I Need Help Again

[Mr cue]

ok i am about to do my recondsideration of a bva claim now if my claim was never adjudated 94and then i was granted 60% for same issue in 2001. i did a cue claim 2008 bva say there can not be a cue of a open claim.now bva did my claim and granted me 20% how is that if i met the cretria for rating code for 60% in 94.or should my 60% effective date now be 94 they treated as a reopen claim in 2001. i see a game here if i dont get 60% i have a iu claim that was remand it go back to 94 if not 60% there going to denied. any body got a cases or something like that that my help. crazy part i still have not got my retro check for 40%-94-2001 this crazy and now my iu claim is back with amc. my claims is being expidated due to hardship. and no one to call crazy.

[carlie]

I'm pretty danged sure this is yulooking's BVA case.

carlie

http://www4.va.gov/vetapp09/files4/0928705.txt

Citation Nr: 0928705

Decision Date: 07/31/09 Archive Date: 08/04/09

DOCKET NO. 09-19 043 ) DATE

)

)

On appeal from the

Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Buffalo,

New York

THE ISSUES

1. Whether a June 1994 rating decision granting service

connection for a muscle strain of the left neck, rated 10

percent under Diagnostic Code 5233, contains clear and

unmistakable error (CUE).

2. Whether a June 1994 rating decision denying service

connection for a left elbow disability contains CUE.

3. Entitlement to service connection for residuals of a left

elbow fracture with parasthesias.

4. Entitlement to an initial evaluation in excess of 10

percent for a muscle strain of the left neck.

WITNESS AT HEARING ON APPEAL

The Veteran (Appellant)

ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD

W. H. Donnelly, Counsel

INTRODUCTION

Please note this appeal has been advanced on the Board's

docket pursuant to 38 C.F.R. § 20.900© (2008). 38 U.S.C.A.

§ 7107(a)(2) (West 2002).

The Veteran served on active duty with the United States Army

from October 1, 1993 to December 13, 1993. He received an

uncharacterized discharge.

This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals

(Board) on appeal from June 1994 and September 2008 rating

decisions by the Buffalo, New York, Regional Office (RO) of

the United States Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). The

June 1994 decision denied service connection for a left elbow

and hand disability, and granted service connection for a

muscle strain of the left neck, rated 10 percent disabling.

The September 2008 decision found no CUE in the June 1994

rating decision.

The Veteran testified at a May 2008 pre-decisional hearing

and at a February 2009 hearing before a Decision Review

Officer (DRO) at the RO in connection with his CUE claims.

He declined a Board hearing. Transcripts of the local

hearings are associated with the claims file.

The issues of service connection for a left elbow disability

and evaluation of the neck disability are addressed in the

REMAND portion of the decision below and are REMANDED to the

RO via the Appeals Management Center (AMC) in Washington, DC.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. Service connection for a left elbow disability was denied

in a June 1994 decision; service connection for a neck

disability was granted in the same decision and rated 10

percent disabling.

2. The Veteran filed a timely Notice of Disagreement (NOD)

with the June 1994 decision in October 1994. A Statement of

the Case (SOC) was issued in December 1994.

3. In January 1995, within one year of the June 1994 denial,

the Veteran, through his representative, filed correspondence

referencing both issues and expressing an intent to pursue

his appeals; this correspondence must be accepted as a

substantive appeal sufficient to perfect the appeal to the

Board.

4. The October 2007 claim of CUE in the June 1994 decision

addresses issues currently pending on appeal.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1. The Veteran's appeal as to the issue of CUE in the denial

of service connection for a left elbow disability is

dismissed as no justiciable case or controversy is before the

Board at this time. 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 5109A, 7104, 7105 (West

2002); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.105, 19.4, 20.101, 20.200 (2008).

2. The Veteran's appeal as to the issue of CUE in the

assignment of an initial 10 percent rating for a left neck

muscle strain is dismissed as no justiciable case or

controversy is before the Board at this time. 38 U.S.C.A.

§§ 5109A, 7104, 7105 (West 2002); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.105, 19.4,

20.101, 20.200 (2008).

REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

As provided for by the Veterans Claims Assistance Act of 2000

(VCAA), the United States Department of Veterans Affairs (VA)

has a duty to notify and assist claimants in substantiating a

claim for VA benefits. 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 5100, 5102, 5103,

5103A, 5107, 5126; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.156(a), 3.159 and

3.326(a).

In this case, VCAA notice ands assistance is not required

because the issue presented involves a claim for review of a

prior final regional office decision on the basis of clear

and unmistakable error (CUE). The VCAA is not applicable to

CUE matters. See Livesay v. Principi, 15 Vet. App. 165, 179

(2001) (en banc); Parker v. Principi, 15 Vet. App. 407

(2002).

In June 1994, the RO issued a decision denying service

connection for a left elbow disability and granting service

connection for a neck disability, initially rated 10 percent

disabling. The Veteran filed an NOD with these decisions in

October 1994, and the RO issued an SOC in December 1994. In

January 1995, within the one year appeals period from the

denial of the claims, the Veteran, through his

representative, filed a statement which must be accepted as a

substantive appeal on those issues.

The Veteran requested a personal hearing, and referenced both

the service connection and evaluation issues. He also noted

that both were currently on appeal, and that an SOC had been

issued. His filing manifests an intent to continue his

appeals. Resolving all doubt in favor of the Veteran, this

filing is the equivalent of a VA Form 9, Appeal to Board of

Veterans' Appeals, and perfects the appeals on both issues.

38 C.F.R. § 20.202. The RO failed to certify the issues to

the Board, and the Board has never taken any action on either

issue. The appeals remain open.

Regulations indicate that only "determinations which are

final and binding" are subject to revision based on CUE.

38 C.F.R. § 3.105(a). In this case, no final and binding

determination exists as to service connection for the left

elbow or the evaluation assigned for the neck disability.

The perfected appeal prevented the June 1994 decision from

becoming final.

Therefore, there can be no valid claim of CUE in that

decision at this time; such an allegation is premature.

There is no case or controversy pending before the Board as

contemplated by 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 7104, 7105 and 38 C.F.R.

§ 19.4. In the absence of any justiciable question, the

claim regarding CUE must be dismissed.

ORDER

The question of whether a June 1994 rating decision granting

service connection for a muscle strain of the left neck,

rated 10 percent under Diagnostic Code 5233, contains CUE is

dismissed.

The question of whether a June 1994 rating decision denying

service connection for a left elbow disability contains CUE

is dismissed.

REMAND

As was discussed above, the Veteran has timely perfected

appeals with regard to the issues of service connection for a

left elbow disability and initial evaluation of a left neck

muscle strain.

During the pendency of these appeals, the VCAA was enacted.

VA has a duty to notify and assist claimants in

substantiating a claim for VA benefits. 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 5100,

5102, 5103, 5103A, 5107, 5126; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.156(a),

3.159 and 3.326(a). Adequate notice and assistance has not

been afforded the Veteran under the VCAA with regard to

either claim, and hence remand is required.

Accordingly, the case is REMANDED for the following action:

(Please note, this appeal has been advanced on the Board's

docket pursuant to 38 C.F.R. § 20.900© (2008). Expedited

handling is requested.)

1. Provide the Veteran with the notice

required under 38 U.S.C.A. § 5103(a) and

38 C.F.R. § 3.159(b), as well as Court

precedent, to include Dingess v.

Nicholson,

19 Vet. App. 473 (2006) (regarding notice

of assignment of effective dates and

disability evaluations).

2. The AMC/RO should specifically request

private medical records regarding

treatment of the left elbow and arm

disability from the time of injury to

service, or proper releases to allow VA to

obtain such on the Veteran's behalf. The

RO should review the claims file to ensure

that all the foregoing requested

development is completed, and arrange for

any additional development indicated, to

include provision of VA examinations.

3. The RO should then readjudicate the

claims on appeal. If any benefit sought

remains denied, the RO should issue an

appropriate SSOC and provide the Veteran

and his representative the requisite time

period to respond. The case should then be

returned to the Board for further appellate

review, if otherwise in order. No action

is required of the appellant unless he is

notified.

The appellant has the right to submit additional evidence and

argument on the matters 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 of

Veterans' Appeals or by the United States Court of Appeals

for Veterans Claims for additional development or other

appropriate action must be handled in an expeditious manner.

See 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 5109B, 7112 (West Supp. 2008).

______________________________________________

J. Parker

Acting Veterans Law Judge, Board of Veterans' Appeals

Department of Veterans Affairs

[carlie]

yulooking,

Being that you have the opportunity to still submit

evidence at this time - I would for sure submit/resubmit

any pertinent medical evidence from 94 that would be in your favor.

Keep in mind - shredding really is - nothing new, they just did it

by hand 15 years ago.

jmho,

carlie

[broncovet]

Yulooking

You have some choices here. Two of those choices are to "go it alone" or to post your info on hadit to get help here. Several hadit people have graciously offered to help if you post some details. That is a generous offer. You can still go it alone, or get a VSO/lawyer if you dont already have one.

If you dont post those details, hadit members are unlikely to be able to give you any more help, except maybe to refer you to some sources, such as the Veterans Benefit Manual.

This is your claim, and I wont criticize either choice..heck, I really dont like posting my medical details, RO decisions, BVA decisions, etc. either. I am not real keen on the idea of posting, for example, if I am on Levitra (Levitra is a medication for Erectile Dysfunction) or not. Of course, you dont have to post everything..just what you think is applicable.

Well, heck. Ok, yes, I am on Levitra. And Yes, I suffered an injury in the military service which included a genital injury. No, I am not SC for ED or "loss of use of an organ" probably, in part, because I just dont like giving out details of this to a rating specialist or a VA doctor. Once, years and years ago, I worked at a hospital. Since I probably have already revealed "too much information", suffice it to say, that there was an "incident" at the hospital. My boss called me in about the incident, and I revealed to him about my military genital injury. Big Mistake. He told everyone. I am sure it was just too tempting to not repeat my story, as it was hilarious. When I told my father about it, he laffed so hard he cried. I gave him all the details..and even my own father once told a girl I was dating.."have you heard about (Joe..not my real name) injury to his ......"

This woman was very nice, but she would never take my calls after what my father told her. My first date with her was the last, and I happened to know she liked me real well before.

I may "delete" this stuff..soon. Actually, I would really like to be able to tell all the details for 2 reasons. 1) It is hilarious and even people who dont laff at anything laff at this. 2) There are serious lessons to learn from it.

Ok..Im gonna click "Post"...this is gonna be real hard...I sure hope people cant figure out who I am from my hadit application..I really want to remain anonomyous, but I do want to tell this story..and it is true.

[Mr cue]

ok here the new docket number 09-19-043 ok now if my claim was still from 94 and i put in paper 2000 and was granted 60% how is this not effective 94. isnt that law. got my letter for comp exam with physion assit please tell me how a pa is tell if i could have work in 94 bunch of bull i will fight to end.

[Berta]

http://www4.va.gov/vetapp09/files3/0919043.txt

In part your case reads:

"In March 2004, the Veteran filed a claim arguing that the pervious February 1995 rating decision contained CUE and that service connection for cervical arthritis was warranted. Specific argument regarding the nature of this purported error, including citations to the evidentiary record, was provided. A November 2004 rating decision subsequently granted service connection for cervical arthritis, establishing both a disability rating and an effective date, but did not address the Veteran's February 2004 CUE claim. The Veteran provided additional argument in support of his CUE claim in his December 2004 notice of disagreement (NOD). Unfortunately, the Veteran's CUE claim has not been addressed by the RO and the Board is precluded from addressing the issue of CUE in the first instance. See Manlincon v. Gober, 12 Vet. App. 238 (1999); 67 Fed. Reg. 3104 (Jan. 23, 2002) (codified at 38 C.F.R. § 19.31) (providing that the RO will respond to new issues not addressed in the Statement of the Case (SOC)). This issue must be remanded to the RO for initial consideration. The Veteran's earlier effective date claim is based, at least in part, on whether there was CUE in the February 1995 rating decision. His two clams are inextricably intertwined. See Henderson v. West, 12 Vet. App. 11, 20 (1998), citing Harris v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 180, 183 (1991) (two or more issues are inextricably intertwined if one claim could have significant impact on the other). Therefore, his claim for an earlier effective date is being remanded to avoid piecemeal adjudication. The Veterans Claims Assistance Act of 2000 (VCAA) and implementing regulations impose obligations on VA to provide claimants with notice and assistance. 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 5102, 5103, 5103A, 5107, 5126 (West 2002 & Supp. 2008); 38 C.F.R §§ 3.102, 3.156(a), 3.159, 3.326(a) (2008). The Court has held that that the VCAA notice requirements of 38 U.S.C.A. § 5103(a) and 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(:) apply to all five elements of a service connection claim. Those five elements include: (1) veteran status; (2) existence of a disability; (3) a connection between the veteran's service and the disability; (4) degree of disability; and (5) effective date of the disability. Dingess/Hartman v. Nicholson, 19 Vet App 473 (2006). The Veteran has not received proper notice on the rating or effective date elements of the claims. As these claims are being remanded for other reasons, VA will have an opportunity to provide notice on those elements. Accordingly, the case is REMANDED for the following action: (Please note, this appeal has been advanced on the Board's docket pursuant to 38 C.F.R. § 20.900© (2008). Expedited handling is requested.) 1. The RO/AMC should provide the Veteran with a proper notice letter that is complaint with both the VCAA and Dingess. 2. The RO/AMC should adjudicate the Veteran's claim of CUE in the February 1995 rating decision that denied his request to reopen his cervical arthritis service connection claim. If the determination remains adverse to the Veteran, the RO should provide the Veteran and his representative with notice of appellant rights, specifically to the right to file a NOD within one year of notice of the determination. If appellate review is initiated by the filing of a NOD, the RO should issue a SOC with the applicable law and regulations regarding the claim of CUE, and the Veteran should be provided information regarding the filing of a substantive appeal to this issue. See 38 C.F.R. § 20.200. The Veteran and his representative are hereby reminded that appellate consideration of the matter identified above (the CUE claim) may be obtained only if a timely appeal is perfected. 3. If any claim on appeal remains denied, a supplemental SOC should be issued before returning the case to the Board, if otherwise in order. The Veteran has the right to submit additional evidence and argument on the matter or matters 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 of Veterans' Appeals or by the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims for additional development or other appropriate action must be handled in an expeditious manner. See 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 5109B, 7112 (West Supp. 2008). _________________________________________________ Cheryl L. Mason Veterans Law Judge, Board of Veterans' Appeals

------------------------------------

Has the VA sent you anything at all regarding the CUE claim part of the remand?

Like an SSOC?

I agree-how can a C & P doc or PA tell if you were unemployable or not in 1994-

Then again- what evidence did the VA have to show they should have inferred TDIU in 1994 or awarded TDIU in 1994?

Did they have a 21-8940 form then from you?

Did you get SSA disability solely for this same condition in 1994?

Unless your evidence warranted 70% the VA wont even send a vet a TDIU form.

However if they were aware of any SSA award solely for the same condition-they should have inferred TDIU on that basis.

Did you ever apply for Voc Rehab and have VA turn you down due to SC disabilities? if So when was that-as that too is evidence of TDIU.

[carlie]

yulooking,

Please try to break your post down into clear sentence's,

as this will help some other's to be able to understand and

respond to your posts better.

ok here the new docket number 09-19-043

I have already located and posted this docket number for you.

ok now if my claim was still from 94 and i put in paper 2000 and was granted 60% how is this not effective 94.

What EXACT medical issues did you request SC for in 94?

What exact medical issues did you "put in paper 2000" ?

What medical evidence was of record in 94 versus 2000?

isnt that law.

Since the claim remained open all these years - you will probably get staged ratings as the medical evidence meets the different percentage requirements.

got my letter for comp exam with physion assit please tell me how a pa is tell if i could have work in 94

I believe a PA's C&P has to be signed off by as MD.

jmho,

carlie

Citation Nr: 0928705

Decision Date: 07/31/09 Archive Date: 08/04/09

DOCKET NO. 09-19 043 ) DATE

)

)

On appeal from the

Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Buffalo,

New York

THE ISSUES

1. Whether a June 1994 rating decision granting service

connection for a muscle strain of the left neck, rated 10

percent under Diagnostic Code 5233, contains clear and

unmistakable error (CUE).

2. Whether a June 1994 rating decision denying service

connection for a left elbow disability contains CUE.

3. Entitlement to service connection for residuals of a left

elbow fracture with parasthesias.

4. Entitlement to an initial evaluation in excess of 10

percent for a muscle strain of the left neck.

WITNESS AT HEARING ON APPEAL

The Veteran (Appellant)

ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD

W. H. Donnelly, Counsel

INTRODUCTION

Please note this appeal has been advanced on the Board's

docket pursuant to 38 C.F.R. § 20.900© (2008). 38 U.S.C.A.

§ 7107(a)(2) (West 2002).

The Veteran served on active duty with the United States Army

from October 1, 1993 to December 13, 1993. He received an

uncharacterized discharge.

This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals

(Board) on appeal from June 1994 and September 2008 rating

decisions by the Buffalo, New York, Regional Office (RO) of

the United States Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). The

June 1994 decision denied service connection for a left elbow

and hand disability, and granted service connection for a

muscle strain of the left neck, rated 10 percent disabling.

The September 2008 decision found no CUE in the June 1994

rating decision.

The Veteran testified at a May 2008 pre-decisional hearing

and at a February 2009 hearing before a Decision Review

Officer (DRO) at the RO in connection with his CUE claims.

He declined a Board hearing. Transcripts of the local

hearings are associated with the claims file.

The issues of service connection for a left elbow disability

and evaluation of the neck disability are addressed in the

REMAND portion of the decision below and are REMANDED to the

RO via the Appeals Management Center (AMC) in Washington, DC.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. Service connection for a left elbow disability was denied

in a June 1994 decision; service connection for a neck

disability was granted in the same decision and rated 10

percent disabling.

2. The Veteran filed a timely Notice of Disagreement (NOD)

with the June 1994 decision in October 1994. A Statement of

the Case (SOC) was issued in December 1994.

3. In January 1995, within one year of the June 1994 denial,

the Veteran, through his representative, filed correspondence

referencing both issues and expressing an intent to pursue

his appeals; this correspondence must be accepted as a

substantive appeal sufficient to perfect the appeal to the

Board.

4. The October 2007 claim of CUE in the June 1994 decision

addresses issues currently pending on appeal.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1. The Veteran's appeal as to the issue of CUE in the denial

of service connection for a left elbow disability is

dismissed as no justiciable case or controversy is before the

Board at this time. 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 5109A, 7104, 7105 (West

2002); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.105, 19.4, 20.101, 20.200 (2008).

2. The Veteran's appeal as to the issue of CUE in the

assignment of an initial 10 percent rating for a left neck

muscle strain is dismissed as no justiciable case or

controversy is before the Board at this time. 38 U.S.C.A.

§§ 5109A, 7104, 7105 (West 2002); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.105, 19.4,

20.101, 20.200 (2008).

REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

As provided for by the Veterans Claims Assistance Act of 2000

(VCAA), the United States Department of Veterans Affairs (VA)

has a duty to notify and assist claimants in substantiating a

claim for VA benefits. 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 5100, 5102, 5103,

5103A, 5107, 5126; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.156(a), 3.159 and

3.326(a).

In this case, VCAA notice ands assistance is not required

because the issue presented involves a claim for review of a

prior final regional office decision on the basis of clear

and unmistakable error (CUE). The VCAA is not applicable to

CUE matters. See Livesay v. Principi, 15 Vet. App. 165, 179

(2001) (en banc); Parker v. Principi, 15 Vet. App. 407

(2002).

In June 1994, the RO issued a decision denying service

connection for a left elbow disability and granting service

connection for a neck disability, initially rated 10 percent

disabling. The Veteran filed an NOD with these decisions in

October 1994, and the RO issued an SOC in December 1994. In

January 1995, within the one year appeals period from the

denial of the claims, the Veteran, through his

representative, filed a statement which must be accepted as a

substantive appeal on those issues.

The Veteran requested a personal hearing, and referenced both

the service connection and evaluation issues. He also noted

that both were currently on appeal, and that an SOC had been

issued. His filing manifests an intent to continue his

appeals. Resolving all doubt in favor of the Veteran, this

filing is the equivalent of a VA Form 9, Appeal to Board of

Veterans' Appeals, and perfects the appeals on both issues.

38 C.F.R. § 20.202. The RO failed to certify the issues to

the Board, and the Board has never taken any action on either

issue. The appeals remain open.

Regulations indicate that only "determinations which are

final and binding" are subject to revision based on CUE.

38 C.F.R. § 3.105(a). In this case, no final and binding

determination exists as to service connection for the left

elbow or the evaluation assigned for the neck disability.

The perfected appeal prevented the June 1994 decision from

becoming final.

Therefore, there can be no valid claim of CUE in that

decision at this time; such an allegation is premature.

There is no case or controversy pending before the Board as

contemplated by 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 7104, 7105 and 38 C.F.R.

§ 19.4. In the absence of any justiciable question, the

claim regarding CUE must be dismissed.

ORDER

The question of whether a June 1994 rating decision granting

service connection for a muscle strain of the left neck,

rated 10 percent under Diagnostic Code 5233, contains CUE is

dismissed.

The question of whether a June 1994 rating decision denying

service connection for a left elbow disability contains CUE

is dismissed.

REMAND

As was discussed above, the Veteran has timely perfected

appeals with regard to the issues of service connection for a

left elbow disability and initial evaluation of a left neck

muscle strain.

During the pendency of these appeals, the VCAA was enacted.

VA has a duty to notify and assist claimants in

substantiating a claim for VA benefits. 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 5100,

5102, 5103, 5103A, 5107, 5126; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.156(a),

3.159 and 3.326(a). Adequate notice and assistance has not

been afforded the Veteran under the VCAA with regard to

either claim, and hence remand is required.

Accordingly, the case is REMANDED for the following action:

(Please note, this appeal has been advanced on the Board's

docket pursuant to 38 C.F.R. § 20.900© (2008). Expedited

handling is requested.)

1. Provide the Veteran with the notice

required under 38 U.S.C.A. § 5103(a) and

38 C.F.R. § 3.159(b), as well as Court

precedent, to include Dingess v.

Nicholson,

19 Vet. App. 473 (2006) (regarding notice

of assignment of effective dates and

disability evaluations).

2. The AMC/RO should specifically request

private medical records regarding

treatment of the left elbow and arm

disability from the time of injury to

service, or proper releases to allow VA to

obtain such on the Veteran's behalf. The

RO should review the claims file to ensure

that all the foregoing requested

development is completed, and arrange for

any additional development indicated, to

include provision of VA examinations.

3. The RO should then readjudicate the

claims on appeal. If any benefit sought

remains denied, the RO should issue an

appropriate SSOC and provide the Veteran

and his representative the requisite time

period to respond. The case should then be

returned to the Board for further appellate

review, if otherwise in order. No action

is required of the appellant unless he is

notified.

The appellant has the right to submit additional evidence and

argument on the matters 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 of

Veterans' Appeals or by the United States Court of Appeals

for Veterans Claims for additional development or other

appropriate action must be handled in an expeditious manner.

See 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 5109B, 7112 (West Supp. 2008).

______________________________________________

J. Parker

Acting Veterans Law Judge, Board of Veterans' Appeals

Department of Veterans Affairs