My Cue Is At Bva

[Mr cue]

i post a number of times on my cue of a 93 claim so here it is in a nut shell i was granted 10% for musle strain of the left neck and denied for my elbow because i check that i broke when 12 on entry exam. and on my med 200 board exam i was to have gave a history of the problem i had and that i did not tell recruiter about problems. x ray 93 show bone chip on elbow.i had three different exam all stated elbow healed even recruiter exam doc check my elbow and stated healed. but there is no talk of these exam and they are part of th record. when they deined me they use statement i was to have say to denied.here it is. you gave a history of fracture of the left elbow at age 12 you reported intermittent symptoms of pain and tingling sensation prior to service. you reported you did not talk to recruiter about the problems you reported persistent symptoms in the same distribution. here the cue cfr3.304 states the statement of a veteran relating to the origin or incurrence of a desease or injury made in services against their own interest is of no force and effect if other data do not establish the fact.here is the other they rated my neck under 5322 here is the criteria through-and-through or deep penetrating wound of relatively short track by a single bullet or small shell or shrapnel wereto be at least moderate degree. i have no gunshot wound so when i to increase i was denied because i had no wound.2000 i found hadit and i was granted 60% and iu 2001-2004. so 94-2001 i was 10% rated wrong under 5322 they change it to 5293 2001. and elbow still not rated. on my soc the 94 comp exam stated you were not working because of these problems. so they gave me 10% and no pension or anything. is that a cue.

soc the presumption of soundness was conceded as you were granted sevice connection for your neck.but the objetive evidence didnot show a premanent aggravation for your elbow.

in 94 you were rated as a muslce strain left neck under code 5322 this was indicative of a moderate level of muscle disabilty with slight limitation of motion of the cervical spine. the rater could have prehaps used code 5290 which would have been for slight limition of motion as you would have still had only a 10% evaluation. so did they just say that there was a better rating code that should have been used is this the cue.

i will fight on because i believe i was rated wrong and denied on statement i was to have say.i even have a bva case were the same thing was done docket no 98-00-006 check it out.

so i believe i was send to bva because there is alot of wrong on my94 decision and a lot of retro.

[john999]

Who is representing you at the BVA on your CUE?

[Mr cue]

well vfw walk away the day of my dro hearing so i will go it alone aleast tell it go to court i w ill get lawyer than. vfw got mad becasue i sumitt my own paper i would give them paper and they would sumit paper once a month. i did not like that my case. i feel no one can do your claim better than u. 93 y did my rep not see this and call va on this so if i did not look in to this i would still be 10%. do your own home work is my way.

[john999]

Get ready for the veteran's court! No one is going to be there to advocate for you. Did you write a brief? You understand that CUE is a legal argument. It is not like a regular claim where you have benefit of doubt. Are you going to the BVA to argue your case, or are you just going to let them do their "work" on you? These claims can be lost on the wrong word in a sentence. The words "weighing the evidence" are fatal. When did you file initial NOD on this CUE. If it is not too late to get a lawyer then get one. You are going to need one.

[vaf]

"so i believe i was send to bva because there is alot of wrong on my94 decision and a lot of retro."

To borrow from a well-worn phrase, you can NOD a ham sandwich to the VARO, and the ham sandwich would then be on its way to the Board. An appeal being sent to the Board does not mean there is or is not merit to the argument contained in the appeal. It's just the next step to due process.

Now, if the Court remanded the appeal back to the Board, you may have something special in your favor there, but again, the Board could develop the claim and decide against you. I read your post over, but I didn't see where this claim was already at the Court and remanded back to the Board. Was it?

I do agree with you about fighting a rating decision that appears to be as flawed as yours apparently is.

Please don't try to represent yourself before the Court, and this is especially true for a CUE (unless you can't find anyone willing to take this on). A well-written brief has incalculable value in a Court appeal, and you would be well-advised to follow john 999's advice.

Or at least find a template to use, and once you've written it, think about letting us see it here before you submit it.

Good luck to you, I hope all of this floats!

[Mr cue]

no first time at bva i will look for lawyer real soon but i really feel i am my best lawyer i have real researh this. i no the laws i no the cfr number of the laws they cue . like 3.304 statment of a veteran. presumption of soundness . show that i had disabilty that stop me from work and was rated 10% and could not work this was in comp exam 94 so should have been $4.16 total disabililty rating did not meet % but should have been send to look at.i have bva cases like mines that were won doc num 98-00 -006. no i dont want hearing had one with dro waited for tracripts 7month and they still did not talk of the laws i say they cue. just gave soc were the laws were not on it.one line said presumtion of soudness.so no i dont want a hearing with them to gave them more time to play with my emotion. dro hearing are good won 60% iu at dro hearing. sorry so long just had to vent.

[vaf]

No problem. A truly effective lawyer will listen to you regarding your research, but you'd be surprised at how much they catch that, as much as we think we know about our own specific appeals, we somehow miss. Even though you might be dreaming of 38 CFR in your sleep. We sometimes get so focused on what we feel are the strong points, that we miss what's between the lines, or what was NOT said, as much as what was said in the decision.