Jump to content

Harvey Ryan

Subscription Holder
  • Content Count

    3
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About Harvey Ryan

  • Rank
    E-2 Recruit
  1. Thanks for the replys. I did find that the 0996 was denied due to more than a year. Broncovet...my claim fits the first option you mentioned: "1. Cue on a claim finally adjudicated. This means a claim adjudicated "more than a year" ago which has not been appealed AND, has not been reopened with new evidence." Would it be a good idea to submit with both the 0995 AND the 21-4138 just to cover all bases? I have spent a lot of time going over 3.156 to look for all of the 'gotchas.' Do you have any specific ones that you would advise to pay particular attention to? Thanks again for your help and assistance.
  2. Hello all, My name is Harvey Ryan. I'm an Air Force veteran, rated at 100%. I could really use some help. I've been attempting to submit a Request for Revision concerning an Earlier Effective Date for Service Connection for Migraine Headaches based on a C.U.E. I don't know what form to use. I was granted service connection for migraines with an effective date of December 2009 (the decision was made back in 2015). It was based on newly discovered service records that I'd been arguing were present for 15 years. The decision was made in my favor, however, they didn't consider the claim back to the original denial, which was June of 1993. My argument is based on the following: "38 CFR 3.156 Section (c) , as is outlined in M21-1MR Section 2a and 2d. CFR 3.156 Section (c): This exception deals with newly discovered service department records or records that existed at the time the VA made its decision and simply did not associate with the claim. If the claim was denied previously, but then granted on records which have recently been discovered, the regulation requires that the VA consider an effective date back to the time of the previously denied claim." In the decision letter, the effective date was only given to the date of 'receipt of my claim to reopen': . “In light of the evidence, an evaluation of 50 percent is assigned from December 14, 2009, the date of receipt of your claim to reopen your claim for service connection.” My argument is, because the regulation was NOT properly applied (direct contradiction to the mandate of evaluating from the date of the original denial, when all prerequisites outlined in 38 CFR 3.156 Section (c) are satisfied), it triggered my ‘Request for Revision’ due to the presence of an alleged CUE. I have included all supporting documentation in my file, however, I don't know what form to use to submit a C.U.E. claim. Some of the research I've done says to use the 20-0996 for Higher Level Review. If my interpretation and understanding is correct, that form is only used when the decision has been within the last 12 months. I also saw form 20-0995 mentioned for a Supplemental Claim. My interpretation of that form is when there is new evidence to present. My claim is based on a C.U.E., but no new evidence...so you can see my dilemma. If anyone can offer some assistance, I'd greatly appreciate it! Thanks to you all for your service to our country. Regards, Harvey Ryan
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

{terms] and Guidelines