10thFO

Just a follow up to my son's situation, the school's financial aid office had done their job, the hold up seemed to be at the Buffalo, NY RO.  Go figure.  But a call from my son's Senator back in Virginia, got the first checks paid at once within about 3 days.  Called the ex this morning to make sure his money went in today, and she verified that it did, and that it hade gone from $1298 to $1401.  So they have already added a COLA of 7.9 for the Chapter 35 for this year we are in now.  Thanks for the advice, just wanted to advise that it is finally up to date.  

Honestly, I don't think you can get the 100% for PTSD if your still working.  If you look at the criteria for 100 PTSD, it's pretty much "you're a hermit, you can't leave home, you can't function with other people, you probably can't handle your own finances".  Just my opinion, but one that I've heard over the last 10 years though different counselors.  I wish you the best with it.  

Traditionally, the VA tries to not service connect HBP, using the rationale that it's "essential", or that the veteran has HBP as a common malady due to various non service related factors.
Lead interests me personally, since I was exposed in Navy shipboard service to sanding dust from "red lead" paint, as well as fumes from soldering in unventilated areas. (no fume hoods, etc.)

Governing Laws and Regulations for PTSD

The establishment of service connection for PTSD has unique evidentiary requirements. It generally requires: (1) medical evidence diagnosing the condition in accordance with 38 C.F.R. § 4.125(a) (i.e., DSM-IV); (2) credible supporting evidence that the claimed in-service stressor actually occurred; and (3) medical evidence of a link between current symptomatology and the claimed in-service stressor. 38 C.F.R. § 3.304(f). See also Cohen v. Brown, 10 Vet. App. 128 (1997).

If it is established through military citation or other supportive evidence that the veteran engaged in combat with the enemy and the claimed stressor is related to that combat, in the absence of clear and convincing evidence to the contrary, and provided that the claimed stressor is consistent with the circumstances, conditions, or hardships of the veteran's service, the veteran's lay testimony alone may establish the occurrence of the claimed in-service stressor. 38 C.F.R. § 3.304(f)(2). See also 38 U.S.C.A. § 1154(b) and 38 C.F.R. § 3.304(d); Gaines v. West, 11 Vet. App. 353 (1998) (Board must make a specific finding as to whether the veteran engaged in combat). To gain the benefit of a relaxed standard for proof of service incurrence of an injury or disease, 38 U.S.C.A. § 1154(b) requires that the veteran have actually participated in combat with the enemy. See VAOPGCPREC 12-99.

If VA determines either that the veteran did not engage in combat with the enemy or that the veteran did engage in combat, but that the alleged stressor is not combat related, the veteran's lay testimony, by itself, is not sufficient to establish the occurrence of the alleged stressor. Instead, the record must contain credible supporting evidence that corroborates the veteran's testimony or statements. 38 C.F.R. § 3.304(f); Stone v. Nicholson, 480 F.3d 1111 (Fed. Cir. 2007); Cohen v. Brown, 10 Vet. App. 128, 147 (1997); Moreau v. Brown, 9 Vet. App. 389, 395 (1996).

However, corroboration of every detail of a claimed stressor, including the veteran's personal participation, is not required; rather, a veteran only needs to offer independent evidence of a stressful event that is sufficient to imply his or her personal exposure. See Pentecost v. Principi, 16 Vet. App. 124, 128 (2002) (quoting Suozzi v. Brown, 10 Vet. App. 307 (1997)). In other words, the veteran's presence with the unit at the time such attacks occurred corroborates his statement that he experienced such attacks personally. Suozzi v. Brown, 10 Vet. App. 307, 311 (1997).

The final requirement of 38 C.F.R. § 3.304(f) is medical evidence of a nexus between the claimed in-service stressor and the current disability. However, such after-the-fact medical nexus evidence generally cannot also be the sole evidence of the occurrence of the claimed stressor. Moreau, 9 Vet. App. at 396.

Effective July 13, 2010, if a stressor claimed by a veteran is related to that veteran's fear of hostile military or terrorist activity and a VA psychiatrist or psychologist, or a psychiatrist or psychologist with whom VA has contracted, confirms that the claimed stressor is adequate to support a diagnosis of PTSD and that a veteran's symptoms are related to the claimed stressor, in the absence of clear and convincing evidence to the contrary, and provided the claimed stressor is consistent with the places, types, and circumstances of that veteran's service, a veteran's lay testimony alone may establish the occurrence of the claimed in-service stressor. 38 C.F.R. § 3.304(f)(3) (2013).

"[F]ear of hostile military or terrorist activity" means that a veteran experienced, witnessed, or was confronted with an event or circumstance that involved actual or threatened death or serious injury, or a threat to the physical integrity of the veteran or others, such as from an actual or potential improvised explosive device; vehicle-imbedded explosive device; incoming artillery, rocket, or mortar fire; grenade; small arms fire, including suspected sniper fire; or attack upon friendly military aircraft, and the veteran's response to the event or circumstance involved a psychological or psycho-physiological state of fear, helplessness, or horror. See id.

A veteran must have experienced, witnessed, or have been confronted by an event or circumstance that involved actual or threatened death or serious injury, or a threat to the physical integrity of that veteran or others, and that veteran's response to the event or circumstance must have involved a psychological or psycho-physiological state of fear, helplessness, or horror. The occurrence of an actual event or circumstance is necessary. In making this determination, VA must duly consider the places, types, and circumstances of a veteran's service as shown by the service record, the official history of each organization in which such a veteran served, a veteran's medical records, and all pertinent medical and lay evidence. The new rule is limited to cases in which the claimed stressor is related to a veteran's fear of hostile military or terrorist activity. See 75 Fed. Reg. 39843 (Jul. 13, 2010).

Source:http://www.index.va.gov/search/va/view.jsp?FV=http://www.va.gov/vetapp14/Files1
/1400029.txt

. "Most of these guys were awarded a CIB for our actions in combat, along with other various awards, but it seems someone at the VA is telling my friend that he needs buddy letters to support his claim. "

A CIB, CAR, or PH on a DD 214 should be a nobrainer to conmcede the veteran was exposed to a stressor.

But the veteran also will need a diagnosis of PTSD from a VA MH professional.

The PTSD regulations changed in 2010.

I will bump them up for you in our PTSD forum.