My Dro Statement Of The Case, For Lack Of A Better Term

[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.

1. 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 9^th, 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 13^th, 1993, and ongoingapplications for service-connection for Chronic Fatigue Syndrome arealso a matter of record.

1. 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 4^th, 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 9^th, 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 29^th, 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 20^th, 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 19^th, 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 9^th, 1993 to May 23rd, 1999, and 40 percent from May 23rd, 1999 to January 26^th, 2001.
   
   
   
   On May 23^rd 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

[Berta]

John- Nehmer only applies to AO claims but the scenario you stated sounds like possible basis for a CUE claim against the first denied and unappealed decision.

PTSD is an anxiety disorder.I have my husband's original award letter here somewhere dated 1983 or 1984 and it says service connected for "nervous disorder" but the VA medical diagnosis in his records was PTSD because the VA had recently determined PTSD was a real mental disability.

[Cruinthe]

Well, the DRO is over. In my eyes, it went well, but I admit to having the worms eye view.

I was asked by the VA drone at the front desk if I wanted a POA to represent me for the DRO. I had to fight to keep from laughing out loud, but I respectfully declined the offer.

Once I swore in and got rolling, the DRO officer simply sat there with a mildly stunned look on her face for the entire 10 minutes. She had nothing whatsoever to add after I finished my verbal testimony and submitted my paper evidence. Her closing statement was "That was very well organized, we appreciate that.".

Anyone know how long these things take to process?

Oh yeah, I can not confirm or deny this, but the DRO hearing itself may or may not have been recorded with a hidden camera. The camera may or may not have been in my breast pocket, and the camera may or may not record color video at 640x480 with full audio. Perhaps we could upload this video that may or may not exist, with attendant forms, to use as a training video or template for filing a DRO? Provided I get a positive decision, that is.