Appeals Management Center

[gp747]

i have claim at appeals management center. i i have been there two years this time on second remand . called and one time they said waiting on third signature , called second time said waitin on decision ,called third time said decision made waiting on authorization , would not tell me decision. asked if this meant if i had won my claim guy said not necessarily. said would recieve notice 4 to 5 weeks . any body been through this ? or know what is happening

[Berta]

WOW-these time periods at the AMC are very troubling.

The AMC got my remanded claim in late October. Although BVA said I could make additional augument and provide more medical evidence-they gave me no ime frame in which to do that.

I prepared a very strong medical and legal argument, included much of the evidence that VA had never considerd and added some new evidence.

I mailed all this in early Nov and got AMC letter in mid Nov that I could send in more evidence-

but by phone they verified that they did in fact receive a packet from me of additional stuff.

By end of Nov the whole thing went to a VA examiner.I tracked this down only to learn that the opinion ad already been done and sent back to the AMC.

The C & P Sec could only tell me that the VA examiner and remarked to her that I had a lot of evidence for my claim.

After filing this claim almost 6 years ago-this was first time that I believed that the evidence mght have actually been read.

The BVA remand mentioned the IMOs and that although there were many copies of the IMOs in the C file- they had never been considered.None of my oter evidence was mentioned in the remand so I sent in most of that again too.

I also had other additional evidence and included some of it-

it reminded me of the years it took to get awards on my past claims-

I continually sought evidence all those years and kept on sending it in.

When any claim has a legitimate basis it is amazing how much support one can find for it.

I have been ill but right before I got sick I was startled to find more supportive and strong medical info on the net for my husbands visual problems that were symptomatic of his undiagnosed diabetes.

Medical records -particularily when a SC condition was ever diagnosed properly-often revela little symptomatic support.

Oddly enough the miserable EEOC case Rod filed against the VA when he was overlooked for a full time position revealed more info as to his visual problems due to the diabetes then his med recs did.

Also his Voc Rehab records revealed his need for an accommodation of a note taker as the visual problems preveted him from seeing the blackboard instructor's notes.A visual exam from VA got him glaasses that did not help him at all- and the VA visual exam revealed other disturbing symptoms of undiagnosed diabetes.

None of this is my strongest evidence for my claim but it just goes to show that-when you dig for evidence, a lot can be found in often unusual places.

I can only sit and wait for the AMC decision and then get another IMO if I need it.

I did request a copy of the C & P exam but ave not gotten that yet.

[Berta]

The AMC just told me they are ready to make a decision on my claim.

Of course they could not give any time frame on that but it is set for decision.

I guess the strong legal statement and additional medical evidence I sent about 2 weeks after the formal remand letter from BVA did some good.It is moving fast- but then again-

I have no idea what kind of decision I will get and am prepared for the next IMO and contacted a cardiologist for that if needed.

Due to the shreddergate fiasco I took the time to prepare and send almost all of my evidence again as well as additional legal argument.I felt I had actually prepared the original claim in a better way- I used inserts , links, and copy -pastes from M21-1 etc right in my statement, 2 photos of Rod and other things that 6 years ago in the original claim -I did not highlight this well.But I used the same brain and heart photos and diagrams that I correlated with evidence for that.This all took 2 weeks to do-but I figured if someone is finally going to read it- I want it all to be considered.

I was preparing a rebuttal under the "October incident" for my 2 CUE claims.

None of my legal evidence for those CUEs was ever read by the VA either.But after talking to the AMC I am holding off on that rebuttal until this main claim is decided. I sure dont want my AO claim back at the Buffalo RO even though I got 4 Iris replies asking me for more info on my charges that the CUEs were part of the "October Incident" (shreddergate)

It looked to me that the RO put all of my AO evidence into the CUE claim file- and I have no idea where the legal CUE evidence I sent to them is at. So I charged them with shdredding it unless they come up with it themselves.

[Wings]

x

x

x

Found out today, through an American Legion SO (thanks Paul and Betty), only my CUE claim was granted, but my EED claim was denied, saying, "there's no evidence that you filed a claim on a VA Form [ ] prescribed by the Secretary". My old County SO wrote a letter to the RO, that there is evidence of her having filed a claim within one year of discherge, but all of our files are destroyed/shredded every 7 years".

SHIT!!! I'll have to wait a month to get the SSOC, and go from there. I'm NOT done FIGHTING !!! ~Wings

x

x

x

Citation Nr: 0828378

Decision Date: 08/21/08

Archive Date: 09/02/08

DOCKET NO. 06-33 573

On appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Oakland, California

THE ISSUE

Entitlement to an effective date prior to January 25, 1999 for the grant of service connection for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).

ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD

M. Sorisio, Associate Counsel

INTRODUCTION

The appellant is a veteran who served on active duty from October 1980 to November 1986.

This matter is before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a January 2005 rating decision of the San Diego, California Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) that denied an effective date prior to January 25, 1999 for the grant of service connection for PTSD.

The veteran’s claims file is now in the jurisdiction of the Oakland, California RO.

The appeal is REMANDED to the RO via the Appeals Management Center (AMC), in Washington, DC. VA will notify the appellant if further action on her part is required.

REMAND

In a June 2008 submission to the Board, the veteran alleged that the RO committed clear and unmistakable error (CUE) in an August 1988 administrative decision --that found that she had a dishonorable period of service from October 13, 1984 to November 21, 1986.

Specifically, she argued that --the finding that she had a dishonorable period of service, and that a failure to notify her of the August 1988 decision were CUE.

A review of the record indicates that she has previously raised similar arguments; however, the RO has not adequately addressed the veteran's allegations of CUE in the August 1988 administrative decision.

While the veteran indicated that she was waiving initial review of the CUE claim by the RO, the veteran is unable to waive such review as the Board does not currently have jurisdiction over a CUE claim. 38 C.F.R. §§ 20.101, 20.200.

Notably, the veteran's effective date claim is a "freestanding" claim; she did not appeal the November 1999 rating decision that assigned the effective date of January 25, 1999 and that decision became final. 38 U.S.C.A. § 7105; 38 C.F.R. § 3.104(a).

Where a decision assigning an effective date is final, only a request for revision based on CUE can result in the assignment of an earlier effective date. See Rudd v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 296, 299-300 (2006).

Hence, the allegations of CUE are inextricably intertwined with the earlier effective date issue on appeal, and both issues must be adequately addressed prior to final adjudication of the veteran's claim for an effective date prior to January 25, 1999 for the grant of service connection for PTSD. See Harris v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 180 (1991).

Accordingly, the case is REMANDED for the following:

1. The RO should adjudicate the CUE claim and notify the veteran of the decision and

of her appellate rights.

If the CUE claim is denied and the veteran files a timely notice of disagreement, the RO should issue an appropriate statement of the case (SOC) and notify the veteran that the matter will be before the Board only if a timely substantive appeal is submitted.

2. The RO should then readjudicate the earlier effective date claim for the grant

of service connection for PTSD, considering the determination in the CUE claim.

If the effective date claim remains denied, the RO should issue an

appropriate supplemental SOC and give the veteran the opportunity to respond. The

case should then be returned to the Board, if in order, for further review.

The appellant has the right to submit additional evidence and argument on the matter the Board has remanded. Kutscherousky v. West, 12 Vet. App. 369 (1999). This claim must be afforded expeditious treatment. The law requires that all claims that are remanded by the Board for additional development or other appropriate action must be handled in an

expeditious manner.

_________________________________________________

George R. Senyk

Veterans Law Judge, Board of Veterans' Appeals

Under 38 U.S.C.A. § 7252 (West 2002), only a decision of the Board is appealable to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. This remand is in the nature of a preliminary order and does not constitute a decision of the Board on the merits of your appeal. 38 C.F.R. § 20.1100(b) (2007).

Edited December 16, 2008 by Wings

[Berta]

WOW-the CUE was granted?

This is great news- but not good about the EED-

This is odd -I didnt know NSOs shred files every 7 years.

That might screw up many vets who claim the VA destroyed their evidence under the new shreddergate procedures-

Then again your SO's letter could hold some weight.

(I say S--T all the time over VA bull crap- but actually I say much worse than that!!!!!!)

[Philip Rogers]

Kewl!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

pr

[Wings]

Kewl!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

pr

((((((pr)))))))

CUE claim granted, EED claim denied = NO MONEY

I'm bummed.