Can You Believe "we" Proved My Claim 44 Years Later

[free_spirit_etc]

And Betty sez:

"I have fought a good fight, I have finished my course, I have kept the faith.."

[rdawg]

I see the story now...

You obtained SMR's from St. Louis in 2004 that the VA should have obtained for you in the 1992(or 1978) decision. You submitted those in 2004 and they were considered new and material in 2004 to re-open your claim. Did the SMRs you submitted in 2004 have an assesment of anxiety in service? These were not the records from the Dr. that you needed clarification on, correct? When and why did the RO deny you in 2004?

If everthing above is correct then it was the IMO that won it for you. Because you had inservice(smrs from 2004) occurance, a current disability(100% pension 1983) and the IMO linked the two together. You should definitley get retro to 2004. If they give you retro back to 1992 and you say you did not reopen in 1992 then I would get a copy of the c-file and try to find that denial. Or, make them produce the denial. You think your last denial (prior to 2004) was 1978, correct?

[Josephine]

I see the story now...

You obtained SMR's from St. Louis in 2004 that the VA should have obtained for you in the 1992(or 1978) decision. You submitted those in 2004 and they were considered new and material in 2004 to re-open your claim. Did the SMRs you submitted in 2004 have an assesment of anxiety in service?

The service treatment records are new in that they reflect inservice treatment for psychiatric symptoms which were determined to preclude further military service. These documents include inservice assessments as to the veterans psychiaric complaints. This evidence is considered new in that it contains information that was not considered at the time of the 1992 decision, and it is material because it purports to show treatment for psychiatric disability during service which was not objectively show by the evidence previously.

The service treatment records reflect that behavior problems was discussed in February 1964 and in March 1964 it was noted that she was unhappy in the military precipiated psychiatric evaluation. In February 1964 Librium was prescribed. As a result of an exam in March 1964, it was determined that she had long standing personality traits of emotional immaturity, dependence, and instability. It was determined that this personality disorder ( personality disorder is not stated in the doctors consultation) precluded her from rendering further useful military service. In an April 1964 service document, it determined that she was to receive an honorable discharge from the navy by reason of unsuitability. On this document is it noted that she was examined twice in regards to her psychiatric complaints. After the first evaluation, it was thought that she might be able to resolve some of her personal problems and mature to the extent where she could expend effort constuctively. However, she returned to her command vented her feelings to everyone that would listen to her, and stated that the psychiatrist refused to listen to her and failed to help her. ( They sure did not wish to hear of physical assault).

It was noted she refused to listen to her peers in the performance of her duties. Accordingly a second consultation was arranged with a board certifed psychiatrist. He recommended that she be separated from service. It was noted on this document that she was being separated from military service. It was noted on this document that she was being separated due to her immature approach to life and her inability to accept responsibility whatsoever. As she could not be relied upon to do the most menial task. It was questionable if she would ever be of any value to the service.

The consultation states I was referred by the medical doctor for nervousness, irratability and dissatisfied with working conditions and living in the barracks. ( This is not mentioned in the Judge's write-up.

These were not the records from the Dr. that you needed clarification on, correct? No.

When and why did the RO deny you in 2004? I had the first C&P of More Likely than Not this veteran was suffering from anxiety.

If everthing above is correct then it was the IMO that won it for you. Because you had inservice(smrs from 2004) occurance, a current disability(100% pension 1983) and the IMO linked the two together.

Yes, It was the IME because of this statement:

My review of the records show no documentation which would support the diagnosis of Personality Disorder. There simply are no data which would support that diagnosis under the criteria provided in the Diagnostic and Stastical Manual of the American Psychiatric Association. No psychological or personality testing was done. There was never any showing of an " enduring pattern of inner experience and behavior that deviates markedly from the expectations of the individual's culture... is inflexible and pervasive across a broad rage of personal and social situations... is stable and of long duration... (and) is not better accounted for as a manifestation or consequence of another mental disorder." DSM IV TR, pages 287 - 288.

The " other mental disorder" which she clearly DID and DOES have, and for which she has been treated for 43 years, is Anxiety Disorder.

The veteran had no childhood psychiatric, difficulties or treatment, Her anxiety disorder began during her time in service. She has been treated for anxiety disorder for 43 years by a number of physicians.

Diagnosis: 300.00 Anxiety Disorder, NOS,Chronic, Severe, with Depressive Features.

You should definitley get retro to 2004. If they give you retro back to 1992 and you say you did not reopen in 1992 then I would get a copy of the c-file and try to find that denial. Or, make them produce the denial.

I don't think they can produce the 1992 denial, for I did not file in 1992. My husband had an aneurism that year, No way.

You think your last denial (prior to 2004) was 1978, correct?

Yes, I do and both of the two C&P's by the VAMC also state the veteran filed for service connection in 1978 and was denied.

That is about it.

Betty

Edited March 10, 2008 by Josephine

[ruby]

C-O- N-G-R-A-T-U-L-A-T-I-O-N-S

[tssnave]

Praise God from whom all blessings, and VA victories, flow!!

Betty,

CONGRATULATIONS!!

It has taken me the better part of an hour to read all 5 pages of comments here!! I believe this is the longest post I've ever read and it's all because we have been behind you and are, along with Cowgirl, doing the Hokey Pokey on your behalf! I am so tickled for you, thrilled beyond words. :-)

Now, having said all that, and having read this entire thread and posted a few facts into a doc just to put them together, I have tried to get a clear picture of the timeline of events. Please tell me if this is correct:

1978 - You first applied for VA benefits, they did not have your SMRs, and were denied (though I am uncertain what year you were actually first denied). Also, you have copies of "the two C&P's by the VAMC also state the veteran filed for service connection in 1978 and was denied" so you have proof that you filed in 1978 and were denied in the absence of SMRs. If that is accurate, then I agree with Free that the whole rule about finding SMRs should prevail and they should go back to 1978.

1983 - You were awarded a non-service pension at 100% for your anxiety but did not get the pension because your husband made too much money. Where you awarded the pension as a result of filing for VA benefits or filing for a VA pension?

1992 - The VA states you were "initially denied" in 1992? Is that correct? But your husband had an anyerisum and your neice was a DRO so to the best of your recollection you did not file in 1992? Correct?

2004 - You submitted your SMRs as New and Material Evidence which allowed you to reopen your claim.

2007 - You just got your SECOND (?) BVA Decision awarding you service connection (woo hoo!!) and your C-file is on its way back to the Huntington WVA VAOR.

One point I'm unclear on - As I understand it, at some point in there - please clarify the date - weren't you initially denied service connection at the BVA? If that is so, then I assume the BVA will have the initial 1978 filing date in it.

Please review this and make corrections to it. Based on my understanding and reading what the IMO doc and your private doc wrote along with the VA awarding you 100% pension, the question is not going to be whether or not you are 100% due to IU since you have never mentioned symptoms in the 100% rating schedule but what is your effective date, which, IMO, should go back to the initial filing date of 1978 since they didn't have your SMRs in 1978. This is conjecture on my part, I would have to read Free's posts more closely to understand the applicable regs and since I'm still new at this I would rely on Berta, Free and others to help you with the nitty gritty legal end of things however, I would like to understand the timeline of your claim so I can understand the situation better.

Either way, know that I am absolutely thrilled for you and appreciate how gracious you are in giving credit to hadit for your claims success. Now, I'll close, go see what icon Cowgirl is using tonight and join her in putting my left foot in and putting my left foot out.....

God Bless,

TS Snave

Edited March 10, 2008 by tssnave

[free_spirit_etc]

I am not an expert on the Regs at all. I just read a lot - and keep searching trying to put together the bigger picture.

That is why I suggested that she pose the effective date to the VA in more of a question format - than a declarative stance.

That way - she has not STATED anything - she has merely ASKED questions...

(Please help me understand this. The BVA said my SMRs were material because ___. But they were not in my record until __. I notice the law says ___. Could you tell me if YOU are going to take care of dating my claim back to ___ when I first filed but the SMRS were not of record - or am I supposed to file something for that to occur?)

Another important factor is that SHE had to get the SMRs from the record center. I think if the Vet has them in their possession - and doesn't submit them - and the VA can't get them - they don't "count" for some reason (as far as earlier effective date) - I guess because the vet SHOULD have submitted them - and they were NOT available to the VA. But in Betty's case - the VA kept telling her they were not available and she FOUND them at the records center - where the VA should have gotten them from. So this case should be the same regardless of WHO got them from the record center. They WERE in the possession of a government agency. She was TOLD they didn't EXIST. She FOUND that they DID - and she got them in her claim file.

Who knows how many copies they shredded before SHE let them know she was aware they existed.

Free

Praise God from whom all blessings, and VA victories, flow!!

Betty,

Please review this and make corrections to it. Based on my understanding and reading what the IMO doc and your private doc wrote along with the VA awarding you 100% pension, the question is not going to be whether or not you are 100% due to IU since you have never mentioned symptoms in the 100% rating schedule but what is your effective date, which, IMO, should go back to the initial filing date of 1978 since they didn't have your SMRs in 1978. This is conjecture on my part, I would have to read Free's posts more closely to understand the applicable regs and since I'm still new at this I would rely on Berta, Free and others to help you with the nitty gritty legal end of things however, I would like to understand the timeline of your claim so I can understand the situation better.