Jump to content

  • veteranscrisisline-badge-chat-1.gif

  • Advertisemnt

  • Trouble Remembering? This helped me.

    I have memory problems and as some of you may know I highly recommend Evernote and have for years. Though I've found that writing helps me remember more. I ran across Tom's videos on youtube, I'm a bit geeky and I also use an IPad so if you take notes on your IPad or you are thinking of going paperless check it out. I'm really happy with it, I use it with a program called Noteshelf 2.

    Click here to purchase your digital journal. HadIt.com receives a commission on each purchase.

  • 14 Questions about VA Disability Compensation Benefits Claims


    When a Veteran starts considering whether or not to file a VA Disability Claim, there are a lot of questions that he or she tends to ask. Over the last 10 years, the following are the 14 most common basic questions I am asked about ...
    Continue Reading
  • Ads

  • Most Common VA Disabilities Claimed for Compensation:   


  • 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

  • 0
Sign in to follow this  

Presumption Of Service Connection Als


[Federal Register: November 4, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 212)]

[Rules and Regulations]

[Page 57072-57074]

From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]





38 CFR Part 3

RIN 2900-AN05

Presumption of Service Connection for Amyotrophic Lateral


AGENCY: Department of Veterans Affairs.

ACTION: Final rule.


SUMMARY: This document adopts as a final rule the interim final rule

amending the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) adjudication

regulations to establish a presumption of service connection for

amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) for any veteran who develops the

disease at any time after separation from service. This amendment

implements the decision by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to

establish such a presumption based on a November 2006 report by the

National Academy of Sciences Institute of Medicine on the association

between active service and ALS.

DATES: Effective Date: November 4, 2009.

Applicability Date: This final rule shall apply to all applications

for benefits that are received by VA on or after September 23, 2008,

the effective date of the interim final rule, and to all applications

for benefits that were pending before VA, the United States Court of

Appeals for Veterans Claims, or the United States Court of Appeals for

the Federal Circuit on that date.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas J. Kniffen, Chief, Regulations

Staff (211D), Compensation and Pension Service, Veterans Benefits

Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue,

NW., Washington, DC 20420, (202) 461-9366.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On September 23, 2008, VA published in the

Federal Register (73 FR 54691) an interim final rule that established

at new Sec. 3.318 a presumption of service connection for ALS for any

veteran who develops the disease at any time after separation from


We provided a 60-day comment period that ended on November 24,

[[Page 57073]]

2008. We received comments from 12 members of the general public and 1

each from the ALS Association and the American Speech-Language-Hearing

Association (ASHA). Most of the comments from the general public came

from family members of veterans affected by this disease, expressing

gratitude and the belief that this decision was long overdue. Based on

the rationale set forth in the interim final rule and this final rule,

we adopt the provisions of the interim final rule as a final rule

without change.

Administrative Procedure Act

This document affirms the amendment made by the interim final rule

that is already in effect. The Secretary of Veterans Affairs concluded

that, under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B) and (d)(3), there was good cause to

dispense with advance public notice and opportunity to comment on this

rule and good cause to publish the interim final rule with an immediate

effective date. The interim final rule was necessary to implement

immediately the Secretary's decision to establish a presumption of

service connection for ALS for veterans with that diagnosis. Delay in

the implementation of this presumption would have been contrary to the

public interest.

Because the survival period for persons suffering from ALS is

generally 5 years or less from the onset of symptoms, any delay would

have been extremely detrimental to veterans who are currently afflicted

with ALS. Veterans with ALS may not be taking alleviating medications,

participating in muscle and speech therapy, or receiving proper

assistance for daily functions due to financial hardship or their lack

of having service-connected status for their disability. Moreover, in

all likelihood, some veterans would have died from this rapidly

progressive disease during a period for prior public comment. These

veterans obviously would not have received any benefit from a

presumption that is implemented after a public-comment period.

In order to benefit veterans currently suffering from ALS as

quickly as possible, it was critical that VA established this

presumption immediately.

Conditions for Presumptive Service Connection

The ALS Association expressed support for this regulation and

stated its belief that 90 continuous days of service in the military

and a diagnosis of ALS are sufficient to establish presumptive service

connection for that disease. New Sec. 3.318 generally establishes

presumptive service connection for ALS if a veteran had at least 90

continuous days of active military, naval, or air service and developed

ALS at any time after separation from such service. We made no changes

based on this comment.

Exceptions to the Presumption of Service Connection

The ALS Association was concerned that the presumption of service

connection for ALS would not apply ``when there is affirmative evidence

that ALS was not caused by military service or was caused by a

veteran's own willful misconduct.'' However, it conceded that there is

``very little likelihood that either of those standards will be met

with regard to any particular claim,'' as we stated in the

supplementary information of the interim final rule. We made no changes

based on this comment.

Outreach Services

We received several comments about VA contacting family survivors

of affected veterans concerning new Sec. 3.318, increasing awareness

of ALS, and performing research regarding the disease. VA is taking

steps to inform both veterans with ALS and family survivors of veterans

with ALS about this regulation and realizes the importance of all of

these issues. These issues, however, are beyond the scope of this

rulemaking. We made no changes based on these comments.

Eligibility for Survivor Benefits

We received comments concerning the availability of survivor

benefits to survivors of veterans who died from ALS before the

effective date of the interim final rule. A veteran's survivor who

establishes that the veteran died from ALS before September 23, 2008,

may be eligible for dependency and indemnity compensation pursuant to

new Sec. 3.318, but would not be entitled to any retroactive benefits

before September 23, 2008 (see discussion below). The laws concerning

survivor benefits, however, are not specifically addressed by this

rulemaking. For information about such benefits, those who are

interested may call VA for assistance at 1-888-GIBILL1 (442-4551) for

education benefits, or at 1-800-827-1000 for all other VA benefits.

They may also contact VA on the Internet at http://www.gibill.va.gov

for education claims or at https://iris.va.gov for other information.

We made no changes based on these comments.

Expedited Claims

The ALS Association recommended that VA consider adopting formal

processes for expediting claims for veterans with ALS because of the

rapidly progressive and terminal nature of the disease. VA is aware of

the need for expediting claims for ALS and has taken steps to assure

that this happens. However, this issue is beyond the scope of this

rulemaking. We made no changes based on this comment.

Use of Assistive Technology

ASHA commented that it ``strongly supports this presumption'' and

that this presumption would help veterans with ALS receive necessary

treatment, such as the use of a speech-generating device. We note that

VA already provides assistive technological devices to veterans to help

them overcome challenges they face in coping with various diseases.

Issues relating to treatment, however, are not part of this rulemaking.

We made no changes based on this comment.

Effective Date of Benefits

Several commenters urged VA to provide benefits for awards based on

new Sec. 3.318 retroactive to the date of claim, even if the claim was

originally filed and/or denied before September 23, 2008, the effective

date of the interim final rule. New Sec. 3.318 is applicable

prospectively to claims filed on or after September 23, 2008, and to

all applications for benefits that were pending before VA, the United

States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, or the United States Court

of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on that date. Under 38 U.S.C.

5110(g), the effective date of any award of disability compensation or

dependency and indemnity compensation made pursuant to new Sec. 3.318

will be assigned in accordance with the facts found but cannot be

earlier than the effective date of the interim final rule or the date

one year prior to the date of application, whichever is later. VA

therefore cannot assign an effective date prior to September 23, 2008,

for an award of benefits made pursuant to new Sec. 3.318. We made no

changes based on this comment.

Unfunded Mandates

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of`1995 requires, at 2 U.S.C.

1532, that agencies prepare an assessment of anticipated costs and

benefits before issuing any rule that may result in an expenditure by

State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the

private sector, of $100 million or more (adjusted annually for

inflation) in any given year. This rule will have no such effect on

State, local, and tribal governments, or on the private sector.

[[Page 57074]]

Executive Order 12866

Executive Order 12866 directs agencies to assess all costs and

benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, when regulation is

necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits

(including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety,

and other advantages; distributive impacts; and equity). The Executive

Order classifies a ``significant regulatory action'' requiring review

by the Office of Management and Budget, as any regulatory action that

is likely to result in a rule that may: (1) Have an annual effect on

the economy of $100 million or more or adversely affect in a material

way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition,

jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or

tribal governments or communities; (2) create a serious inconsistency

or interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency; (3)

materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user

fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of entitlement

recipients; or (4) raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of

legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth

in the Executive Order.

VA has examined the economic, interagency, budgetary, legal, and

policy implications of this final rule and has concluded that it is a

significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866 because it is

likely to result in a rule that may raise novel legal or policy issues

arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the

principles set forth in the Executive Order.

Paperwork Reduction Act

This document contains no provisions constituting a collection of

information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-


Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Secretary hereby certifies that this final rule will not have a

significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities

as they are defined in the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-

612. The rule could affect only VA beneficiaries and will not directly

affect small entities. Therefore, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(b), this

rule is exempt from the initial and final regulatory flexibility

analyses requirements of sections 603 and 604.

Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance

The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance program numbers and

titles for this rule are as follows: 64.109, Veterans Compensation for

Service-Connected Disability; and 64.110, Veterans Dependency and

Indemnity Compensation for Service-Connected Death.

List of Subjects in 38 CFR Part 3

Administrative practice and procedure, Claims, Disability benefits,

Health care, Pensions, Radioactive materials, Veterans, Vietnam.

Approved: October 9, 2009.

John R. Gingrich,

Chief of Staff, Department of Veterans Affairs.



Accordingly, the interim rule amending 38 CFR part 3 which was

published at 73 FR 54691 on September 23, 2008, is adopted as a final

rule without change.

[FR Doc. E9-26580 Filed 11-3-09; 8:45 am]


Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

5 answers to this question

Recommended Posts

Thanks for posting this.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

I know a Veteran that was diagnosed with ALS, he has just passed away from it. he was never out of the states the 4 years he was in the Army, yet the VA helped him so much! He was embarrassed because my husband has Glioblastoma Multiforme Stage 4 Brain Cancer and the VA won't accept the fact that many Nam Vets have been diagnosed with it and will not connect it with Agent Orange.

He went to his grave feeling bad that he was getting all of this money from VA, yet my husband gets nothing for brain cancer.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

This widow proved her husband's brain cancer was from AO exposure:



The Veteran died of glioblastoma multiforme which was caused by Agent Orange exposure while serving in Vietnam.


Service connection for the cause of the Veteran's death is granted, subject to the laws and regulations governing the payment of monetary benefits."

She overcame a negative C & P exam report with two strong independent medical opinions.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

The VA is kicking the AO cancer presumptive down the road as far as they can becauses they will soon be burying most of us in the next 20 years. The budget cutters look at Vietnam veterans as fossils. We are somewhere between welfare mothers and street people to these guys. The US forgot the Korean War and forgot the Vietnam war with "extream prejudice".

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

The VA is typical of an agency run by elected interference. I pressure my congressmen/women every chance I get. VOTE always. This is the single most important tool we have.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Answer this question...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Ads

  • Our picks

    • Peggy toll free 1000 last week, told me that, my claim or case BVA Granted is at the RO waiting on someone to sign off ,She said your in step 5 going into step 6 . That's good, right.?
      • 6 replies
    • I took a look at your documents and am trying to interpret what happened. A summary of what happened would have helped, but I hope I am interpreting your intentions correctly:

      2003 asthma denied because they said you didn't have 'chronic' asthma diagnosis

      2018 Asthma/COPD granted 30% effective Feb 2015 based on FEV-1 of 60% and inhalational anti-inflamatory medication.

      "...granted SC for your asthma with COPD w/dypsnea because your STRs show you were diagnosed with asthma during your military service in 1995.

      First, check the date of your 2018 award letter. If it is WITHIN one year, file a notice of disagreement about the effective date. 

      If it is AFTER one year, that means your claim has became final. If you would like to try to get an earlier effective date, then CUE or new and material evidence are possible avenues. 


      I assume your 2003 denial was due to not finding "chronic" or continued symptoms noted per 38 CFR 3.303(b). In 2013, the Federal Circuit court (Walker v. Shinseki) changed they way they use the term "chronic" and requires the VA to use 3.303(a) for anything not listed under 3.307 and 3.309. You probably had a nexus and benefit of the doubt on your side when you won SC.

      It might be possible for you to CUE the effective date back to 2003 or earlier. You'll need to familiarize yourself with the restrictions of CUE. It has to be based on the evidence in the record and laws in effect at the time the decision was made. Avoid trying to argue on how they weighed a decision, but instead focus on the evidence/laws to prove they were not followed or the evidence was never considered. It's an uphill fight. I would start by recommending you look carefully at your service treatment records and locate every instance where you reported breathing issues, asthma diagnosis, or respiratory treatment (albuterol, steroids, etc...). CUE is not easy and it helps to do your homework before you file.

      Another option would be to file for an increased rating, but to do that you would need to meet the criteria for 60%. If you don't meet criteria for a 60% rating, just ensure you still meet the criteria for 30% (using daily inhaled steroid inhalers is adequate) because they are likely to deny your request for increase. You could attempt to request an earlier effective date that way.


      Does this help?
    • Thanks for that. So do you have a specific answer or experience with it bouncing between the two?
    • Tinnitus comes in two forms: subjective and objective. In subjective tinnitus, only the sufferer will hear the ringing in their own ears. In objective tinnitus, the sound can be heard by a doctor who is examining the ear canals. Objective tinnitus is extremely rare, while subjective tinnitus is by far the most common form of the disorder.

      The sounds of tinnitus may vary with the person experiencing it. Some will hear a ringing, while others will hear a buzzing. At times people may hear a chirping or whistling sound. These sounds may be constant or intermittent. They may also vary in volume and are generally more obtrusive when the sufferer is in a quiet environment. Many tinnitus sufferers find their symptoms are at their worst when they’re trying to fall asleep.

        • Like
    • Precedent Setting CAVC cases cited in the M21-1
      A couple months back before I received my decision I started preparing for the appeal I knew I would be filing.  That is how little faith I had in the VA caring about we the veteran. 

      One of the things I did is I went through the entire M21-1 and documented every CAVC precedent case that the VA cited. I did this because I wanted to see what the rater was seeing.  I could not understand for the life of me why so many obviously bad decisions were being handed down.  I think the bottom line is that the wrong type of people are hired as raters.  I think raters should have some kind of legal background.  They do not need to be lawyers but I think paralegals would be a good idea.

      There have been more than 3500 precedent setting decisions from the CAVC since 1989.  Now we need to concede that all of them are not favorable to the veteran but I have learned that in a lot of cases even though the veteran lost a case it some rules were established that assisted other veterans.

      The document I created has about 200 or so decisions cited in the M21-1.   Considering the fact that there are more than 3500 precedent cases out there I think it is safe to assume the VA purposely left out decisions that would make it almost impossible to deny veteran claims.  Case in point. I know of 14 precedent setting decisions that state the VA cannot ignore or give no weight to outside doctors without providing valid medical reasons as to why.  Most of these decision are not cited by the M21.

      It is important that we do our due diligence to make sure we do not get screwed.  I think the M21-1 is incomplete because there is too much information we veterans are finding on our own to get the benefits we deserve

      M21-1 Precedent setting decisions .docx
        • Thanks
        • Like
      • 5 replies
  • Ads

  • Popular Contributors

  • Ad

  • Latest News
  • Create New...

Important Information

{terms] and Guidelines