broncovet

DO NOT SUBMIT "new evidence" when filing HLR!!! Its specifically prohibited with HLR. If you have new evidence, go with either SCL, or Board appeal "with new evidence". Submitting new evidence with an HLR is a procedural error, and VA comes down hard on us for those!!!

The VA does these "top 5" over and over...that is why they are the top 5!!!!! Check to see if your decision has one or more of these errors! https://cck-law.com/blog/new-top-5-va-errors-veterans-disability-decisions/ Some quick examples are the VA uses the C and P exam as your effective date, or VA adds "non existant qualifiers" to the criteria. (This is one they did to me. They denied hearing loss because it was "too long" since military service. Well, "time since military service" is NOT one of the criteria, but if they can get you to buy into that lie for one year, then they win)

Yes. I have a suggestion: Dont use wiki leaks. Use a more credible website, like WebMD, or, better yet, direct scientific research. The best research for claims is probably VBM and or CAVC claims search. BVA claims search is also helpful, but BVA appeals are all non precedent setting.

I thought this was answered already, but no. You dont necessarily get a c and p exam with each claim. You may already have the evidence, or it may not be a viable claim. Example: If you do NOT have an in service event, then no c and p exam will be ordered, as the c and p examiner can not drive his "back to the future" car and give you an in service event to give you a nexus.

GB Army is spot on. You can appeal with or without new evidence. HLR is one method, but you can also appeal to the BVA if you feel VA did not read your evidence. (It happens a lot). Remember, better than 3/4 of the claims which reach the board are either remanded or overturned (awarded). This means there was one or more errors in the original claim about 80 percent of the time, and that error was "not" in the Veterans favor.

VBN's motto: "Dont apply for benefits, you could be reduced, instead. You really dont deserve the rating you got, it must have been a generous rating specialist. So be happy and settle in for less than you deserve as VA always gives Vets the benefit of the doubt awarding more benefits than they deserve. The VA has 95 percent accuracy, blah blah blah..." Of course, this motto is promulagated by rating specialist whose prime interest is reducing their work load of claims and appeals. If you post anything in conflict with that, you are banned, of course, because of your bad attitude. "How dare you accuse hard working VA raters of lowballing lying drug addicted, alcoholic Veterans who expect a free handout?"

Make sure you know: A "VA application" is different than a med board rating. You have to apply AT VA AFTER your exit from service to be eligible for an effective date within a year of exit from service.

You need to appeal the denials of the earlier effective date appeals, if those decisions were within a year. HINT: HLR or supllemental claim "rarely" result in large retro on effective dates. Reason? GS11's are not authorized to cut you a 5 or 6 figure check. This is done by a judge, so appeal to the BVA. Yes, it takes longer than HLR, but, if you want your money you have to go the distancc. If you are within a year of the decision(s), then appeal. If its longer than a year, you can try "prying open" the claims with a previous new evidence submission under 38 cfr 3.156 OR you can try cue. You have 2 additional options: 1. Work your claim yourself or with a VSO. 2. Hire a law firm to fight for an EED. If you are even considering option 2, contact a firm, give them your cfile and ask them. If they offer to represent you, you know you likely have a viable winnable claim.

Im not getting your question. You posted, Once you achieve "100 percent", the only way to increase this is through Special Monthly Compensation. (SMC). For example, if your husband did apply and was awarded 100 percent for PTSD, then you should get SMC S, for an additional 370 per month. If he needs Aid and Attendance, or has "loss of use" he may also get SMC. If you think he is eligble, simply apply using the applicable form or file for it online. The reason Im confused is you said he is currently paid at 80 percent. The discrepency between 80 percent and 130 percent "could be" because of VA math. If he is only getting 80 percent, then by all means apply for PTSD if you think he is eligible. The comp for 100 percent is WAY more than 80 percent. I will add, however, I can not guarantee he can still purchase a weapon "if" he is rated 100 percent for a mental disorder. I can tell you I have 100 percent for MDD, and I purchased a weapon AFTER I was so rated. It probably depends on your doctor. If your doctor says you are at risk of harming yourself or others, then you may not be able to buy a weapon. FOR ME, the way I read the "rate tables" a married Vet at 80 percent gets 1795 per month while a married vet at 100 pecent gets 3270 per month, a differnce of 1475 per month. That means I could buy a lot of "non gun" toys for an additional 1475 per month. I could buy, for example, a pretty nice 4 wheeler, or a boat, jet ski, new pickup, etc, etc, and I would be able to play with "those toys" instead of guns for 1400 more per month.

Im not getting your question. You posted, Once you achieve "100 percent", the only way to increase this is through Special Monthly Compensation. (SMC). For example, if your husband did apply and was awarded 100 percent for PTSD, then you should get SMC S, for an additional 370 per month. If he needs Aid and Attendance, or has "loss of use" he may also get SMC. If you think he is eligble, simply apply using the applicable form or file for it online. The reason Im confused is you said he is currently paid at 80 percent. The discrepency between 80 percent and 130 percent "could be" because of VA math. If he is only getting 80 percent, then by all means apply for PTSD if you think he is eligible. The comp for 100 percent is WAY more than 80 percent.

Ok. Its not that unusual for Veterans to get the money before they get a decision. It happens. Now, to answer your question, lets use an example: Lets say you were awarded 70 percent for condition A. Conditions B and C, however were "deferred". You can be paid for condition A. If conditions B and C are awarded, you will receive an effective date in the letter awarding benefits. If this increases your compensation, you will get, as retro, the difference between your new pay and what you already receeived. So, if you got 70 percent for A, then later got a total of 100 percent for A, B, and C, then you would get the difference between the 70 percent they paid you and the 100 percent you deserve...from the effective date of the decision. If you dispute the effective date on any decision you may appeal it, regardless of what happened on "other issues", such as those being deferred. We dont know all this, so just wait on your decision, its useless to speculate, but wait for the decision. Most likely this is your money, and you get to keep it, altho its fine to wait until you get the decision to go "hog wild" spending it. If you are sent money in error, the va, yes, can recoup an overpayment.

Shrek is on a roll. C and P exams are at the VA's discretion. You may already have all the evidence, OR, on the reverse side, a C and P wont be ordered "if there is no chance of substantiated your benefit claim". Example: You apply for benefits and you have no documentation of an in service event. A C and P exam wont fix this, so your claim will be denied without a c and p exam.

I agree with Shrek and Paul. The effective date(s) for smc is always the "facts found". I cant tell what the "facts found are", that is the date you first met the applicable criteria, but you are probably right, that its consistent with the caregiver. Remember, tho, for issues "other than SMC" your effective date SHOULD be "the date of your exit from service" but only if you applied within a year or exit from service. If you applied within a year of exit from service and the VA did not grant you that effective date, this "could" be CUE. Remember, tho, the "limitiations" of effective dates. They are: 1. The date you applied. (Exception: When you apply within a year of exit from military service). 2. Facts found. This means the date the doc said you were disabled. There are many exceptions to the effective date rules, at least some of which can be in your favor, such as when you apply for an increase. Effective dates are complex. Right now, my advice is that you wait until your BVA decision arrives. At that point, if you dispute the decision, consider hiring a lawyer to represent you at the CAVC. (You need to do that right away after a board denial or if the Board award is at an incorrect effective date..both grants and denials are appealable, but a remand is not appealable until it becomes finalized. It may not be too early to be planning to appeal your board decision. Remember, eaja pays your attorney fees when you appeal a board decision in most cases, so you pay nothing to appeal.

I agree this is confusing, and Im on my way out the door. Still, it says you filed an ITF on/about May, 2019, so they gave you that effective date instead of your July CUE. Did you file an ITF? It would appear this is an adjutication of your ITF, not of the CUE. Perhaps the cue is still pending. I did notice that you did not specify the date of the decision to which you allege CUE. This probably confused VA as it confused me. Of course I dont have your entire cfile in front of me. Again, I read this quickly so please dont attack me because I quickly read this and may well have gotten some stuff wrong as a thorough reading was not practical at this time. My advice is, that if you dispute the disability percentages or the effective dates, file an appeal. Its especially confusing because an SOC indicates legacy appeals, while my guess you would be in AMA, but, I dont know your timeline. Dont hold me to all this, it was just a hurried answer and you deserve a more thorough answer, I just dont have time to give it NOW.

Well, yes, its "evidence", the question is whether the evidence is probative and credible. If you can use it to support your position that you were in a war zone at a particular time, that may suffice. The Board "weighs" the credibility of the Veterans testimony. They can reject the Veterans testimony, but must give a well reasoned bases for doing so. So, for example, if this evidence "was consitent" with other evidence, then it would (based on the discretion of the decision maker) probably fly. However, if the Veteran were caught in OTHER lies, then his entire testimony could be discredited.