Click To Ask Your VA Claims Question
Read Disability Claims Articles
View All Forums | Chats and Other Events | Donate | Blogs | New Users | Search | Rules
- 0
Dro Disqualification
Rate this question
Click To Ask Your VA Claims Question
Read Disability Claims Articles
View All Forums | Chats and Other Events | Donate | Blogs | New Users | Search | Rules
Rate this question
Question
blue12
Hello all. Need some advice here.
I filed a NOD on a decision that denied an earlier effective date.
The RO held a DRO De Novo hearing. At hearing, we found out that the hearing officer was the one that had made the denial. It did not hit home that he should not have been officiating the hearing.
A few weeks later, we received a denial by the DRO.
We immediately filed for an appeal with video hearing.
This past week, after a lot of research in preparation for our appeal, I stumbled across the requirements of M21-1MR, Part 1, Chapter 5, Section 13 ©, which stipulates that the DRO that made the decision of which was under review at said hearing could not officaite this hearing.
This was the proverbial last straw.
I wrote an application for a 1151 Claim, stating,
1. Failure of the VA to diagnose symptoms of ******* from date of retirement from active duty military, effective August 1, 1994 to January 22, 2008, per requirements set forth in 38 USC 5103 - Sec. 5103A. Duty to assist claimants.
2. Failure of duty to assist the veteran in developing a claim for ******** from date of retirement from active duty military, effective August 1, 1994, to January 22, 2008, per requirements set forth in 38 USC 5103 - Sec. 5103A. Duty to assist.
3. Failure of duty to assist the veteran in receiving maximum benefits, from date of retirement from active duty military, effective August 1, 1994, to January 22, 2008, per requirements set forth in 38 USC 5103 - Sec. 5103A. Duty to assist claimants; M21-1MB, Chapter 5, Section C, 11©; and M21-1MR, Part 1, Chapter 5, Section C.
4. Failure of VSCM, ********** *******, to perform per the requirements of M21-1MB, Chapter 5, Section C, 11©; failure to appoint an acting DRO during the disqualification of ***** *******, in violation of stated federal regulation.
5. Failure of DRO, ***** ******, to perform per the requirements of M21-1MR, Part 1, Chapter 5, Section 13 © Mr. *******, the DRO at de novo hearing on May 5, 2009, was the same DRO that made the decision of which was under review at said hearing, and in violation of stated federal regulation.
6. Failure of DRO, ***** ******, to perform per the requirements of M21-1MR, Part 1, Chapter 5, Section C, 11(:P; Mr. *******, DRO at stated hearing of May 5, 2009, stated on the record that he was the person that had made the decision we were asking for the reconsideration of. The transcript provides that this statement has been removed from the record.
7. Additionally, Mr. ******, per federal regulations of M21-1MR, Part 1, Chapter 5, Section C, requires a full consideration of all evidence of record. Mr. ****** denied an earlier effective date based on an erroneous medical opinion and not the corrected medical opinion of Dr. ***** ******, and the fact that ******* was not claimed upon initial application for benefits with the VA upon retirement from active duty military in 1994.
8. Further, Mr. ****** stated that I did not claim dizziness as a symptom in 1994. I did. Please refer to Ratings Decision dated 2/1/495, page 4. It was combined with **** ****** by the VARO, which constitutes a further violation of federal regulation M21-1MR, Part 1, Chapter 5, Section C.
9. Failure of Veterans Service Representative **** ***** to object to the DRO De Novo Hearing of May 5, 2009, on grounds of disqualification of presiding DRO.
10. Failure of Veterans Service Representative **** ***** to maintain and preserve the best interests of the claimant in stated DRO hearing.
11. Claimant would like the record to reflect that Mr. ***** was placed on this case the morning of May 5, 2009 DRO hearing by the VARO. Mr.***** knew nothing about my case whatsoever. (We also used to work together in the late 80's...I knew this guy....now works for the RO)
12. I was awarded a service connection for the misdiadignoses disease in 1994.
13. Award of service connection in December, 2008, based on an erroneous medical opinion.
14. Correction of previous award entered by VARO on March 2, 2008, corrected to 100% service connection for ***** , of which ***** was claimed in 1994.
15. Subsequent denial of earlier effective date based on numerous erroneous facts and errors.
This was filed with the RO this past week.
My problem is that I don't know what to expect now.
What should our next step be?
What happens to the DRO?
The RO administrator stated that they are doing a review of the case now and are going to have a different DRO review it.
I want to make sure that I am doing everything correctly and would appreciate any feedback. It would be most appreciated.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Top Posters For This Question
2
2
1
1
Popular Days
Sep 14
4
Sep 13
1
Sep 15
1
Top Posters For This Question
carlie 2 posts
Ricky 2 posts
jbasser 1 post
blue12 1 post
Popular Days
Sep 14 2009
4 posts
Sep 13 2009
1 post
Sep 15 2009
1 post
5 answers to this question
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now