Jump to content

Ask Your VA Claims Questions | Read Current Posts 
Read VA Disability Claims Articles
Search | View All Forums | Donate | Blogs | New Users | Rules 

  • tbirds-va-claims-struggle (1).png

  • 01-2024-stay-online-donate-banner.png

     

  • 0

Good Bva Decision For Eed Back To 1971 - Ptsd

Rate this question


carlie

Question

Yes, I know BVA isn't binding on all claim - but this one is really good for research.

Hope this helps a vet.

carlie

http://www.va.gov/vetapp07/files5/0741018.txt

Citation Nr: 0741018

Decision Date: 12/31/07 Archive Date: 01/03/08

DOCKET NO. 98-14 730 ) DATE

)

)

On appeal from the

Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in San Juan,

the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico

THE ISSUE

Entitlement to an effective date prior to December 5, 1973

for a grant of entitlement to service connection for post-

traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).

REPRESENTATION

Appellant represented by: Disabled American Veterans

WITNESS AT HEARING ON APPEAL

Appellant

ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD

Nadine W. Benjamin, Counsel

INTRODUCTION

The veteran served on active duty from October 1969 to April

1971. This matter comes to the Board of Veterans' Appeals

(Board) on appeal from a December 1997 rating decision of the

Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in

Oakland, California. The RO in San Juan, Commonwealth of

Puerto Rico has assumed jurisdiction.

In February 1999, the veteran appeared before a Veterans Law

Judge (then Member of the Board) and presented testimony in

support of his claim. That individual is no longer employed

at the Board. The Veterans Law Judge who holds a hearing is

required to participate in making the final determination of

the claim. 38 C.F.R. § 20.707 (2007). The veteran has not

been notified of his right to an additional hearing; however

in view of the Board's decision below, which is a full grant

of the benefit sought, notification regarding this is

unnecessary.

In September 1999, the Board remanded this claim to the RO

for additional development. The case has been returned to

the Board and is ready for further review.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. The veteran was discharged from service on April 19,

1971.

2. The veteran submitted his original claim for service

connection for a nervous disorder in August 1971, within one

year of service discharge.

3. In September 1971, the RO denied service connection for a

nervous disorder. The veteran submitted a timely notice of

disagreement in August 1972.

CONCLUSION OF LAW

The veteran is entitled to an effective date of April 20,

1971, for the grant of service connection for PTSD. 38

U.S.C.A. § 5110(a) (West 2002); 38 C.F.R. § 3.400 (2007).

REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION

Duties to Notify and Assist

As provided for by the Veterans Claims Assistance Act of 2000

(VCAA), the United States Department of Veterans Affairs (VA)

has a duty to notify and assist claimants in substantiating a

claim for VA benefits. 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 5100, 5102, 5103,

5103A, 5107, 5126 (West 2002 & Supp. 2007); 38 C.F.R.

§§ 3.102, 3.156(a), 3.159 and 3.326(a) (2007).

Upon receipt of a complete or substantially complete

application for benefits, VA is required to notify the

claimant and his or her representative, if any, of any

information, and any medical or lay evidence, that is

necessary to substantiate the claim. 38 U.S.C.A. § 5103(a);

38 C.F.R. § 3.159(b); Quartuccio v. Principi, 16 Vet. App.

183 (2002). Proper notice from VA must inform the claimant

of any information and evidence not of record (1) that is

necessary to substantiate the claim; (2) that VA will seek to

provide; (3) that the claimant is expected to provide; and

(4) must ask the claimant to provide any evidence in her or

his possession that pertains to the claim in accordance with

38 C.F.R. § 3.159(b)(1). This notice must be provided prior

to an initial unfavorable decision on a claim by the agency

of original jurisdiction (AOJ). Mayfield v. Nicholson, 444

F.3d 1328 (Fed. Cir. 2006); Pelegrini v. Principi, 18 Vet.

App. 112 (2004).

In Dingess v. Nicholson, 19 Vet. App. 473 (2006), the U.S.

Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims held that, upon receipt

of an application for a service-connection claim, 38 U.S.C.

§ 5103(a) and 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(b) require VA to review the

information and the evidence presented with the claim and to

provide the claimant with notice of what information and

evidence not previously provided, if any, will assist in

substantiating, or is necessary to substantiate, each of the

five elements of the claim, including notice of what is

required to establish service connection and that a

disability rating and an effective date for the award of

benefits will be assigned if service connection is awarded.

Here, the veteran is challenging the effective date assigned

following the grant of service connection. In Dingess, the

Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims held that in cases where

service connection has been granted and an effective date has

been assigned, the typical service-connection claim has been

more than substantiated, it has been proven, thereby

rendering section 5103(a) notice no longer required because

the purpose that the notice is intended to serve has been

fulfilled. Id. at 490-91. Here however, notice as to the

service connection claim was not provided. The veteran was

provided with a notice letter in September 2003 regarding

earlier effective dates. This letter was not fully

compliant. However, there is no prejudice to the veteran in

deciding the claim at this time. VA has satisfied its duty

to notify and assist to the extent necessary to allow for a

grant of the claim to the fullest extent possible under the

law. See Bernard v. Brown, 4 Vet. App. 384, 392-94 (1993).

In light of the Board's instant decision, which constitutes a

full grant of benefits sought by the veteran on appeal, a

full and detailed analysis of VA's compliance with these

requirements is not needed, as the veteran could derive no

potential benefit from any additional development or notice.

Earlier Effective Date

The veteran seeks an effective date prior to December 5, 1973

for the grant of service connection for PTSD. Generally, the

effective date of an award of a claim is the date of receipt

of the claim or the date entitlement arose, whichever is

later. 38 U.S.C.A. § 5110(a); 38 C.F.R. § 3.400. The

effective date for an award of service connection shall be

the day after separation from service or the date entitlement

arose, if the claim is received within one year of separation

from service, otherwise it is the date of receipt or the date

entitlement arose, whichever date is later. 38 U.S.C.A. §

5110(b)(1) (West 2002); 38 C.F.R. § 3.400(b)(2)(i) (2007).

The record reflects that the veteran was discharged from

military service on April 19, 1971. In August 1971, he

submitted a VA Form 07-3288, to VA referencing his service

connection claim for several disorders, including a nervous

disorder. The claim for an anxiety disorder was denied in a

rating action of September 1971. In a June 1972 rating

action, the RO confirmed and continued the previous

determination. The veteran timely disagreed with that

determination in August 1972.

In January 1974, the RO confirmed the September 1971 rating

action. In November 1990, the RO found that there was no new

and material evidence to reopen the claim for service

connection for PTSD after the veteran submitted a claim in

February 1990. In October 1994, the RO confirmed and

continued the denial. Thereafter, the claim remained open

and pending until August 1997, when the RO granted service

connection for PTSD and granted a 100 percent evaluation

effective from February 1, 1990, which at that time the RO

determined was the date of the veteran's claim to reopen. In

December 1997, the RO granted an earlier effective date for

grant of service connection for PTSD and the grant of a 100

percent evaluation to July 21, 1989.

In November 2005, the RO found that the veteran's claim had

remained open since he submitted an August 1972 notice of

disagreement to the September 1971 and June 1972 RO

decisions, and granted an earlier effective date for the

grant of service connection for PTSD to December 5, 1973.

The RO based the assignment of the December 5, 1973 effective

date on a VA medical expert's April 2004 opinion that the

veteran's PTSD was first manifested at a VA December 1973

examination.

As noted above, the effective date for service connection

when a veteran files a claim within a year of discharge is

the date of the day following the date of separation from

service or the date entitlement arose. Therefore, the

correct effective date for the grant of service connection

for the veteran's PTSD is the day after his separation from

service-April 20, 1971, since his claim for service

connection was received in August 1971. See 38 U.S.C.A. §

5110(b)(1) (West 2002) (the effective date of an award of

service connection will be the day following separation from

service, if a claim was received within one year of service

separation).

ORDER

An effective date of April 20, 1971, for the grant of service

connection for PTSD is granted.

____________________________________________

P.M. DILORENZO

Veterans Law Judge, Board of Veterans' Appeals

Department of Veterans Affairs

Carlie passed away in November 2015 she is missed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Answers 13
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters For This Question

Recommended Posts

  • HadIt.com Elder

okay folks I am rereading my file, its so very interesting now I know a bit more and this discussion came up.Thanks all, now that Betty has won, who knows? I will keep in touch, cg

For my children, my God sent husband and my Hadit family of veterans, I carry on.

God Bless A m e r i c a, Her Veterans and their Families!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Tell a friend

    Love HadIt.com’s VA Disability Community Vets helping Vets since 1997? Tell a friend!
  • Recent Achievements

    • spazbototto earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Paul Gretza earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Troy Spurlock went up a rank
      Community Regular
    • KMac1181 earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • jERRYMCK earned a badge
      Week One Done
  • Our picks

    • These decisions have made a big impact on how VA disability claims are handled, giving veterans more chances to get benefits and clearing up important issues.

      Service Connection

      Frost v. Shulkin (2017)
      This case established that for secondary service connection claims, the primary service-connected disability does not need to be service-connected or diagnosed at the time the secondary condition is incurred 1. This allows veterans to potentially receive secondary service connection for conditions that developed before their primary condition was officially service-connected. 

      Saunders v. Wilkie (2018)
      The Federal Circuit ruled that pain alone, without an accompanying diagnosed condition, can constitute a disability for VA compensation purposes if it results in functional impairment 1. This overturned previous precedent that required an underlying pathology for pain to be considered a disability.

      Effective Dates

      Martinez v. McDonough (2023)
      This case dealt with the denial of an earlier effective date for a total disability rating based on individual unemployability (TDIU) 2. It addressed issues around the validity of appeal withdrawals and the consideration of cognitive impairment in such decisions.

      Rating Issues

      Continue Reading on HadIt.com
      • 0 replies
    • I met with a VSO today at my VA Hospital who was very knowledgeable and very helpful.  We decided I should submit a few new claims which we did.  He told me that he didn't need copies of my military records that showed my sick call notations related to any of the claims.  He said that the VA now has entire military medical record on file and would find the record(s) in their own file.  It seemed odd to me as my service dates back to  1981 and spans 34 years through my retirement in 2015.  It sure seemed to make more sense for me to give him copies of my military medical record pages that document the injuries as I'd already had them with me.  He didn't want my copies.  Anyone have any information on this.  Much thanks in advance.  
      • 4 replies
    • Caluza Triangle defines what is necessary for service connection
      Caluza Triangle – Caluza vs Brown defined what is necessary for service connection. See COVA– CALUZA V. BROWN–TOTAL RECALL

      This has to be MEDICALLY Documented in your records:

      Current Diagnosis.   (No diagnosis, no Service Connection.)

      In-Service Event or Aggravation.
      Nexus (link- cause and effect- connection) or Doctor’s Statement close to: “The Veteran’s (current diagnosis) is at least as likely due to x Event in military service”
      • 0 replies
    • Do the sct codes help or hurt my disability rating 
    • VA has gotten away with (mis) interpreting their  ambigious, , vague regulations, then enforcing them willy nilly never in Veterans favor.  

      They justify all this to congress by calling themselves a "pro claimant Veteran friendly organization" who grants the benefit of the doubt to Veterans.  

      This is not true, 

      Proof:  

          About 80-90 percent of Veterans are initially denied by VA, pushing us into a massive backlog of appeals, or worse, sending impoverished Veterans "to the homeless streets" because  when they cant work, they can not keep their home.  I was one of those Veterans who they denied for a bogus reason:  "Its been too long since military service".  This is bogus because its not one of the criteria for service connection, but simply made up by VA.  And, I was a homeless Vet, albeit a short time,  mostly due to the kindness of strangers and friends. 

          Hadit would not be necessary if, indeed, VA gave Veterans the benefit of the doubt, and processed our claims efficiently and paid us promptly.  The VA is broken. 

          A huge percentage (nearly 100 percent) of Veterans who do get 100 percent, do so only after lengthy appeals.  I have answered questions for thousands of Veterans, and can only name ONE person who got their benefits correct on the first Regional Office decision.  All of the rest of us pretty much had lengthy frustrating appeals, mostly having to appeal multiple multiple times like I did. 

          I wish I know how VA gets away with lying to congress about how "VA is a claimant friendly system, where the Veteran is given the benefit of the doubt".   Then how come so many Veterans are homeless, and how come 22 Veterans take their life each day?  Va likes to blame the Veterans, not their system.   
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Guidelines and Terms of Use