ptsd Can A Change To The M21 Allow For Re-Opening The Claim

[Hoppy]

Does a change in the m21 constitute a change in the law allowing for a claim to be re-opened. Case in point. I am assuming the M-21 has changed since 2004. Berta, do you have any old m21’s that you can look at and post what it says in regards to: 13.I only

M21-1MR, Part IV, Subpart ii, Chapter 1, section D, 13.I.

13. General Information on Developing Claims for Service Connection for PTSD, Continued

k. Secondary Sources of Evidence That May Corroborate a Claimed In-Service Stressor Carefully review the following secondary sources of evidence for information confirming participation in combat or to otherwise corroborate a claimed in-service stressor:

Numerous types of evidence were omitted . I am addressing only

……………….

• buddy statements

.

l. Considering Buddy Statements Accept a buddy statement as corroboration of a claimed in-service stressor, so long as the statement is consistent with the time, place, and circumstances of the service of both the Veteran and the buddy.

If the evidence available calls into question the qualifications of the buddy to make the statement, ask the person to submit his/her DD Form 214 or other evidence of service with the claimant.

--------------------------

In 2004 they did not give any reason as to why the buddy statement was not accepted other than they claimed the corroborating buddy letter was not corroborated.

My contention is that the above instruction did not exist in 2004. I have found no objective standard of law circa 2004 requiring that the buddy letter be corroborated. I have successfully used the failure to identify an objective standard of law argument in another case. The case involved an adjudicator who said that it required more than on notation of a disease in the SMR to service connect the disease. They used this argument to deny the claim without a C&P. I argued that the requirement that the disease be noted more than once was a false objective standard of law. The SO turned it in and the claim was awarded based on the existing medical evidence.

[Hoppy]

I decided to put every thing on hold until we see what the JSRRC coordinator said in his note. This would allow for a statement to address any BS that might be in the JSRRC note.