broncovet

If its secondary, you dont need an in service event. You need, instead: 1. Current diagnosis of secondary condition, and: 2. Doc opinion that your (primary condition..service connected) caused your secondary condition. Now, the decision says you dont have a diagnosis of psoriatic arthritis. Thats a problem. You may need a lawyer to sort this out.

In my example, above, one of your buddies may be able to write a letter that he was there, with you, when the decapitation occurred. This letter could suffice as documentation of an in service event.

You posted: Uh oh. This is Caluza element 2. You have to have documentation of an "in service event" or aggravation. You have to have all 3 Caluza elements or no cigar. One or two Caluza elements wont suffice. Go back and review your service records, and see if they contain documentation or not. If they do not, then you will need buddy letters, to document an "in service event". Until you get that fixed you wont be getting benefits. This is the "in service event" part. You dont need an "in service diagnosis" and you dont need an "in service nexus"..those can come later, after service. But you must have documentation of an in service event. What "event" do you allege caused your ailments? You have to be able to answer that question for VA. But, importantly, you have to have an in service "event" not in service treatment, diagnosis, etc. Example: You witness a horrific event such as decapitation of one of your comrades. This is an "in service" event. In reference to PTSD, its called a "stressor". A doctor, can come by, later, and say you have PTSD (a diagnosis) and that it was "at least as likely as not" the cause of your ptsd. Then you have all 3 caluza elements, but all these have to be documented in your file.

This is an unfortunate situation, and many of us share your pain. The VA does not give us access to our VBMS file, but they do give VSO's and or lawyers access, provided that these representatives have jumped through VA hoops to obtain access. Im with you, I think we should be allowed to read only access our complete file online. In my opinion its a denial of due process for us NOT to be able to access our file. If you were in court, and the government did not allow you to know what charges or what evidence was against you, dont you think this is a denial of due process? We need to know what evidence the VA has for/against us. They only way to do that is access to the same files the VA has. The courts have ruled our VA benefits are a protected asset and we are entitled to due process. Someone needs to fight VA on this. Knowing all the evidence is part of due process. Pro Se Vets also deserve due process!!!

There is a significant difference between admitting "error" and "CUE". CUE is a specific type of error, and not all errors are CUE. Therefore: 1. If you disagree with the outcome of what VA determined in the new decision, including your handling of CUE, then you can file a nod, OR, you can request a revision of decision based on CUE (of the new decision). 2. If you dispute the effective date of your new decision, you can file a nod if its within a year, or you can file a cue. Your choice. I would not be suprised if VA was "trying to weasel out" of paying you retro pay. It would not be the first time. You have some options: 1. Do nothing. Not recommended. 2. File a NOD, either on your own, or with a lawyer. 3. File a CUE, either on your own or with a lawyer. If the retro potential is significant, and you lack skills to represent yourself, then it sounds like a great time to lawyer up. At a minumum, you can take your documents to a lawyer and ask him. See a NOVA lawyer. I have taken my own advice, and been represented by a lawyer and won benefits at least twice. EAJA has paid my lawyer fees each time, except for about 1000 dollars. (That was because the lawyer represented me also at the BVA, and EAJA pays fees at the CAVC level only). I have personally benefited thousands of dollars because I turned my claims over to attorneys.

Once you are convicted of felonies, you give up many rights. You can get a lawyer, but I would not be suprised if felony convictions "trump" our rating protections to include the 20 year one. Our system gives us "due process", but when we dont do our part, we forfeit due process, such as not showing up for court dates. If you had a compelling reason to miss that court date, then get some documentation, such as you were in the hopspital or injured or whatever. All this said, the courts have sometimes given leniency especially to PTSD/war Veterans. Some areas have a seperate court system just for Vets. https://justiceforvets.org/what-is-a-veterans-treatment-court/

No. Secondary claims are not all SMC. For you to get up to speed with SMC, try reading this: https://asknod.org/2013/02/27/special-monthly-compensation-what-is-it/

I agree with nozzz's. Order your cfile and see what the doctor diagnosed you with. Then, with a diagnosis, you can check to see if the rating is correct, based on your documented symptoms, and, as nozz posted, you can check to see if you have the caluza elements. NO diagnosis = no benefits.

The Va updates Vet.gov, or ebenefits pretty much when and how they do everything else: Like yourself, it would make sense to update it daily, weekly, monthly etc., but the VA prefers "willy nilly", instead. Then, when they do update it, there is about a 50 percent chance its wrong. Still, 11 years is too long. THis may be a good time to consider an attorney. You are "stuck" somewhere, and you need to find out where to fix it. Do you have a copy of your cfile? What does peggy say? You can at least try sending in an IRIS email for an updated status.

You need to wait for the envelope. Ebenefits can say the moon is made of green cheese and the Martians will rate your claim. But, read on: A DRO decision is a "Decision Review Officer" decision, that was used prior to RaMP. (Now ramp is called AMA) A DRO decision is a VARO decision by a more experienced "Decision review officer". You opt for the DRO instead of going to the BVA. There is no more DRO decisions, except for those older claimants who did not opt into ramp. Now, DRO decisions are called "HLR" (Higher level review if you have no new evidence) or (Supplemental Claim lane) "SCL" if you have new evidence. (you have to choose on the nod form). "Afd" is probably "Appealant filed" or something close. But, there is a problem. After Feb. 2019, there was no more DRO. As I explained, it became HLR or SCL. You should call and get it straightened out. It sounds like you may have used an old nod form, which may or may not have been valid. If you got a decision PRIOR to FEb. 2019, then you you could still file for DRO review. However, if you got a decision after Feb. 2019, then you need to use the new forms, and elect HLR or SCL. I suggest you call and find out, if you dont know.

While this may have changed, it used to be you had to try to order a copy from your VSO or VARO. If you have a complete copy of your cfile, it should be there. My suggestion: 1. If the "missing decision" is less than a year old, file a nod. Then get a copy. Expect VA to drag their feet and delay you getting a copy until after a year. Tell VA you disagree "on all issues". Dont do HLR, as you may have new evidence. Do Supplemental claim lane instead. 2. If the missing decision is over a year old, go ahead and order a copy of your cfile, as it will be much better to have everything, not just the decision.

This sounds like classic "developing to deny". VA is prohibited from doing so, but, as you saw they do it anyway. Chris Attig speaks of it, there is more, here: In a nutshell, if VA already has the Caluza elements, them forcing you to go to more c and p exams in order to deny you is in error. You may need an experienced attorney to fix this.

I agree with Buck. "Fear of reduction of rating" is not a good reason to forego surgury or be afraid of applying for additional VA benefits you deserve. Since you have been rated "over (15) years" you still have rating protections in place. Its frankly, difficult for VA to reduce benefits because of the following regulation, which I have highlighted: Because you have been rated 5 years or more, you qualify for "all" the protections above, and even a few more, in 38 cfr 3.105 (d) In summary, its a myth propogated by VSO's and some well meaning Vets that when a Vet applies for more benefits, he will be reduced instead.

Great idea. Example: Many of us volunteers tire of answering questions which begin, "How long does it take VA to _______?" While this is a great question, and one that people certainly want to know, the VA makes sure the answer to this question is always: And we dont want that answer. We need to make plans on how long we have to starve our family before our check comes in. As important as this question is, VA carefully "eludes" the answer. Social Security will tell you that, when you apply for social security, they are supposed to have an answer in 120 days. Period. (This does not count appeals). Someone in Social Security will be assigned to their case, and, if yours is not complete in 120 days, their supervisor wants a very good explanation of why not. Not VA. Its the opposite. Instead, VA managers will say: Do you think you can delay this claim until next year again?? We cant afford retro on this budget for that claim so think up some more glitches to run into next year. You know, lose their key evidence, lose their file, etc. etc. etc. While VA management will publicly deny they do this, far too many Veterans will attest that glitch after glicth plagues their claims, going on for decades. My claim began April 2002, and now it looks like it wont be finished until AT least 2020..18 years. Mine is now at the BVA for the 6th time. Remands, denials, wrong effective date...you name it and VA figured out a glitch. I learned I was not "special", the Va does this to many. So many, that it appears there has to be VA employees making these glitches appear when none were there.

Try: 38 cfr 3.156, (new evidence) https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/38/3.156 and 38 cfr 4.125 (diagnosis) https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/38/4.125