Any Thoughts On This Odd

[Berta]

As I mentioned before my POA has a short period of time left to respond to charges I filed against them with the OGC.

There was the illegal revocation of my POA and other charges that I put into a time line with exhibits to prove.

One charge was that the POA failed to present my initial Imos to the DRO although minutes before this confernce we discussed not only that he would do that ,we discussed considerable other evidence pertaining to my claim that the VA had ignored in a sameo sameo De novo review.

The conference was set up by the VSM because I asked her to CUE the sameo sameo so called de novo review.

The rep (due to screw up between this local POA and his office)took the IMO from my C file before the conference. He told me he was sure he would walk out of the conference with an award.

He also told me to send him as well as the local rep copies of everything I had ( that all has been destroyed- not "maintained" was how he put it)

I responded to the SSOC this conference produced that again failed to consider the Medical evidence and my IMos, attaching the Imos again to the response.Nothing I discussed with the vet rep nor my IMos or anything else was brought up-in a "lengthy" conference- I dont know what they talked about.The SSOC itself is my evidence that the rep failed to do what he was supposed to do.

Within days of receipt of that response however the VSM had a conference herself with someone from my POA (maybe this same rep)and they decided to use my response as a formal I-9 and immediately (I didnt find this out for 6 more months)started the transfer process to the BVA.

I had 60 days to file the formal I-9 and mailed it,a few weeks after sending the response to the SSOC, returning to find in my mailbox the odd letter about my SSOC response being used as my appeal.

I got a remand right away-

and had even discussed my I-9 with Ron Abrams, attorney for NVLSP and he was glad I had posted at hadit what he recommends putting on this important form. It is under the search feature.

He also -in another conversation -told me I took the right steps in getting the fast remand.He was so right there.My POA refused to help me with it or support it.They were shicvked when I got it and then filed a 4138 so it would look like they got it for me-one rep told people at the RO he himself got a client a fast remand meaning me.Not true at all.

Question

Isnt it highly unusual for the VA (the VSM and someone from my POA agreed to this)to accept a SSOC response as a formal I-9?

Particularly when the VA itself determines the time limit for an I-9?

I asked the VSM today to respond in writing telling me the regulation she used to do this.

I sent the BVA the I-9 myself and they remanded in a few weeks and I chalked this incident up at the time to one more bizarre thing that happened between my POA and the VA regarding my claim-

(such as within days after the remand a rep from NYSDVA told me he heard the VA was getting another VA opinion- the files were still in the mailroom and nothing from VA yet has indicated that in almost 2 years. The VA doesnt work that fast.They havent done a thing with my remanded claim at all- 2 years in September.)

I think those dopes thought they could revoke my POA because I had sent a SSOC response in -never considering that the formal I-9 was sent in within a few weeks of the SSOC decision.

And the rep who revoked didnt even know that someone (maybe him) had agreed to use the SSOC as the I-9 with the VSM.(documented from the VSM herself in a letter to me)

My I-9 was filed properly and on time.I have no concern about that (unless that was mysteriously removed from my C file-)

The POA just found out that I had checked my I-9 with Ron Abrams of NVLSP-and it complied fully with the regs as well as Ron's suggestions in the VBM.

Is there some reg I never heard of that would allow the VA to use something other than an I-9 for an appeal?

I felt if I had let that go as the VSM and rep agreed to-and had not filed the formal I-9-

the BVA could have legally said years down the road that the SSOC response was completely unacceptable as a formal appeal.

Has anyone here ever sent in evidence that was ignored in a SSOC only to find that-although they have plenty of time to file the I-9 on the decision-the VA tried to turn their response into the formal I-9?

The more I look into my situation -the more it appears that NYSDVA and the RO agreed to do what seems against proper established VA case law.

If I had not sent the BVA my I-9 myself to request the remand- I could have found myself with a denial at the BVA solely due to not sending in a formal I-9.

Any comments?

I have seen appeals rejected by the BVA because they were not in a specific I-9 format.

Or the I-9 was not timely.

Would any of you believe that this idea of the VSm and my POA would have been an acceotable I-9 to the BVA?

Edited June 25, 2008 by Berta

[john999]

I think they are just making it up as they go along. They are trying to BS you into accepting what they did as correct. They don't know you very well.

[carlie]

Berta,

I'm sure you already have this, but perhaps the response to you SSOC met these requirements.

carlie

22. Substantive Appeal, Continued

<H5 style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-list: skip">b. What Constitutes a Substantive Appeal</H5>A substantive appeal is one of the following documents containing the necessary information as provided in 38 CFR 20.202:

· VA Form 9, Appeal to Board of Veterans’ Appeals

· written correspondence containing the elements listed below, or

· a statement at a formal hearing or informal conference reduced to writing.

Necessary Information: The information below must be included in a substantive appeal.

· If the SOC and any subsequent supplemental statements of the case (SSOCs) addressed several issues, the substantive appeal must either

- indicate that the appeal is being perfected as to all of those issues, or

- must specifically identify the issues appealed.

· The substantive appeal should set out specific arguments relating to errors of fact or law made by the agency of original jurisdiction in reaching the decision(s) being appealed. To the extent feasible, the argument should relate to specific items in the SOC and any subsequent SSOCs.

Note: BVA will

· construe such arguments in a liberal manner for the purpose of determining whether they raise issues on appeal

· not presume that an appellant agrees with any statement of fact contained in an SOC or SSOC which is not specifically contested, and

· determine the adequacy of a substantive appeal.

[carlie]

Berta,

I'd be willing to bet that the response to the SSOC WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN

looked upon as an I-9 Form, if somehow it didn't benefit VA.

jmho,

carlie

[Pete53]

They are trying to cover someones ass is all so what is new?

[john999]

VA's new motto "BS is job one". When in doubt lie, BS and try and pull the wool over the Vet's eyes. I bet they spend years learning to CYA.

[tssnave]

Berta,

You are out of my league with your SSOC/I-9 question so I don't have any answer to that but there is some speculative sensitive information about "deal making" I'd like to share with you off the board about your VSO situation that post-dates what you went through but if you still have to deal with them it could impact how your claim is currently handled.

I know you don't use the board email so you can email me directly at tssnave@msn.com. Post here and let me know if you sent email and I'll look for it and make sure it didn't go into my bulk mail folder (my mailer has a strict spam blocker and a lot of times the first time someone sends me an email it gets dumped into the bulk mail).

Good luck with your question,

TS Snave