Texas-NativeATX

I recall using a statement in support of claim form with an added continuation of 12 or 15 pages of the actual CUE claim contentions.  There were no specific forms then (2001) for filing CUE claims and I don't believe there are any special CUE forms today for CUE.  Maybe use 526EZ (??).
Must remember to sign both the form and last added final page of the CUE claim contention and date both of course with your last four SSN and C-File number in top right corner of each page including copies of any evidence you submit with the claim/appeal. I also initialed all the other pages just in case.  Make copies of everything you submit to VARO, BVA and/or court.
Also when as expected BVA denied my appeal I may have ask BVA for a reconsideration in a written letter or I may have filed directly to the CAVC court with only 120 days time line allowed to appeal to the court.
When referring to C&P errors I would say something to the effect that the VARO adjudicator also committed additional CUE by relying OR TRANSMITTING a C&P error.  As with my CUE you seem to state that multiple CUE errors were committed by VARO adjudicator and one of these may stick or work for you.
It is good to claim more than one CUE error was committed (be all inclusive).  You of course must provide convincing arguments and facts to support each CUE contention as you seem to have done here. Go for broke and see what sticks on the wall as I did.  Worked for me but may not for others.
My comment is not legal advice as I am not a lawyer, paralegal or VSO.

I have been try to see how u file a cue with all this new stuff.
On my post about cue. I believe a veteran posted were there are to be send now.
I believe you will at the least get a new exam and a new decision.
That was a great write up and hit all your points.
If VA does address it that is a great write up for the cavc to take a look at it.
Good luck
 

@Dustoff 11CUE can work in rare cases to contest a C&P opinion, but it depends on the details. In my case, it wasn't a difference of opinion or how the evidence was weighed, but instead a complete absence of an opinion by the VA examiner. I won the CUE because the C&P examiner failed to opine on the claimed condition. Because their examiner had already filled out the DBQ and I had also submitted a separate strongly favorable IMO from a non-VA specialist (which they ignored), the DRO granted based on my "more than likely" IMO and had sufficient info to assign a rating percentage, too. It wasn't relative equipoise either. It was a case where they disregarded all of the solid Caluza elements I had in place. It truly was odd though. Well, I guess taking 18 months to win a heart attack claim is a good thing in the end because I won. 

I only read a small part of your very long post. It is my understanding and from my own pro se experience filing and appealing a CUE claim all the way to the U.S. CAVC court in 2003 that a C&P exam/examiner's opinion can never be considered CUE under 38 CFR 3.105 (TRUE CUE as opposed to just serious error) according to knowledgeable others.  You must confine IMHO your CUE contentions to the VARO adjudicator's decision and not the examiner's negative opinion again according to other's advice.  Here is some background on my CUE claim where I did win a satisfying victory of sorts. Read on.
I filed the CUE claim under 38 CFR 3.105 that actually contained 4 separate CUE contentions 1. VARO committed CUE in assignment of level of initial PTSD rating. 2. VARO committed CUE in reducing my PTSD rating. 3. VARO committed CUE in terminating my PTSD rating and most important. 4. VARO committed CUE in failing to adjudicated me for both a requested and implied PTSD TDIU rating under 38 CFR. 4.16 (?).
As expected I received fairly quick denials of my CUE claim from both VARO and BVA and then I appealed this on my own to the U.S. CAVC court in 2003.  After several months of very contentious motions, counter motions, briefs, supplemental ROAs, etc. with hateful and mean minded VA lawyers the judge Harold Greene issued a single judge 9 page decision that said although there was no CUE errors committed the VARO and BVA did commit a serious Due Process Error in failing to adjudicate me for a PTSD TDIU claim and his remand instructions ordered the VARO to do so.  However, VARO before the court favorable decision had already granted me P&T TDIU with 5 years back pay due to other claims and procedures I brought against the VA.  So there it is.
Both the Fed Appeals Circuit court and CAVC has long ago issued rulings that pro se vets representing themselves in appeals including CUE and TDIU appeals are to be given a sympathetic reading and consideration in their statements, contentions, briefs, motions before the BVA and court.  The judge said BVA failed to do that in my case under Roberson v. Principi.
In all the pre decision conflicts between me and the VA General Counsel lawyers over the ROA, motions, briefs, etc. the Judge took my side against them and they were clearly frustrated because they of course are elitist from Yale, Harvard, Georgetown, etc. **** them.
The BVA and court will almost always say that your CUE error claim was not CUE but merely a difference of opinion in the weighing of evidence by the VARO adjudicator and not CUE.  Many vets believe that all errors are CUE but they are flat out wrong even though they may have won an appeal of a non CUE error in rating by the VARO.
I have read many many dozens of CUE court decisions before and after my CUE court appeal and like me you have a long haul to win a TRUE CUE claim under 3.105. 
You may have better luck in filing a standard appeal or new or supplemental claim instead and save a tremendous of time but I understand your desire for CUE due to amount of compensation to be gained from the earlier decision denial years ago.  Your choice. My CUE claim was around 15 pages as I recall.  Good luck going forward.
There are others on this forum with REAL CUE claims and Appeal experience.
My comment is not legal advice as I am not a lawyer, paralegal or VSO so do not contact me for more information folks.
 

And don't forget about VAOPGCPREC 12-95, May 10, 1995, Clear and Unmistakable Error - Constructive Notice of VA Medical Records (M21-1 Article ID: 554400000043583)
“In Bell v Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 611 (1992), which was decided on July 21, 1992, the Court of Veterans Appeals created the constructive notice rule.  That is, that medical records which are in VA's possession at the time VA adjudicators render a decision on a claim will be considered in the record at the time of the decision, regardless of whether the medical records were actually before the adjudicator at the time of the decision.  Accordingly,  as to final decisions made on or after July 21, 1992, evidence which was in VA's possession at the time the AOJ decision was made will be deemed to have been in the record before the AOJ at the time of that decision.  The General Counsel found that if the outcome of the case is altered by the records, a later claim may result in a finding of clear and unmistakable error.“
The part I underlined is classic... So much for the VA blindly claiming to have reviewed "all evidence of record"... Even if the VA creates a document, it is still considered to be part of the record, even if it is not before the adjudicator.
 

I mention here ,from time to time, the power of 38 CFR 4.6. I am putting this in the main forum because I think VA makes more CUEs regarding this regulation, then we know.
One of the first things vet reps should look for in a denial, is whether the VCAA letter was correct
(if that letter is detrimental to the claimant, it will surely become a lengthy BVA case, remand due to VCAA violation, ,and, back to BVA scenario )
VCAA letters are different fopr survivors then for veterans...I made that point here in past posts.

and then whether the decision contains a CUE......do most vet reps really check those important points?



“Every element in any way affecting the probative value to be assigned to the evidence in each individual claim must be thoroughly and conscientiously studied by each member of the rating board in the light of the established policies of the Department of Veterans Affairs to the end that decisions will be equitable and just as contemplated by the requirements of the law. “ 38 CFR 4.6


A violation of this regulation can be a basis , within or out of the apellate period., for a valid CUE claim. I claimed CUE immediately under this regulation regarding my initial AO IHD decision and that CUE was fixed right away. The decision however contained another CUE which I have claim pending on.

I was going over my pending CUE based on this regulation, (38 CFR 4.6 ) I almost forgot I had cited a BVA decision that ,because it is a legal decision and not medical, and explains what I mean.Also theBVA decision cited VA case law that I didnt have to reiterate.

In part:
"The veteran's assertion of CUE is based on VA's failure to
consider highly relevant medical evidence, that is, the RO
denied the existence of medical evidence that was clearly of
record at the time of the rating decision. The Board is
convinced that the RO committed error based on the record and
the law that existed at the time the decision was made and
had the error not been made, the outcome would have been
manifestly different. Grover, supra.

This error is significantly more than a disagreement as to
how the facts were weighed or evaluated. Crippen, supra.
Rather, it was a denial of the existence of facts of record.
Moreover, a persuasive reason has been given as to why the
error manifestly changed the outcome. This reason is that
had the error not been made, a compensable rating for
irritable bowel syndrome would have made effective the day
following separation from active military service, rather
than the day that a VA outpatient treatment report noted
irritable bowel syndrome. This review for CUE is based
solely on the evidence of record at the time of the February
2000 rating decision. Russell, supra.



In conclusion, the veteran has shown that error occurred
based on the record and the law that existed at the time the
decision was made. After considering the evidence of record
at the time of the June 1989 rating decision as well as the
veteran's later testimony concerning VA's failure to observe
that evidence, the Board finds that the veteran has
demonstrated CUE in the February 2000 RO decision. An
earlier effective date of October 29, 1989, for a 30 percent
rating for irritable bowel syndrome must be granted."

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1. The criteria for a 30 percent schedular rating for
irritable bowel syndrome with gastroesophageal reflux are
met. 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 1155, 5103, 5103A, 5107 (West 2002 &
Supp. 2008); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.159, 4.1, 4.3, 4.7, 4.10,
4.114, Diagnostic Code 7319 (2008)."

http://www.index.va.gov/search/va/view.jsp?FV=http://www.va.gov/vetapp08/Files5/0844495.txt


Evidence in the record at time of the alleged CUE decision,
violation of basic VA case law,regarding evidence, in place at time of the past decision
proof of a ratable condition at time of the alleged CUE decision,
and a proven manifested and altered outcome...meaning more retro is due the vet (in this case back to the day after his discharge.....1989.

I am glad I found that I had used this decision in my pending claim because maybe it will help others to understand how I have been successful with both types of CUE claims.

But besides using this decision,in my claim, my evidence is relevant and probative and fits into the entire gamit of CUE regs, as above.

It is evidence that was in VA's possession at time of alleged CUE decision, and ignored completely by the VA.
The manifested outcome, I stated to VA, is 100% P & T ,1151for 16 additional months, due the veteran, plus one spouse, one child.Plus SMC S for those 16 months.

This is also an example of why every surviving spouse should substitute themselves ASAP for any claims the veteran had pending at death.

And aggressively fight over any decisions that contain CUE to their detriment.