Jump to content
  • Advertisemnt

  • 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
     
  • Donation Box

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

  • 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

Sponsored Ads

  • Searches Community Forums, Blog and more

  • 0
jamescripps2

Ao Fort Mc Clellan

Question

Won on a BVA appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Nashville, Tennessee.

Decision date Mar 04 2011

.

DOCKETT NO.09-16 193

Agent Orange claim was granted for diabetes II and residuals thereof.

I not only won my own claim for AO exposure inside CONUS but then proceeded to work on another CONUS claim for a friend. The BVA decision was handed down on March 4, 2011. You can watch for its posting on the BVA website DOCKET NO. 09-16 193. (Copy and paste if you need to, it is a 2011 decision.) http://www.index.va.gov/search/va/bva.html

This win is in a location that is not on the list of post and bases as generated as a result of Congressman Lane Evans demand to Secretary Donald Rumsfeld demanding a list of places outside Vietnam where AO was used, tested or stored. The DOD furnished the list but admitted that it was only 70 to 85% complete. My argument to the BVA judge hearing was; if the list had been completed as promised, would Fort Mc McClellan have then been on the list? It takes evidence to gain a favorable decision, and we had it all. This is the second win inside CONUS; I am working on the third, they are not easily won!

Never give up!

James

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

5 answers to this question

Recommended Posts

Jamess,

A huge congrats for your work and dedication.

WOW - fabulous news to wake up to !

That list needs to rise to a level of 100 % accuracy.

I hope Ft. McClellan is added.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ad

It sure is FABULOUS!!!!

Jim-I refer to your past AO Fort Gordon BVA case here from time to time-particularly to make the point that

you were willing to do the Legwork and Research yourself-

and I know it wasn't easy.

I commend you for helping this veteran and cant wait to read it when the BVA site posts the decision.

You are a true inspiration and have proven without a doubt that Hard work pays off.

(and evidence is everything!)

along with basic common sense:

"The DOD furnished the list but admitted that it was only 70 to 85% complete. My argument to the BVA judge hearing was; if the list had been completed as promised, would Fort Mc McClellan have then been on the list?"

Beautiful! You think like an attorney!!!!!!

Congrats to you and to this well deserving veteran!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Congratulations!

The issue of stateside A.O. exposure has been minimized and largely ignored by DOD and the VA.

(Even when a base is an EPA superfund site, and has dioxin listed as one of the many contaminants.)

Treasure Island Navy Base (T.I.) (Closed) is such a site.

During the Vietnam era, many thousands of sailors destined for service in the far east were sent to the fire fighting school at T.I.

Training involved exposure to smoke and fire fueled by waste and contaminated oil products.

The school training areas were later found to have residual dioxin levels well above EPA limits, and believed to have originated from the burned oil based products.

I believe that the sheer numbers of those exposed caused the government to completely ignore and bury the issue as much as possible.

Won on a BVA appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Nashville, Tennessee.

Decision date Mar 04 2011

.

DOCKETT NO.09-16 193

Agent Orange claim was granted for diabetes II and residuals thereof.

I not only won my own claim for AO exposure inside CONUS but then proceeded to work on another CONUS claim for a friend. The BVA decision was handed down on March 4, 2011. You can watch for its posting on the BVA website DOCKET NO. 09-16 193. (Copy and paste if you need to, it is a 2011 decision.) http://www.index.va....rch/va/bva.html

This win is in a location that is not on the list of post and bases as generated as a result of Congressman Lane Evans demand to Secretary Donald Rumsfeld demanding a list of places outside Vietnam where AO was used, tested or stored. The DOD furnished the list but admitted that it was only 70 to 85% complete. My argument to the BVA judge hearing was; if the list had been completed as promised, would Fort Mc McClellan have then been on the list? It takes evidence to gain a favorable decision, and we had it all. This is the second win inside CONUS; I am working on the third, they are not easily won!

Never give up!

James

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's James BVA case :

http://www.va.gov/vetapp11/files1/1108696.txt

Citation Nr: 1108696 Decision Date: 03/04/11 Archive Date: 03/17/11DOCKET NO. 09-16 193 ) DATE ) )On appeal from theDepartment of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Nashville, TennesseeTHE ISSUES1. Entitlement to service connection for diabetes mellitus, type II, to include as due to herbicide exposure.2. Entitlement to service connection for bilateral proliferative diabetic retinopathy (PDR), to include as secondary to diabetes mellitus.3. Entitlement to left lower extremity diabetic neuropathy, to include as secondary to diabetes mellitus.4. Entitlement to right lower extremity diabetic neuropathy, to include as secondary to diabetes mellitus.REPRESENTATIONAppellant represented by: The American LegionWITNESSES AT HEARING ON APPEALAppellant, Appellant's SpouseATTORNEY FOR THE BOARDW.H. Donnelly, CounselINTRODUCTIONThe Veteran served on active duty with the United States Army from February 1969 to February 1971.These matters come before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from April 2005 and January 2008 rating decisions by the Nashville, Tennessee, Regional Office (RO) of the United States Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). The April 2005 rating decision denied service connection for type II diabetes mellitus. The Veteran filed a timely notice of disagreement (NOD) and a statement of the case (SOC) was issued in May 2006. The RO determined that no timely substantive appeal was received; a VA Form 9, Appeal to Board of Veterans' Appeals, was not received until November 2006, several months beyond the end of the appellate period. However, within 60 days of the issuance of the SOC, the Veteran submitted a request for a local hearing before a decision review officer. This is a clear indication of his intent to pursue his appeal, and is accepted as a substantive appeal in lieu of a formal Form 9. The issue has therefore been recharacterized to reflect that new and material evidence to reopen a previously denied claim is in fact not required; the current appeal arises from the original claim for benefits.Claims of service connection for PDR and lower extremity neuropathy were denied in the January 2008 rating decision. The issue with regard to neuropathy has been recharacterized to reflect the fact that each lower extremity is entitled to separate consideration and evaluation.The Veteran and his wife testified at a November 2010 hearing held before the undersigned at the RO. A transcript of that hearing is of record.This appeal has been advanced on the Board's docket pursuant to 38 C.F.R. § 20.900© (2010). 38 U.S.C.A. § 7107(a)(2) (West 2002).The issues of service connection for left and right lower extremity neuropathy are addressed in the REMAND portion of the decision below and are REMANDED to the RO via the Appeals Management Center (AMC), in Washington, DC.FINDINGS OF FACT1. The Veteran was exposed to herbicides while stationed at Fort McClellan, Alabama, in 1969.2. Type II diabetes is currently diagnosed.3. Currently diagnosed PDR is related to service connected diabetes mellitus, type II. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW1. The criteria for service connection of diabetes mellitus, type II, have been met. 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 1110, 1113, 1116, 5107 (West 2002 & Supp. 2010); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.307, 3.309 (2010).2. The criteria for service connection of bilateral proliferative diabetic retinopathy have been met. 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 1110, 5107 (West 2002 & Supp. 2010); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.310 (2010).REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONI. VA's Duties to Notify and AssistVA has a duty to notify and assist claimants in substantiating a claim for VA benefits. 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 5100, 5102, 5103, 5103A, 5107, 5126; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.156(a), 3.159 and 3.326(a). With respect to the issues decided here, the benefit sought on appeal is being granted in full. Accordingly, any error committed with respect to either the duty to notify or the duty to assist was harmless and will not be further discussed. II. Service ConnectionService connection will be granted if it is shown that the veteran suffers from a disability resulting from personal injury suffered or disease contracted in the line of duty, or for aggravation of a preexisting injury suffered or disease contracted in the line of duty, during active military service. 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 1110, 1131; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. Certain diseases may be presumed to have been incurred in service for Veterans exposed to herbicides, if they become manifest to a degree of ten percent or more within the applicable presumptive period. Type II diabetes mellitus is a listed disease for purposes of presumptive service connection. 38 U.S.C.A. § 1116; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.307(a), 3.309(e). Diabetes may manifest at any time following exposure. 38 C.F.R. § 3.307(a)(6).A disability which is proximately due to or the result of a service-connected disease or injury shall be service connected. When service connection is thus established for a secondary condition, the secondary condition shall be considered a part of the original condition. 38 C.F.R. § 3.310(a). To establish service connection, there must be a competent diagnosis of a current disability; medical or, in certain cases, lay evidence of in-service occurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and competent evidence of a nexus between an in-service injury or disease and the current disability. Hickson v. West, 12 Vet. App. 247, 252 (1999); see Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2007).Competent medical evidence is evidence provided by a person who is qualified through education, training, or experience to offer medical diagnoses, statements, or opinions. Competent medical evidence may also include statements conveying sound medical principles found in medical treatises. It also includes statements contained in authoritative writings, such as medical and scientific articles and research reports or analyses. 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(a)(1). Competent lay evidence is any evidence not requiring that the proponent have specialized education, training, or experience. Lay evidence is competent if it is provided by a person who has knowledge of facts or circumstances and conveys matters that can be observed and described by a lay person. 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(a)(2). This may include some medical matters, such as describing symptoms or relating a contemporaneous medical diagnosis. Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2007).In determining whether service connection is warranted for a disability, VA is responsible for determining whether the evidence supports the claim or is in relative equipoise, with the veteran prevailing in either event, or whether a preponderance of the evidence is against the claim, in which case the claim is denied. 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107; Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49 (1990). When there is an approximate balance of positive and negative evidence regarding any issue material to the determination, the benefit of the doubt is afforded the claimant.A. Diabetes MellitusThe competent and credible medical evidence of record clearly establishes a current diagnosis of type II diabetes mellitus. There is no dispute over this fact.The Veteran contends that he was exposed to herbicides while stationed at Fort McClellan, Alabama, in 1969. Personnel records verify his presence at the base from May 1969 to December 1969, as a photographer.He states that while photographing a training exercise during Advanced Individual Training (AIT) at a "Tiger Village" mock-up of a village in Vietnam, he repeatedly walked through an area that had been cleared using Agent Orange. He additionally alleges that Agent Orange was in widespread use around the base for weed control and landscaping, such as at the golf course. Finally, he states that Agent Orange (as well as Agents Blue and White) were present and being tested in the same building where he worked.In a May 2010 response to VA inquiries, the Department of Defense (DoD) has certified that a "review of the DoD documentation does not show any use, testing or storage of tactical herbicides, such as Agent Orange, at any location in Alabama, to include Fort McClellan." The DoD also stated, however, that records would not reflect "small scale non-tactical herbicide applications" such as routine base maintenance activities like range management, brush clearing, or weed killing.This certification excludes the possibility that Agent Orange was being tested in the same building where the Veteran worked; while other chemicals and compounds may have been used, it was not the required herbicide.However, the DoD certification leaves open the possibility that herbicides may have been used in the manner described by the Veteran, to clear brush and weeds around the Tiger Village. Both the Veteran and his direct supervisor have stated that he was exposed to herbicides when photographing a training exercise. The basis for the supervisor's knowledge is unknown, but the Veteran relies upon reports made to him at the time by the officer in charge of the exercise, who told him Agent Orange had just been sprayed and they should stay out of certain areas.That officer, whose specific identity cannot be determined, was in a position, with commensurate duties and responsibilities, to know what chemicals or substances were being used to maintain or prepare the training area. While it cannot be definitively ascertained whether Agent Orange was in fact the substance used in 1969 at Fort McClellan, all reasonable doubt must be resolved in favor of the Veteran. The Veteran's reports of the officer's statements are credible and competent evidence, and the officer was in the best position to identify the substance. The evidence of record establishes that the Veteran was at least as likely as not exposed to herbicides during service. This finding is limited to the specific facts and allegations of this case.A number of treating doctors, both private and VA, have stated that the Veteran's currently diagnosed diabetes is related to that herbicide exposure. There is no opinion or evidence contrary to that conclusion, and so the presumption of service connection for type II diabetes mellitus in herbicide exposed Veterans is not rebutted.Accordingly, service connection for type II diabetes mellitus is warranted.B. RetinopathyVA and private ophthalmological records reveal a current diagnosis of bilateral proliferative diabetic retinopathy, or PDR. All doctors relate this condition to diabetes mellitus; there is no contrary evidence.As the preponderance of the evidence establishes that currently diagnosed PDR is causally related to now service connected diabetes, service connection for PDR on a secondary basis is warranted.ORDERService connection for diabetes mellitus, type II, is granted.Service connection for bilateral PDR is granted.REMANDThe Veteran has alleged that he experiences numbness and tingling of both lower extremities, which he attributes to diabetic neuropathy. Although VA treatment records indicate a current diagnosis of diabetic neuropathy at several points, and VA doctors repeatedly refer to such in medical histories, there is actually no clear examination, evaluation, and diagnosis of such reflected in the record. Doctors specifically addressing his neurological complaints report only that they are "likely secondary to diabetes." Some neurology evaluations fail to specifically diagnose any condition of the extremities, and others refer to the possibility of radiation of pain from the back.It is therefore unclear whether there is actually a current diagnosis of diabetic neuropathy. On remand, examination is required to clarify the diagnosis.Further, the Veteran has informed VA that he is in receipt of Social Security disability payments. The records relied upon in support of that grant are potentially relevant to the claim and must be obtained.Accordingly, the case is REMANDED for the following action:(This appeal has been advanced on the Board's docket pursuant to 38 C.F.R. § 20.900© (2010). Expedited handling is required.)1. Schedule the Veteran for a VA peripheral nerves examination. The claims folder must be reviewed in conjunction with the examination. The examiner should conduct all necessary testing, to include nerve conduction or EMG studies, and should clearly identify any neurological disability of the lower extremities. The examiner should then opine as to whether it is at least as likely as not that any currently diagnosed condition is caused or aggravated by service connected type II diabetes mellitus.If the examiner feels that the requested opinion cannot be rendered without resorting to speculation, the examiner should state whether the need to speculate is caused by a deficiency in the state of general medical knowledge (i.e. no one could respond given medical science and the known facts) or by a deficiency in the record or the examiner (i.e. additional facts are required, or the examiner does not have the needed knowledge or training).2. Contact the Social Security Administration and obtain all medical records utilized in determining the Veteran's entitlement to disability benefits. If such are unavailable, written certification of such is required.3. Review the claims file to ensure that all of the foregoing requested development is completed, and arrange for any additional development indicated. Then readjudicate the claims on appeal. If either of the benefits sought remain denied, issue an appropriate SSOC and provide the veteran and his representative the requisite period of time to respond. The case should then be returned to the Board for further appellate review, if otherwise in order. No action is required of the appellant unless he is notified.The appellant has the right to submit additional evidence and argument on the matters the Board has remanded. Kutscherousky v. West, 12 Vet. App. 369 (1999).This claim must be afforded expeditious treatment. The law requires that all claims that are remanded by the Board of Veterans' Appeals or by the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims for additional development or other appropriate action must be handled in an expeditious manner. See 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 5109B, 7112 (West Supp. 2010).______________________________________________RONALD W. SCHOLZVeterans Law Judge, Board of Veterans' AppealsDepartment of Veterans Affairs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Popular Contributors

  • Ads

  • Ad

  • Latest News
  • Our picks

    • Military Service Records - Military personnel records can include DD 214s/Separation Documents, service personnel records found within the Official Military Personnel File (OMPF), and medical Records. Military personnel records can be used for proving military service or as a valuable tool in genealogical research.
      • 0 replies
    • So I've been in a basic power chair (Q6 Edge) since 2015. Late 2016 was also fitted for a TiLite TRA manual (also keeping powerchair). 2017 was approved by Tampa VA for clothing allowance for lower. 

       

      Moved to Battle Creek VA late 2017. Since then was issued new basic powerchair (Quickie P222-SE) to replace broken Q6. Still use TiLite also now can lightly ambulate with Forearm crutches.

      Use crutches 50%, and both chairs 25% each.

      Was approved for 1 clothing allowance this year for forearms crutches for upper.

       

      Was denied 2nd for chair/lower that was awarded last year because Chief Prosthetic states "powerchair takes precedence, you were issued that so you are to use only the powerchair".

      Also powerchair has gap between seat and leg mounts where clothes do get caught and tear. Clinician was I'll put it back in but"power chairs dont get clothing allowances", and "any review or appeal will only come back to me"

      I was approved for powerchair/custom manual combo clothing allowance last year; How do I word an appeal for the lower clothing allowance this year?

      My local DAV rep at the VA has no clue on how to handle this.

       
      • 6 replies
    • Thank you.  I’m not exactly sure of how I will file it.  If it is secondary to TBI, would it be pyramiding?
    • I understand what you are saying. Does it sometimes take awhile to update the VA letters and disabilities info online after it closes.....in my case on a Saturday ? Some on other posts on here says no and some say yes so I'm just curious about the inconsistency regarding that if it is yes and no.
    • I understand what you are saying. Does it sometimes take awhile to update the VA letters and disabilities info online after it closes.....in my case on a Saturday ? Some on other posts on here says no and some say yes so I'm just curious about the inconsistency regarding that if it is yes and no.
×

Important Information

{terms] and Guidelines