Post a clear title like ‘Need help preparing PTSD claim’ or “VA med center won’t schedule my surgery”instead of ‘I have a question.
Knowledgeable people who don’t have time to read all posts may skip yours if your need isn’t clear in the title.
I don’t read all posts every login and will gravitate towards those I have more info on.
Use paragraphs instead of one massive, rambling introduction or story.
Again – You want to make it easy for others to help. If your question is buried in a monster paragraph, there are fewer who will investigate to dig it out.
Leading too:
Post straightforward questions and then post background information.
Examples:
Question A. I was previously denied for apnea – Should I refile a claim?
Adding Background information in your post will help members understand what information you are looking for so they can assist you in finding it.
Rephrase the question: I was diagnosed with apnea in service and received a CPAP machine, but the claim was denied in 2008. Should I refile?
Question B. I may have PTSD- how can I be sure?
See how the details below give us a better understanding of what you’re claiming.
Rephrase the question: I was involved in a traumatic incident on base in 1974 and have had nightmares ever since, but I did not go to mental health while enlisted. How can I get help?
This gives members a starting point to ask clarifying questions like “Can you post the Reasons for Denial of your claim?”
Note:
Your first posts on the board may be delayed before they appear as they are reviewed. This process does not take long.
Your first posts on the board may be delayed before they appear as they are reviewed. The review requirement will usually be removed by the 6th post. However, we reserve the right to keep anyone on moderator preview.
This process allows us to remove spam and other junk posts before hitting the board. We want to keep the focus on VA Claims, and this helps us do that.
Most Common VA Disabilities Claimed for Compensation:
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
Nevertheless, after considering the reason set forth in the March 1969 rating decision, the Board finds that the RO committed CUE in that it failed to properly apply the applicable law and regulation to the issue.
The RO clearly found that the Veteran's hearing loss pre-existed his entry into service. Although not explicitly stated, it can be inferred that the RO found that the Veteran's pre-existing hearing loss was aggravated in service.
Thus, the presumption of aggravation applied.
The RO erred, however, in applying the clear and unmistakable evidence standard to rebut the presumption of soundness.
The reason set forth by the RO clearly demonstrates that it required clear and unmistakable evidence to show aggravation beyond the natural progression of the condition, but the standard set forth in the applicable regulation is that there must be clear and unmistakable evidence that the aggravation was NOT beyond the natural progression of the condition.
By requiring clear and unmistakable evidence to show aggravation beyond the natural progression, the RO impermissibly placed the burden of proof on the Veteran when the burden to rebut the presumption is actually on VA.
Finally, had the RO properly applied the clear and unmistakable evidence standard in rebutting the presumption of aggravation, it would have had no choice but to grant service connection for hearing loss because there was no evidence to demonstrate that the Veteran's hearing loss was not aggravated beyond its natural progression.
Accordingly, the Board finds that the RO committed CUE in the March 1969 rating decision when it denied service connection for hearing loss.
Given the procedural history of this case, however, the Board will defer a decision on an earlier effective date to the RO for adjudication in accordance with this decision.
ORDER
The March 1969 rating decision that denied service connection for hearing loss was clearly and unmistakably erroneous and, to that extent only, the appeal is granted.
You can post now and register later.
If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.
Question
carlie
http://www.va.gov/vetapp12/Files5/1234447.txt
Nevertheless, after considering the reason set forth in the March 1969 rating decision, the Board finds that the RO committed CUE in that it failed to properly apply the applicable law and regulation to the issue.
The RO clearly found that the Veteran's hearing loss pre-existed his entry into service. Although not explicitly stated, it can be inferred that the RO found that the Veteran's pre-existing hearing loss was aggravated in service.
Thus, the presumption of aggravation applied.
The RO erred, however, in applying the clear and unmistakable evidence standard to rebut the presumption of soundness.
The reason set forth by the RO clearly demonstrates that it required clear and unmistakable evidence to show aggravation beyond the natural progression of the condition, but the standard set forth in the applicable regulation is that there must be clear and unmistakable evidence that the aggravation was NOT beyond the natural progression of the condition.
By requiring clear and unmistakable evidence to show aggravation beyond the natural progression, the RO impermissibly placed the burden of proof on the Veteran when the burden to rebut the presumption is actually on VA.
Finally, had the RO properly applied the clear and unmistakable evidence standard in rebutting the presumption of aggravation, it would have had no choice but to grant service connection for hearing loss because there was no evidence to demonstrate that the Veteran's hearing loss was not aggravated beyond its natural progression.
Accordingly, the Board finds that the RO committed CUE in the March 1969 rating decision when it denied service connection for hearing loss.
Given the procedural history of this case, however, the Board will defer a decision on an earlier effective date to the RO for adjudication in accordance with this decision.
ORDER
The March 1969 rating decision that denied service connection for hearing loss was clearly and unmistakably erroneous and, to that extent only, the appeal is granted.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Top Posters For This Question
1
1
1
1
Popular Days
Jan 6
2
Jan 7
1
Jan 25
1
Top Posters For This Question
carlie 1 post
Berta 1 post
ketchup56 1 post
Cynthia80 1 post
Popular Days
Jan 6 2013
2 posts
Jan 7 2013
1 post
Jan 25 2013
1 post
3 answers to this question
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.