photos with areas highlighted for areas of concern. I would also like to point out that the presumptive list for most of the AO awards are for Vietnam boots on the ground with Neimers and BWN starting to gain some momentum. James Cripps won his AO CONUS award at Fort Gordon , Georgia and I have his award . He won on DIRECT exposure and that is what I am following. I also have some of his evidence in my claim with letters from Dr. Arnold Shectner (SP) who is a leading researcher on Agent Orange. I am thouroughly convinced as well as my fellow Fort Greely soldier , and SVR Host, Jerrel Cook that the Dept. of Defense will aggressively fight any EXPOSURE ISSUE from Fort Greely because of the sensitive nature of what Fort Greely is. It is , has been the most secret military installation in the world..... since the 1960s and nothing has changed. They will not let out all the test that have happened , including Project 112, the Nuclear Project regarding the SM1A reactor , now entombed????, and the Missile defense Work,,,,,, and of course the HAARP project and whatever else may arise. That is why there is now 900000 acres of land there to test without risk of harming large populations , unless you are a moose or caribou. So for people like Jerrel and I who are still alive it is going to be a battle. Even with my strong IMO's, phyiscal evidence , SMR, and even VA medical opinions. If it was anyplace but Fort Greely ,,,,, there would be a chance. Hopefully because of how much time has gone by and we have lost a couple of Hadit Members who were stationed there , Jerrel and I hold on for proper decision. That is if we can live longer than they make us wait. Also there is an award posted on an Agent Orange claim for direct exposure and it is stored here on our site under the Haynes pipeline information. It is the only one I know about at present. There are several more CONUS awards because of James Cripps efforts and we will see more BVA writeups with specifics , soon I hope. So.... what I believe has been discussed in the years past. Berta and I have posted alot on this subject. I would not try any presumptive exposure effort outside of Vietnam or now Thailand. I would go with direct exposure. You can use the research I aleady have shown here in Hadit library showing BVA WILL award Peripheral Neuropathy WITHOUT DIABETES II DIAGNOSIS. (See Dr. Durham and Dr. Yeng for 2 awards at BVA both DIRECT exposure) Notice key word, phrase, "remain latent for up to decades" taking out the acute and subacute ruling and using the chronic award. You will and may find it important to make sure you use these 2 awards for quoting in your individual case as they are precendent setting only if the Veteran brings it up to the court or VARO. Do not count on the VA to bring it up to you as precendent setting is not requirred in VA law.....I guess its not part of the real USA. I may post some of those here to help others if I feel better later. You can look them up under the AO issues and my content. I wish all of our few surviving Agent Orange Veterans well and to please study and do your research before we all are gone and no one left to fight for . Thank you all for such great dedication to this wonderful place we Veterans have as a sanctuary. Your help and hard work is what makes this all possible and a place where we can gather , glean, share reports , knowledge to propel our claims in a faster , more accurate , and sensible method to achieve the elusive goal of Service Connected and the bounty of the FAIR award. Once again thank you folks. HAPPY NEW YEAR,,,,,,, NEVER GIVE UP. God Bless, C.C. not to be confused with ccc http://www.google.co...5iHMZEwPLpkUGoA 49th Missile Defense Command Environmental Baseline Report 2007 attachment=5092:AGENT ORANGE TRAINING MANUEL 1973 Fort Greely.pdf] AGENT ORANGE TRAINING MANUEL 1973 Fort Greely.pdf Agent Orange Herbicide Tests and Storage in the U_S_ - Office of Public Health and Environmental Hazards.htm

CONGRATULATIONS DEACON.......a great way to start the best year of your life.......and you are right............ NEVER GIVE UP. God Bless, C.C.

Hello NJ,,,,, Merry Christmas , Happy New Year and WAY TO GO. Congratulations and enjoy life alittle. NEVER GIVE UP. C.C.

Hello All, EXACTLY,,,,,,,, Jbasser and SScrewed said, The rater is not able to determine medical etiology or symptoms. Just as you are a layman and cannot make such determinations. So is the rater. It will take an IMO to squash his report/decision/SOC and I would make sure the VA is noted in the appeal/NOD that it is not allowed to make such decisions. They are counting on you not appealing the decision and that you are just fed up with messing with the VA. If you choose this route then the decision will stand. This raters decision is so stupid as to say that the nerves in your spine do not end up in the hands as to the way it is worded. The rater said that the nerves in your hand are a result of the carpal tunnel, not related to the spine issues. STUPID...... "The service connected bilateral median nerve paralysis is the apparent cause of the episodic weakness, pain and decrease in the hands ." "That is where he comes to his decision and states: This assessment clearly shows that the end disability results in weakness and decrease in grip (incomplete paralysis) of your hand which is basically the same result as your service connected carpal tunnel syndrome." Now ,,, I would like to bring up some other issues. Have you been to neurology and been thru Needle Nerve Conductivity and EMG test? My reasoning here is you are having nerve issues and the VA rates Periperal Neuropathy which is very common to a spine injury . I have PN from chemical exposure so I know what the VA tries to Service Connect with Diabetes II and Agent Orange Presumptive. However you can still have PN without Diabetes, because of the Spine issues. If you can get your testing done and it may be possible to identify Peripheral Neuropathy with the Spine Issue relationship. Carpal Tunnel is what the VA tried to pull on me but it did not fly with the testing and the opinions , even VA Neurologist as well as private Doctors opined thru the testing I have asked you about. So now there is the possibility of filing a claim for Peripheral Neuropathy (if tested and diagnosed)which is what I believe the VA has totally overlooked. They want the Carpal Tunnel because of the scheduler. You may loose the Carpal tunnel claim issue anyway and then have the reduction with nothing to fall back on. If they misdiagnosed you and also give you a faulty decision then you could really hammer them with a new claim for Peripheral Neuropathy of both uppers(rateable at 30%) and may be able to appeal the Carpal Issue and Spine Issue to boot. I am also curious as to if you have Peripheral Neuropathy and if you have it in your LEGS and FEET. I have severe PN in ALL 4 extremities and the doctors told me that a spine injury or problem can also cause this. Which is what you are dealing with. Have you had trouble with numbness, pain, burning in your feet? Have you been tested by Neurology with the same test above I listed? It is very likely that you could end up with yet another claim for your feet and legs with PN . And this might be secondary to your Spine issues. I see alot of possibilities with your claim. It could very well be something the VA never should have gotten into. Now they have opened a can of worms and it could be to your benefit but it will take some testing , some GOOD SOLID IMO's which are not a big deal other than time and some cost. But it could end up putting the Genie back in the bottle so to speak. I believe your faulty decision is certainly going to be won by you with the IMO and resultive NOD/appeal on this Carpal Tunnel/Spine Issue. I also see you maybe sending the VA a nice thank you card for spotting a possible other claim and for making a Medical decision that was ridiculous and faulty , yet even illegal. And maybe award you for some new claims that might get diagnosed and filed and AWARDED. I am with Bronco on the CUE ....it was illegal and resulted in a faulty decision. You may have a CUE of your own if the VA keeps making so many mistakes. How many times does the VA CUE itself without being pushed by the Veteran. The rater really stepped over his job title again. This might be worth writing the Service Manager and then copying to OIG. I am sure they will be really happy to try and answer any questions as to how this one got to where it did. Sscrewed said it is a rating fault and yes it is but I believe the other things I brought up are going to need an IMO and an IMO could be added to the report to compel the evidence to be in favor of the Veteran. (38 CFR 3.102) . I think you still may be able to CUE the VA on the faulty rating mistake. ALSO BRONCO posted the topic from yesterday "NVLSP Common VA Errors in Increase decisions" might be looked at to give you some more ideas. As always though the Veteran can never assume anything with the VA but he must remain diligent and NEVER GIVE UP. Happy New Year. God Bless, C.C.

Hello Bronco, Phillip, "VA citation to a case or rule, does not mean that VA is applying it properly" found under the Conclusion posted in this report. This is a great find for all here at Hadit. Thank you Bronco........ Some very important problems are addressed by NVSLP but nearly every Veteran who has gone thru the claims process has had to deal with what you have posted. Remedys or corrections by VA are not forseen as this technique , as NVLSP has pointed out will continue. The beauty here with this report you posted is that Veterans can identify the "faulty" decision because of this ,and can identify the error and appeal it properly. I do not believe that the Regional Offices are ever going to steer away with their tactic of doing this. This is a recognized and proven method by VA. I and a lot of others have been "victims" to this type of decision ,,, faulty as they are. Its what makes the appeals process, and use of the BVA to correct and award such silliness. HHHhhhhmmmmmmmmmmmm.. ........It would be most interesting to actually know how many Vets and their widows/dependents suffer under this tactic of VA and then fail to initiate an appeal that strikes at the heart of the faulty decision. In other words,,,,,,many Veterans think , well thats all I can do. The VA made their decision so thats it . Its final. If we only had a way to get all Veterans to Hadit and that they all had the means to review "THEIR" site , then we would see more effective appeals and more awards. It does not sit well with me and as I deal with so many Veterans thru my efforts of trying to show them the need to get help to Hadit and its members. It magnifies the problem and the frustration that so many of the Elders and others here that want to help but are turned down or ignored. It reminds me of some history that in the old days when the cities were all walled to protect them that even in the bible in Ezekiel chapter 33 we see that in verse 2 it says "When I bring the sword upon a land, IF the people of the land take a man of their coasts, and set him for their WATCHMAN: If when he seeth the sword come upon the land , he blow the TRUMPET, and warn the people: Then whosever heareth the sound of the trumpet and taketh not warning: If the sword come, and take him away, his blood shall be upon his own head". Now isn't it something that ancient history still shows us that sometimes nothing changes. We have so many "watchmen" here at Hadit who blow the trumpet and try to sound the alarm that the enemy is approaching (the VA). The sword is simply in this discription is the 38CFRs and faulty VA decisions. and the trumpet used to sound the alarm of danger is HADIT and its Elders/members and when a Veteran does not heed the warning then they loose their claim. It is a sad day for all Veterans and their Widows/dependents. By the way this bit of history is recorded nearly 3000 yrs ago. Not much seems to have changed and the WALLED CITY with its watchman on the walls is a way to look at Hadit. The Veterans walled city. Now if I am correct, our Hadit membership is about 10000 people or close to it. There are about 1.3 to 1.4 million claims backlogged .....forget what the VA says . It may even be more. In 2007 when I filed under Sec VA James Nicholson the claims backlog was 750,000 then hit 1.2 million in late 2009 . I am convinced the real number is probably more than what I posted just because of the Nehmer cases, and even the new presumptives from last year VA directives of Agent Orange . SOOOooooooo,,,,,,,, this Tactic that NVLSP has addressed is probably the main bottomline cause of the "BACKLOG" of claims facing the Veteran. Now if we are to think it is going to get better , then we see a false sense of reasoning. The system inplace cannot allow this to change. As a matter of fact it will result in higher claims and more claims. If we remember that over 4000 new adjudicators were brought in about a year or so ago has "failed" to move the OVERALL claims backlog. Only the Vietnam and Nehmer claimants have seen some adjudication time lines reduced due to more adjudicators and Priority given those. Soon these cases will be moved but the other claims outside Vietnam/Nehmer are going with little to no movement. Rapidly increasing as it only can. I and alot of others here fall into this pit. Sorry for such a long rant but this really got me to looking again at the Veterans overall picture of this thing called claims and the adjudication process. I am hoping that all Veterans and their families will have a HAPPY NEW YEAR and that the new year could bring some changes to the VA process and more favorable decisions to the Veterans and their families. "VA Citation to a case or rule does not mean that VA is applying it properly." Thanks again Bronco for the posting of this . And thank you to all of the WATCHMEN here at Hadit who blow the trumpet for our Veterans and their families. Above all please remember that your claim is so important to follow it and exhaust all means available and to NEVER GIVE UP. God Bless, HAPPY NEW YEAR ALL. C.C.

Hello all, Yessir John , I think all in all it boils down to IMOs , evidence that steals the thunder from the C and P. I pretty much have the IMOs so I think it is just a game now of fruitation ........and wait. Moody it is just a waiting game like you said. They cannot beat sound probative evidence and IMOs. Merry Christmas to you both and remember....Never Give Up. God Bless, C.C.

Hello Papa, Yes the questionaire is what they are suppose to use to HELP them make a decision. I am sorry for your having to mess with FAULTY examinations which is probably going to lead to a FAULTY decision on this. Appeal, Appeal , Appeal,,,,,,,,The good thing is that if your questionaire is filled out and has very good PROBATIVE evidence then the questionaire can be used in the appeal to show the mistakes, inaccuracies and the faults of the the examination.Merry Christmas to you too Papa. As usual though NEVER GIVE UP. God Bless, C.C.

Hello NJ,,,, what a great Christmas present to you and family. Congratulations and it shows that when you hang in there eventually it pays off. NEVER GIVE UP. Merry Christmas, C.C.

Hello All, Having just completed a couple of QTC examinations. I would like to bring up some more items that might need to be brought forward. In the cover letter under "What do I need to do?" section please notice that it says to "Please complete the enclosed questionarie and bring it with you to the appointment. A completed questionaire helps the examiner provide VA with a comprehensive report. This will help the VA to expedite and address your claim." This questionaire I listed all of the important records of events including the SMR records showing the Tinnitus diagnosis by VA in 2008 and that it was moderate to severe. Also showing hearing loss same. It also showed the Right ear infection in service with forced drainage for 2 days. It also showed more right ear infections with treatment including reports VA and private of scar tissue RIGHT ear. Ok so the QTC examiner asked a few questions though vague and then I asked if he had read the questionaire or the records and if he saw the reports. He said he briefly looked them over. Then after a very short and ridiculous hearing test announced that I had only slight hearing loss, nothing about the Tennitus and that I had scar tissue in left ear...... OK now we have problems . The VA will see his FAULTY report which will show that I did not have inservice ear infection in left ear. It was the right. There is a difference between slight and moderate to severe hearing loss. As some of you have pointed out the QTC does not have to look at all of the records and requires lengthy time period to get the report. This ENT doctor did say the VA will get the report the next day . So what does the Veteran do when he or she gets a FAULTY C and P exam . The appeal process will have to be followed to continue the claim forward. In the appeal here , fortunately I will be able to use the whole record. Whereas he did not review the whole record and ignored even the record VA sent him. I will be able to list the SMRs , the IMOs, the records , In this Letter to the veteran, you will notice that in the "Should I bring my medical records?" section. It says NO. Please do not bring your medical records. The doctor will only review records the VA has already provided. If you have additional records related to your claim , please submit them directly to the VA". Ok so in my case the 2 examiners for different claims that I had were different . The latest one concerning the Ear issues, Tennitus , Hearing loss, Right ear infection was a literal waste of time. The SMRS showed Right Ear Infection Forced Drainage for 2 days. Current infections of right ear with treatement over the last year , twice with records. So this QTC doctor says he saw scar tissue in the LEFT ear....... That means the VA will say no inservice record of left ear. The victim.....I mean the patient Veteran is going to have to appeal this. So it is quite evident that this is a FAULTY exam designed to stop the victim .....I mean the patient Veteran from receiving service connection and his award. In the other instance of the other Examiner , He choose to look at a report that I gave him and it could possibly end up in his final report. I know his examination was more thorough and he had the SMRs the VA supplied like they said they would, right in front of him. Two totally different type of Examiners for QTC. As Pete pointed out that QTC does not get paid until the report is finnished is correct and Carlie pointed out how hard it is for a QTC report to get a copy of verses a CandP from the VAMC. The Cand P is different at the VAMC because the whole record , CFile will be used . SMRs, IMOs, Progress Reports , even other records can be used. QTC is more limited and I agree with 71m10 that it may be a violation of Hippa and maybe even a violation of due process as to improper examinations that result in a faulty decision . The victim...... I mean the patient Veteran must appeal decisions because of faulty decisions. It all boils down to the appeals process, the BVA , the evidence which triggers the 38 CFR 3.102 Benefit of a Doubt rule and the evidence in relative equipoise. So I am not as concerned with the stalling techniques of QTC as long as the appeal is done bringing the evidene to bear to the next level. As always the patient veteran must always ....NEVER GIVE UP. Merry Christmas to all .... C.C.

Hello All, JBasser is hitting the nail on the head. This complaint has just about hit everyone on this board. Its all about the money , THE BUDGET. Now if the VA does not calculate the dependents correctly it is fine with them. That is as long as the Veteran does not notice the mistake. This means less money that the VA has going out. I am curious as to how many Veterans have caught the mistake compared to those that have missed it. Remember that the VA is almost never going to blow the whistle on itself. It will take the Veteran and his documentation and bringing this to the attention of the VA before anything will be corrected. I do not have to worry yet about this but will at some point down the road. Its always good to keep this stuff on our minds because we can easily forget and let it go. Just what the VA is wanting too. Above all though ....NEVER GIVE UP. Merry Christmas. C.C.

Hello RP..... GREAT NEWS .....MERRY CHRISTMAS ..... alittle early but what a good job. Jbasser..... is one of the best there is on claims , I wish I had his memory for detail... He has become a close friend and has helped me immensly also as he does so many other Veterans. He has a servants heart as big as New York. God Bless you Rp for trying to help other Veterans because this is what it is all about . God Bless you too Jbasser and all you do. No matter where the Veteran is in his or her claims ,,,,,remember to NEVER GIVE UP.. God Bless, C.C.

Hello Hoppy,,,,, There is no mistake about it. You are one of the" leaders" here. Your tireless searches of BVA and Patient records , VA denials almost always show there is a fault somewhere that needs to be addressed. I am not sure of what has gone on with some of these other folks that are not happy with Hoppy and your decisions , but maybe it just needs to thought of as.........hmmmmm...."background noise" . Like in a restaurant that is crowed and you have to lean over your table to speak to the person next to you. Just full steam ahead and know that your expertise has helped most of us here. I think your post brings up several important issues. Vagueness is almost always an issue especially when the Progress Reports and or Examiners in Cand P note things that are incorrect. As Wings brought up about correcting it as a CUE , It makes the most sense. I have so many issues that are incorrect listed on my reports. Such as chest and neck and arm pain ......because I was kicked by a deer.........End result , after 5 years I had a heart attack. I don't think being kicked by a deer will quite hold up in court. But can still get a stall VA denial. No reports entered or taken seriously when they finally did....like Atherosclerosis and CAD diagnosis. 2 separate reports too. Part of my basis for a Malpractice suit. Yep that was some kinda deer.....actually it was a fawn...lol. Having Progress reports like Former Heavy Smoker but under that sentence is Mother died of lung cancer....... Like do you think maybe my Mother was a fformer heavy smoker and died from lung cancer. All of the other reports show that I did not smoke. These Progress Reports are a "Melting Pot" for the VA Regional Office and they use it for all they can. Reaching for those golden straws. Anything to get a denial ,,,,, anything to delay. More important ,,,... It takes MONEY to fight them . The Veteran almost always has to obtain a good IMO to point out the errors of the Progress Reports , Faulty C and Ps , and VA Remands and Denials per say. It takes great time and effort for the Veteran , or his lawyer or Rep to be able to put together the discrepencies corrections. What does this mean for the Veteran ......TIME and More Time. Some of the Vets just don't have much time left. The VA knows that in most cases and a denial on any claim means years of waiting. "avoiding the issues and burying the truth"...... you nailed it on the head Hoppy. Thats what works. Many Veterans here are frustrated ......me too...... many complain of the reports being lies or inaccurate or both.......me too....... many Veterans are tired of how long it takes to get VARO to even get the C and P exams ordered.......me too. And then the Progress reports are wrong , a mistake in a medical SMR, a C and P examiner who has never seen you before until that day, can destroy all the work the Veteran has done to present a claim properly and have it totally messed up.....still waiting if I can say me too on that one. But probably so . Hoppy again you are on track about the Veteran filing his claim..... getting denied . The Veteran wants to move on with their life but it is a second class system because of Congress as you pointed out....... Yes if it was a nonadversarial system as it is suppose to be then the backlog would automatically take care of itself. It is kind of an oxy- moron. It is nonadversarial until you get to court.....which in most cases should never have happened if the VA , the reports, examiners, doctors would just be fair or in the worst case senario just correct their mistakes to reflect the truth.....and not bury it under the beaucreacy as you pointed out. I will post more C and P exams results as I get them in so lets see how accurate they are. Hoppy , your one of the good guys ...you wear a white hat and ride a white horse so remember that . You are needed here . Alot of Veterans need your help . I am one of the Happy with Hoppy crowd. Just remember as always .....NEVER GIVE UP. God Bless, Merry Christmas . C.C.