This is a clarification of the issuesto be introduced during the Decision Review Officer hearing to beconducted at the Roanoke Virginia Veterans Affairs Regional Office onAugust 10th, 2010 at 1:00PM.
A Decision Review Officer hearing has been requested regarding my request for an Earlier Effective Date for Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, currently evaluated as 60-percent disabling.
A copy of the original VA Form 21-4138 Statement In Support Of Claim, received by the Philadelphia Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office and dated March 9th, 1993 are a matter of record. The symptoms described are consistent with those of Chronic Fatigue Syndrome.
The subsequent denial of service-connection issued by thePhiladelphia VARO dated August 13th, 1993, and ongoingapplications for service-connection for Chronic Fatigue Syndrome arealso a matter of record.
A VA Form 21-4138 was submitted in response to a Training Letter issued by Eric Shinseki, Secretary of the Department of Veterans Affairs dated February 4th, 2010. This Training Letter stated, in part, the following;
“VA Secretary Eric Shinseki said the decision is part of a "fresh, bold look" his department is taking to help veterans who have what's commonly called "Gulf War illness" and have long felt the government did little to help them. The VA says it also plans to improve training for medical staff who work with Gulf War vets, to make sure they do not simply tell vets that their symptoms are imaginary - as has happened to many over the years.”
The above training letter, and statements made by Secretary Eric Shinseki on the matter, confirm beyond any doubt that a problem exists regarding Gulf War related issues. The Department of Veterans Affairs is taking steps to rectify these problems, to include a review of previously denied claims for compensation.
Therefore it is requested that my claim for service-connection for Chronic Fatigue Syndrome be reopened in accordance with Training Letter 10-01 titled Adjudicating Claims Based on Service in the Gulf War and Southwest Asia. Special note should be given to the fact that this is a request to reopen an existing claim, and not to be considered a new claim.
There are two primary issues that must be given consideration during this request to reopen an existing claim.
First, it should be noted that the original request for service-connection for Chronic Fatigue Syndrome is dated March 9th, 1993. The subsequent Rating Decision and denial from the Philadelphia VARO was dated August 13, 1993.
However, the condition of Chronic Fatigue Syndrome was not added to the Schedule of Ratings until November 29th, 1994 as §4.88a under Infectious Diseases, Immune Disorders and Nutritional Deficiencies.
Second, a Rating Decision denying an Earlier Effective Date for Chronic Fatigue Syndrome was issued by the Roanoke VARO on May 20th, 2010. The Reasons For Decisions included the following statement; “You were not shown to have a diagnosed disability while you were on active duty, symptoms of fatigue were denied prior to your release from active duty, and there was no medical evidence showing the clinical diagnosis of a disability at the time that you first filed your claim for chronic fatigue.”
However, in a previous Rating Decision issued by the Philadelphia VARO dated March 19th, 2004 on the matter of service-connection for Chronic Fatigue Syndrome the following statement is found; “Service connection may be granted for specific diseases which are presumed to have been caused by service if manifested to a compensable degree following military discharge. Although not shown in service, service connection for chronic fatigue syndrome has been granted on the basis of presumption.”
Initial Chronic Fatigue Syndrome symptoms were consistent with a 20 percent rating from March 9th, 1993 to May 23rd, 1999, and 40 percent from May 23rd, 1999 to January 26th, 2001.
On May 23rd of 1999 a military medical evaluation found the veteran unfit for duty due to “failure to meet medical requirements”, thus forcing an end to any further military service. Evidence of this fact is the Form 268 and is a matter of record.
The forced termination of military service due to a failure to meet medical requirements should be considered the equivalent of an absolute minimum rating of 30 percent, as defined in Army Regulation 635-40 Personnel Separations, Physical Evaluation for Retention, Retirement, or Separation, Section 7-11. See extract below.
(1) Permanent retirement. If the Soldier meets the criteria below, the Soldier will be removed from the TDRL, permanently retired for physical disability, and entitled to receive disability retired pay:
(a) The Soldier is unfit.
(b) The disability causing the Soldier’s name to be placed on the TDRL has become permanent.
In closing, and in addition to all of the above issues, consideration must be given to Benefit of the Doubt as defined in 38 U.S.C. § 5107, and Reasonable Doubt as defined in 38 C.F.R. § 3.102. All statements are true to the best of my knowledge.
Question
Cruinthe
Glenn XXXXXX
7557 XXXXXXXX
Roanoke, Virginia
2XXXX
XXXXXXX
(540)204-XXXX
This is a clarification of the issuesto be introduced during the Decision Review Officer hearing to beconducted at the Roanoke Virginia Veterans Affairs Regional Office onAugust 10th, 2010 at 1:00PM.
A copy of the original VA Form 21-4138 Statement In Support Of Claim, received by the Philadelphia Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office and dated March 9th, 1993 are a matter of record. The symptoms described are consistent with those of Chronic Fatigue Syndrome.
The subsequent denial of service-connection issued by thePhiladelphia VARO dated August 13th, 1993, and ongoingapplications for service-connection for Chronic Fatigue Syndrome arealso a matter of record.
“VA Secretary Eric Shinseki said the decision is part of a "fresh, bold look" his department is taking to help veterans who have what's commonly called "Gulf War illness" and have long felt the government did little to help them. The VA says it also plans to improve training for medical staff who work with Gulf War vets, to make sure they do not simply tell vets that their symptoms are imaginary - as has happened to many over the years.”
The above training letter, and statements made by Secretary Eric Shinseki on the matter, confirm beyond any doubt that a problem exists regarding Gulf War related issues. The Department of Veterans Affairs is taking steps to rectify these problems, to include a review of previously denied claims for compensation.
Therefore it is requested that my claim for service-connection for Chronic Fatigue Syndrome be reopened in accordance with Training Letter 10-01 titled Adjudicating Claims Based on Service in the Gulf War and Southwest Asia. Special note should be given to the fact that this is a request to reopen an existing claim, and not to be considered a new claim.
There are two primary issues that must be given consideration during this request to reopen an existing claim.
First, it should be noted that the original request for service-connection for Chronic Fatigue Syndrome is dated March 9th, 1993. The subsequent Rating Decision and denial from the Philadelphia VARO was dated August 13, 1993.
However, the condition of Chronic Fatigue Syndrome was not added to the Schedule of Ratings until November 29th, 1994 as §4.88a under Infectious Diseases, Immune Disorders and Nutritional Deficiencies.
Second, a Rating Decision denying an Earlier Effective Date for Chronic Fatigue Syndrome was issued by the Roanoke VARO on May 20th, 2010. The Reasons For Decisions included the following statement; “You were not shown to have a diagnosed disability while you were on active duty, symptoms of fatigue were denied prior to your release from active duty, and there was no medical evidence showing the clinical diagnosis of a disability at the time that you first filed your claim for chronic fatigue.”
However, in a previous Rating Decision issued by the Philadelphia VARO dated March 19th, 2004 on the matter of service-connection for Chronic Fatigue Syndrome the following statement is found; “Service connection may be granted for specific diseases which are presumed to have been caused by service if manifested to a compensable degree following military discharge. Although not shown in service, service connection for chronic fatigue syndrome has been granted on the basis of presumption.”
Initial Chronic Fatigue Syndrome symptoms were consistent with a 20 percent rating from March 9th, 1993 to May 23rd, 1999, and 40 percent from May 23rd, 1999 to January 26th, 2001.
On May 23rd of 1999 a military medical evaluation found the veteran unfit for duty due to “failure to meet medical requirements”, thus forcing an end to any further military service. Evidence of this fact is the Form 268 and is a matter of record.
The forced termination of military service due to a failure to meet medical requirements should be considered the equivalent of an absolute minimum rating of 30 percent, as defined in Army Regulation 635-40 Personnel Separations, Physical Evaluation for Retention, Retirement, or Separation, Section 7-11. See extract below.
(1) Permanent retirement. If the Soldier meets the criteria below, the Soldier will be removed from the TDRL, permanently retired for physical disability, and entitled to receive disability retired pay:
(a) The Soldier is unfit.
(b) The disability causing the Soldier’s name to be placed on the TDRL has become permanent.
© The disability is rated at 30 percent or more under the VASRD, or the Soldier has at least 20 years of active Federal service.
In closing, and in addition to all of the above issues, consideration must be given to Benefit of the Doubt as defined in 38 U.S.C. § 5107, and Reasonable Doubt as defined in 38 C.F.R. § 3.102. All statements are true to the best of my knowledge.
Please render a decision as soon as possible.
Glenn XXXXXX
7557 XXXXXXXX
Roanoke, Virginia
XXXXXX
XXXXXX
(540)204-XXXX
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Top Posters For This Question
4
2
2
1
Popular Days
Aug 10
6
Aug 9
3
Top Posters For This Question
Cruinthe 4 posts
Berta 2 posts
LarryJ 2 posts
john999 1 post
Popular Days
Aug 10 2010
6 posts
Aug 9 2010
3 posts
8 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