Va Training Letter 02-04 (Ivds)

[Airman]

I plan on refering to subject Letter in an upcoming appeal and wanted to make sure that this IVDS Training Letter (02-04, dated October 24, 2002) is still in use by the VA and hasn't been recinded.

[georgiapapa]

This same 2002 training letter was referenced in a 2012 BVA decision.

The BVA decision is: Citation # 1216366 Date of Decision: 05/07/2012. Docket # 03-23 915. Cleveland, Ohio

Good luck to you

[Berta]

Georgiapapa we have ESP!

http://www.va.gov/vetapp12/files3/1216366.txt

[georgiapapa]

Berta,

One of the many things I learned from you was to check BVA decisions. I learn something new just about everyday on Hadit. This website is like therapy to me. I didn't realize how much it helped me until the website was down for a few days earlier this month.

Have a good day,

Georgiapapa

[Vync]

Berta is a great teacher. I included several BVA decisions in my claims that were similar to mine. I am not sure if they were weighed into my decisions, but the outcome was good.

[georgiapapa]

Vync,

I totally agree with you about Berta. She is a great teacher. You can always look for detailed well thought out responses from Berta supported by her thorough research and substantial documentary evidence. When she speaks I listen.

Berta provided me with a BVA decision which I included in my AO multiple myeloma claim in 2011. The claimants circumstances in the BVA decision were almost identical to my situation. My claim was successful without any appeals involved.

[Berta]

I am blushing at all this!

I have been reading BVA decisions since they first came on line and although the BVA will often say the decision a claimant provided as evidence, is unique only to the veteran their decision was for, still they do read any submission because sometimes they have addressed a legal situation and an older BVA decision can clarify how they applied the reg and maybe the RO didnt do that properly.

I consider the BVA as the pulse of the claims system.Although errors do occur there (only uncovered via a CAVC case or a formal Motion to Reconsider)) they usually are very accurate in their decisions.

This seems funny now but I was livid when it happened......

I had an old case at the BVA years ago and the BVA rendered that claim as moot because the RO actually awarded the claim under a different basis then the appeal called for.

But within the BVA decision they also stated that if I ever succeeded on direct service connected death,as survivor of a veteran , then VA would have to refund to me the high five figure FTCA offset I had agreed to with the OGC.,when my 1151 DIC became SC DIC.

(Most FTCAs involve a complete offset but I negotiated with General Counsel myself for a partial offset. This is one big reason why, unless you have a legal background yourself and know FTCA case law, you need to have a lawyer for FTCA cases.)

I used this older BVA decision I got, highlighting that part as to the offset when I won my DMII AO death claim. The RO still refused to pay me the offset and would not consider the BVA decision as evidence. So I contacted Regional Counsel (who got the VA to CUE itself when they took too much money from me as an offset years ago) but he would not get involved with this new issue I had.

I became pretty angry and called the OGC and raised some hell and some top gun at OGC called my VARO and then the check was 'in the mail'.

(I had direct deposit and a letter from the RO to take to my bank for am electronic fund transfer but 3 weeks later I found this check under a pile of snow in my mailbox that had opened during a snow storm.I made another trip to my bank and the woman who had a copy of the VA letter said to me, "it still has not come in to us"...and I handed the check to her (still damp) with my deposit slip) She couldn't understand why VA would send me the electronic letter to take to my bank in the first place.

BVA decisions contain a wealth of knowledge and they can also contain clues to success.

Remands can show us exactly what the remand calls for and sometimes we can satisfy the remand ourselves,with more evidence.

Also they reveal, in current decisions, how current regs (that might have changed in the past few years) are implemented in the decision.

.

Edited October 1, 2014 by Berta