Ask Your VA Claims Questions | Read Current Posts
Read VA Disability Claims Articles
Search | View All Forums | Donate | Blogs | New Users | Rules
- 0
ptsd CUE From Hell
Rate this question
-
Similar Content
-
- 0 comments
- 996 views
-
- 0 replies
- 351 views
-
- 3 answers
- 329 views
-
- 0 comments
- 1,120 views
-
- 0 replies
- 369 views
-
Question
jcntnc
I'm the soldier that had the "CUE FROM HELL".
IIII
T.he V,: has conc~ded tha~ Mr.J had a valid diagnosis of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) at the time
! his claim was decided on July 27, 1984 (see Statement of the Case, dated 20 I0, pages 31-32).
That diagnosis, rendered by Dr. D, Chief of Psychology Service, dated May 29, 1984, was clearly based
on the veteran's traumatic experiences during the Vietnam War as no non-military sources of trauma were
cited by the examiner in his report. The only question remaining, therefore, is whether or not the VA
possessed at the time of the 1984 decision sufficient evidence of a verifiable stressor.
Once again the VA has denied entitlement to an effective date for service connection for posttraumatic stress
disorder (PTSD) earlier than December 16,2005 as indicated by the Statement of the Case dated October 21,
2010, The veteran respectfully requests that this matter be appealed to the Board of Veterans' Appeals.
11. SIGNATURE OF PERSON MAKING THIS APPEAL '12. DATE 113. SIGNATURE OF APPOINTED REPRESENTATIVE, IF ANY
(A4!vI-Dl):,YYYYj (NO[re ulred tfsigned by appellant. See paragraph 6 ofthe
. uctions.]
14. DATE
(J\;fMD1YYYY)j
'~/f (?tIol
(Continue on the hack, or attach sheets of paper, U).'ou need tnore space.)
Adobe Live-Cycle Designer
CONTINUATION SHEET FOR ITEM 10
The veteran's 1983 Statement in Support of Claim clearly indicates one of his major stressors as being his
participation in graves registration while assigned to the 19th Support and Service Company at Qui Nhon.
This stressor information was repeated at the time of his C&P examination and was very clearly annotated in
Dr. D..... the time of the 1984 Decision the VA possessed extracts from an Operational
Report for the US Army Support Command - Qui Nhon, the higher headquarters to the veteran's unit, for
the period ending 31 July 1966, which indicated the total number of remains processed by the graves
registration unit. It is reasonable to conclude that upon receipt of this information a fair application of the
reasonable doubt doctrine (38 CFR 3.102 1984) would have led to the VA confirming the veteran's stressor
related to his participation in graves registration. Inexplicably, the 1984 Decision completely ignored this
critical evidence. When discussing stressors it only noted that the VA was unable to verify the death of a
serviceman named "Swisher." There was no mention of graves registration as a stressor nor was there any
discussion of the aforementioned report. As a result, the decision of the rater that "the evidence available is
held insufficient to establish any particular stressor or life-threatening episode to which the claimant's
current symptoms may be attributed" was clearly and unmistakably in error.
When service-connection for PTSD was eventually granted by the October 20, 2008 Rating Decision, the
veteran's stressor was confirmed based upon basically the same evidence that was available to the VA in
1984. The only new stressor information listed in that decision was an Operational Report for the Quarter
ending April 30, }967 which essentially duplicated the information available in the earlier report. It is
therefore reasonable to conclude that no significant evidence existed in 2008 that did not exist when the
claim was denied in J 984. A finding of entitlement to an effective date prior to December 16, 2005 for the
granting of service connection for PTSD on the basis of clear and unmistakable error is therefore warranted.
The appellant hereby takes exception to and preserves for appeal all errors the VA Regional Office may
have made or the Board may hereafter make in deciding this appeal. This includes errors in failing to
adjudicate issues or claims reasonably raised by the record, even though not specifically mentioned by the
appellant. This also includes all legal errors, errors in fact-finding, failure to follow Manual M21- L failure
to discharge the duty to assist, and any other due process errors,
Under the Veterans Claims Assistance Act of 2000, the VA must advise the appellant of how to substantiate
his claim as well the existence of negative evidence and how to counter this evidence.
(Attach
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Top Posters For This Question
2
2
1
1
Popular Days
Aug 15
4
Aug 14
1
Aug 19
1
Top Posters For This Question
john999 2 posts
Berta 2 posts
broncovet 1 post
jcntnc 1 post
Popular Days
Aug 15 2011
4 posts
Aug 14 2011
1 post
Aug 19 2011
1 post
5 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