Request C-File

[nukeum]

Hi I am fairly new here and was wondering, i saw in several places where people had requested copies of their c-file how does one go about this (I do not have a VSO, will not have one, been screwed over by everyone i have ever had) I have been going at it alone pretty successfully to this point at present I have a NOD filed since Sept 2013 at the Phoenix VARO requested a DRO review of the file. So i guess mu question is this

1. how do you FOIA your C-File

2. Will it interfere with the NOD i presently have in process? if so I would rather wait then interfere with the NOD'

Thank you

-Nukeum

[Notorious Kelly]

"Never fear these jerks. Never. They are govt. employees."

Love it!

[Gastone]

ASK: Right you R! I think at the time, I thought I was a lock and my DRO Hearing would be held soon. Wrong on the Hearing being soon, not till 6/27/14. Getting the C-File didn't really play into my strategy. With that said, it was interesting to find (2) pages of another Vets file in my C-File. Called him and sent Docs back to VA.

As to NUKEUM's question regarding the "FOIA" C-File request affecting his pending "NOD Review," I hope he requested a Personal Hearing, I don't think it affected my eventual hearing at all. I requested mine about 10/2012, the last document copied was, I think from Dec 2012. None of 2013 submitted DBQ's or Evidence or any other documents was included in the supplied copy of my C-File received 01/2014. On my "FOIA" request I had also specifically asked for an appointment to review my C-File at the Det VARO to determine it's completeness. To date, I have never heard from the VA regarding an appointment for the C-File Viewing.

ASK: From recent readings, it's my understanding that all "New & Material" evidence received by the Vet's RO pertaining to a denied claim during the (12) month appeal period and after NOD Filed) triggers an automatic review of the denial to ascertain if the New evidence changes the decision. It appears to me, after reviewing GAO-11-812, all "New & Material Evidence" received after a claim denial, triggers the "VARO Traditional Review (Reconsideration) Regulations" regarding a Vets denial. This "Traditional Review (Reconsideration)" can only be used with New and Material evidence. It appears that a Senior Rater or DRO looks at the original decision and if the N&M evidence changes it. I think this is where all the discussions regarding "Reconsideration" comes from. Evidently the VA has had a long standing, "New and Material Evidence" Traditional Review "Reconsideration policy" that remains in effect today. The DRO Review option (with or without N&M Evidence and with or without a Personal Hearing,) was established in 2001. It appears the Traditional Review is with deference to original decision where as the DRO Review requested officially on a NOD is a De Novo Review (Reconsideration). I was not aware that Vet's VARO maintains custody of his C-File up to approximately 4 Months before a BVA scheduled Hearing and any New & Material evidence received by the VARO up to the end of the 90 day New evidence Cutoff, triggers a VARO Traditional Review (Reconsideration) of his denied claim before the VARO can Certify the Claim and transfer it to the BVA for his Appeal Hearing.

ASK, Take me to school, your experiences and opinions please.

Semper Fi

Gastone

[Fat]

Neighbor received his C-File. It took about 3 months and he went thru the American Legion to file the paperwork.

We thought it might take longer.

Gonna look at all the information and make sure all bases are covered regarding the current claim.

"NEVER GIVE UP"

[FormerMember]

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<ASK, Take me to school, your experiences and opinions please.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

One answer: http://asknod.wordpress.com/ Appeals, hearings, "reconsiderations" (a fig newton of the imagination) and more. All carefully analyzed for your reading pleasure. My first "DRO" hearing before there truly was one was July 11th, 1990. They ignored my Air America evidence because it wasn't "service department records". My latest one was a Travel Board Hearing in front of Judge Mark Hindin. He's about 4'9'' and has a short man complex. I lost because he couldn't follow the bouncing ball. You have to dumb these things down to the level of a Kindergartener. One thing that I find works is a timeline showing the progression of a claim. Every date you received a piece of paper must be annotated and a copy of it presented at a hearing even if it results in duplication in your c-file. The SMRs from the Air America Hospital in January 1971 are in mine about 16 times. They finally spotted them when I got to the CAVC but not a day sooner. Get the picture?

Traditional appeals are sweet when you hang NM&E on a NOD. It guarantees they are required to take an extensive gander at it or risk violating 3.156(b) and sometimes ©. It's taken them over a decade to recognize what 3.156(b) implies and obey it. It cost them over half a mil in my case. DRO reviews, absent anything of substance, are a waste of time from where I sit. They put you in a holding pattern and are a wonderful in-basket with the backlog. A traditional appeal gets eyes on the claim immediately as soon as you rebut with a NOD. Asking for the 3.2600 route is like putting it on ice. All the logic developed is now lost and has to await a new set of eyes and brains. Being a DRO does not impart (or imply) intelligence. These guys use the M21 Ouija board. It's a computer that spits out an answer to your query. Ask it the wrong question and you get a six year appeal out of it. Remember, 85 % of you are going to be denied. Many are unjust but that is because the M21 is constructed to deny, not grant. As for benefit of the doubt? That is a pipe dream. BOD happens when they cannot find a logical reason to deny anymore.

CLAVU

Edited October 18, 2014 by asknod

[k5one]

I submitted a Privacy Act request for my c-file the beginning of September, and received my c-file last week. So it was less than a month. This was through the Atlanta VARO. I searched for and found a cookie cutter Privacy Act request on this site, and filled in the blanks. So I'm not sure about the post above, but the Privacy Act Request worked for me.

I needed my file so my private physician could review it prior to completing his evaluation, diagnosis, and opinion for me.

[k5one]

This is what I used:

September 20, 2014
> Privacy Act Department
> Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office
> ---------regional office address here-------------

　

> Re: ----------veterans name here-------- Claims Folder FOIA Request

SSN: ---------ssn here--------------
>
> Dear Staff:
> I hereby request a copy of all documents contained in ------------veterans name here--------- claims folder, including, but not limited to, all service medical records, all documents in the right flap, left flap, and center flap, and the reverse side of any documents with writing on both sides.
>
> Please note that this request for documents is being made pursuant to the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552, and the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. § 552a, as well as 38 C.F.R.§1.550 and 38 C.F.R. § 1.577. Your agency has a duty to respond to this request within TWENTY (20) DAYS of the date of this request pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 552 (a)(6)(A)(2)(i).
>
> Additionally, although an extension of time to respond may be requested, it may only be granted for "unusual circumstances." "Predictable agency workload" is not typically considered an unusual circumstance as stated in 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)©(ii). Moreover, even to the extent that unusual circumstances could be demonstrated in this instance, the time limit for the extension is limited to "10 working days" pursuant to 38 C.F.R.§ 1.553(d).
>
> Please also be aware that your agency’s failure to respond to this request within twenty (20) days may result in the filing of an administrative appeal with the office of the Secretary of the Department of Veterans Affairs pursuant to 38 C.F.R.§ 1.557 and 5 U.S.C. §552(a)(6)(A)(2)(ii), and potentially, the filing of a federal lawsuit to compel the production of the information.
>
> This may subject your agency to contempt of court and a fine, including attorney fees and litigation expenses in compelling the production of this information pursuant to 38 U.S.C. § 552a(g)(l) of the Privacy Act, and 38 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(B) of FOIA. Thank you.
> Very truly yours,
>
------------veterans name and address here---------------