EODCMC

Sounds like your you're on the home stretch. Good fortune!

I believe mine is an exception to the norm. There are 2 claims and presumably they are waiting to make two decisions simultaneously. It is my belief that, typically, once a claim leaves the Gathering of Evidence step, things move along quite briskly. Before I get the barrage of cautions and exceptions, this is only my experience.

I have a claim that is sitting in that phase since January. I hope, for your sake, mine just fell off the desk and is hidden behind the trash can.

Galen, I think what everyone is implying is that you believe they didn't look at and apply all the evidence in your file. This is cause for an appeal or NOD but not a CUE and probably a good one. You were on the right track in your opener. If a C&P were required and they didn't do one, you probably have a basis for a QUE. But, it's not required. The RO, who is rarely a medical person did not find the words Obstructive Sleep Apnea (OSA) and made a ruling. I will add this, however. Based on what you are saying, a C&P examiner would have probably given a "less than" probability opinion. My experience is they take very little time, nor research... and they take the path of least resistance. They are not working on your behalf.This one was probably always heading toward an appeal. You can ask for a reconsideration. This usually only works if it's clear. I would get my ducks in a row and prepare for a NOD. I think you have a good chance.

The following is the best explanation that I have that explains why a C&P exam is recommended but not required: http://helpdesk.vetsfirst.org/index.php?pg=kb.page&id=2848

Wow! I've heard of this happening but I wouldn't have believed it. It sounds like retaliation. Not right!

Thanks Berta and Buck. Berta, I missed no deadlines. The VA has admitted making a mistake by closing Claim (4) inadvertently after deferring it in the decision letter for Claim (3). But, they exacerbated the situation by reopening Claim (1)...another error. I had to do another C&P knowing full well that it was a dead end. The examiner didn't blink nor care. I will post a redacted copy of the pertinent docs over the week-end. Buck, your experiences are a great help and provide a case study that is easy to relate to...thanks again. On a good note, my C&P report came back positive for Bilateral Lumbar Radiculopathy...moderate on one side and mild on the other. And, physical therapy; traction in particular, is actually helping a lot!! I am buoyed with enthusiasm...knock on wood.

Was there ever any resolution to the claim that was closed inadvertently?

Thanks Berta, that is what I thought; however, my VSO is skeptical. If they come back with no increase for 1 nor 2 and no resolution for 4, do you think this is just cause for a CUE? The VA's confusion is confusing me. I don't see anything positive when the VA merges claims. It just offers another chance for human error. To add to this perfect storm, my VSO rep changed mid-stream. She is more confused than I and seems a bit aloof and detached.

I'm trying this again. The following is a simplified order of 4 claims and how the VA has managed to mingle/bungle them up: - Claim (1) - Squamous and Basil Cell Carcinoma's; Closed with service connection - Claim (2) - Dermatitis; Closed with service connection - Claim (3) - Cervical Issues; Closed denied service connection - Claim (4) - Actinic Keratosis, Combined with Claim (3); was Deferred on denial of Cervical Issues, and promptly closed without a decision 3 Times I asked to reopen Claim (4) but they reopened Claim (1) !!???!! I have been working with a VSO the entire time with no luck. I presume they are going to deny an increase for Claim (1). Will this be cause for a CUE? Am I missing anything else?

Buck, your explanation is the best I have read anywhere. Berta, thanks! I too spent some time in Newport. I attended and graduated the Senior Enlisted Academy there. I still have my copy of Harbrace!

I am not an expert on VA matters. In fact, I wouldn't consider myself a journeyman either. My careers; however, have forced me to be a better writer. Sometimes, that could be the difference when communicating with the VA. It's the content that diminishes their effectiveness, not necessarily the methodology. I have noticed 4 basic types of writers on here; good, passable, not so good and pretty bad. Most of the good writers know it. Many of the passable ones feel they need some help. A great deal of the not so good ones think they are good. The pretty bad ones are all over the map. All of them know what they want to project. I would be willing to help the pretty bad writers, if they need a leg up. I have some free time and of course this would be free of charge. To be clear, I am not offering to do the services of a VSO nor an attorney. I am not qualified. But, for those that are struggling with putting your thoughts to paper, I may be able to help you to help yourself.

BTW, a nurse practitioner friend of mine said that because of her severe rhinitis, she puts Vicks in a small open container just outside the air intake port. It helps keep her sinus's clear and she is fond of the aroma. When asked, she told me that it hasn't had an adverse affect on her equipment

I was getting dry mouth early on. I learned that the smallest of leaking around my full mask was the culprit. Now I take the time to readjust my mask from scratch every evening. I rarely have this problem anymore.

Gastone, agreed, you and Buck make a very good case for primary use. The SA would be the ideal way to introduce information to the VA for a few good reasons. I feel blanket and timeless statements that the VA doesn't look at, nor back up it's own form, is without merit. At best, it's situational. Some folks do not have the wherewithal to get an SA, for whatever reasons. I read about folks that are reluctant to leave their quarters. At a minimum, one should get there evidence on record. The 21-4138 is a simple method and has worked for me at my VARO.

I had significant and irrefutable loss at the 6000 HZ...it appears they didn't consider it.

Vague, but this is how they reasoned and I received 0%: When, after careful consideration of all procurable and assembled data, a reasonable doubt arisesregarding service origin, the degree of disability, or any other point, such doubt will be resolvedin favor of the claimant. Reasonable doubt exists because of an approximate balance of positiveand negative evidence which does not satisfactorily prove or disprove the claim. Service connection is warranted because your service treatment records show that your hearingloss was permanently worsened by service. You had hearing loss when you entered active dutywith worsened hearing upon exit. The evidence of record provides no specific finding that theincreased disability was due to natural progression. Therefore, the presumption of aggravation isnot overcome and service connection on the basis of aggravation is granted. In addition, you hadmilitary acoustic trauma as evidenced by a significant puretone threshold shift in-service andyour hearing loss has been linked to that acoustic trauma. VA examination findings show the left ear with 100 percent discrimination. Decibel (dB) loss atthe puretone threshold of 500 Hertz (Hz) is 15, at 1000 Hz is 15, at 2000 Hz is 20, at 3000 Hz is25, and at 4000 Hz is 40. The average decibel loss is 25 in the left ear. The right ear shows aspeech discrimination of 100 percent. Your right ear Decibel (dB) loss at the puretone thresholdof 500 Hertz (Hz) is 15, at 1000 Hz is 15, at 2000 Hz is 15, at 3000 Hz is 20, and at 4000 Hz is40. The average decibel loss is 23 in the right ear. An evaluation of 0 percent is assigned from July 26, 2016. Service connection has beenestablished from the day VA received your intent to file for compensation based on continuousprosecution.

Compared with my audio-grams, I wonder how Wayne hears at all. The problem is you have to show a threshold shift while on active duty...I think it's something like 25 decibels.

I see what you mean Buck. I was told but can't confirm...for service connection only, they will not consider a threshold shift in the 6000 range. They do; however, consider it when rating how much hearing is currently lost.

If you are not already service connected for hearing, your SMRs will need to show a threshold shift from your entry exam to get the important service connection. They do not use the 6000 level, however. You need a Sensorineural Hearing Loss (in the frequency range of 500-4000hz) The following was judged for me: the Veteran’s DD214 reflects that his military occupational specialty (MOS) was an Explosive Ordinance Disposal, Deep Sea Diver, Boatswain’s Mate (Assault Boat Coxswain) and Engineman. These MOSs have been determined by the Department of Defense (DOD) to involve high to moderate probability of hazardous noise exposure. See DOD Duty MOS Noise exposure Listing and VA Fast Letter 10-35 (September 2, 2010) (discussing the Duty MOS Noise Exposure Listing). I did not have a record of Tinnitus while on active duty, but the presumption was made based on the threshold shift (hearing loss) and the Fast Letter that I was probably telling the truth.

My take: the VA reads the Statement In Support of Claims.. .how much credence they place on them is case by case, I suppose. That said, a sworn declaration demonstrates a higher level of intensity and resolve on your part.

I would explain your reason for a C&P postponement on a VA form 21-4138. You can submit this through e-ben. If you are using a VSO, I would even back that up with an e-mail to them. This comes from experience...it saved me.

I've never seen this explained as clear and concise as this...thanks!

Berta,

Yes, from my experience, it was DFAS that took most of the time to conduct the audit and return it the VA. And, it's the same thing all over when there has been a change or increase. Be advised, the delay is only for the retro side...the monthly payment happens about as quick as anyone else.