Coach Edgar

Coach Edgar
you might check your Bank Account   the retro is probably already in your account and you don't  know it?
    retro usually beats the Award Packet
Remember too they will make an adjustment from what you been paid up to this award date for the IU...
 but  you do have about 12 months of retro and if its over 25.000.00  it will probably be a while for them to sign off for the funds to be released  expect about a 3 or 5 week delay.

My recommendation is to wait. But that's just based on the information I have. Its in the final stages. If you start sending stuff in before it is adjudicated (additional evidence, duplicate evidence etc..) it could delay your claim. Sometimes the system auto generates a claim status, when in fact, the claim is much further along. The system sometimes has hiccups. I've been assigned claims to work before that say RFD (ready for decision), I quickly glance over it to see what i'm dealing with and notice that the entire claim is rated, the award has been processed and the veteran has been notified and probably received their first payment. I'm honestly not sure why it would keep going back and forth. That is part of the process before it gets to my desk and I'm not confident enough to give an opinion other than the known occasional hiccups. "Preparation for decision"...I"m going to assume this means "Ready for decision" I'm not sure if Ebenefits and the system at the RO use the same terminology, but when a claim is RFD, that means its in a queue waiting in line for a rater to work it. I'm not sure what the suspended letter is, but we do have a term we use, "suspense" which basically tells us when the claim should be moved on to the next step. If nothing happens in the system that automatically closes that suspense, then there will be an "alert" for us to check up on it. 
For example: Claim is sent ready for decision with a suspense date of 2/14/17. 2/15/17 arrives and it hasn't been rated. The system sends an alert (hey, this claim was supposed to be moved on in the process by this date, what gives?) We see that somehow it slipped through the cracks and it is put on a priority list. However, if someone does work it before that suspense date, it automatically closes that date and creates another for the next step in the process (the majority of the time). 
When was your claim filed? Is it an original claim?

OK that is different then the other C & Ps: or I missed this info in them:
  "a. The condition claimed was at least as likely as not (50% or greater
    probability) incurred in or caused by the claimed in-service injury, event 
or
    illness.   
    c. Rationale: STRs show treatment for depression during service (2005). He
    served in Southwest Asia, feared for his life and found out that a SM friend
    of his was killed in service. He currently reports symptoms of depression 
and
    trauma-and stressor-related disorder, such as irritability, low energy,
    problems sleeping, intrusive memories, distressing dreams, reactions to cues
    in the environment."
STR revealed symptoms /treatment of depression. The award makes sense.
That was the proven nexus.
If this was an inservice buddy of yours ,killed while you were both incountry SW Asia during OIF/OEF, same unit, same time and place,  then I do believe they would have diagnosed PTSD.
I dont know what the SM acronym means. 

"it was awared in march 1st 2016"


 
 C & P Signed: 11/23/2016 12:21

It confirms the award diagnosis of March 2016


 
May 26 2016  In the IU topic:

Does this stressor meet Criterion A (i.e., is it adequate to support
          the diagnosis of PTSD)?
          [X] Yes  [ ] No
          
          Is the stressor related to the Veteran's fear of hostile military or
          terrorist activity?
          [X] Yes  [ ] No

It goes on to state:


 
   9. Remarks, (including any testing results) if any
    --------------------------------------------------
       Please note that level of impairment is only based on Unspecified
       Trauma-and Stressor-Related Disorder and Major Depressive Disorder, in
       partial remission. Veteran has physical impairments, which were not
       assessed today.
       
       
    NOTE: VA may request additional medical information, including additional
    examinations if necessary to complete VA's review of the Veteran's
    application.


 

 
I believe the doctors felt you were not in close proximity to hostile fire,  although you are an OIF/ OEF veteran and they did diagnose PTSD.

I also believe they might have  felt the ‘stressors” were inconsistent with the time, place, and your MOS  because it states that the stressors seemed to be unspecified….


 
   Did you provide adequate evidence of the stressors?

You have one year until the March 1 2017 date arrives to file and make they have your NOD.Not much time.

The 2010 PTSD regs are within this BVA decision:

http://www.index.va.gov/search/va/view.jsp?FV=http://www.va.gov/vetapp13/Files5/1343308.txt

Although this is a Thailand vet, the 2010 PTSD regulations  were applied to their claim.

The veteran clearly has a VA diagnosis of PTSD.

Seeing or handling transport of dead bodies during war is  not sufficient as a stressor.

"It is clear that the Veteran now carries a diagnosis of PTSD, conforming to DSM-IV criteria, provided by VA examiners.  This diagnosis is linked to a claimed stressor; however this stressor is unverified.  Despite the arguments put forth by the Veteran's representative in this case, the Board has determined that the Veteran's stressor must be verified, as the transport of dead bodies does not fall within the updated VA PTSD regulations, and the Thai forces that fired blanks in the air were U.S. allies, involved in a joint operation and working toward a shared goal (per the Veteran's own reports).  As such, the fear of hostile military or terrorist activity is not applicable here."


 
The veteran has provided more stressor info to the VA and thus the BVA remanded the claim to be re-opened.

"close proximity" is not well defined in the regulations but it means your MOS put you near incoming and hostile fire. It is usually conceded with the CIB, CAR, or PH on the DD 214.
"Fear of" would probably be applicable many OEF vets but their MOS and "close proximity to" is what supports the "fear of" .  I know a Kuwait vet whose PTSD claim would definitely fail-and so far he has not filed it.He was not even close at all to any possible hostile fire and his stressors do not make any sense.
Bu this is not your case....and there is nothing wrong with the 50% MH disability you have now...you deserve the compensation they awarded you ...and you wont get a higher rating based on whether they change it to PTSD...unless it gets significantly worse and then you can file another claim, for higher rating.
I hope this makes sense to you.
Do you get SSDI solely for your SC disabilties and if so have you informed the VA,as it seems you have a TDIU claim pending.