Jump to content
Using an Ad Blocker? Consider adding HadIt.com as an exception. Hadit.com is funded through advertising, ad free memberships, contributions and out of pocket. ×
  • 0

Wings Bva Docket No.


Wings
This thread is over 365 days old and has been closed.

Please post your question as a New Topic by clicking this link and choosing which forum to post in.

For almost everything you are going to want to post in VA Claims Research.

If this is your first time posting. Take a moment and read our Guidelines. It will inform you of what is and isn't acceptable and tips on getting your questions answered. 

 

Remember, everyone who comes here is a volunteer. At one point, they went to the forums looking for information. They liked it here and decided to stay and help other veterans. They share their personal experience, providing links to the law and reference materials and support because working on your claim can be exhausting and beyond frustrating. 

 

This thread may still provide value to you and is worth at least skimming through the responses to see if any of them answer your question. Knowledge Is Power, and there is a lot of knowledge in older threads.

 

spacer.png

Question

  • HadIt.com Elder

x

x

x

Phone call to AMC sez they have my claim and is "before a rating specialist"

Phone call to VARO sez they don't have it.

When I read my BVA Remand, I am VERY confused as to who has jurisdiction, who has it, where is it going, etc?

Tell me what you read from the remand found here http://www.va.gov/vetapp08/files4/0828378.txt

Citation Nr: 0828378

Decision Date: 08/21/08 Archive Date: 09/02/08

DOCKET NO. 06-33 573 ) DATE

)

)

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).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Answers 49
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters For This Question

Recommended Posts

  • HadIt.com Elder

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.

Wings,

If I am reading this corectly, doesn't it say the R.O will be making a decision on your claim.

Betty

Edited by Josephine
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • HadIt.com Elder

That is a remand if I ever saw one. Good Luck Wings I have my fingers crossed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • HadIt.com Elder

San Diego had it. The claim was moved/transferred to Oakland.

It went from Oakland to the BVA/AMC.

The BVA is not going to handle the CUE because they cannot decide CUE issues.

It has been remanded back to Oakland VARO.

The RO in Oakland is getting it back, to adjudicate your CUE claim.

However, if the Oakland VARO does NOT find in your favor regardling the CUE claim, THEN you must make a timely appeal of this decision and the VARO is instructed, if the decision is not in your favor and if you make a timely appeal, that the claim is then to be sent to the BVA for decision (or remand, again, I guess).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wings. When my claim was remanded by the BVA in July 2008 the AMC sent it to Huntington WV for processing. It was not sent to my RO in Jackson MS. When I asked about this I was told Huntington WV is helping out by taking on some of the backlog of other regions. Good Luck.

x

x

x

Phone call to AMC sez they have my claim and is "before a rating specialist"

Phone call to VARO sez they don't have it.

When I read my BVA Remand, I am VERY confused as to who has jurisdiction, who has it, where is it going, etc?

Tell me what you read from the remand found here http://www.va.gov/vetapp08/files4/0828378.txt

Citation Nr: 0828378

Decision Date: 08/21/08 Archive Date: 09/02/08

DOCKET NO. 06-33 573 ) DATE

)

)

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(:o

(2007).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator

I had a claim decided by Huntington. These folks are OK. They also did Josephines Appeal. It is maybe the least busy RO and it works closely with Louisville. Adora, I have my fingers crossed for you and I hope it rains retro and you get flooded in green stuff.

J

Edited by jbasser
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • HadIt.com Elder

Adora,

Yes, my claim was granted by the Huntington, West Va. Office.

I was told by my service officer the old staff that denied me

and sent me to the BVA, are no longer there.

They have been replaced by a new breed.

If you go there, I believe you will get a fair shake.

The best to you,

Betty

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • veterans-crisis-line.jpg
    The Veterans Crisis Line can help even if you’re not enrolled in VA benefits or health care.

    CHAT NOW

  • Advertisemnt

  • question-001.jpegLooking for Answers? Here are tips for finding the answers you seek.

     

    All VA Claims questions should be posted on our forums. To post, you must register. Registration is free. You can register for a free account here.

     

    You can read the forums without registering.

     

    Tips on posting on the forums.
     

    1. Post a clear title like ‘Need help preparing PTSD claim’ or “VA med center won’t schedule my surgery” instead of ‘I have a question.
    2. Knowledgeable people who don’t have time to read all posts may skip yours if your need isn’t clear in the title. I don’t read all posts every login and will gravitate towards those I have more info on.
    3. Use paragraphs instead of one massive, rambling introduction or story. Again – You want to make it easy for others to help. If your question is buried in a monster paragraph, there are fewer who will investigate to dig it out.

     

    Leading to:

     

    Post straightforward questions and then post background information.

     

    Examples:
     
    • A. I was previously denied for apnea – Should I refile a claim?
      • Adding Background information in your post will help members understand what information you are looking for so they can assist you in finding it.
    • I was diagnosed with apnea in service and received a CPAP machine, but the claim was denied in 2008. Should I refile?
       
    • B. I may have PTSD- how can I be sure?
      • See how the details below give us a better understanding of what you’re claiming.
        • I was involved in a traumatic incident on base in 1974 and have had nightmares ever since, but I did not go to mental health while enlisted. How can I get help?

     

    This gives members a starting point to ask clarifying questions like “Can you post the Reasons for Denial from your claim?” etc.

     

    Note:

     

    • Your first posts on the board may be delayed before they appear as they are reviewed.
    • This process does not take long.
    • Your first posts on the board may be delayed before they appear as they are reviewed. The review requirement will usually be removed by the 6th post. However, we reserve the right to keep anyone on moderator preview.
    • This process allows us to remove spam and other junk posts before hitting the board. We want to keep the focus on VA Claims, and this helps us do that.
  • Most Common VA Disabilities Claimed for Compensation:   

    tinnitus-005.pngptsd-005.pnglumbosacral-005.pngscars-005.pnglimitation-flexion-knee-005.pngdiabetes-005.pnglimitation-motion-ankle-005.pngparalysis-005.pngdegenerative-arthitis-spine-005.pngtbi-traumatic-brain-injury-005.png

  • Advertisemnt

  • VA Watchdog

  • Advertisemnt

  • Ads

  • Can a 100 percent Disabled Veteran Work and Earn an Income?

    employment 2.jpeg

    You’ve just been rated 100% disabled by the Veterans Affairs. After the excitement of finally having the rating you deserve wears off, you start asking questions. One of the first questions that you might ask is this: It’s a legitimate question – rare is the Veteran that finds themselves sitting on the couch eating bon-bons … Continue reading

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

{terms] and Guidelines

<——>