ptsd Claims, C-files, And Runarounds

[Vync]

Here is a quick and dirty breakdown of what is going on at the RO:

Requested copy of C-file 3 months ago

Active claims at the RO as of 2 months ago

VA refuses to send C-file copy until claims are finished

VA sends letter requesting PTSD info and requires it be returned within 30 days

Full development of claim and PTSD paper response requires contents of C-file

VA offers to put C-file at end of line in Freedom of Information office. They copy C-file and mail it out. C-file goes back to end of line in claims department.

30 day PTSD letter window cannot be met

One year additional evidence/IMO window will be tough to meet

Nice...

[Philip Rogers]

Yup, and what's your point????????????????

pr

[deltaj]

Here is a quick and dirty breakdown of what is going on at the RO:

Requested copy of C-file 3 months ago

Active claims at the RO as of 2 months ago

VA refuses to send C-file copy until claims are finished

VA sends letter requesting PTSD info and requires it be returned within 30 days

Full development of claim and PTSD paper response requires contents of C-file

VA offers to put C-file at end of line in Freedom of Information office. They copy C-file and mail it out. C-file goes back to end of line in claims department.

30 day PTSD letter window cannot be met

One year additional evidence/IMO window will be tough to meet

Nice...

This is the kind of unfair tactics that V.A. engages in. While my husband was trying to get 100% he was denied an increased rating beyond 70% in 1992. After he complained to several U.S. Congressmen and the President about the denial in writing, I called V.A. and was told by telephone that every time my husband complained to Congress his file was pulled from the claims process and put at the end of the line. Eventually my husband submitted additional medical records from Social Security in support of his claim and got another V.A. exam but I think it was already scheduled. I still believe he would never have gotten to 100% unless he was vocal about his claim. V.A. stripped that letter to Congress from his records and tried to claim another letter to V.A. about apportionment in 1992 was his Notice of Disagreement with the 1992 decision but they had sent my husband a letter about that apportionment before that. In other words V.A. baited him into writing them about the 1992 decision by sending him a letter they knew he would respond to in writing. The thing that sucks the most is V.A. had already given my husband's estranged first wife an apportionment in February 1989 when they granted a second apportionment to her in February 1990. He had divorced her in June 1989 and married me in July 1989. V.A. failed to discontinue the apportionment effective July 1, 1989 under the provisions of 38 CFR 3.501 (d). (See V.A. Office of General Counsel Precedent Opinion 74-90 entitled Discontinuance of Apportionment due to Divorce.) BVA later determined that my husband had abandoned his earlier claims but he wasn't notified of the 1971 decision because VARO mailed the 1971 letter to an address that included the zip code for San Luis Obispo when he lived in Santa Rosa, California. Furthermore, V.A. had received additional service medical records 2 days after his first V.A. rating examination in 1966. I personally believe that V.A. rating officials are a bunch of crooks.

[hawkfire27]

hmmmmmmmmmmm I alsways wonder about the line " everytime a congressman looks at your file it is pulled and goes to the end of the line"

My chapter 35 claim was at the end of the line, the congressman's aid I talked to said that by her looking into my case, the filed WAS pulled from the claims queue, and given to a congressional liason within th eVA who sent it to a "quick action" team??? and I had a decision two weeks later, so I think it is just what they say to prevent you from getting a congressman to keep tabs on our claims????

Anyway, it turns out all they did was deny me a little quicker, but at least I can appeal it properly now instead of having to wait for someone higher up to view my case and see the CUE's they made.

This is the kind of unfair tactics that V.A. engages in. While my husband was trying to get 100% he was denied an increased rating beyond 70% in 1992. After he complained to several U.S. Congressmen and the President about the denial in writing, I called V.A. and was told by telephone that every time my husband complained to Congress his file was pulled from the claims process and put at the end of the line. Eventually my husband submitted additional medical records from Social Security in support of his claim and got another V.A. exam but I think it was already scheduled. I still believe he would never have gotten to 100% unless he was vocal about his claim. V.A. stripped that letter to Congress from his records and tried to claim another letter to V.A. about apportionment in 1992 was his Notice of Disagreement with the 1992 decision but they had sent my husband a letter about that apportionment before that. In other words V.A. baited him into writing them about the 1992 decision by sending him a letter they knew he would respond to in writing. The thing that sucks the most is V.A. had already given my husband's estranged first wife an apportionment in February 1989 when they granted a second apportionment to her in February 1990. He had divorced her in June 1989 and married me in July 1989. V.A. failed to discontinue the apportionment effective July 1, 1989 under the provisions of 38 CFR 3.501 (d). (See V.A. Office of General Counsel Precedent Opinion 74-90 entitled Discontinuance of Apportionment due to Divorce.) BVA later determined that my husband had abandoned his earlier claims but he wasn't notified of the 1971 decision because VARO mailed the 1971 letter to an address that included the zip code for San Luis Obispo when he lived in Santa Rosa, California. Furthermore, V.A. had received additional service medical records 2 days after his first V.A. rating examination in 1966. I personally believe that V.A. rating officials are a bunch of crooks.

[hawkfire27]

hmmmmmmmmmmm&nbsp; I alsways wonder about the line " everytime a congressman looks at your file it is pulled and goes to the end of the line"<br><br>My chapter 35 claim was at the end of the line, the congressman's aid I talked to said that by her looking into my case, the filed WAS pulled from the claims queue, and given to a congressional liason within th eVA who sent it to a "quick action" team???&nbsp; and I had a decision two weeks later, so I think it is just what they say to prevent you from getting a congressman to keep tabs on our claims????<br><br>Anyway, it turns out all they did was deny me a little quicker, but at least I can appeal it properly now instead of having to wait for someone higher up to view my case and see the CUE's they made.<br><br><br>

<br>This is the kind of unfair tactics that V.A. engages in. While my husband was trying to get 100% he was denied an increased rating beyond 70% in 1992. After he complained to several U.S. Congressmen and the President about the denial in writing, I called V.A. and was told by telephone that every time my husband complained to Congress his file was pulled from the claims process and put at the end of the line. Eventually my husband submitted additional medical records from Social Security in support of his claim and got another V.A. exam but I think it was already scheduled. I still believe he would never have gotten to 100% unless he was vocal about his claim. V.A. stripped that letter to Congress from his records and tried to claim another letter to V.A. about apportionment in 1992 was his Notice of Disagreement with the 1992 decision but they had sent my husband a letter about that apportionment before that. In other words V.A. baited him into writing them about the 1992 decision by sending him a letter they knew he would respond to in writing. The thing that sucks the most is V.A. had already given my husband's estranged first wife an apportionment in February 1989 when they granted a second apportionment to her in February 1990. He had divorced her in June 1989 and married me in July 1989. V.A. failed to discontinue the apportionment effective July 1, 1989 under the provisions of 38 CFR 3.501 (d). (See V.A. Office of General Counsel Precedent Opinion 74-90 entitled Discontinuance of Apportionment due to Divorce.) BVA later determined that my husband had abandoned his earlier claims but he wasn't notified of the 1971 decision because VARO mailed the 1971 letter to an address that included the zip code for San Luis Obispo when he lived in Santa Rosa, California. Furthermore, V.A. had received additional service medical records 2 days after his first V.A. rating examination in 1966. I personally believe that V.A. rating officials are a bunch of crooks.<br>

<br><br><br>

<br><br><br><br><br><br>

[Vync]

Deltaj,

It looks like the VA gave me the runaround and gave your husband the super runaround. I think the deal about the ex-wife apportionment was handled wrong. When your husband divorced his ex, they should have stopped payment of the excess allocation. When he married you, they should have started it back up. Of course, you have to tell the VA about significant life changes like that...

Hawkfire,

I agree about the "all they did was deny me a little quicker" part. I had a couple of denials occur so fast that it made my head spin.

It has been a couple of months since my original post, so here's a current status:

Requested copy of C-file 6 months ago

Active claims at the RO as of 4 1/2 months ago

* As of yesterday, my claim was still in the ratings department

VA refuses to send C-file copy until claims are finished

* This is understandable, as they are still working on my claim and I don't want an additional delay

[Pete53]

There is no line there are file cabinets