Jsrrc Coordinator

[Hoppy]

JSRRC Coordinator

Who is this guy?

Recently one of our veterans found a document in his c-file that was written by the JSRRC coordinator indicating that he did not find sufficient evidence of a stressor to seek any additional information from the CURR as to the possibility of a stressful event. This document contained a list of documents reviewed including the veterans private and VA medical records. The veteran had turned in a letter from his CO indicating specific types frequency of attacks on the base camp and support required to fend off such attacks.

The JSRCC coordinator did not list the CO's letter on the list of reviewed documents. The CO’s letter was not turned in until a short time prior to the date of the coordinators letter. I would think if he was reading medical records that he might be interested in what the CO had to say. At this time we are assuming the CO’s letter was not in the file when the JSRCC coordinator reviewed the file.

Considering the denial date is after both the date of the letter from the coordinator and the time the CO’s letter was turned and the fact that the denial did not address any specific information provided by the CO we are considering that even though the CO’s letter was in the file at the time of the denial it was not properly integrated into the decision.

Is a JSRRC coordinator the guy who establishes stressors and would the folks who made the actual denial have really investigated stressors independently of the JSRRC coordinator?

[Stretch]

I had a ENT doctor in California fax me the IME that he did on me. He wrote with all medical probability more likely than not service related. He performed original nasal surgery after I was separated. Lucky he was still alive.

When I copied the letter I left off the fax information and the letter was not dated. I was denied for 2 years and finally found out that they would not accept the letter because it was not dated (SSOC).

I sent the whole fax, from my CA. doctor, this time. This time the IME was referred to in my VA C&P for sinusitis. VA C&P said, that it was their opinion that it was as least as likely as not that the Sinusitis is a service related condition. This time the VA used the IME. Claim is still at the AMC though.

I can not prove it, but think that these people weed out claims due to minor technicalities. When writing stressor letters much is left out. Usually simple little things like a date that the item was written are forgotten by the Vet. Problem is that you have to wait so long to find out what it is that was wrong or missing.

Someone on Hadit knows about JSRRC, because I remember a post referring to it. Not sure when or who.

[Rockhound]

Took Stretch's information and did a search of hadit's records. Berta posted this information May of this year.

JSRRC stands for, "Joint Services Records Research Center"

Rockhound Rider B)

p.s. Oh yea, Hoppy, you posted a comment on her post. I think the post was titled

JSRRC (Curr)

I think, I have a bit of a problem with recall.

Edited June 20, 2008 by Rockhound

[Berta]

"The JSRCC coordinator did not list the CO's letter on the list of reviewed documents. The CO’s letter was not turned in until a short time prior to the date of the coordinators letter"

This is unfortunate-perhaps the vet should write to JSRCC themselves to see if the stressors can be verified with this new information.

Obviously the letter from the CO may well have pinpointed the stressor better as to time and place and maybe the CO was even an eye witness to it.

JSRCC is very through- BUT-

it all depends on what they have to work with.

Combat vets can often have a multitude of stressors but I feel-since it only takes one to be verified-for a PTSD claim- that they should focus on any stressor that can be easily verified.

Say they lost a good friend in a firefight but only knew the guy by a nickname-it would be hard for them to get a Wall printout (if Vietnam vet)or identify this soldier as deceased and in their same unit- same time and place of firefight.

Then say they had to help retrieval of deceased vets from a large land mine explosion.This stressor might well be more easily verified as this would be in the unit Morning reports or unit casualty records, COAARs,etc.

Hoppy-I hope this vet-of he was denied because they could not verify his stressor, took the steps to fully rebutt that decision with the CO's letter.

If I were this vet I would even write to JSRRC to see if they could somehow reconsider their findings.

"At this time we are assuming the CO’s letter was not in the file when the JSRCC coordinator reviewed the file"

If the JSRCC reply to VA seems to indicate they were not aware of this letter-it could still be considered.

"The veteran had turned in a letter from his CO indicating specific types frequency of attacks on the base camp and support required to fend off such attacks."

Did the CO specifically state (or did the veteran's MOS specifically indicate) that this veteran was there same time this occurred and was directly part of the support?

I have to remind everyone- just about every vet who served in Vietnam was within rocket range of the enemy-and probably most units took on incoming mortar or rockets during the years of the war.

Highly frequent attacks and direct involvement with casualties from these attacks or directly involved with results (such as their barracks were hit etc)are what make exposure to these attacks fully stressful events.

NVLSP makes the point that frequent attacks on a vet's unit have to be considered "in the context of the personal involvement of the veteran."

[Hoppy]

Berta,

The bold type is an excerpt from the CO's letter. Note that the compound was defended for two months from daily attacks by the transportation company personnel who were not outside the camp. The case shown below (credible supporting evidence) only states that the veteran be able to show that he was with the unit. Showing that he was part of the unit that was on transportation details is not necessiarly required. Secondly, the BVA citation is for a veteran whose situation was almost identical to our veterans case. The fact that the transportation details that were outside the camp were also being fired on is well known to CURR.

The case law and BVA citation was submitted to the RO with the appeal. I guess it is a question if the case law and citations need to also be sent to the JSRRC coordinator or will the coordinator pull the file and read the veterans statements in support of the appeal.

Our compound was considered the most exposed position in the city of Mogadishu and although officially called Camp Doer was more commonly known as the O.K. Corral due to the gun battles that erupted there between us and the warring Somalia Clans.

Everyday for the nearly two months that we occupied that position we received sniper harassing fire or a deliberate attack. The only measure of defense that was added to my command at this time was a two man Marine Corps Sniper team. Other then those two Marines our 4 acre, three sides exposed to clans, compounded was defended by portion of Truck Companies while the rest of the company we out accomplishing our missions.

Some guns fights only had a couple of Somalis and would be over within 30 minutes, the largest had nearly 200 insurgents and lasted for nearly 4 hours and required helicopter gunships to engage.

"Credible supporting evidence" does not mean that

the veteran must definitively establish his personal

engagement in combat. Suozzi v. Brown, 10 Vet. App. 307, 311

(1997) (requiring corroboration of every detail, including

the veteran's personal participation, VA defined

"corroboration" too narrowly). Rather, the veteran's

presence with his unit at a time when his unit is attacked

tends to show that that the veteran experienced such attack

personally, without specifically showing his personal

participation. See Id.; see also Pentecost v. Principi, 16

Vet. App. 124 (2002).

Citation Nr: 0722764

Most significantly, a search performed by the Department of the

Army Center for Unit Records Research (CURR)(now the U.S.

Army and Joint Services Records Research Center or JSRRC)

explained that while it was unable to obtain the combat unit

records for the veteran's specific battalion, other combat

unit records submitted by units deployed to Somalia during

that period mentioned attacks against convoys, base camps

receiving fire, and local nationals attempting to break into

bases to steal food and equipment.

Therefore, although the veteran's military occupational

specialty was that of unit supply specialist, and he is not

the recipient of any awards or decorations that are

conclusive proof of combat service, the Board finds the

record is at an approximate balance as to whether the veteran

service in combat. Under the law, where there exists "an

approximate balance of positive and negative evidence

regarding the merits of an issue material to the

determination of the matter," the veteran shall prevail upon

the issue. Ashley v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 52, 59 (1993); see

also Massey v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 204, 206-207 (1994). The

phrase "engaged in combat with the enemy" requires that the

veteran have personally taken part in a fight or encounter

with a military foe or hostile unit of instrumentality and

the Board finds the veteran's statements combined with the

statement of J.A. and the response from CURR to be sufficient

proof of such a hostile encounter while stationed in Somalia.

Edited June 21, 2008 by Hoppy

[yoggie2]

I have read this too, VARO had listed the CO's letter as evidence in the "Denial Letter" as well, this was the only mention of this letter.

[Berta]

"Considering the denial date is after both the date of the letter from the coordinator and the time the CO’s letter was turned and the fact that the denial did not address any specific information provided by the CO we are considering that even though the CO’s letter was in the file at the time of the denial it was not properly integrated into the decision. "

Yes that seems obvious to me too-

"At this time we are assuming the CO’s letter was not in the file when the JSRRC coordinator reviewed the file"

I agree that seems plausible-

Maybe this vet -along with appealing this decision should also write directly to JSRRC-

http://www.tpromo2.com/usvi/esg_us.htm

this link contains their contact info

"Is a JSRRC coordinator the guy who establishes stressors and would the folks who made the actual denial have really investigated stressors independently of the JSRRC coordinator"

The VA won't try to verify a stressor- only JSRRC does that.