Jump to content

Sponsored Ads

OldJoe

First Class Petty Officer
  • Content Count

    128
  • Donations

    $0.00 
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

OldJoe last won the day on June 11 2016

OldJoe had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

27 Excellent

About OldJoe

  • Rank
    E-5 Petty Officer 2nd Class

Profile Information

  • Military Rank
    SSgt

Previous Fields

  • Service Connected Disability
    50%
  • Branch of Service
    USAF
  • Hobby
    puttering around tinkering

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. That is the same mistake I made back then too. Stick with it and dot you i's and cross your t's. It may take a bit of time (3 years to get to this point) but it will be worth it.
  2. Jim, could be that you do have a potential CUE. Unfortunately every case is slightly different in how it plays out. Mine, was most likely a CUE from the get go, but had to make sure I had done everything so that if it went before the board they wouldn't just remand it. Resulting in Lord knows how many years in the VA purgatory system. The way they granted me my service connection for my back without anymore proof than basically what they had in their possession just kind of gift wrapped it for me. Yes, you got a lot of homework. Be sure you read up on those regulations concerning CUE and such. Also, read cases where the the cases is a close as your situation as possible. Be sure to read both successful and not successful. It's all great to get excited about cases that won, but if not careful you may make a mistake that could have been avoided if you were aware about some key critical piece of information you are lacking. Or, some weird interpretation the VA made that lost the case that could have been proactively countered by wording something just right in your statement. For that matter, even though everyone here may think I have a solid case this is the VA we are dealing with. So it isn't over until it is over (though it is nice for a change to think the light at the end of the tunnel is something other than a freight train)> So you get the specialized attention your case deserves you may want to start a new thread
  3. Thanks a lot guys. Don't know what I would have done without the help from this forum .
  4. Thanks folks for the second pair of eyes. When I get home tonight, if there aren't anymore suggestions I will copy and past this into the form and save it. Then of course print multiple copies of it. Is there anything else that needs to be included when I file this statement, or is that all there is to filing a CUE. Seems, like basically punt, say several "Hail Marys", "Our Fathers", put on your "lucky" underwear that has never been washed, cross your fingers and hope...
  5. Buck, I would love to take you up on that point, fortunately I am currently employed as a programmer for a state agency (unfortunately for me the state I work for is ranked 50th in the nation as far as employee wages). I am one of those few individuals that by Gods grace made a few good decisions when I left the service and went to school full time and graduated. Also, probably the only reason why my back is only as bad as it is. I don't want to think what my life would have been like if I had gone into a more physically demanding job. Thank God that I have a wonderful wife that help carry the family through those times. Won't say it was easy, there were times I really think she would have left me because of the courses I was taking and the fact that I was suffering from ADHD (though undiagnosed at the time) I am very thankful she has put up with this think headed idiot all these years.
  6. When filing this statement any documents that I should include?
  7. Thanks, And here is a shortened version... Any other suggestions? **** I respectfully request the VA to call a clear and unmistakable error on part of the October 17, 1996 decision from the St. Louis, MO VARO and to correct it. This decision was in response to my “official” request for vocational rehabilitation which was acknowledged as being received as of July 31, 1996. In the decision letter, though I was rated at 10% for other issues, I was denied service-connection for back condition citing one entry made in my SMRs for treatment for lower back pain on September 20, 1990, that the condition responded to treatment, and that “There is no evidence of a chronic back condition in the service”. I did not appeal and this claim became final. In June 9, 1999, I resubmitted my claim for vocational rehabilitation, but not include any new evidence that supported the service connection for my back. Again, this claim became final. My current claim, for my knees as secondary to my back, is still in the appeals process. As part of the DRO appeal process I included several documents to support my claim. From my SMRs an entry dated March 27, 1991 which states that the lower back pain was recurrent and that mild scoliosis was noted. A letter from the VA stating that they had received my application for benefits dated September 1, 1995. Like my claim in 1999, I did not technically provide any “new” evidence since this record existed at the time of the initial decision. Though I was denied the secondary connection for my knees I was rated ate 40% for my back (degenerative arthritis) with an effective date of August 21, 2015 (I do not disagree with this decision). The criteria for claiming a CUE in accordance with title 38 CFR 3.156 (1), (3), and (4) have been met. If the record was considered during the initial claim it is an obvious violation of 38 CFR 4.6. It is reasonable to believe that I would have qualified for vocational rehabilitation with an effective date of August 1, 1996 since the rating for scoliosis at the time (and still is), 20%. As noted in paragraph 4, I also included the letter from the VA and respectfully request that, if it is enough proof that I was within the one-year period for direct service connection that my effective date for my initial claim be adjusted accordingly as covered within 38 CFR 3.400. Since the initial claim, it is obvious that my condition has obviously worsened. I would request that I be properly evaluated under those areas relating to spinal issues so as to receive the proper rating(s).
  8. If someone would proof the following statement to be sure I used the CFRs appropriately, could state anything in a better manner, or if there is a way I can use the C&P exam from the initial claim as further evidence. Please chime in. It is probably a bit wordy and should be cut down. Unfortunately I was never one to explain something in three sentences or less. *** I respectfully request the VA to call a clear and unmistakable error on part of the October 17, 1996 decision from the St. Louis, MO VARO and to correct it. This decision was in response to my “official” request for vocational rehabilitation which was acknowledged as being received as of July 31, 1996. Which happened to be one month after the one-year period for presumptive service connection. In the decision letter, though I was rated at 10% for other issues, I was denied service-connection for back condition citing one entry made in my SMRs for treatment for lower back pain on September 20, 1990, that the condition responded to treatment, and that “There is no evidence of a chronic back condition in the service”. Regretfully, I failed to make a timely appeal and this claim became final. I tried once again to reopen my claim on June 9,1999, but neglected to include any new evidence that would support my claim of my back condition being service connected. Because of this reason, this became final after the one-year period for an appeal. During my current appeal for my knees as secondary to my back condition I included several documents to support my claim. From my SMRs an entry dated March 27,1991 which states that the lower back pain was recurrent and that mild scoliosis was noted. Also, a letter from the VA stating that they had received my application for benefits dated September 1, 1995. But, like my previous attempt to reopen my case back in 1999 I did not provide any “new” evidence to support my claim, such evidence normally this long after exiting the service requires an accompanying nexus letter opining the connection of the current state to the service. Though I was denied the secondary connection for both knees (appeal for knees still in progress) I was rated ate 40% for my back (degenerative arthritis) with an effective date of August 21, 2015 based solely on this information. The criteria for claiming a CUE in accordance with title 38 CFR 3.156 (1), (3), and (4) have been met. If the statement in the original claim of “There is no evidence of a chronic back condition in the service” was meant to cover any other entry that may have existed in my SMRs then 38 CFR 4.6 may have been violated as well. If the a fore mentioned record, which was a physical part of my SMRs at the time of the original decision, there is reasonable grounds to believe that would have been enough for me to qualify for vocational rehabilitation at that time of that decision which carried the effective date of August 1, 1996. I respectfully request that, if the letter asserting that the VA was in possession of my request for benefits dated September 1, 1995 is enough proof that I was within the one-year presumptive period, that my effective date(s) be adjusted accordingly. Since the initial claim, it is obvious that my condition has obviously worsened. I would request that I be properly evaluated under those areas relating to spinal issues so as to receive the proper rating(s).
  9. LOL, I have a feeling that if it is used, there will be a lot more examples of don't than dos that come out of this... But hey, if it helps another vet or dependent and keeps them for repeating any of the mistakes I made, then it is more than worth it.
  10. For that matter when this claim and CUE is finally over. If the maintainers want to pick pieces out of this post and put it somewhere where it can be used by others as an example and is easy to find, go for it. You have my blessing.
  11. Spearhead91 don't sweat it, every little bit you share helps (both of us). I have been diagnosed with adult ADHD, so I very well understand the issue with having to stay on topic and focus. Also, sharing your frustration is part of what goes on here in the forums (helps to get it out). I don't consider you as "over writing" on my thread, but do appreciate brainstorming more than you know. Who knows maybe something you say might spark a critical memory or though with someone else which winds up helping everyone.
  12. Sorry, OCD/A-type like tendencies kicking in here: Since I am being very "proactive" in trying to do all this before "official documents" arrive in my mailbox (the denial has of course); I just to be sure I don't state something in a way that will come back to haunt me later when I submit this CUE this coming Friday. I my case where it appears that there is not mention by the Dr. that denied my knees that he opined an that my back was service connected. Will the VA send my a letter stating/explaining the granting of the service connection for my back. Granted it seems obvious, but since the legal system works with only that which is black and white, and the VA raters, couldn't find their own glutey without detailed explanations and much assistance. But as life has consistently demonstrated, the "devil is in the details".
  13. Thanks Buck52 will do. Brain was about fried, but couldn't help but jot down the rough outline dealing with what needed to be said. I would suggest that anyone going through something like this, if they have to write a statement is to jot down a very rough outline/draft of what you are going to need to write and ask for input. Then come back and post a more "refined version" for per review and post any "cleaned/sanitized" excerpts that support your statement. Also, post any excerpts that may be used to refute your claim. The kind people on this forum are not legal people and can only share their experiences of what did/didn't work for them in their own particular situation. They cannot share their experiences accurately if they cannot get a sense of what the "whole picture" entails (good and bad). That said, I don't think the maintainers of this site would appreciate someone posting a sanitize copy of their C-file. Lord knows I have probably come close to abusing that myself over the entirety of the claim. If the future, unless requested by other members, I will endeavor to only type excerpts from my records and not post the scanned images (though admittedly posting a picture is easy and reduces the chance of transcribing errors, not to mention some Dr.s hand writing is nearly impossible to read.)
  14. I will work on the CUE statement and get it posted as soon as I can. My brain is about fried right now. Also, the pause will give everyone a chance to digest what I have posted and tell me where my error is in my thinking if there is one (I know using CUE is a last ditch effort). I did try to reopen my claim in 1999 but silly me, not having a clue what I was doing didn't realize that I needed "new evidence" to support my claim linking it to the military, not simply more post service medical records (thought it would show continuity). With that claim I didn't appeal, because I had no idea how to appeal it when the VA was in possession of all the pertinent service medical records. Silly me, I thought they would look through them and find the one record that would prove I was right... Right now the rough outline I have spinning in my head is that I need to state that even though I did fail to make a timely appeal on either attempt I was awarded I was granted service connection without having to provide a nexus letter in my current claim for my knees. The nexus letter being necessary and thus the standard by which most claims made many years after a previous claim for the same condition had been previously denied and had become final. This is needed because new evidence must be presented that would clearly establish that the claim should be reopened. Pursuant to regulations and code an example of what constitutes a CUE is a service medical record which was available at the time of the initial decision had not been taken into consideration that would have otherwise resulted in a completely different outcome. This has clearly been demonstrated by the current decision to grant me my current 40% and demonstrates that the condition has also deteriorated over this period of time which should necessitate the reevaluation of all criteria which was originally used at the time of the original examination to render the condition of my physical condition back then. If the statements in the original narrative that they couldn't find any record that would confirm that there was a chronic condition then these statements run contrary to the codes and regulations stipulating that all medical records should be properly considered. The above shouldn't be considered anything more than meandering ramble of stuff that should be included, not what should be actually stated/written. That said if; I have left anything out that I should include, I need to be particularly careful of how I state any of what I have said, or if there is something I said so totally wrong it is an instant failure, please chime in. OK, my brain is at its limit today and has gone on strike.
  15. Here is the narrative for my current claim. I could only find information about them granting service connection for my back. All I can assume is that they granted it solely based on the one service medical record that did state that it was recurrent. If I am not mistaken that alone should have been enough to rectify the mistake all the way back to the very first claim (you cannot tell me that they don't know about the explicit definition of what a CUE is and then only grant me back to August 2015). It is only for one knee and they copied and pasted it for the other knee. If you look back at my initial C&P I did state to the examiner about having recurrent pain in my knees (if it makes a difference I don't know). Also, I include the only entry in my medical records concerning an entry relating to my knee. Not that this means anything because it doesn't make any mention of it being recurrent. Will the VA send me something about granting me the service connection for my back? Or, is that just one of those great mysteries that they simple state, "ignore the man behind the curtain"???
×

Important Information

{terms] and Guidelines