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

    questions-001@3x.png

    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:   

    tinnitus-005.pngptsd-005.pnglumbosacral-005.pngscars-005.pnglimitation-flexion-knee-005.pngdiabetes-005.pnglimitation-motion-ankle-005.pngparalysis-005.pngdegenerative-arthitis-spine-005.pngtbi-traumatic-brain-injury-005.png

  • 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

  • fundraising.jpegGive a financial gift to help with the upkeep of HadIt.com. HadIt.com is NOT a non profit. Gifts are not tax deductible, they are just gifts. 

  • Donation Box

    Please donate to support the community.
    We appreciate all donations!
  • Our picks

    • So, my lawyer sent an IME w/ IMO and filed a supplemental claim solely for IU on March 20.

      It was closed on March 25, and va.gov just states claim closed and nothing more.

      Hopefully, I get good news.
    • Thanks for the responses. I am filing a new claim but will continue pushing the NOD. My new question is it stated in law or statute that if during the claims process the VA finds conditions that could possibly rate service connection that was not originally filed for, the VA will “invite” the veteran to file the claim on the claims form. Reason I ask is that my private DBQs, NEXUS letter, and even the VA nurse examiner's DBQs lists bilateral upper radiculopathy as present. If it is written in statute or official guidance it might qualify as a CUE. Just looking at all angles. 
    • Everyone needs to read our stories so they can try to avoid these screws by the va...
      Thank you, everyone contributes, good or bad, all of our stories will help others, and yes, they have been stated by others for ages, over and over, but we just get depressed, and the time turns into years as they screw us..

      Welcome to the department of Veterans Affairs!  I can honestly say, "been there, done that".  

      Even after winning my tdiu in 2017, it was back to the drawing board as VA hornswaggeld my effective date.  (but of course).  

      I finally won my tdiu effective date in Feb. 2020, 18 years after I first applied!!!  

      Here is how they managed to drag mine out 18 years:

      1.  They never adjuticated my decison until 2009, where they called it "moot".  

      2.  I appealed, said it was not moot because it could result in an earlier effective date and SMC S under Bradley vs Peake.  The judge agreed with me, and ordered VARO consider me for extra schedular TDIU, under 4.16 b.  

      3.  The VARO piddles with  the remand for 3 years, and hoped I wouldnt notice.  I noticed and raised cane until they adjuticated it.  (denied of course).  

      4.  Finally, after the baord denied again, I hired a lawyer, in 2014, and appealed to CAVC.   

      5.  The lawyer won a remand, got an IMO and I won tdiu in 2017.  But at the wrong effective date, even after 15 years.  

      6.  I hired another lawyer, Chris Attig, and appealed the effective date, and he won a remand for effective date.  Trip 2 to CAVC.  

      7.  Mr. Attig won a remand, and advised me to get another IMO.  

      8.  The board awarded my earlier effective date in Feb. 2020.  

           So, I do have advice fighting VA for TDIU, they fought and fought and I hung in there and won it all.  

      ADVICE:  Dont count on VA, they could easily throw your fax in the trash.  Follow up!  
    • "Keep in mind that due to the nature of the digestive system, VA would most likely combined your conditions and pay you at the higher rate to avoid pyramiding".    That is one of my main gripes.  They are only listing the GERD with hiatal hernia and ignoring the rest of my gastric issues such as the gastritis which I also had in service.  I included it in my 2007 request for increase and again in 2019.  The info from the civilian dr that stated I had the gastritis with H pylori was not even provided to the examiner in 2007, nor did he have my VA health records. The 2019 request was based on an EGD I had AT THE VA in Jan 2019.   I filed for an increase 6 Mar and they did an ACE on 27 Mar and downgraded to noncompensable on that date.  The only reason I was thinking CUE:  38 CFR § 3.326 - Under Examinations  it states (c) Provided that it is otherwise adequate for rating purposes, a statement from a private physician may be accepted for rating a claim without further examination".  
    • Enough has been said on this topic. This forum is not the proper forum for an attorney and former client to hash out their problems. Please take this offline
  • Advertisemnt

  • 0
Sign in to follow this  
carlie

2010 - Bva Cue For Ptsd Back To 1982

Question

2/16/2010

BVA Decision grants an effective date back to Oct. 1982 for PTSD

38 CFR 3.156©

http://www4.va.gov/vetapp10/files1/1004548.txt

Citation Nr: 1004548

Decision Date: 01/29/10 Archive Date: 02/16/10

DOCKET NO. 08-10 060A ) DATE

)

)

THE ISSUE

Whether a June 23, 2004, decision of the Board of Veterans'

Appeals (Board) denying entitlement to an effective date

earlier than June 6, 2000, for the grant of service

connection for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) should

be revised or reversed based on clear and unmistakable error

(CUE).

REPRESENTATION

Moving party represented by: Joseph R. Moore, Attorney at

Law

ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD

M. Riley, Associate Counsel

INTRODUCTION

The moving party (hereinafter referred to as "the Veteran")

served on active duty from June 1971 to August 1973. This

matter is before the Board in response to an April 2008

motion alleging CUE in a June 23, 2004, Board decision,

which, in pertinent part, determined that an effective date

earlier than June 6, 2000, was not warranted for the grant

of service connection for PTSD.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. The June 2004 Board decision denied an effective date

prior to June 6, 2000, for the grant of service connection

for PTSD.

2. The statutory or regulatory provisions then extant in

June 2004 were not correctly applied by the Board, and the

failure to apply those laws and regulations effected a

result that would have been manifestly different but for the

error.

CONCLUSION OF LAW

The June 23, 2004 Board decision's failure to consider the

provisions of 38 C.F.R. § 3.156© (2003) was clear and

unmistakable error; but for the error, an earlier effective

date of October 18, 1982, was warranted for the grant of

service connection for PTSD. 38 U.S.C.A. § 7111 (West

2002); 38 C.F.R. § 3.156©, 3.400(q)(2) (2003); 38 C.F.R.

§ 20.1403 (2009).

REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION

The Veterans Claims Assistance Act of 2000 (VCAA) describes

VA's duty to notify and assist claimants in substantiating a

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

5103A, 5107, 5126 (West 2002 & Supp. 2009); 38 C.F.R. §§

3.102, 3.156(a), 3.159, 3.326(a) (2009). The Court has held

that the VCAA is not applicable to motions for revision of a

Board decision on the grounds of CUE. Livesay v. Principi,

15 Vet. App. 165 (2001).

Any party to a Board decision can make a motion to have the

decision revised or reversed on the grounds of CUE. 38

U.S.C.A. § 7111 (West 2002); 38 C.F.R. §§ 20.1400(a),

20.1401(b) (2009).

Motions for review of prior Board decisions on the grounds

of CUE are adjudicated pursuant to the Rules of Practice of

the Board, found at 38 C.F.R. Part 20. Rule 1403, found at

38 C.F.R. § 20.1403, relates to what constitutes CUE and

what does not, and provides that: clear and unmistakable

error is a very specific and rare kind of error. It is the

kind of error, of fact or law, that when called to the

attention of later reviewers compels the conclusion, to

which reasonable minds could not differ, that the result

would have been manifestly different but for the error.

Generally, either the correct facts, as they were known at

the time, were not before the Board, or the statutory and

regulatory provisions extant at the time were incorrectly

applied. 38 C.F.R. § 20.1403(a).

A finding of CUE in a prior Board decision must be based on

the record and the law that existed when that decision was

made. 38 C.F.R. § 20.1403(b).

To warrant revision of a Board decision on the grounds of

CUE, there must have been an error in the Board's

adjudication of the appeal which, had it not been made,

would have manifestly changed the outcome when it was made.

If it is not absolutely clear that a different result would

have ensued, the error complained of cannot be clear and

unmistakable. 38 C.F.R. § 20.1403©.

Rule 1403 offers the following examples of situations that

are not clear and unmistakable error. (1) Changed

diagnosis. A new medical diagnosis that "corrects" an

earlier diagnosis considered in a Board decision. (2) Duty

to assist. The Secretary's failure to fulfill the duty to

assist. (3) Evaluation of evidence. A disagreement as to

how the facts were weighed or evaluated. 38 C.F.R. §

20.1403(d).

If the evidence establishes CUE, an undebateable, outcome-

determinative error, the prior decision must be reversed or

revised, and the decision constituting reversal or revision

has the same effect as if the decision had been made on the

date of the prior decision. 38 U.S.C.A. § 7111.

In a decision dated June 23, 2004, the Board determined that

an effective date earlier than June 6, 2000, was not

warranted for the grant of service connection for PTSD. The

Board noted that the Veteran was initially denied service

connection for PTSD in an October 1988 Board decision.

Thereafter, he attempted to reopen his claim in 1992 and

1998, but was denied in rating decisions issued by the

Regional Office (RO) in Baltimore, Maryland, in September

1992 and January 1999. As the Veteran did not appeal either

denial of his claim, the Board found that the 1992 and 1999

rating decisions became final. 38 U.S.C.A. § 7105 (West

2002); 38 C.F.R. §§ 20.302, 20.1103 (2003).

The Veteran filed another claim to reopen on June 6, 2000

and was granted entitlement to service connection for PTSD

in a January 2002 rating decision, with an effective date of

June 6, 2000. The Board concluded that the since the

September 1992 and January 1999 rating decisions were final,

an effective date earlier than June 6, 2000, was not

appropriate based on the 1992 and 1998 claims to reopen.

In addition, the record did not establish that a claim to

reopen had been received in the period between the January

1999 rating decision denying the claim to reopen and the

June 6, 2000, application to reopen.

In April 2008 the Veteran filed a motion for revision of the

Board's June 23, 2004, decision that complied with the

requirements for a valid motion of CUE 38 C.F.R.

§ 20.1403(a) (2009). The Veteran argued that the Board

committed CUE when it did not consider whether an earlier

effective date was warranted under the provisions of 38

C.F.R. § 3.156© (2003), which authorized an effective date

as early as the date of the original claim if a disability

award was based on new and material evidence consisting of

supplemental service reports or misplaced official service

department records. The Veteran argued that the RO's

January 2002 rating decision reopened and granted his claim

for service connection for PTSD based on additional records

submitted by the Veteran that included original service

department records. Therefore, the failure of the Board to

consider an earlier effective date under 38 C.F.R.

§ 3.156© in June 2004 was CUE.

As noted above, a finding of CUE in a prior Board decision

must be based on the record and the law that existed when

that decision was made. 38 C.F.R. § 20.1403(b). With

respect to 38 C.F.R. § 3.156©, the Board acknowledges that

effective September 6, 2006, the definition of new and

material evidence as it pertains to service department

records was amended and expanded.

The version of 38 C.F.R. § 3.156© in effect at the time of

the Board's June 2004 decision, together with 38 C.F.R.

§ 3.400(q)(2), established that the effective date of an

award could relate back to the date of the original claim or

date entitlement arose when new and material evidence

included supplemental reports from the service department or

official service department records that had been misplaced.

38 C.F.R. §§ 3.156©, 3.400(q)(2) (2003).

The June 2005 proposal to amend 38 C.F.R. § 3.156© stated

that § 3.156© suggested that reconsideration of a claim

may occur only if the service department records "presumably

have been misplaced and have now been located." New and

Material Evidence, 70 Fed.Reg. 35,388 (proposed June, 20,

2005) (codified at 38 C.F.R. pt. 3). The proposal to amend

also noted that in practice, VA did not limit its

reconsideration to "misplaced" service department records.

VA intended the reference to misplaced records as an example

of the type of service department records that may have been

unavailable and the proposed revision to § 3.156© would

remove this ambiguity and reflect current practices. Id.

In Vigil v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 63 (2008), the Court

determined that it was appropriate to interpret the pre-

amended version of 38 C.F.R. § 3.156© in accordance with

the clarifying statements contained in the Secretary's

proposed rule. Vigil, 22 Vet. App. at 65 (2008).

Therefore, although 38 C.F.R. § 3.156© (2003) was amended

subsequent to the Board's June 2004 decision, the Court and

the June 2005 proposal make clear that the interpretation of

the regulation was not altered. See 38 C.F.R. § 20.1403(e)

(2009). Hence, in determining whether the June 2004 Board

decision contains CUE, the Board will not limit its

consideration to whether the grant of service connection was

based on receipt of only supplemental service records or

misplaced official service records, but will instead

consider whether any official service records were the basis

for the award of service connection.

The January 2002 rating decision granting service connection

for PTSD noted that the Veteran's claim had been previously

denied because the evidence did not establish his diagnoses

of PTSD were supported by verified stressors. The decision

to reopen and grant the claim was based on additional

evidence submitted by the Veteran including medical records,

buddy statements, and copies of unit histories for the 377th

Air Force Base Wing dated from July to December 1972. These

unit histories established that the Bien Hoa Air Base in the

Republic of Vietnam was subjected to significant rocket and

mortar attacks during the time of the Veteran's Vietnam

service with the 377th Air Force.

The unit histories submitted by the Veteran constitute

official service department records. In Vigil, the Court

held that unit records provided to the RO by the U.S. Armed

Services Center for Research of Unit Records (USASCRUR)

constituted official service department records. Although

the records in this case were submitted by the Veteran

himself, they are the type of records that are typically

provided by the U.S. Army and Joint Services Records

Research Center (JSRRC) (formerly USASCRUR). In fact, in

June 1985, the RO asked that the U.S. Army and Joint

Services Environmental Support Group (ESG), to furnish

copies of applicable unit histories as part of a PTSD

research request. Instead of providing copies of the unit

histories as requested, the ESG summed up the results of

their research in a July 1985 letter. The ESG characterized

the rocket and mortar attacks against Bien Hoa Air Base

during the time of the Veteran's service as occurring on

average once every six weeks and involving a relatively

small number of shells.

Upon review of the unit histories submitted by the Veteran,

the RO found in their January 2002 rating decision that the

magnitude and measure of the rocket and mortar attacks

closely approximated those reported by the Veteran. The RO

then determined that satisfactory evidence of the Veteran's

claimed stressors had been submitted and reopened and

granted the claim. Hence, the award of service connection

for PTSD in the January 2002 rating decision was predicated

on the official service department records, i.e. unit

histories, submitted by the Veteran.

As the award of service connection for PTSD in the January

2002 rating decision was based on official service

department records, the provisions of 38 C.F.R. § 3.156©

(2003) were for application and should have been considered

by the Board in its June 2004 decision denying an earlier

effective date for the grant of service connection.

Therefore, the regulatory provisions extant at the time of

the June 2004 Board decision were incorrectly applied. 38

C.F.R. § 20.1403(a).

In addition, the Board's failure to consider 38 C.F.R.

§ 3.156© was outcome determinative as the decision would

have been manifestly different if the law was correctly

applied. As noted above, 38 C.F.R. § 3.156©(2003),

together with 3.400(q)(2), provided that the effective date

of an award of service connection based on new and material

evidence consisting of service department records, was the

later of the date entitlement arose or the date of receipt

of the earlier claim.

The Veteran's initial claim for service connection for PTSD

was received on October 18, 1982. The medical evidence of

record establishes that the earliest evidence of PTSD dates

from October 15, 1982, when the Veteran complained of

symptoms associated with classic PTSD based on his combat

experiences in Vietnam during a psychiatric examination at

the Martinsburg VA Medical Center (VAMC). The correct

effective date for the grant of service connection for PTSD

is therefore October 18, 1982, the date his initial claim

was received and several days after entitlement to PTSD

arose.

With application of 38 C.F.R. § 3.156©, an earlier

effective date of October 18, 1982, is warranted for the

grant of service connection for PTSD. CUE has been found in

the June 23, 2004, Board decision insofar that it denied

entitlement to an effective date earlier than June 6, 2000,

for the grant of service connection for PTSD.

ORDER

There was CUE in the June 23, 2004, Board decision; that

decision is amended to the extent that an earlier effective

date of October 18, 1982, is granted for the award of

service connection for PTSD.

____________________________________________

Mary Gallagher

Veterans Law Judge, Board of Veterans' Appeals

Department of Veterans Affairs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

5 answers to this question

Recommended Posts

And.........without the veteran, himself, having supplied the "probative" necessary records, he still woulda been up the creek without the flat thing.

ALWAYS, ALWAYS, Claim your claim, stake it out, treat it like your baby!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, and I wonder just exactly how MUCH the check came to........................................ :D !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yippee Yahoo-

I wonder if they will declare this vet incompetent now so they can stave off the retro payment as long as they can.

This is a Fabulous find Carlie!!!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like this find as well. Good job, Carlie.

I can see them lowballing the guy though, to minimize the retro.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At least it is a reversal and not another remand.

Good Fund Carlie

J

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.

Guest
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  

  • Similar Content

    • By RF-4Cmike
      My appeal for PTSD was "Remanded".
    • By Johnny Adams
      Good Morning,
      I have a few questions about SMC.  I currently receive SMC S, for I have 70% PTSD and have 50% for Sleep Apnia, 40% for Fybromyalgia, 30% Migranes, 20% for Cervical Spine, and 10% for TBI and a host of about 9 other things all listed at the 10% Disability rating.  Would they just look at new A/A that I just submitted or would they pyramid me to the SMC t?  this is so confusing.  Thanks for any help.
    • By JaeT.21
      I have 4 C&P exams this Friday. All for increases. (Migraine, PTSD/depression/anxiety/chronic pain/agoraphobia, bilateral foot pain and knee pain increase [including VA issued knee brace and civilian issued AFO foot brace]).
      Should I have my wife ad adult kids who both witness and suffer from my mood swings, depression, anxiety and antisocial like living on a daily basis? They can also talk about my constant leg pain and migraines.
      I also want my supervisor to do one regarding my migraines that have me leaving work early, alot. But that is a touchy subject, because I don't want me asking him to affect my employment.  Also I hide a lot from them, to keep my job, like  just suffer with headaches and migraines at work. Or fake my way through the day, pretending to want to be around people. 
       
    • By asknod
      Fifty years in the making. Five filings since 1971. Welcome home, Bob.  A truly fitting Christmas present.
      Remember the magic words: " leave no one behind".
      https://asknod.org/2019/12/29/vba-portland-you-know-it-dont-come-easy/
    • By rightstrivinsissy
      Hello Hadit Helpers, 
      I feel like I am stumbling around blind. I hope someone can help me see.
      I was service connected in 2011 severe anxiety due to mst and a bladder condition.
      I have not had gainful employment since ETSing in 2004. I was re-evaluated for an increase and received an overall 70 - 40 -10 but started being payed at 80% in 2016. 
      In June of 2019 I applied for TDIU. I hit the make a decision now button on ebenefits, which was like shooting my own foot for lack of patience, not realizing that this meant the VA could not request any further info from me.
      In August I was denied, and obtained an attorney. 
      The attorney took over and ebenefits is showing the privacy act starting on October 4th and my claim is now in the evidence gathering/decision making process. Estimated end date of April 2020, the attorney says 3 years, but I know there are new systems in place to make things move a little quicker.
      I am looking for any information that you all would have about what is actually happening. I don't know if this is a NOD or what. My case manager acts like I am a major pain and won't give me any info and I fear she has no idea what she is actually doing. =(
      I assume it is not an actual appeal yet, because my case manager said they would have to wait for my c-file before they would appeal on the next denial from the VA.  
      I am so confused, If any of you experts could find the time to help me I would greatly appreciate it. I have always dealt with the VA on my own with no previous denials, but never fully understood what I was doing. I thought hiring an attorney would change this, but I still feel just as blind as before.
  • Ads

  • Our picks

    • So, my lawyer sent an IME w/ IMO and filed a supplemental claim solely for IU on March 20.

      It was closed on March 25, and va.gov just states claim closed and nothing more.

      Hopefully, I get good news.
    • Thanks for the responses. I am filing a new claim but will continue pushing the NOD. My new question is it stated in law or statute that if during the claims process the VA finds conditions that could possibly rate service connection that was not originally filed for, the VA will “invite” the veteran to file the claim on the claims form. Reason I ask is that my private DBQs, NEXUS letter, and even the VA nurse examiner's DBQs lists bilateral upper radiculopathy as present. If it is written in statute or official guidance it might qualify as a CUE. Just looking at all angles. 
    • Everyone needs to read our stories so they can try to avoid these screws by the va...
      Thank you, everyone contributes, good or bad, all of our stories will help others, and yes, they have been stated by others for ages, over and over, but we just get depressed, and the time turns into years as they screw us..

      Welcome to the department of Veterans Affairs!  I can honestly say, "been there, done that".  

      Even after winning my tdiu in 2017, it was back to the drawing board as VA hornswaggeld my effective date.  (but of course).  

      I finally won my tdiu effective date in Feb. 2020, 18 years after I first applied!!!  

      Here is how they managed to drag mine out 18 years:

      1.  They never adjuticated my decison until 2009, where they called it "moot".  

      2.  I appealed, said it was not moot because it could result in an earlier effective date and SMC S under Bradley vs Peake.  The judge agreed with me, and ordered VARO consider me for extra schedular TDIU, under 4.16 b.  

      3.  The VARO piddles with  the remand for 3 years, and hoped I wouldnt notice.  I noticed and raised cane until they adjuticated it.  (denied of course).  

      4.  Finally, after the baord denied again, I hired a lawyer, in 2014, and appealed to CAVC.   

      5.  The lawyer won a remand, got an IMO and I won tdiu in 2017.  But at the wrong effective date, even after 15 years.  

      6.  I hired another lawyer, Chris Attig, and appealed the effective date, and he won a remand for effective date.  Trip 2 to CAVC.  

      7.  Mr. Attig won a remand, and advised me to get another IMO.  

      8.  The board awarded my earlier effective date in Feb. 2020.  

           So, I do have advice fighting VA for TDIU, they fought and fought and I hung in there and won it all.  

      ADVICE:  Dont count on VA, they could easily throw your fax in the trash.  Follow up!  
    • "Keep in mind that due to the nature of the digestive system, VA would most likely combined your conditions and pay you at the higher rate to avoid pyramiding".    That is one of my main gripes.  They are only listing the GERD with hiatal hernia and ignoring the rest of my gastric issues such as the gastritis which I also had in service.  I included it in my 2007 request for increase and again in 2019.  The info from the civilian dr that stated I had the gastritis with H pylori was not even provided to the examiner in 2007, nor did he have my VA health records. The 2019 request was based on an EGD I had AT THE VA in Jan 2019.   I filed for an increase 6 Mar and they did an ACE on 27 Mar and downgraded to noncompensable on that date.  The only reason I was thinking CUE:  38 CFR § 3.326 - Under Examinations  it states (c) Provided that it is otherwise adequate for rating purposes, a statement from a private physician may be accepted for rating a claim without further examination".  
    • Enough has been said on this topic. This forum is not the proper forum for an attorney and former client to hash out their problems. Please take this offline
  • Ads

  • Popular Contributors

  • Ad

  • Latest News
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

{terms] and Guidelines