Can Someone Explain The Difference?

[free_spirit_etc]

Can someone explain the difference between getting a Service Connection for something at 0% or being denied service connection because there is no current disability established?

Free

[betrayed]

they are acknowledging and service connecting it, but not awarding you anything for it, The battle is half won once they SC it. You can fight for % later if it gets worse, or if you think its bad enough now fight for %

[huskerfanfl]

they are acknowledging and service connecting it, but not awarding you anything for it, The battle is half won once they SC it. You can fight for % later if it gets worse, or if you think its bad enough now fight for %

Excellent points. When I retired I listed 11 things that I was seeking compensation for, All were service connected except sinusitis and allergic rhinitis. They even went back to my original compensation claim (I went back on active duty in 1998) which contained service connection for three other things and rated me at 0% for those as well. In all, I have 9 things for which I am currently service connected and claiming two more (depression/anxiety and sleep apnea). The depression/anxiety has been linked to previous service connected disabilites.

[Hoppy]

It is my understanding that service connection requires a chronic disability. Thus, if the particular medical condition is not chronic they will not service connect. If you have a chronic disability that is not symptomatic they have historically given "0" percent. The could easily be denying the claim because it is not service connectable. If somewhere in the denial they recognize that there is a chronic disability then I am wrong. However, I would bet they do not recognize the existence of a chronic disability any where in the decision.

People with an advanced education are trained not to write an argument in a manner that will tip of the opposition to the real issues or give insight into a path that will be an advantage to the opposition. Thus, if they said you are not service conneced because you did not prove a that your disability was chronic then you would know that you have to prove the condition is chronic to win. VA denials have historically just blown smoke rather than address the issues. That is why the congress put the VCAA letter into legislation. The VA still plays the old game in view of the congress's attempt to make them write clear justifications for denials.

My opinion

[free_spirit_etc]

Okay..that makes sense --I think...lol

I just get a bit mixed up with some of the explanations over which ones got zero percent because they were not causing any significant problems -- and which ones got denied because they weren't causing any significant problems.

But it looks like scars got zero percent -- as they are established as THERE -- and certainly "chronic" as they would be ongoing --

Free

It is my understanding that service connection requires a chronic disability. Thus, if the particular medical condition is not chronic they will not service connect. If you have a chronic disability that is not symptomatic they have historically given "0" percent. The could easily be denying the claim because it is not service connectable. If somewhere in the denial they recognize that there is a chronic disability then I am wrong. However, I would bet they do not recognize the existence of a chronic disability any where in the decision.

People with an advanced education are trained not to write an argument in a manner that will tip of the opposition to the real issues or give insight into a path that will be an advantage to the opposition. Thus, if they said you are not service conneced because you did not prove a that your disability was chronic then you would know that you have to prove the condition is chronic to win. VA denials have historically just blown smoke rather than address the issues. That is why the congress put the VCAA letter into legislation. The VA still plays the old game in view of the congress's attempt to make them write clear justifications for denials.

My opinion