brokensoldier244th

I should have added to the top, but ill add here instead. You surely CAN talk to your VA doctor about MJ use. The worst that happens is it goes into VBMS, they ask you about it with some regularity at checkups, and you don't get opioids anymore. I see VHA files every day where the veteran uses MJ, CBD, tincture, distillate, whatever for pain for for PTSD. Its just added in the notes like any other thing.

The policy of the VA is that marijuana is illegal at the federal level regardless of what the state laws says. If you are known to be using marijuana the VA will take you off opiods because the point of MJ for pain relief is to not use opioids.

What are you in for? …..Littering……

I deleted out all your personal information- address, name, SS/File number. NEVER post stuff like that in the internet. What exactly do you need to know about? Adapting a vehicle?

I honestly can't speak to that (if they went for the sure thing with Adj Disd), it would totally be speculation. I do see a lot of "adj disorder" tossed around in STRs, though, along with things like 'immaturity syndrome" and other made up BS and it seems to frequent those claims where the incident was not reported but the veteran was dealing as best as they could. I understand completely why most are not reported, just like bum knees, minor (later major) head injuries, or whatever. We've all done it...er....not done it, because we didn't want to put up with our peers or cadre for the next X days giving us shit about it. One thing that has happened in the last few years (10 or so) is the recognition of WHAT can be an indicator of a latent stressor and what behavioral cues can indicate that all is not well in the state of Denmark. The recognition of these seemingly unrelated behaviors and deviations from the norm, when put into context with times and dates, can reveal enough to at least get an examination requested even when a black and white glossy photo with circles and arrows and writing on the back is not available. Younger or more experienced counselors/doctors/examiners can contextualize these markers enough to opine that SOMETHING happened even though there may not be a named assailant or crystallized details- all they have to hit is ALALAN. Do some probably get through on the barest of circumstantial evidence? I have no doubt- but I don't examine them, and I don't do the decision, I just find all the crumbs and put them together in as clear a narrative as I can with pointers to various places in their military and post-military history. The raters make the decisions based on what the examiner says and what is in the records that I research. They aren't psych doctors and they don't Dx- there are some times when there is so little to go on that the examiner can't make a Dx either, and all PTSD examiners for MST are all Psychs or Psy D's (practicing psychologists minus the academia part that makes a PhD). Those suck because after the hours I spend 1. I didn't 'win', and 2. I know that 'something' happened. Problem is that a good chunk of these particular OIG claims that I look at are 15-20-30 years old, and many have been gone through more than once, even appeals, and even under a prior OIG review (there was another one of these big reviews in 2018-2019. I do find a lot of mistakes there- but this was when any VSR of any length of time could develop these claims, too. Some of that inexperience is a VSR that should have known enough to say "slow your roll....I'm not comfortable taking these..." and didn't, or they were voluntold. Ive also found reports from military psychs that literally say things like "shouldn't have been x,y,z...." "should have known better than to have......." etc, moralizing from the bench, as it were. These entries in STRS are usually more of a product of their time, so my looking at them with a more modern perspective often finds deficiencies there, too. I love those- doing my 2 cents to shoot down a doctor's opinion, even if it WAS 30 yrs ago.

In the absence of a divorce finalized by the court, yes.

Oh good lord. Yeah, that sounds about par for the course. The internal NCO part will be difficult- surely it's not in their OMPF, but if behavioral markers can be pointed to during/post-incarceration that will go a long way. Hopefully, they are/have/gotten at least some treatment documented somewhere whether VA or otherwise. That helps with the propensity of evidence falling on their side of things. I get to read all sorts of stuff like this. It makes some days more difficult than others, but Ive experienced ST as a child, and my wife was assaulted in college while we were distance friends, so, at the end of the day, I know that every claim I get researched enough to get re-examined and rated (and hopefully awarded) is a win in my column towards balancing the scales.

It is related to it, yes. That report is what prompted VA to consolidate MST claims to only 5 sites with specially trained sub-groups, back in 2021. That then evolved into just creating a specific division just for MST. I'm one of the 15 people re-reviewing many of the claims that were part of that OIG Report review. There are only 15 of us out of VA doing this part, so it's going to take us a minute. Many of them are plagued with myriad issues- bad records, unseen, late flowing, never requested, non-liberally construed stressors, military reports/counselings from cadre and Cmd that would curl your hair with how badly they are worded and how blatantly sexist they are. Those are usually the older ones, though, 90's and older, before the military started taking MST more seriously, at least on paper.

I'm working as part of an IOG initiative for this for MST claims that were likely denied for bad/inexperienced evidence review, not locating behave markers, bad paper discharges under MH/DADT, unseen or late-flowing evidence that was prior to the initial decision, etc. These types of occurrences are why the San Juan MST Op Center was created last year (where I work). 1 specific site to handle all MST claims, just like AO/Mustard/Radiation/Lejeune, etc. We work on other parts/contentions of the claim as well, but if it is primarily an MST claim it comes to us, and we are all specifically trained and/or have a background in something RE: MH, prior law enforcement, or law, CW/SW counseling, whatever. The OIG claims I am working on are a separate sub-initiative within the MST OP center, and ill probably be working on it for the next several months.

Just to clarify- VSO's are not on staff, VBA or VHA. They get paid by their respective organizations.

It has nothing to do with appealing, or even filing unless you file for secondary issues that are related to those you are already rated for, which will require those conditions to be looked at in context. We do not have time to pour over your entire file for every contention you have ever filed for. Unless it jumps out as an egregious error (that we are required to report or look more closely at) we generally focus on whatever it was that you filed for. In the case of the pending appeals, they are what they are, let them ride, it may cause you to be entitled to SMC's after the rating is finalized. If your other conditions are static (at least 5 yrs old with no changes) then they will rarely be re-examined, at least not automatically. VSOs and clinics say a lot of things, and the 'pro-veteran' sites that you find online- especially the ones that offer to help you file for a cut at the end- are the worst. If they keep everyone riled up they justify their existence and their page views to their respective sites. VSOs are a mixed bag, some get certified and then phone it in for the rest of eternity and don't keep up with changes or new forms and they are less help than tits on, well, most anything of the male persuasion. If you need/want to file for something, and you have evidence of it, then file. It adds to your overall rating and provides an overall pad in case some other minor rating DOES improve a bit and gets reduced someday. This idea of the 'magical 100%' is kind of a pain in the ass, because I don't know about you but id rather be healthy and paid less rather than struggle through every day with chronic pain, a depression day, or whatever. For most of us, I think, its a club we'd rather not be in. It makes me a spectator to my own life and the respective lives of my family, and it sucks. A lot. My wife and girls are big into Kpop, and concert follow various bands that come to the US for the last 2 yrs. I haven't gone on a single one. I can't fly and I barely tolerate a car ride more than an hour or two. So, they go, I sit at home and look at pictures on Instagram.

I spent some years (about 18) doing my own and lurking/contributing in forums like Hadit and others as a volunteer. I also moderate here and for a Voc Rehab group on FB. It definitely takes a while to get around it. I finally said screw it and took a job in the belly of the beast, VBA. So, for the last 3.5 yrs I've seen the sausage from the other side of things. Our training up front is like 6 months of 8 hr a day, and of that is up to three months of supervised 1:1-ish claim work where we can't authorize an action until it is reviewed first. The hardest part that I have found is making sure you are abreast of regulations changes or additions, and current forms. Many online sites host forms- DBQs, claim forms, etc, but they aren't always updated. You download some form, fill it out, send it, and then find out that the legal language on it was changed 2 yrs ago or something because of HIPAA or whatever- so, then you have to start over. ALWAYS download the forms from VA.GOV. Even if your VSO gives you one, at least double-check the bottom of it to find the 'form date'. I can't count how many times I have had to boot claims back to veterans or VSO's because of old forms that some VSO kept in a drawer somewhere. https://news.va.gov/news/benefits/ https://www.va.gov/find-forms/

You probably have STRs of it, or records in JLV (the tool we use to look up service medical records). You also have the letter they sent you. Upload that for sure, and write on it, or on a separate page that there may be late following STRs that will need to be looked for.

That may be, but there is little to no excuse for the rater not unleashing Adobe on the file, either. I do it every day with STRs, OMPF, etc. I run OCR on just about everything that isn't direct text (already computerized) and even then often on that stuff, too. If the person on the one end that created the PDF didn't enabled OCR during the creation process you get a PDF that won't OCR. So, I just assume most PDFs aren't, unless I start searching for obvious things like the veteran's name, or other already-known information. If I can get that stuff to highlight in my search then at least I know that OCR was applied, so I can CTRL-F search first for high points, then go back and read through things visually.

When did the dependent become a dependent? You only get a year to claim them back to their birth date, after that its based on the date of claim. If the 1 yr lapsed in there while waiting for the signature, then it would be based on when the claim was 'complete' and filed. Otherwise, it sounds like they may have made a mistake , you can send them a message through AskVA, or have your VSO look and see if the claim level notes say anything about it.

Nah, still relevant no matter the question asked.

21-4142/4142a = release for private providers to release records to VA ( some providers still ignore them) 10-5345 = release for VA to give records to 3rd party providers Either way works, though if you use a 4142/4142a we do the work of contacting the providers you list. It doesn't absolve you of trying also- Some providers ignore us, or charge money, or won't release without their own special form in addition to ours, which we dont find out about until later. If you want a third party IMO/dbq then a 10-5345 is more appropriate because your provider can say that yes, they did see your medical records, and you have the request form to show that you requested them.

Yup, they quietly debuted that feature in January..

E- Benefits has been sunsetting for over the last year. About the only thing it still tracks is some legacy appeals. Most everything else is at VA.gov. Benefits is going away. Don't use it unless something on VA.gov tells you to.

I moved your question out of the other topic, its likely to get more answers and be more visible as its own topic/question.

I have seen Pes service connected with nexus letters and a solid post svc treatment profile. Xrays and whatnot can sometimes show 'age' of an injury if the doctor or orthopedist is good. Your MOS and maybe a buddy letter or something that depicts a 'normal' day for you could help, too. We aren't all prior service and sometimes I think looking up an MOS while typing up my notes to the examiner doesn't occur to some of my peers. I empathize with you- I have flat feet, also, wear orthos, and I'm 46. It can really suck on a pain day. Plus, we rarely get to wear fun shoes that much because if Im wearing orthos not all shoes or boots can handle them. KeeN makes good shoes and boots, Red Wing, New Balance (some of them)etc, obviously, though you pay for not having to walk in pain.

https://myarmybenefits.us.army.mil/Benefit-Library/Federal-Benefits/Concurrent-Retirement-and-Disability-Pay-(CRDP)-?serv=127#:~:text=Concurrent Retirement and Disability Pay (CRDP) allows military retirees to,a retiree's VA disability offset.

Not sure, I think the originals go to NPRC. The scanning project has been over for some years, all soldiers over about the last 15-20 have records that start digitized from ENL.

It's not a guarantee, as in "at 5 yr +1 veteran rating, if static, will be made permanent" but if it's been static for 5 yrs generally it won't be up for RFE anymore unless you claim something related to it. VHA will still stay on top of it, but VBA at 5 yrs of static is encouraged to not pursue RFE's on it. Making it 'static' is basically saying "it's not gonna change". The rating isn't protected until 20, just like any other rating, but the bar is higher for them if they wanted to try to reduce it for some reason.

The PACT claims aren't taking priority over others or anything like that, we work whatever comes through. I just mentioned it because its an influx of claims that built up over 5 months before being released to be rated. We were working them during that time, we just couldn't do anything with them until January.