Attention Hadit Members. Rin 2900-am15 Is Final Rule

[Guest jstacy]

I have been tracking this proposal since its inception. It is effective October 6, 2006.

This Rule amends effective dates for claims. There will be a change in the wording for effective dates based on this criteria.

My take on this is:

If a Veteran files a claim and is denied due to the unavailability of service record or part of the record, and re-opens the claim and gets an award, Then The Veteran can ask for an earlier effective date based on this rule.

This is list on the federal register 09/06/2006.

Edited September 11, 2006 by jstacy

[Guest jstacy]

Berta, it was last October / November. We had previously discussed it being swept under the rug.

Now that it is a reality, Allot of vets are going to benefit. I predict a major influx of effective date claims. I cant file mine until my present claims are worked out. I dont want the delay to last any longer.

[Done wit this]

I sent these rules and Regs to both my State Veteran Counselor and The congressmans VA man .I also asked them to make the VARO in Buffalo NY aware that we are up on these new Rules and Regs. This is Good I did not relize the money this would bring my family and I untill today. YYYEEEEEEHHHHHHHAAAAAA!!!.

Macool

[Guest jstacy]

Terry, the 4 missing documents that the VA had knowledge of in Bell were not part of the service record. The service record or part of the service record means service record, service medical record.

I believe they were claims file issues, one was a death certificate and the other 3 were post service medical issues. It shoud bear no weight what so ever on the new rule.

Edited September 12, 2006 by jstacy

[Berta]

Good Rick- I was going to send Pete copy too---

now I dont have to-

The Division has 10 days left to honor my Remand demand-

IF not my complaint to Pataki will not only reveal how they messed up my claim but I have 25 BVA cases so far that they messed up on too-and I am still reading their 2006 BVA cases.

Their training is terribly deficient- I told Pete yesterday that the knowledge in the electronic veterans community is way way beyond what I see at NYSDVA-

I wonder if my former vet rep ever did pass out those hadit business cards I gave him for the VAMC vets.

[Done wit this]

Berta

Please send our Vet Rep another copy. If he has two he might read one. !! I have not received a reply from him yet? Thats normal though! I only get reply emails from him about 50% of the time. I think I bother him. This is going to change alot of things for alot of Veterans,and just in time! .

Macool

[Berta]

Rick- and all- JStacy made a good point on this new reg for retro-I hope you all picked up on what he said-

"Newly discovered service records" will probably be sh__canned by the VARO anyhow----

and the vet will have to make sure they have copies and that their vet rep forces the RO to consider them.

The MF (mysterious force) will have plenty of work to do-as "newly discovered service records" suddenly might disappear from c files-

"The scope of this new rule is not intended to be coextistensive with the scope of the Veterans Claims Assistance Act (VCAA)" from the new regs-FR DOC-E6-14746

So -if the vet gets screwed on a violation of the VCAA election notice and criteria on a proper VCAA letter- what difference will this new reg possibly make?

I cant believe how many BVA claims my POA has on remand due to Violation of VCAA-I am only still in 2006 decisions-

If a vet gets denied, they sure will call or go see their POA and then the POA vet rep should make SURE they got a proper VCAA election notice-prior to the denial and if not- the vet rep should advise and help them ask the VARO to CUE the denial because they have comitted procedural defect and error to the prejudicial detriment of the claimant.

I have been hammering this into my POA and I think they just got it-

maybe-----I bet half of their BVA claims should be immediately remanded due to error in defetive VCAA Notice.