pacmanx1

Have you considered telling the vet to request a copy of his C-File? The Document may very well be in the claim folders, VA is notorious for not reviewing the entire C-File and this may solve the issue. Also have the veteran request his VAMC records both computerized and hand written notes, and of course as bronco suggest if he has a POA, have him check those records as well.

http://www.va.gov/og...entopinions.asp

What I don't understand is VA denies veterans claims and forces them to file an appeal. Then the DRO refuses to look at the evidence and rubber stamp a denial and the claim has to go all the way to BVA just to be remanded back to the RO and then back to BVA.

http://www.veteranst...still-fighting/ February 24, 2011 posted by Veterans Today · 2 Comments Desert Storm Vets Still Fighting Twenty Years Later By James A. Bunker for Veterans Today Executive Director NGWRC Twenty years ago this country's best men and women were engaged in combat with the forces of Saddam Hussein after his August 2nd, 1990 invasion of Kuwait. In February 1991, my men and I knew we had what it would take to liberate the people of Kuwait. We had years of training and good leaders in our chain of command, as did many of the other units in the U.S. Army. We were confident in our combat capabilities, yet we had great concern about the prospect of having to face the chemical weaponry that we knew Iraq possessed. For weeks before the ground phase of Operation Desert Storm began, the prevailing winds had been blowing out of Iraq. We prayed that on G-day the winds would turn in our favor and blow back in the direction of Saddam's forces. This we hoped would minimize the chances that the Iraqi Army would use their massive chemical stockpiles against us. Due to our superior training, our well-seasoned and courageous leaders, and our overwhelming firepower, the ground phase of Desert Storm lasted less than four days. As the guns fell quiet and Saddam's remaining forces high-tailed it back to Baghdad, many of our soldiers started to show signs of illness. No one knew what was causing this unusual medical phenomenon. Our higher Headquarters suggested that the illnesses might be the result of the desert heat; but my Battalion Commander knew this was not the case because the temperature was in fact quite mild; less than 90 degrees. For someone like myself; born and raised in Kansas, 90 degrees is a bit on the chilly side. Beyond the suggestions that our troops were ill because of the heat, no one gave much thought to the possibility that the Iraqi chemical ammunition stockpiles that were being destroyed by U.S. forces not far away might be the source of our ills. Our brave warriors came home from the Persian Gulf War to an unprecedented hero's welcome; but it wasn't long before news reports began to document a mysterious illness plaguing many of these American heroes. Men and women who had previously enjoyed robust health and exceptional physical fitness were suddenly victims of unexplained skin rashes, joint pain, debilitating fatigue, and a host of other very odd health-related problems that even the most highly trained medical professionals were unable to diagnose. As more and more ailing Persian Gulf War Veterans began to come forward and share their stories it became clear that one of the most common factors that nearly everyone could relate to were the significant number of "false" chemical alarms that had activated in theater. Persian Gulf War Veterans from virtually all branches of the military have described how these highly sophisticated devices kept going into alarm mode, to the point that finally USCENTCOM passed the word that our troops were to unmask and disregard the alarms. According to higher headquarters, the NBC alarms were malfunctioning and the alarms were "false". In 1993 many of us worked with members of Congress to get the first bill passed to provide compensation to Veterans suffering from Gulf War Illnesses (GWI). Public Law 103-446, enacted in 1994, authorized the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) to pay disability compensation to disabled Persian Gulf War Veterans suffering from undiagnosed illnesses. Despite the new law few Veterans saw any relief because of the prevailing attitudes of those in the Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA). VBA did not and still does not like to grant service connection for GWI. Despite clear direction by Congress and the President, skepticism continues to abound within the VBA. Many of the Veterans Affairs Regional Offices (RO) actually go out of their way to deny GWI claims. In 1997, we again worked with Congress to amend the law in the hopes it would help our ailing Persian Gulf War Veterans. The changes helped some, but not many. The most recent change came in 2002 when we were successful in adding Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (CFS), Fibromyalgia (FM), and Irritable Bowel Syndrome (IBS) to the list of "undiagnosed illnesses" that were to be considered "presumptive" to service in the Persian Gulf War. Yet to this day thousands of Veterans continue to have their claims denied despite clear and convincing medical opinion that they are indeed suffering. Today I see many claims denied for reasons such as; "your claim cannot be granted under the undiagnosed illness provision as you have a diagnosis." For example; if a Veteran is told by their doctor that he or she has Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, even though that illness is now clearly defined in the law as an "undiagnosed illness" many VBA Claims Adjudicators ignore the law and deny the Veteran's claim. In many cases Veterans have had to fight this kind of injustice all the way to the Court of Veterans Appeals (COVA), which typically takes years. COVA cases that have already clarified and corrected these mishandled claims should have served to prevent these same mistakes from repeating with other Veteran's claims but sadly it continues to occur on a regular basis. A common error among many VBA Claims Adjudicators is when a Veteran files a claim based upon the "presumptive" provision in the law (e.g. GWI), yet the Claims Adjudicator processes the claim as if the Veteran is requesting direct service-connection for the illness. There is a clear difference between an illness or injury that is directly related to military service versus an illness that is supposed to be treated as "presumptive" under the law. I have assisted quite a few Veterans in reopening their claims because of this common error made by VBA. Some of these cases go back as far as 1998, while others are more recent. Currently the "presumptive" period for GWI is set to expire on December 31, 2011. In order to be considered "presumptive" for GWI the Veteran must show signs and symptoms of one or more of the conditions listed in the law for a continuous period of six months or more, and be severe enough to warrant a disability rating of ten percent (10%) or greater. A Persian Gulf War Veteran came to me not long ago asking for help with his claim for CFS which had recently been denied by VBA. The Veteran had not been able to work for the past three years because of his CFS yet had already been approved for Social Security Disability compensation. Nevertheless, the VBA Claims Adjudicator denied the Veteran's claim. The reason for denial? The Claims Adjudicator stated that the CFS had to have started while the Veteran was still in the service. The Claims Adjudicator clearly failed to follow the law on this Veterans claim. It's simple; if a Persian Gulf War Veteran has FM, CFS, and/or IBS and it meets the 10% rating level, the law states it is presumed to be related to the Veteran's service in the Persian Gulf War and that the Veteran is to be awarded service connected for the illness. GWI claims are not hard to do if the VBA would get the Claims Adjudicators to follow the law correctly and to get past their own personal feelings and bias concerning GWI. I have worked with hundreds of Persian Gulf War Veterans this past year and I have seen many injustices perpetrated on these American patriots. Some of the time the injustices result from a Claims Adjudicator's personal bias, and other times the denial results from a lack of training on the part of VBA. Sadly, when new Claims Adjudicators come aboard VBA, very often they are trained by more tenured Claims Adjudicators who themselves are uniformed as to the most recent provisions of the law concerning presumptive conditions for Persian Gulf War Veterans. Persian Gulf War Veterans are tired of fighting! First and foremost we want our health back. Secondly, we want Claims Adjudicators at the VBA to do their jobs right the first time around. We want VBA to assign specific Claims Adjudicators to handle claims involving GWIs so that all of these Veterans are treated fairly and consistently. Last year Secretary of Veterans Affairs Eric Shinseki made a promise to reopen all of the Gulf War Illness claims that had previously been denied in order to ensure that none of these Veterans are disenfranchised. Then, just one month later the VA's Chief of Staff, John R. Gingrich told a group of Persian Gulf Veterans that the VA cannot reopen claims on their own accord. Mr. Gingrich clarified that it is the Veteran's responsibility to request that their claim be reopened, not the VA. I would like to ask the Secretary why it is that the VA is currently reopening Agent Orange claims on their own initiative, yet they say that they can't do the same for Gulf War Illness claims? Mr. Secretary; your promise to Persian Gulf War Veterans is now beginning to look like just another in a series of broken promises that VA has made to Persian Gulf War Veterans over the last several years. And how much longer will we have to fight to get VA physicians on staff who are properly trained to recognize the conditions and symptoms that are by law to be considered related to service in the Persian Gulf War? Instead of VA physicians who dismiss these symptoms as psychosomatic, as happens so often in the Tampa, Florida and Fayetteville, North Carolina VA Medical Centers, let's get physicians in there who understand what Gulf War Illnesses are, and what Congress has directed them to do for Veterans suffering from these debilitating conditions. James A. Bunker Executive Director National Gulf War Resource Center 2611 SW 17th Street Topeka, KS 66604 Toll free 866-531-7183 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting 866-531-7183 end_of_the_skype_highlighting WWW.NGWRC.ORG

Gulf War Veterans Medical Alert: Inflammatory Bowel Diseases Increase Risk of Blood Clots http://www.veteranst...of-blood-clots/

*****************THIS IS POSTED TO PASS ON INFORMATION******************* Clear and Unmistakable Error (CUE) Introduction This topic contains general information on CUE per 38 CFR 3.105(a), including · the definition of the term clear and unmistakable error · the provisions of 38 CFR 3.105(a) · the determination requirements · identifying a CUE · handling allegations of CUE · determining a case of CUE · handling decisions made by Rating Veterans Service Representatives (RVSRs) · applying the benefit-of-the-doubt rule · revising prior decisions, and · approval of ratings prepared under 38 CFR 3.101(a). Change Date December 29, 2007 a. Definition: Clear and Unmistakable Error A clear and unmistakable error (CUE) is an error that is undebatable in that a reasonable mind can only conclude that the original decision was fatally flawed at the time it was made. b. Provisions of 38 CFR 3.105(a) 38 CFR 3.105(a) provides that if clear and unmistakable error is established in a previous rating determination, then the · prior decision is reversed or amended, and · effect is the same as if the corrected decision had been made on the date of the reversed decision. Continued on next page 7. Clear and Unmistakable Error (CUE), Continued c. Determination Requirements A CUE determination must be based on the record and the law that existed at the time of the prior decision. In a valid claim of CUE, the claimant must assert more than a disagreement as to how the facts were weighed or evaluated. There must have been an error in prior adjudication of the claim. Example: A new medical diagnosis that corrects an earlier diagnosis ruled in a previous rating would not be considered an error in the previous adjudication of the claim. d. Identifying a CUE A CUE exists if · there is an error that is undebatable so that it can be said that reasonable minds could only conclude that the previous decision was fatally flawed at the time it was made · Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) failed to follow a procedural directive that involved a substantive rule · VA overlooked material facts of record, or · VA failed to apply or incorrectly applied the appropriate laws or regulations. Note: If the claimant contends that VA's failure to follow a procedural directive determined the outcome of the claim, contact the Compensation and Pension (C&P) Service for advice on any rule-making arguments that may have been advanced. References: For more information on · CUE, see 38 CFR 3.105(a) · potential errors in following procedures, see Allin v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 207 (1994), and · CUEs based on VA's constructive notice of medical records, see - VAOPGCPREC 12-95, and - M21-1MR, Part III, Subpart iv, 1.3. Continued on next page 7. Clear and Unmistakable Error (CUE), Continued e. Handling Allegations of CUE Determine the precise nature of the claim when CUE is alleged. Regional offices (ROs) or the Board of Veterans' Appeals (BVA) will deny claims of CUE if the claimants do not specify the factual or legal errors at issue. A claimant is not entitled to raise a particular claim of CUE again once there has been a final decision denying that same CUE claim. If the CUE alleged is different from a CUE issue previously rejected, a rating is needed to determine whether or not a CUE was made on the new issue. f. Determining a Case of CUE When determining whether there is a CUE · consider the - law that existed at the time of the prior decision, and - full record that was before the rating activity at the time of the prior decision, and · determine whether the error would have by necessity changed the original rating decision. Note: Errors that would not have changed the outcome are harmless and the previous decisions do not need to be revised. g. Handling Decisions Made by RVSRs Decisions based on the judgment of the RVSR, such as the weight given to the evidence, cannot be reversed on the basis of CUE unless the decision is the result of misapplication of directives, laws, or regulations. Continued on next page 7. Clear and Unmistakable Error (CUE), Continued h. Applying the Benefit-of-the-Doubt Rule The benefit-of-the doubt rule of 38 U.S.C. 5107(b) is not applicable to a CUE determination since · an error either undebatably exists, or · there was no error within the meaning of 38 CFR 3.105(a). Reference: For more information on applying the benefit-of-the-doubt rule, see · Russell v. Principi, 3 Vet. App. 310 (1992) · 38 CFR 3.105(a), and · 38 U.S.C. 5107(b).

http://www.armytimes...e-sale-021711w/

http://www.poughkeep...ran-on-benefits

http://armytimes.va....Setup=armytimes Go to page 16 in the middle.

§ 3.151 Claims for disability benefits. (a) General. A specific claim in the form prescribed by the Secretary must be filed in order for benefits to be paid to any individual under the laws administered by VA. (38 U.S.C. 5101(a)). A claim by a veteran for compensation may be considered to be a claim for pension; and a claim by a veteran for pension may be considered to be a claim for compensation. The greater benefit will be awarded, unless the claimant specifically elects the lesser benefit. (b) Retroactive disability pension claims. Where disability pension entitlement is established based on a claim received by VA on or after October 1, 1984, the pension award may not be effective prior to the date of receipt of the pension claim unless the veteran specifically claims entitlement to retroactive benefits. The claim for retroactivity may be filed separately or included in the claim for disability pension, but it must be received by VA within one year from the date on which the veteran became permanently and totally disabled. Additional requirements for entitlement to a retroactive pension award are contained in §3.400(b) of this part. The bottom line is, if the veteran does not file a claim, VA will not pay the veteran for any disability in his or her C-file or noted by medical records. Keep in mind that veterans are not doctors, they can file claims for: Back injury, knee injury, depression and not be specific. VA is supposed to examine the veteran and if warranted pay the veteran for his or her service connected condition(s) and not make up medical condition(s). Hope this helps

VA doctors can not grant service connection only the VARO. If you did not file a claim for neck in 2008 then VA can only pay you for when you filed the claim in 2010. If the doctor said that it was related to service and you were denied by the VA then you have to file a NOD.

bump

I will try to explain; Non service connected is when a veteran has a disability that can not be linked to service or a service connected disability. Service connected is when a veteran has a disability that can be linked directly to service or can be linked secondary to a service connected disability, or a disability caused by VA. A veteran could be awarded a 0% service connection but it does not meet the criteria of being compensable (severe enough to be granted 10% or higher). The veteran must then submit evidence to get an increase in his or her rating to make it compensable. Once a veteran is awarded 0%, this disability is considered service connected and that part of the fight is over. To get an increase the veteran must get medical evidence that this condition has gotten worst to get an increased and upgraded. If i am off others will correct me. Hope this helps

Before a veteran files his or her claim for disability, it would be best for them to seek treatment that would establish their medical condition and get a diagnosis. Getting IMOs and IMEs can be quite expensive but having current medical treatment could really help. A veteran should never let the C & P examiner's medical opinion be the only medical opinion in his or her VAMC treatment records. I agree that IMOs and IMEs are worth the cost but if the veteran can get this from their treating doctors then even if the local VARO denies their claim or low ball their claim, the veteran should win his or her claim on appeal. Always keep in mind that the local VARO will always force claims to go to BVA. It doesn't matter how much evidence a veteran has in his or her file. If the Rater, DRO, and or Supervisor overlooks or ignores the pertinent evidence then the only thing a veteran can do is file an appeal. Hope this helps

When a veterans is awarded 100% service connection or 100% TDIU, VA should also send them a VA form 21-8760. The form is titled "ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FOR VETERANS WITH SERVICE-CONNECTED PERMANENT AND TOTAL DISABILITY". The veteran will still have to contact VA to get a separate letter to get their I D card. The I D Card is a DD form 2765

DEERS is the military ID card Section. When you get your I D card, across from your signature and under the status/grade section is the AUTHORIZED PATRONAGE SECTION that should say "EXCHANGE, COMMISSARY, MWR". This is the only military ID card for veterans; it is a DD form 2765. If you are married and have dependents, they can get cards as well. Hope this helps P. S. forgot the card should be Indefinite

Try this Verifying and Updating DEERS Information You can verify your DEERS information by contacting your regional TRICARE managed care support contractor, your local TRICARE service center or the nearest uniformed services personnel office (ID card facility). Sponsors or registered family members may make address changes, however, only the sponsor can add or delete a family member from DEERS, and proper documents are required such as a marriage certificate, divorce decree and/or birth certificate. To update your DEERS information: Visit your local uniformed services personnel office or contact the Defense Manpower Data Center Support Office (DSO) at 1-800-538-9552 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting 1-800-538-9552 end_of_the_skype_highlighting. You can find the nearest uniformed services personnel office at: http://www.dmdc.osd.mil/rsl/.

A veteran can only have one disability rating per category, the PTSD and sexual trauma both fall under the mental health category. So you will only get one rating but VA can say that your sexual trauma makes your PTSD worst.

In my experience, it really depends on the type of claims that are on appeal and the type of claims filed. A veteran can have a claim on appeal for back injury and then file a claim for stomach condition. Since the two conditions are most likely not related, the VA can create a temporary file to process the claim for the stomach condition. Keep in mind that VA may have to request the original file back to get the pertinent evidence but that would be up to VA or they can make the veteran wait. It depends if the new claim is claimed as a secondary condition or a separate claim than the claim on appeal. Hope this helps

Congrats.

Congrats.

What did the C & P exam state and what was the reason and bases of the denial? Can you post them leaving out any personal information; name, SSN, address, this will help the board help you.

Congrats

As long as your counselor is a certified psychiatrist or psychologist it should work. It may work with a social worker but I am not to sure. It would greatly help your case if you can get a VA psychiatrist to put it in your treatment records or if the Vet Center has a psychiatrist that could make this statement. Hope the best

There may be some confusion here, TDIU and IU are the same thing and they pay a veteran the 100% rate of compensation. Now if you were not awarded P & T all you would need is a statement (progress report) from your doctor saying that your service connected conditions are static or will most likely not improve and you should be awarded P & T but you are already getting the TDIU/IU. If I am off others will chime in.