Statement Of The Case

[Josephine]

Hi,

I am sorry to be like a worn out 78 record, but I still do not understand this Statement of the Case. I will type it and see if I am just dense.

October 7, 2004

You have filed a Notice of Disagreement with out action. This is the first step in appealing to the Board of Veterans' Appeals (BVA). This letter and enclosures contain very important information concerning your appeal.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE:

We have enclosed a Statement of the Case, a summary of the law and evidence concerning your claim. This summary will help you to make the best argument to the BVA on why you think our decision should be changed.

WHAT YOU NEED TO DO:

To complete your appeal, you must file a formal appeal. We have enclosed a VA Form 9, Appeal to the Board of Veterans' Appeals, which you may use to complete your appeal. We will gladly explain the form if you have any questions. You apeal should address:

the benefit you want

the facts in the Statement of the Case with which you disagree and

the errors that you believe we made in applying the law

ISSUE

Service connection for chronic anxiety with depression

EVIDENCE

Service medical records from March 5, 1963 throgh May 11, 1964

You were sent letter on June 11, 2003 and July 24, 2003 about the duty to assist provisions of the VCAA of 2000

Treatment records from Internal Medicaine August 1979 thugh February 2004

Report dated April 5, 2004 from Dr. M. P

Additional service records submitted by you in April 2004

Review of claims file, including all treatment records received

ADJUDICATIVE ACTIONS:

Military Service 03-15-1963 to 05-20-1964 Honorable

12-31-2002 - Claim Received

02-27-2004 - Claim considered on all evidence of record

03-23-2004 - You were notified of decision

( This decision was no service connection, but a non - service pension 100% for anxiety with depression, unemployable since 1983 denied due to excessive income.)

10-07-2004

The Decision Review Officer ( DRO) has completed a preliminary review of your file and has determined that, based on the evidence of record, your claim cannot be granted.

THIS IS NOT THE DRO'S FINAL DECISION. We are sending you this Statement of the Case so that you can better understand your appeal.

An Examination is being scheduled at the VA Medical Center. The VA Medical Center will notify you about the date and the time to report for the examination.

DECISION:

Service connection for chronic anxiety with depression is denied

REASONS AND BASES

The additional medical records submitted from The National Personnel Records Center and the report from Dr. M. P. dated April 2004 are considered to be "New and Material" and your claim for service connection for an" Acquired Psychiatric Disorder is reopened.

You were seen for a psychiatric consultation in March, 1964. You complained about being unhappy with the Navy since boot camp. Assessment was emotional immaturity, dependency, and instability which precluded further military service. Your post service treatment records show that you were diagnosed with anxiety in 1979. Dr. P reported that he reviewed your March 1964 consultation and expressed an opinion that your current anxiety and depression began during your military service.

( I did fill out the form 9 and turned it in and had it date stamped. My NOD is to the affect.)

I did not have a C&P for Anxiety with Depression

My post service treatment records 1965 through 1979 were not listed as evidence or considered

I want 100% service connection and not just the pension for anxiety with depression.

What do I think they did correctly? Not one thing

I am at the AMC remanded by the BVA.

What happened to the Anxiety and depression for which I was denied?

Everything is " an acquired psychiatric disorder"

My service officer stated this morning that the AMC may give me a C&P for anxiety and depression, for which I am filing. I filed in 1978 for nervousness. I did not file in 1992 as listed in the remand. I filed in 2002 and was denied, but given the pension.

My remand states that I have had two C&P examinations but neither was for " Anxiety with Depression. They were both for " an acquired psychiatric disorder".

If you have not followed my post. I did have my first C&P October 2004 - Anxiety not otherwise specified with depression. " More likely than not this veterans anxiety with depression began in service."

Five months later - April 2005. Board of two Psychiatrist - Axis l - Anxiety not other wise specified- Axis ll - Borderline personality disorder

GAF 40.

You were discharged by reasons of " Unsuitability and things that you considered indicative of abuse"

Appears this veterans primary symptoms are those of a personality disorder.

This veterans anxiety did not begin or worsen during service.

Thanks,

Josephine

Edited May 29, 2007 by Josephine

[Josephine]

Free,

You are a wise lady and I so admire you. I think you are correct, for we sure are fighting about something. As far as I know, I finally made it out of the overflow and now ready to rate.

I took your logo at the end of each of your post and have been using it against the VA." Think Outside the Box!"

When this is over, I am going to buy myself a scanner so that I can post my last " Statement in Support of Claim".

You guys on this site will not believe, just how much, you will see , what you have written to me , within those papers.

Thanks so much to a gracious lady,

Josephine

[free_spirit_etc]

Diagnostic Criteria for BP - by the way - they just started using that term in the 80's.

Diagnostic criteria for DSM-IV 301.83: Borderline Personality Disorder

A pervasive pattern of instability of interpersonal relationships, self-image, and affects, and marked impulsivity beginning by early adulthood and present in a variety of contexts, as indicated by five (or more) of the following:

(1) frantic efforts to avoid real or imagined abandonment.

(2) a pattern of unstable and intense interpersonal relationships characterized by alternating between extremes of idealization and devaluation.

(3) identity disturbance: markedly and persistently unstable self-image or sense of self.

(4) impulsivity in at least two areas that are potentially self-damaging (e.g., spending, sex, Substance Abuse, reckless driving, binge eating).

(5) recurrent suicidal behavior, gestures, or threats, or self-mutilating behavior.

(6) affective instability due to a marked reactivity of mood (e.g., intense episodic dysphoria, irritability, or anxiety usually lasting a few hours and only rarely more than a few days).

(7) chronic feelings of emptiness.

(8) inappropriate, intense anger or difficulty controlling anger (e.g., frequent displays of temper, constant anger, recurrent physical fights).

(9) transient, stress-related paranoid ideation or severe dissociative symptoms.

[free_spirit_etc]

Hopefully your SOC will say you have been granted service connection! Then, if they don't go back to 1978 -- Hit them for an earlier effective date:

3.156 New and material evidence.

top

(a) General. A claimant may reopen a finally adjudicated claim by submitting new and material evidence. New evidence means existing evidence not previously submitted to agency decisionmakers. Material evidence means existing evidence that, by itself or when considered with previous evidence of record, relates to an unestablished fact necessary to substantiate the claim. New and material evidence can be neither cumulative nor redundant of the evidence of record at the time of the last prior final denial of the claim sought to be reopened, and must raise a reasonable possibility of substantiating the claim.

(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 501, 5103A(f), 5108)

(B) Pending claim. New and material evidence received prior to the expiration of the appeal period, or prior to the appellate decision if a timely appeal has been filed (including evidence received prior to an appellate decision and referred to the agency of original jurisdiction by the Board of Veterans Appeals without consideration in that decision in accordance with the provisions of §20.1304(B)(1) of this chapter), will be considered as having been filed in connection with the claim which was pending at the beginning of the appeal period.

(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 501)

© Service department records. (1) Notwithstanding any other section in this part, at any time after VA issues a decision on a claim, if VA receives or associates with the claims file relevant official service department records that existed and had not been associated with the claims file when VA first decided the claim, VA will reconsider the claim, notwithstanding paragraph (a) of this section. Such records include, but are not limited to:

(i) Service records that are related to a claimed in-service event, injury, or disease, regardless of whether such records mention the veteran by name, as long as the other requirements of paragraph © of this section are met;

(ii) Additional service records forwarded by the Department of Defense or the service department to VA any time after VA's original request for service records; and

(iii) Declassified records that could not have been obtained because the records were classified when VA decided the claim.

(2) Paragraph ©(1) of this section does not apply to records that VA could not have obtained when it decided the claim because the records did not exist when VA decided the claim, or because the claimant failed to provide sufficient information for VA to identify and obtain the records from the respective service department, the Joint Services Records Research Center, or from any other official source.

(3) An award made based all or in part on the records identified by paragraph ©(1) of this section is effective on the date entitlement arose or the date VA received the previously decided claim, whichever is later, or such other date as may be authorized by the provisions of this part applicable to the previously decided claim.

(4) A retroactive evaluation of disability resulting from disease or injury subsequently service connected on the basis of the new evidence from the service department must be supported adequately by medical evidence. Where such records clearly support the assignment of a specific rating over a part or the entire period of time involved, a retroactive evaluation will be assigned accordingly, except as it may be affected by the filing date of the original claim.

Free - Pretty smart, but not quite wise!

Free,

You are a wise lady and I so admire you. I think you are correct, for we sure are fighting about something. As far as I know, I finally made it out of the overflow and now ready to rate.

I took your logo at the end of each of your post and have been using it against the VA." Think Outside the Box!"

When this is over, I am going to buy myself a scanner so that I can post my last " Statement in Support of Claim".

You guys on this site will not believe, just how much, you will see , what you have written to me , within those papers.

Thanks so much to a gracious lady,

Josephine

[free_spirit_etc]

The presumption of soundness and presumption of aggravation should help if they try to say your disbility started BEFORE the service -- (and it would be hard for them to say that it started AFTER --since you have manifestations in your SMR's.)

BOTH of these presumptions apply unless the VA rebuts them with CLEAR and UNMISTAKABLE evidence (this standard is NOT the "more likely than not" variety --they have to rebut it with big guns --the "smells like a dead fish" standards.)

(At least that is what the LAW says -- who knows what they will do....

3.304 Direct service connection; wartime and peacetime.

top

(a) General. The basic considerations relating to service connection are stated in §3.303. The criteria in this section apply only to disabilities which may have resulted from service in a period of war or service rendered on or after January 1, 1947.

(Presumption of soundness. The veteran will be considered to have been in sound condition when examined, accepted and enrolled for service, except as to defects, infirmities, or disorders noted at entrance into service, or where clear and unmistakable (obvious or manifest) evidence demonstrates that an injury or disease existed prior thereto and was not aggravated by such service. Only such conditions as are recorded in examination reports are to be considered as noted.

(1) History of preservice existence of conditions recorded at the time of examination does not constitute a notation of such conditions but will be considered together with all other material evidence in determinations as to inception. Determinations should not be based on medical judgment alone as distinguished from accepted medical principles, or on history alone without regard to clinical factors pertinent to the basic character, origin and development of such injury or disease. They should be based on thorough analysis of the evidentiary showing and careful correlation of all material facts, with due regard to accepted medical principles pertaining to the history, manifestations, clinical course, and character of the particular injury or disease or residuals thereof.

(2) History conforming to accepted medical principles should be given due consideration, in conjunction with basic clinical data, and be accorded probative value consistent with accepted medical and evidentiary principles in relation to value consistent with accepted medical evidence relating to incurrence, symptoms and course of the injury or disease, including official and other records made prior to, during or subsequent to service, together with all other lay and medical evidence concerning the inception, development and manifestations of the particular condition will be taken into full account.

§ 3.306 Aggravation of preservice disability.

top

(a) General. A preexisting injury or disease will be considered to have been aggravated by active military, naval, or air service, where there is an increase in disability during such service, unless there is a specific finding that the increase in disability is due to the natural progress of the disease.

(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 1153)

(B) Wartime service; peacetime service after December 31, 1946. Clear and unmistakable evidence (obvious or manifest) is required to rebut the presumption of aggravation where the preservice disability underwent an increase in severity during service. This includes medical facts and principles which may be considered to determine whether the increase is due to the natural progress of the condition. Aggravation may not be conceded where the disability underwent no increase in severity during service on the basis of all the evidence of record pertaining to the manifestations of the disability prior to, during and subsequent to service.

(1) The usual effects of medical and surgical treatment in service, having the effect of ameliorating disease or other conditions incurred before enlistment, including postoperative scars, absent or poorly functioning parts or organs, will not be considered service connected unless the disease or injury is otherwise aggravated by service.

(2) Due regard will be given the places, types, and circumstances of service and particular consideration will be accorded combat duty and other hardships of service. The development of symptomatic manifestations of a preexisting disease or injury during or proximately following action with the enemy or following a status as a prisoner of war will establish aggravation of a disability.

[free_spirit_etc]

This lists some of the Diagnostic Tools that are SUPPOSED to be used in diagnosing BPD.

Free

Sixty-four patients with borderline personality disorder (BPD) were followed up for a mean of 27 years. Outcome was assessed using the Diagnostic Interview for Borderlines, Revised (DIB-R); the Schedule for DSM-III-R Diagnosis (SCID); Global Assessment of Functioning (GAF); the Symptom Check List-90 (SCL-90); and the Social Adjustment Scale (SAS-SR). Most patients showed significant improvement as compared to a previous 15-year follow-up, with only five currently meeting criteria for BPD. Mean GAF score was 63.3, mean SCL-90 raw score was 0.7, and mean SAS-SR score was 2.0. Fourteen subjects met SCID criteria for dysthymia, and this subgroup had a significantly poorer outcome on all measures. The total percentage of suicides from the original cohort has reached 10.3%, with 18.2% of all patients now deceased. Copyright 2001 by W.B. Saunders Company

[Josephine]

Free,

Thanks so much for taking your time to post this for me. This will help me and hundreds other reading this site.

With it on line here, I won't loose it. I have just about lost my mind in all of this.

Take care and thanks again so much,

Josephine