broncovet

On Page 50, of the document Paul supplied, it reads: Service-Connection Standardization and Uniformity, 1941 (Public Law No. 77-361) A law passed on December 20, 1941 (Pub. L. No. 77-361, Chap. 603, 55 Stat. 847) was enacted to facilitate standardization and uniformity of procedures related to determining service-connection of injuries or diseases alleged to have been incurred in or aggravated by active service in a war, campaign, or expedition. Among other things, it provided that: …where a veteran is seeking service-connection for any disability, due consideration shall be given to the places, types, and circumstances of his service as shown by his service record, the official history of each organization in which he served, his medical records, and all pertinent medical and lay evidence. For any veteran who engaged in combat with the enemy in active service with a military or naval organization of the U.S. during some war, campaign, or expedition, the Administrator of VA is authorized and directed to accept as sufficient proof of service-connection of any disease or injury alleged to have been incurred in or aggravated by service in such war, campaign, or expedition, satisfactory lay or other evidence of service incurrence or aggravation of such injury or disease, if consistent with the circumstances, conditions, or hardships of such service, notwithstanding the fact that there is no official record of such incurrence or aggravation in such service, and, to that end shall resolve every reasonable doubt in favor of such veteran. ...service-connection of such injury or disease may be rebutted by clear and convincing evidence to the contrary. The reasons for granting or denying service-connection in each such case shall be recorded in full. While the VA generally was already doing what this law required, the law sought to extend presumption in favor of combat veterans in a more uniform way. This law affirms Congressional intent that whenever possible, service-connection determinations be resolved in favor of veterans who served in combat. The Senate Report makes this clear: …the bill as drafted is not considered to be objectionable from an administrative standpoint, …the bill as drafted is not considered to be objectionable from an administrative standpoint, and would give legislative sanction to the policy Economic Systems Inc. Report on Legislative History December 2004 51 of resolving every reasonable doubt in favor of the veteran (U.S. Senate Report 902, December 12, 1941, p. 1). The report goes on to say that to establish a service-connection in peacetime is generally simpler because records are better maintained. During combat, however, records often either are not created, due to combat conditions, or are lost. Hence, the change requires that due consideration be given to additional factors. The report states directly Congress’ intent: It is the intention of this committee that this legislation should make a matter of law the pronounced policies of the Veteran’ Administration and make clear the obligation of employees engaged upon duties pertaining to determination of service-connection the necessity for the fullest consideration of all evidence and formulation of decisions in line with the policies to which this bill, if enacted, will give legislative sanction (U.S. Senate Report 902, December 12, 1941, p. 3).

Carla I think what that means is to be compensable, your disability has to be 10%. I am not sure if they had 0% ratings back then or not. It sounds like your decision is saying that your disability has to be 10% to be compensable, as we all know 0% ratings are non compensable. Today, of course, we know there is a difference between a denial and service connection at 0%..for one thing, I think if you have two 0% ratings, they combine to 10%. Also, a zero percent rating establishes service connection which is important, as it is easier to get an increase in the percentage than it is to establish SC. Finally, a zero percent rating, for example, may make you eligible for other benefits..such as hearing aids, VA medical care, etc. The above differences between 0% rating and a denial, may not have been applicable in 1978. I think the distinction there is that if your disability is LESS than 10%, you wont get any compensation. Although I certainly agree that you want to thoroughly prepare, I am gonna suggest you not worry too much about the many changes in Va regs that have occurred since 1978..just proceed as if the regulations were the the "most favorable" to you, as the regulations, even back then, required them to "favor the Veteran".

I wish I could be as optimistic but my experience is that if the VA gets a chance to delay the claim, they run with it. Delays are the one thing the VA is an expert at. Delays are profitable for the VA..each delay means the VA gets an interest free loan from the Veteran since interest on delayed claims is never paid. The formula is simple: Millions of claims delayed = Billions of dollars in interest free loans. Just think of what you could do if a million Veterans got together and loaned you a billion dollars at zero interest..and when you had to pay one Veteran back his money, then you simply borrowed more money from another Veteran, so the VA NEVER has to pay that billion dollars back. If someone would loan me a billion dollars interest free..like Veterans do unwillingly for the VA, you could take this free interest money and lend it back to others and charge them. If you lent a Billion dollars out at 8% interest, you would get a "free" $80 million dollars per year. This is how much the VA steals from its Veterans for each billion dollars in claims they delay. With a 905,000 compensation claim backlog plus another 254,000 education claim backlog, the VA is getting billions of dollars in interest free loans from 1.1 million Veterans..and this number is growing. It is like selling cars..they sell more cars when they offer zero percent financing. So, the VA delays more claims because they get zero percent financing on all of em. As long as there remains financial incentives for the VA to delay claims, they will do so. The only way to stop this is to charge the VA interst on delayed claims and for the VA to stop paying bonuses to employees who delay Veterans claims.

I see no reason for the VA to tell a Veteran (or a widow) that they are "working" on their application for benefits. Instead of telling us how hard they are working on our application, why dont they simply complete it and send out our check? If you hire someone to build you a house, do you need the builder to call you to tell you he is "working" on your home? Would you not rather see the walls go up and the roof go on? We have heard enough promises from the VA...they are "working" on reducinng Veteran suicide, they are "working" on reducing claim backlog...I am tired of hearing about how hard the VA works...I am assuming these employees are getting paid (and bonuses..for "working" hard) and that they should be working for their checks..what I want to see is some RESULTS of their "work". If they were producing results, no one would question whether or not they were working. If the VA resuts are so dismal that they have to call the Veteran to tell him they are working, then there is a problem that needs fixed..we really are not interested in knowing whether VA employees are working or if they are playing video games on the computer..as long as they produce results. The VA is not producing results, so they have to tell us they are working.

I believe a DRO handling your appeal is a good thing, tho not everyone will agree. If you elect a DRO review, an experienced rating specialist is supposed to review your claim to see if the original rater "missed" anything. In my case, a DRO review produced a favorable result for me, in less time than it takes for a BVA appeal. However, there are many who feel that a DRO is an unnecessary step that causes more delays because often the DRO "carbon copies" the original decision and the Vet will have to appeal to the BVA anyway, and will have "lost" all the time it took for the DRO Review. Even tho a DRO Review officer simply repeating what the rating speciast said in the original decision happens far too often, I still would agree with the "Alex Humphrey" philosopy: He suggest that A DRO is good because you should never pass up a chance to argue your case with someone who at least has a chance of ruling in the Veterans favor. Apart from the possibility that a DRO review could be unproductive and will take time, I see no other "downside" to electing a DRO review. Also, there is some chance that a DRO could help other Veterans..because one less claim at the BVA would mean that the BVA could decide another Veterans claim. In other words, it may help with the appeal backlog.

This is a very good example of what is wrong with the VA. Here you have a Veteran with symptoms of MS..and the failure on the part of the Veterans Doctor to diagnose it, does not improve the Veterans condition. Nobody wants to listen to my opinion, but it would certainly appear to me that the Veteran should be compensated for MS even tho there is no diagnosis, because there are Symptoms of MS present. WM Shakespeare said, "A rose by any other name would smell as sweet". So, it should not matter if the diagnosis was a "runny nose", if the symptoms presented themself as MS symptoms. Veterans are not compensated for conditions which are asymptomatic..that is, if a Veteran has a medical condition that causes him zero problems, he wont get compensated for it. An example of this may be a Veteran who lost a leg due to an explosion in the military. Perhaps no doctor was available to "diagnose" an amputated leg..but certainly, the Veteran suffered symptoms. If the Veteran got out of the military, the VA could deny his claim for benefits because he was never officially diagnosed with an amputated leg during military service...and thus say the missing limb was not related to military service. I think the court would not uphold this. The Veteran need only have symptoms of a disease, and not necessarily a diagnosis of the disease. This would not be the first time that doctors made an incorrect/inappropriate diagnosis. JMHO.

Berta is right, and what we need is a "Presumption of Regularity" with Veterans. In other words, a Veteran who has served his country honorably for 4 years or more deserves to be taken at his word..in the absence of evidence to the contrary. So a statement by the Veteran such as "I got wounded in the military but could not go to a medic because we didnt have one." should be accepted as fact unless the government can proove his statement is false. Why would Veterans not be taken at their word? We are "officials" of the government..recruited and trained to serve the interests of the government. Why are rating specialists opinions somehow more valid than Veterans statements? Yes, while it may be true that Veterans have a "Vested Interest" in their statement, likewise rating specialists also have vested interest in their own bonuses, and sometimes delay/deny Veterans claims so they can get their bonuses.

You have a right to be suspicious when someone tells you, "I am with the government and I am here to help you". Or worse, the DAV who is saying, "I get free rent from the government (the DAV "shares" office space at VA Regional Offices) and they paid me to tell you that you should have ........... attorney represent you. Oh, by the way, have you paid your DAV dues yet? We need your money so we can help other Veterans like yourself" ..you had better get your own attorney...UNLESS the DAV wants to pay their fee for you, and if they are paying the attorney, remember that attorney will chew your arm off before he bites the hand that feeds him.

CUE is irrelevant, because it is within one year of your decision. If you file a NOD within a one year time period, then you need not meet the strict Cue standard. I agree with Sharon and clown man (you should file a Motion for Reconsideration), except that if your motion for reconsideration is not resolved in 11 month and 3 weeks, then file a NOD to preserve you appeal rights and make sure you do NOT have to meet the strict CUE standard.

Their reasoning is faulty: Are any prosthetic appliances "designed" to wear clothes out faster? I don't think so. That would be like saying they designed a car to be unsafe. It really would not matter what the prosthetic appliance was "designed" to do..after all, you body was not "designed" for prosthesis! The design of the prosthesis has nothing to do with whether or not it wears your clothes out. Did they ever hear of faulty design? Is it your fault they designed the prosthetic device to not wear out clothes, but they do anyway?

Yes, if you are P and T, Ch. 35 will pay for your dependents education if your children can survive without income until the VA gets around to "processing" your application. Right now, there is a 254,000 backlog of education benefits applications, so your children are in for a long, long wait. The VA said that Education claimants will get their check by Oct. 1 , but I say your kids should buy a lottery ticket and then see which one gets your kid his check by Oct 1...I would bet on the lottery ticket. Once the VA gets a claims backlog, that backlog grows and grows..compensation benefits backlog has grown 15% on Shinseki's watch, and that does not even count the "new" education benefits backlog. Do you think your kids application will be put at the top of the 254,000 backlog pile? Since most colleges require payment of tuition and books before attending classes, the VA's inefficiency at processing education benefits has rendered both Ch.35 and Post 9-11 education benefits worthless. The VA is trying to get the word out on this, so that fewer people apply, which would make the VA "look better". Their message to new claimants when applying for VA benefits is clear: Give up now and you will save yourself a lot of frustration.

Congrats.. If you are IU, the percentages wont matter as you will be paid at the 100% rate.

No, but I have heard great things about him..I heard he was very experienced, and I seem to remember reading his name on some decisions..I think they were favorable. If I recall he was not taking cases when I was looking..but maybe he is now.

This triple checking on very large retros makes me wonder: If the RO could make a mistake on the effective date, in the Veterans favor, is it also not possible for the VA to make a mistake AGAINST the Veteran? That is, why dont they "triple check" all denials before they send them out? After all, we already know many of these are wrong! I agree with the court in that it does not make sense to slectively "triple check" ONLY FAVORABLE to the Veteran awards..if they "triple check" one, then they should triple check em all, or at least a scientifically random sample.

I just read the Summary of the Proposed Ammendment, as well as Berta's comment. While I am definately in favor of doing anything to help PTSD Veterans, it appears that this amendment is far too little and too late, or, even worse, could be manipulated by the Va to delay and deny even more. Frankly, I do not think that more regulations are the answer. In the past year, the backlog of Veterans claims has risen by 15% in spite of promises to reduce the backlog. Even worse, there is now a Brand New set of Backlogs by the VA for Education Benefits. The VA blames the Post 9-11 GI Bill for flooding them with applications. If you combine the 254,000 backlog of education benefits, with the 905,000 backlog in Veterans disability compensation claims, there are now more than 1.1 million Veterans waiting...and waiting..on the VA to "process" their claims. Clearly, the present management policies are not only ineffective, but they appear to be exacerbating an already enormous problem. Something needs to happen. Right now, what IS happening is that Veteran homelessness and suicide are at record levels. Has anyone ever figured out that the poverty these 1.1 million Veteran's are in, while waiting for the Va to "process" their claim, contributes to increases in homelessness and suicide? We dont need any more studies on Veteran homelessness, or more studies on Veteran suicide. We dont need any more committee's to "look into" the problem. We dont want any more promises by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs that he will reduce homeless by 131,000. The time for promises to help Veterans is over, and Veterans need someone to actually KEEP Abraham Lincoln's promise to care for the Veteran and his widow. People have proposed that the VA simply do what the IRS does..they send the tax refund check in a matter of 2 weeks..millions and millions of tax returns. Those 1.1 million Veterans waiting on their benefits need their money, not more empty promises or committees.

Carlie My son seems to think an ammo belt is "personal" equipment..that is required to be purchased by troops. He also buys his uniform and stuff. When I was in, we were supplied our first uniforms, and I seem to remember getting a few bucks every year or so to buy new uniforms when they are needed. I went to that website you suggested where soldiers were not gettting the equipment they needed. I still am thinking of going to the media with this, but I dont want it to be "bad" for my son. Thanks.. Bronco

I am a nervous wreck. 4 more soldiers killed today in Iraq. Altho I am pretty sure my son was not one of them, I am afraid to answer the phone that it will be them, telling me he was one of them. Of course, one of them could also be my son in law, who is in Iraq, but is supposed to come home in 3 weeks. I had to tell someone....... I just ordered my son an ammo belt, because the one I sent him earlier may not have been the right one according to a friend of mine who is an expert with military weapons. I just cant beleive that my son does not have the equipment he needs for war, and that he, or in this case I, have to pay for an ammo belt. Something is seriously wrong with our country when troops are required to pay for their own war equipment, and I have to order that stuff online. He cant even order it..he has only extremely limited internet access. I am lucky to get an email from him once a week...

Berta.. I would like to add that it seems pretty "sneaky" that the VA charges $108 for this VBM instead of simply making it available electronically online for free. This appears to me to be a real good example of why there are so many homeless Vets. Do you think a homeless man can afford $108 for a manual that would help him get the VA benefits he deserves? I doubt it.

Berta.. Wow.. Is it possible for you to scan in and post here at least portions of this 2009 VBM? I am particulary interested in the "new section" discussing TDIU and EED, and court cases. I think other Vets would like to have that section also, and at least some of them may not be able to afford $108 to buy it. It would probably be a lot of work for you to do this, and I realize it may not be practical to post the entire 2009 VBM, but there may well be some critical pages that would be worth posting. Thanks. Bronco

Dorothy You are correct to be suspicious of the VA, since they probably messed up, or at least delayed your benefits so far. I recommend you enlist the help of a trusted friend, son, son in law, etc., who is knowledgeable with the VA and construction before you proceed. Ask lots of questions to your VSO, and keep a notebook of his/her answers. Also send an "IRIS" email your specific questions, then keep a copy of their answers, so they cant later say, "I never said that". You should keep a copy of any written corresponce you send the VA, and send it certified mail return receipt requested since the VA has a long history of "loosing" Veterans critical correspondence. A good VSO may be able to help you, tho you have to also watch them like a hawk, since some of them actually sabatoge your claims.

If the VA has failed to formally acknowledge receipt of this informal claim (letter), then evidence in your claim file was mishandled/shredded. You need to file a "Special Handling Request" before November, 2009. Sample Special Handling Request: Jones, Robert 123-45-6789 The above named Veteran hereby requests "Special Claims Handling" due to evidence which may have been shredded/mishandled by the VA Regional Office (Secretary Principii, VSO, etc). On Sept. 1, 2002 the above named Veteran filed an informal claim for benefits with a letter to the Secretary. A copy of that letter which may have been lost or mishandled is included. The "VA is required to identify and act on informal claims for benefits. 38 U. S.C. 5110( :D (3) (2006); 38 C.F.R. 3.1(p), 3.155(a). The Board commits remandable error when it fails to consider evidence that may be construed as an earlier application or claim, formal or informal, entitling the claimant to an EED See 38 U.S.C. 7104" The Veteran contends that, since the effective date of the RO decision dated Dec 9, 2008, was not consistent with the date of said letter, this letter may have been lost or shredded by the VARO. The Veteran has timely filed a NOD to the Dec 9, 2008 RO decision disputing the effective date of the award on August 31, 2009 and hereby requests this letter be submitted as evidence of an earlier effective date. The result of this mishandling of evidence is that the Veteran has not recieved his full VA benefits due to him under the law in that these benefits should effective the date of this letter, September 1, 2002. I certify that the above is correct and true to the best of my knowledge: signed Robert Jones, Veteran, US Navy

Thank you Clark, for your generous offers to send cookies and a belt to my son in Iraq. Not all deployed troops get regular "care packages" from family and friends like my son, so they are more deserving of your cookies and such. You can even "adopt" a deployed troop, here: http://www.soldiersangels.org/ Presently, there are 1,311 heroes (deployed troops) waiting adoption.

Regulations defining an Informal claim are as follows: http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-...2.5&idno=45 In this regulation it states: "© Any communication, letter, note, or memorandum from a claimant, or the claimant's duly authorized representative, or a person acting as next friend of a claimant who is not legally competent, setting forth sufficient facts to apprise the Commission of an interest to apply under the provisions of sections 5(i) and 6(f) of the Act, will be deemed to be an informal claim. " Further, Mingo vs Nicholson says that the VA can not ignore an informal claim: In Mingo vs. Nicholson it states: “VA is required to identify and act on informal claims for benefits. 38 U. S.C. 5110(:D(3) (2006); 38 C.F.R. 3.1(p), 3.155(a). The Board commits remandable error when it fails to consider evidence that may be construed as an earlier application or claim, formal or informal, entitling the claimant to an EED See 38 U.S.C. 7104” IMHO in your NOD you should state the above regulations, and, further, I agree that you are entitled to an EED because your letter meets the requirements, as above.

I do somewhat agree with Purple, but I like your letter but would add one thing, if this is applicable: "Due to my advanced age and multiple medical conditions, I am requesting an advance on the docket, as, frankly, I am not sure I will live long enough to make it through still another long appeal process"

Dont count on the VA knowing anything..the VA is supposed to know they are not supposed to shred our evidence, but they dont. You need to pretty much treat the VA as if they are in first grade..rememeber that some of them dont know how to read. Those VA employees who dont know how to read are given a rubber stamp saying "Claim Denied". They put a smilie on it so they know which one to stamp. They then tell them to stamp "claim denied" on every other claim. They have another rubber stamp that says "Reasons for denial: No evidence supports in service connection". Then, they have them throw away your service medical record, and shred it.