3 Years To Certify To Bva

[broncovet]

Got my notice from RO that my claim was certified to the BVA. It took 3 years, since 2008, when I filed NOD.

Has anyone else had it take 3 years from NOD to certify it, and is this gonna be another four years at the BVA?

I have already been to the BVA ONCE, and decision was fully favorable. Now, I am appealing the implementation of the old BVA decision, especially as it relates to effective date.

How many years did it take you, since your BVA claim was "certified"?

The last time it went to the BVA, I dont even remember it being certified first.

[Berta]

Good info myroundo- The Chairman's 2010 report will be coming out about 2nd week in March if not sooner.

The Annual BVA reports contain a lot of important info.

[broncovet]

Thanks for the answers, especially myround.

Berta...

I was thinking a waiver of RO consideration would always be a good thing for a Vet, but it sounds like you dont agree. I have 90 days to submit more evidence to the BVA, and one of the things Im considering is a waiver. Im trying to think of an instance when it would not be good for the Vet, but cant think of any.

It would seem if the BVA remands due to VCAA notices, for me at least, that would be a pain in the neck and a huge delay that I dont need. However, if the BVA remanded for VCAA notices that were considered probative and maybe allowed me to submit evidence not previously submittted, that would be a different thing altogether.

[carlie]

The paperwork that comes from BVA does state a claimant has 90 days to submit additional

information/evidence, but I believe the claimant can continue submitting information/evidence

right up until a decision is made.

I would not suggest pushing it too much though and going ahead and submitting it all at once

so not to keep drawing it out and maybe missing out on getting to submit what ever it is.

On this part of the post,

"However, if the BVA remanded for VCAA notices that were considered probative and maybe allowed me to submit evidence

not previously submittted, that would be a different thing altogether."

I would think at this point everything submitted needed to be probative because if it isn't both probative and credible information/evidence,

it wouldn't get any further consideration and just muddy up the waters even more,perhaps even providing them something

to deny with.

JMHO

[broncovet]

My BVA certification notice specifies 90 days to submit additional evidence. I cant say all of them say that, because I dont know, but mine says it. If I recall, Katrina Eagle said not to submit additional evidence at this point, so I admit to being confused, because she should certainly know what she is talking about and I respect her opinion. I really dont know why this discrpency. Of course, there is the possibility things changed since she wrote that article, which I have posted on hadit before.

[broncovet]

I could surely understand why you would not want to submit evidence that was not probative, like Carlie said, but sometimes the Vet would not always Know if what he was submitting was probative or not...this would be for the judge to decide.

I was communicating with a Vet recently about the BVA case, and we agreed that it was best to "shotgun" it, because if we omitted an issue, we cant raise that issue the first time at the CAVC. So, even if our "arguement" or "legal theory" as to why we think we should get our benefits is shot down by the BVA, we have a chance at appealing that legal theory to the CAVC.

It may be possible that the Veteran thinks he should get benifits for a half dozen legal theories. Oh, I dont know, maybe the Veteran was seeking an earlier date and had several legal theories such as:

1. medical exam was an informal claim for benefits establishing and EED.

2. RO failed to sympathetically intepret the Veterans filings and develop the claim to its optimum.

3. Under the constructive notice of Bell, the Veteran contends that the VARO should have had this evidence, but did not give a reasons and bases for not considering it in the decision.

4. The Ro failed to implement a previous BVA decision.

5. The RO decisions were contradictory, or inconsistent.

6. The RO mishandled evidence.

[Berta]

Broncovet said:

"Berta...

I was thinking a waiver of RO consideration would always be a good thing for a Vet, but it sounds like you dont agree."

I guess my post wasn't clear.

I DO agree that a waiver is often the very best thing any claimant can get- because the BVA lawyers can read.

They will read-as my remand and claim stuff below shows- every single thing they have in the claims file.

I do believe they (BVA) will consider evidence right up to the decision date.They threw out the last C & P on my claim and I am sure they considered my response to it (sent to the BVA) that completely knocked down the medical rationale.

My point was missed here Broncovet- I played their game for years more by not waiving consideration.It gave me evidence for H VAC testimony and the basis of letters and discussions with the former Chair of the H VAC -Congressman Filner.

As long as my claim had jurisdiction at the VARO I could collect documented evidence against them,to prove how they are deliberating violating our basic rights and/or simply do not have the ability to read.

I have an issue I am sending to them today in response to a ridiculous letter I received from the VARO. It will draw them out with another erroneous response.I will use that for the next H VAC Sub Committee hearing on VA oversight.I have plenty already as it is.

My philosophy is- get someone from the VA to document erroneous information and you have proof that they don't know what they are doing -multiply that by the additional evidence you have from VA which might be unrelated to the documentation you have- revealing VA errors and that can show this stuff is done to the expense and detriment of many veterans and widows/widowers.

That vet I helped get over 106,000 in retro a few weeks ago had an ordeal with this same RO just like mine.

After they ignored his evidence for years, the BVA read it all and

the VARO tried to pull the same thing on him as to his retro.

If the ROs are not reading the evidence they have why do we need VAROs?

BVA remands stem from errors at ROs.

I feel the BVA should be vastly expanded and should handle all VA claims.Each former VARO could become a satellite BVA and then lawyers (who can read) will give us our rights from the git go.