Amc Problem

[hurryupnwait]

The AMC telephone answerer, this morning, told me that they would not accept a verification on my service dates from the Personnel Records Center that I procured last week and sent them a copy and a copy of the cover letter. She said they are waiting for a reply to a request they made Sept 3 from the Personnel Records Center for the same information and they will wait for that reply.

Therefore, they want to delay further by not accepting my copy and wait for their reply.

This is an unfair practice.

I sent them an 80 page packet this past Wed via certified mail, which included an IMO from Dr. Bash, letter from me and the above verification of service dates. It has not been logged in yet.

The AMC does piecemeal work. They should have asked for this 2 years ago when they started following up on the remand request.

My claim has been at the AMC for 860 days now and presently it sits in a file room waiting for info that should be in their mail room, but may not accept as evidence.

Happy Trails

Paul

[Chuck75]

From what I've been told by the VARO--

Take the originals from PRC to your county clerk's or recorder of deeds office (Usually at the county court house. have them register and make certified copies (raised seal). Send those copies to the VA.

The VA naturally adopts any policy that has any justification in law,and that delays the awards process. After all, you might croak in the interim, thus delaying any survivors benefit's as well. (And those benefits are likely to be less than what you might have obtained when you were alive and kicking.) Plus, the survivors have to restart the process all over again. Many may not do so.

"The AMC telephone answerer, this morning, told me that they would not accept a verification on my service dates from the Personnel Records Center that I procured last week and sent them a copy and a copy of the cover letter. She said they are waiting for a reply to a request they made Sept 3 from the Personnel Records Center for the same information and they will wait for that reply."

The AMC telephone answerer, this morning, told me that they would not accept a verification on my service dates from the Personnel Records Center that I procured last week and sent them a copy and a copy of the cover letter. She said they are waiting for a reply to a request they made Sept 3 from the Personnel Records Center for the same information and they will wait for that reply.

Therefore, they want to delay further by not accepting my copy and wait for their reply.

This is an unfair practice.

I sent them an 80 page packet this past Wed via certified mail, which included an IMO from Dr. Bash, letter from me and the above verification of service dates. It has not been logged in yet.

The AMC does piecemeal work. They should have asked for this 2 years ago when they started following up on the remand request.

My claim has been at the AMC for 860 days now and presently it sits in a file room waiting for info that should be in their mail room, but may not accept as evidence.

Happy Trails

Paul

[Josephine]

The AMC telephone answerer, this morning, told me that they would not accept a verification on my service dates from the Personnel Records Center that I procured last week and sent them a copy and a copy of the cover letter. She said they are waiting for a reply to a request they made Sept 3 from the Personnel Records Center for the same information and they will wait for that reply.

Therefore, they want to delay further by not accepting my copy and wait for their reply.

This is an unfair practice.

I sent them an 80 page packet this past Wed via certified mail, which included an IMO from Dr. Bash, letter from me and the above verification of service dates. It has not been logged in yet.

The AMC does piecemeal work. They should have asked for this 2 years ago when they started following up on the remand request.

My claim has been at the AMC for 860 days now and presently it sits in a file room waiting for info that should be in their mail room, but may not accept as evidence.

Happy Trails

Paul

Paul,

I went down that road 3 times with those dumb idiots. Do you have the cover letter in front of you or near by?

This is what you do.

Call the St. Louis Archives. You have their telephone number right there on the cover sheet with a reference number.

You may have to wait 20 minutes, but they are the most wonderful and the nicest people that you will meet. They will also tell you that those records belong to you not the VA.

Explain your problem and the problem that you are having with The Appeals Management Center. (They are aware of the tricks played on veterans.)

If you need to you can speak to a Supervisor ( they are extremely nice also) They will sent your personnel Records and what ever else the AMC wants by their Aimee.

Be sure to give the Archives this information.

I will give you the AMC Fax to you and the Unit.

Appeals Management Center Unit 397

FAX NO. : 1- 202 - 530- 9216

After the fax transmittal call and see if Ms. Dunlap has the fax from the Archives.

If she won't come to the telephone for you, call Mr. Russo's number and she will jump to the telephone.

I Have been in the same boat as you with these people. The AMC will exhaust the search, before they ever secure this information.

Give it a try.

Don't take this crap from them.

I have a ton of telephone numbers that you may have.

Always,

Josephine

Betty

[hurryupnwait]

Well here's the latest, I called the NPRC and the first answerer said that the VA and I requested the same records at about the same time, coincidence, they sent the records to me and cancelled the VA request.

Then, I called back later and got a different person, after explaining all the hassles, he looked into it deeper and found that the VA needed my signature to request these documents, which they did not do, so therefore their request would have sat there unanswered because the NPRC would be waiting for a signature from me. Classic Catch 22 or are these errors planned so that AMC can delay a claim.

In the end, he asked me to fax the NPRC a letter requesting that my "Duty Assignments" be faxed and mailed to the AMC. Which he said they would do.

Josephine

I gave them the unit number and fax number you gave me, thanks bunches

Happy Trails

Paul Hurryupnwait ing a long time 860 days with AMC

[Josephine]

Well here's the latest, I called the NPRC and the first answerer said that the VA and I requested the same records at about the same time, coincidence, they sent the records to me and cancelled the VA request.

Then, I called back later and got a different person, after explaining all the hassles, he looked into it deeper and found that the VA needed my signature to request these documents, which they did not do, so therefore their request would have sat there unanswered because the NPRC would be waiting for a signature from me. Classic Catch 22 or are these errors planned so that AMC can delay a claim.

In the end, he asked me to fax the NPRC a letter requesting that my "Duty Assignments" be faxed and mailed to the AMC. Which he said they would do.

Josephine

I gave them the unit number and fax number you gave me, thanks bunches

Happy Trails

Paul Hurryupnwait ing a long time 860 days with AMC

Paul,

The AMC pulled this one on me from May 2006 until December 2006. A period of 7 months. The records are legally yours and the AMC cannot secure them without your signature and they know this.

In May, I contacted the Archives and they sent me a copy of all of my Personnel Records, per the request of the remand. The AMC lost that copy. Again, In July I sent back to the Archives and secured another copy and faxed those to that same darn supervisor. That set went into can # 13 also.

In December, Liddel called me and told me that my Personnel Records were lost in the Archives and they would not be able to add them to my claims file.

I said, Just a minute, " I have copies of the complete set of Personnel Records that I have been sending to the AMC with the Cover Letter.

I called the Archives to confirm they were lost. They are in protective security until I request them. I have been told where they are.

Anyway, I satisfied the remand and they now have My complete copy of my Personnel Records.

The Supervisor at the Archives told me the AMC did not want my " Request for Transfer sheet" from my present duty station, which lead to my early discharge.

Do Fax the Archives a letter, first thing Thursday Morning and they will fax them to the AMC usually while you are on the telephone.

They can do it that fast.

Do follow up with the phone call. You do not want them in that folder on the Supervisors desk for the next two years and not placed into your claims folder.

I think that with my one telephone call to Mr. Russo's office, I did accomplish moving out my records and tons of others on that desk.

As I said , if the Supervisor of the operators does not come on the line to speak to you and acknowledge the records.

Call Mr. Russo's office and she will be on in about 5 minutes.

The AMC is trying to slow down your claim, as they know that you have the IMO from Dr. Bash and that you stopped by the AMC.

Please let me know if you run into another snag. I will help pull you out.

Always,

Josephine

Betty

[BIGPAPA92]

I've been through all this before also. They ask you to send any documents you have, then six months later they'll tell you they can't accept yours, they have to request them. I sent med records that it took them almost a year to get. I received a letter saying they have requested records for the second time after I faxed them in the beginning. Sometimes I wonder if it's a delay tatic or just plain stupidity. Our so called reps at the AMC leaves a lot to be desired also. It seems that their part of the problem too!! It's a darn shame we don't have the kind of help we really need to push our claims through. It's great to read these post that helps us get around the "Bull" we're feed because we don't know. I was just told my claim has a suspense date of 01 Nov. Don't know what it means but my claim has been there about four years so I don't get excited about anything anymore.

Good Luck, Hope you get the news you expect soon!!

bigpapa92

[hurryupnwait]

Paul,

The AMC pulled this one on me from May 2006 until December 2006. A period of 7 months. The records are legally yours and the AMC cannot secure them without your signature and they know this.

In May, I contacted the Archives and they sent me a copy of all of my Personnel Records, per the request of the remand. The AMC lost that copy. Again, In July I sent back to the Archives and secured another copy and faxed those to that same darn supervisor. That set went into can # 13 also.

In December, Liddel called me and told me that my Personnel Records were lost in the Archives and they would not be able to add them to my claims file.

I said, Just a minute, " I have copies of the complete set of Personnel Records that I have been sending to the AMC with the Cover Letter.

I called the Archives to confirm they were lost. They are in protective security until I request them. I have been told where they are.

Anyway, I satisfied the remand and they now have My complete copy of my Personnel Records.

The Supervisor at the Archives told me the AMC did not want my " Request for Transfer sheet" from my present duty station, which lead to my early discharge.

Do Fax the Archives a letter, first thing Thursday Morning and they will fax them to the AMC usually while you are on the telephone.

They can do it that fast.

Do follow up with the phone call. You do not want them in that folder on the Supervisors desk for the next two years and not placed into your claims folder.

I think that with my one telephone call to Mr. Russo's office, I did accomplish moving out my records and tons of others on that desk.

As I said , if the Supervisor of the operators does not come on the line to speak to you and acknowledge the records.

Call Mr. Russo's office and she will be on in about 5 minutes.

The AMC is trying to slow down your claim, as they know that you have the IMO from Dr. Bash and that you stopped by the AMC.

Please let me know if you run into another snag. I will help pull you out.

Always,

Josephine

Betty

Hi Josephine

I think they may start delaying even further because I have a strong claim that may go back to Jan 1973. I think they may have realized that in the beginning. Dr. Bash agrees that it was never closed and remains open, he states so in his IMO. Here is the part of my letter dealing with this issue.

October 23, 2007

Department of Veterans Affairs

Appeals Management Center

1722 Eye Street NW

Washington DC 20421

Re:

To: Rating Specialist

1. The VA did not send me a notice of a decision or of my appellate rights after my October 11, 1973, Veterans Affairs, Compensation and Pension exam. I believe this claim from January 1972 is still open because I never received a decision that I could file a Notice of Disagreement.

In the remand letter from Board of Veterans Appeals, I have highlighted the areas that pertain to this issue. (Enclosed)

Also, this court case supports the above.

CLAIM STILL OPEN IF PROPER NOTICE OF DECISION NOT SENT TO VETERAN

§ A veteran’s claim was denied in 1969. The VA avers that a notice of decision was not sent to the veteran. In 1982, the veteran sought to reopen his claim. A September 1982 RO decision found the claim had been previously denied. The VA sent a letter only advising the veteran that his claim had previously been denied in 1969. The veteran did not appeal the decision. In 1998 the veteran, through counsel, indicated that he had never been notified of the 1969 denial and requested a formal decision on that claim. The VA’s 1998 response acknowledged failure to notify the veteran of the 1969 decision but found that the 1982 letter informing the veteran that his 1969 claim had been denied finalized the issue and that his appeal rights had expired.

In 1998 the veteran appealed to the Board. The Board denied the veteran’s claim concluding that the back condition had been denied in 1969, that the September 1982 RO decision confirmed and continued the 1969 decision denying the claim and that the notice of the 1982 decision notified the veteran of his continued denial of service connection and included appellate rights information.

On appeal, the Court found the 1982 notice inadequate because it did not provide a reason for the denial in 1969 as required at 38 C.F.R. § 3.103. Ruffin v. Principi, 16 Vet.App. 12, 15 (2002).

2. Pertaining to the Compensation and Pension exam clarification from Dr. Hamm, Mariano V Principi Vet. App 305, 312 is very likely applicable to this issue.

(Here is the rest of the letter, I decided to use Carlie and Berta's suggestion and use the shotgun approach.)

3. These regulations and cases also pertain:

4.3 Resolution of reasonable doubt.

It is the defined and consistently applied policy of the Department of Veterans Affairs to administer the law under a broad interpretation, consistent, however, with the facts shown in every case. When after careful consideration of all procurable and assembled data, a reasonable doubt arises regarding the degree of disability such doubt will be resolved in favor of the claimant. See §3.102 of this chapter.

[40 F R 42535, Sept. 15, 1975]

§4.6 Evaluation of evidence.

The element of the weight to be accorded the character of the veteran’s service is but one factor entering into the considerations of the rating boards in arriving at determinations of the evaluation of disability. Every element in any way affecting the probative value to be assigned to the evidence in each individual claim must be thoroughly and conscientiously studied by each member of the rating board in the light of the established policies of the Department of Veterans Affairs to the end that decisions will be equitable and just as contemplated by the requirements of the law.

LIMITATION OF MOTION DUE TO PAIN APPLY 38 C.F.R. § 4.40

§ The Court has held that when the VA evaluates a disability which causes limitation of motion due to pain, the additional factors involved in a disability evaluation, as described by 38 C.F.R. § 4.40 (1995), are also required “to be considered and portrayed in the rating examination as to functional loss on use or due to flare-ups.” DeLuca v. Brown, 8 Vet.App. 202 (1995).

§4.7 Higher of two evaluations.

Where there is a question as to which of two evaluations shall be applied, the higher evaluation will be assigned if the disability picture more nearly approximates the criteria required for that rating. Otherwise, the lower rating will be assigned.

CONTINUITY OF SYMPTOMATOLOGY, NOT TREATMENT (§ 3.303(;))

§ “[T]he Court notes that symptoms, not treatment, are the essence of any evidence of continuity of symptomatology.” See Savage v. Gober, 10 Vet.App. 488, 496 (1997) citing Wilson v. Derwinski, 2 Vet.App. 16, 19 (1991) (“regulation requires continuity of symptomatology, not continuity of treatment”).

Pursuant to 38 U.S.C. § 1154(a), the Secretary was required to include, in regulations pertaining to service connection, “additional provisions in effect requiring that in each case where a veteran is seeking service-connection for any disability due consideration shall be given to . . . all pertinent medical and lay evidence . . . .” (emphasis added). In addition, 38 U.S.C. § 5107, provides that [t]he Secretary shall consider all information and lay and medical evidence of record in a case before the Secretary with respect to benefits under laws administered by the Secretary. When there is an approximate balance of positive and negative evidence regarding any issue material to the determination of a matter, the Secretary shall give the benefit of the doubt to the claimant.

4. This claim has been at the Appeals Management Center for over 850 days. I do not feel that this is following the BVA remand that states " This claim must be afforded expeditious treatment"

5. Enclosed is the verification of my active duty for training, July 15, 1972 for 15 days at Camp Roberts. This was mailed to me by the National Personnel Records Center,( see cover letter enclosed ).

All the evidence is with the Appeals Management Center please decide this claim within two weeks.

Sincerely,

Paul

cc: U. S. Senator Barbara Boxer

U. S. Senator Dianne Feinstein

U. S. Congressman Kevin McCarthy

Happy Trails

Paul

Edited November 1, 2007 by hurryupnwait