Jump to content


Chief Petty Officers
  • Content Count

  • Donations

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


RBrogen last won the day on December 30 2019

RBrogen had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

58 Excellent

1 Follower

About RBrogen

  • Rank
    E-5 Petty Officer 2nd Class

Contact Methods

  • Website URL

Profile Information

  • Military Rank
  • Location
    Burlington, MA
  • Interests

Previous Fields

  • Service Connected Disability
  • Branch of Service
  • Hobby
    Photography / Technology

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. I'm not sure about the provision. However, with no medical records, no treatment records, 3 entrance/airborne exams in the negative spanning 4 years, and the documented statement that there were no lingering issues, no medical treatment sought and I returned to school the next day, I would think coming up with a "torn ligament" diagnosis would not be acceptable. I also told them the only reason I remembered it was because I was teased by other students when I didn't go back to football tryouts the next day.
  2. No .. I didn't annotate any defects on any of the 3 different entrance/airborne exams I had. The C&P examiner in an earlier exam in 1991 asked me if I had every played sports and had any injuries. I explained that I wasn't sure if it counted (yes trying to be honest about it) but I tried out for high school football and on the first day of try outs I was tackled and it hurt my left leg. I left the practice with no residual issues, never went to doctor, no medical treatment or records. Turns out the doctor wrote "left knee injury prior to service, ligament injury" on the exam notes with out any medical evidence. So that is what has plagued me from the beginning.
  3. Crazy thing is in the original denial decision letter Oct 4, 1999, they denied me for a pre-existing condition (unsubstantiated and without any medical evidence to show it). This new decision stated "After reviewing records, there is no evidence on the enlistment exam of a prior left knee injury, we we conclude the left knee was considered stable on entry into the service." Basically they said in their own words, the previous decision denied you because you had a pre-existing condition, but we found that it didn't exist, but we are going to deny you anyway .... WTF.
  4. Yes I spelled out the errors, provided supporting evidence and logic. They even eluded to the fact in the "Positive Findings" that I am currently service connected for those conditions.
  5. They did not respond to each point of contention I made, they just disregarded that, retyped what the original denial said. I quoted the laws in effect, referenced the exact code and stated that they did not take into consideration presumption of sound condition nor probative values of the evidence available at that time, (e.g. doctors reports, airborne training etc) The documentation says I can do HLR, Supplemental and Appeal to Board, same format as all of my other claim decisions.
  6. I don't have an IMO but I am now service connected for the 2 conditions in the CUE (right knee disorder, left knee disorder). The CUE is for an EED.
  7. I wanted to send out an update on my CUE claim. As I suspected from the process and response, I received a denial decision letter today. They denial almost verbatim regurgitated the same statements from the original denial in 1999. It's like the reviewer simply read the original denial, retyped it and said too bad without addressing the issue of probative values and presumption of sound condition. My question is for next step, should I go through the process of Higher Level Review to see what they say before going to the Board of Appeals to exhaust every option before hand. Any thoughts would be greatly appreciated. Best, Randy
  8. Thanks ... not holding out a lot of hope with this first run but we'll see wha the package says when it gets here and then I'll formulate the next move.
  9. Well it doesn't look promising ... the claim status closed out and typically right after that any adjustments are shown in ebenefits (e.g. rate increase, effective date change). I did not see anything change in the effective dates on the conditions so have to wait for the paperwork to see what the deal is.
  11. Yes there is definitely confusion at VA about the requirement, or lack thereof, for a specific form to initiate a CUE. The 21-526 I completed after my certified letter sat for 8 weeks only created confusion and misleading display of data in the record. If you file a 21-526, you only have 2 options new condition or increase to an existing condition. NEITHER are true for a CUE if you are looking for an earlier effective date CUE Claim.
  12. At first I didn't use a form and mailed it in. When I did a followup about 6 weeks later, I was told that it was sitting in the portal because it didn't have a claim form. I created a claim form using e-benefits though ultimately caused more confusion as the claim only allowed me to request an increase not an earlier effective date. After speaking to other VA reps at the RO they all agreed there was no need/requirement for the form. After a couple of calls and and inquiries submitted to the RO, they finally removed the additional claim document and left just the cue.
  13. Quick question to see if anyone knows what happens if you win a CUE relative to back pay. Does the VA automatically calculate any back pay based on individual solder and then you have to send them marriage cert, birth certs/ssns to show when you had your dependents added? I'm just curious ... not getting ahead of myself but IF I am fortunate enough to win my cue, it would mean back pay for 20 years and would also mean that I would have changed from 20% in 1999 to some higher number. That would mean that my wife and children would also come into play starting in 2001 instead of 2019 like it is today. I have all of that data ready but I was curious if they send you a letter first requesting it before back pay is released or if they do the initial backpay at single and you have to make the adjust it. Thanks as always, Randy
  14. UPDATE: Claim has changed to "Pending Decision Approval"
  15. Yes It's actually in multiple areas but for discussion they lower radicular group, mild paralysis is rated at 40% dominant side and 30% non-dominant side.
  • Create New...

Important Information

{terms] and Guidelines