brokensoldier244th

Potentially- they may review the record on hand and rate based on that, too. As for backpay they would go from the date of claim, or from where/when in the record your symptomatology went from "SMC whatever you are" to SMC R.

Awesome.

Why don't you just ask the treasurer and assessor? They would know, they have to carry it out.

Why is Clark AFB specific? Unless you are claiming exposure to something or a presumed contention like RVN service or looking for 'buddy's that were there with you around the time of whatever happened the location shouldn't matter.

Okay? What about? You haven't asked a question.

If his discharge is upgraded it overcomes the regulatory bar because there won't be one.

Useless to you, maybe, but not to the tens of thousands of others that now fall into this class. We don't know your mind or what you want to file or not file for. Anyway, we didn't have a choice. Congress passed it, then mandated that we notify everyone in the identified class. We also have to develop any claim in that time period so that we mark any contention that wouldn't be related in any way to exposure as exempt, and then document how, with documented research of your area of operation and how the contention is not related to toxic exposure from that area. So hangnails and claimed physical contentions, and MH issues that you claim directly due to injury or other things still have to be ruled out for that contention for toxic exposure. So it adds an average of almost an hour, sometimes more, per claim even if it's obvious you weren't exposed to anything or that exposure wouldn't cause it. For contentions that are covered by toxic exposure we have to type up a potential exposure report that averages 2-3 pgs to the examiner for each exam. We'll do it, but Congress didn't think or care about the extra time it would take to type up these reports for contentions that aren't covered by PACT just to say they aren't, but also still wants there to not be a back log. Not everything is the VAs fault.

We are required to notify all PACT Act-era veterans under PACT guidelines. If you are already 100% P&T and SMC S and arent actively pursuing a claim or an appeal we still have to send it. Likely yours was a letter generated automatically because unless you were actively seeking a benefit there would be no reason for a human to send you the letter, but the computer system identifies based on several criteria and for those veterans not actively seeking a benefit, sends the notice.

Doubtful- the financial part of your reimbursement checks is not part of VHA or VBA (technically). It's a whole office that does its own thing. The only thing the provider does is note that you were 'present' or not. I've seen multiple reviews- usually, when we request a review, it returns from the doctor, and they don't answer all the questions again, or properly, or specifically the ones that we ask for clarification. When that happens, it goes back. The 2 letters may just be a double sending, or one could be a change of examiner due to the other one becoming unavailable. Once we generate a letter into the mail stream and 'finalize' it so no changes can be made we can't recall it back, so, two letters go out. and sometimes a third if I catch one like this because I send one to the veteran that says "that letter you received on X was a mistake, the correct date of the letter/request/whatever that you need to worry about is "Y".

Or 1-800-827-1000

You'd have to contact VA. They should have mailed you something unless it was COLA increase. That would just be your prior amount x the cola percentage plus any dependents or extra smc you might have.

No worries

Oh, yeah- if you have two ratings, they take if from the former percentage, not the subsequent (if I read that link I posted up there correctly)

domo arigato, kind sir.

Here’s more than you want to know. I can’t explain it, though, I don’t work in finance or pension mgt. https://www.benefits.va.gov/warms/docs/admin21/m21_1/mr/part3/subptv/ch04/m21-1mriii_v_4_secb.doc#_c.__Determining

Click the three lines in the upper right

Then I misunderstood your post as to why the VA would be involved in a local 1st Amendment issue. The veteran in the article is not homeless.

With all due respect, why would the VA be involved?

Someone should have identified that your condition was not yet ready to rate and didn't- either private medical had not yet arrived, or wasn't solicited for if you mentioned getting care elsewhere, but didnt provide an address. Or, the opinion came back from the first exam, the RVSR got it and rated it, it went to authorization, and an error was called on the RVSR for not requesting a clarification from the examiner about something that wasn't correctly done, or not resolved in the exam. There's two possibilities there.

If you already submitted that before it is already of record. Read the DBQ, that will tell you exactly what they are looking at. If you have evidence that can 'fill in' any of the individual sections upload it prior so its part of your record. If it is Capri/VAMC, pull it up in My Health Vet and read through it so you can make references to it with approximate dates, etc. The Examiner can see it too, as can the rater, and the VSRs, but its a lot easier for us to mark it up for the rater if we know where in your records to look to mark it (rather that reading the whole thing back to your prior rating).

They will ask about debilitating episodes, how often; triggers, if known. When they started, when they got worse, etc. There isn't anything 'rigorous', like, they aren't going to make you run laps, or inhale things, or play rave music to try to trigger a response. If you have private records I would get them added/uploaded before the appt so the examiner has them as part of the electronic record for review. You can also look at the DBQ they will be using, its online. chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://www.benefits.va.gov/compensation/docs/Headaches_Including_Migraines.pdf Headaches_Including_Migraines.pdf

What do you mean by deferred? Deferred are temporary situations , usually where more information is being requested or gathered. Are you saying it was deferred for something in 2010 and there never was a decision? That shouldn't be, since you filed an 0995 later. A decision would have had to be made prior for an 0995 to be valid. If your claim wasnt in continuing or appeal status the whole time since 2010 then the effective date of the 0995 is valid.

There is a whole laundry list of stuff that qualifies as presumptive, as long as you were there in the qualifying areas- or in air space above for some. Doesn't matter how long. We've been working on this in the background since before August of last year. Legally rating couldn't start until 1JAN.

I don't know about here, but I know that there have been some completed already with + grants of SC.

Were you anywhere that the PACT act applies to?