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

[Josephine]

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

Bigpapa 92,

If you post your decison tomorrow, then I will know if that suspense date is factual. If I am up to date, today is October 31st.

Mine was September 28, and then all this mess with the missing records come up. Now they are stating Dec.3rd.

I have had so many diary dates and suspense dates, I am kind of like you, " Seeing is believing"!

I am at the point, I would rather have a denial, to get out of the AMC, so that I can turn this claim over to a lawyer. He can have all of my records and whip right through this claim. I have worded it to the BVA and the AMC so any idiot can understand it.

If I had known it was going to take this long to complete a claim, I would have went to law school to get my degree, so that I could represent myself.

I guess in a sense, I am lucky that my husband worked full time while in college and I did all of his home work.

I feel that I have just about earned my two years of law.

Good Luck,

Always,

Josephine

[hurryupnwait]

Bigpapa 92,

If you post your decison tomorrow, then I will know if that suspense date is factual. If I am up to date, today is October 31st.

Mine was September 28, and then all this mess with the missing records come up. Now they are stating Dec.3rd.

I have had so many diary dates and suspense dates, I am kind of like you, " Seeing is believing"!

I am at the point, I would rather have a denial, to get out of the AMC, so that I can turn this claim over to a lawyer. He can have all of my records and whip right through this claim. I have worded it to the BVA and the AMC so any idiot can understand it.

If I had known it was going to take this long to complete a claim, I would have went to law school to get my degree, so that I could represent myself.

I guess in a sense, I am lucky that my husband worked full time while in college and I did all of his home work.

I feel that I have just about earned my two years of law.

Good Luck,

Always,

Josephine

What is a suspense date?

[Josephine]

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

Paul,

I really like your letter. You have it all together. I agree with you, it is the date 1973 you are fighting about.

They knew this in the beginning and they are trying to delay your claim, just as my claims are re-opened to 1978 due to Both " New and Material Evidence" never acquired by the VA.

I think when the R. O went in an gave me that non- service connected pension, ( denied due to excessive) 100% disabled due to anxiety with depression to 1983 and un-employable.

If they approve and service connect my claim, I don't think they can back track and change a previous decision of my 100% disability or the date I was declared disabled by the VA.

Now, I have located the " Psychiatric Records" to re-open the claims and service connect the same illness.

Back to yours, I really like the way you have quoted the rules and regulations to the Rating Specialist.

Be sure to follow up with the records faxed by the archives. Don't let the supervisor of the telephone counselors place it in a folder and keep them on her desk.

Always and Best of Luck,

Josephine

Betty

[john999]

The suspence date is a theoretical date for action. It means nothing in reality. Over 800 days at the AMC is a tragic farce. I get the feeling that the AMC is just another dumping ground for claims so the VA can say they are doing something.