My Remand For All To Please Read

[Josephine]

Everyone please give their comments.

Thanks everyone!

Josephine

Edited October 9, 2006 by Josephine

[Vike17]

Josephine,

After reading the BVA decision to remand your case to he AMC, I don't think the VA, more specifically your regional office, is out to get you. Let me try to explain.

First, from what it looks like, you served for 11 months of active duty and you were seen a couple of time during that period for your claimed mental condition. The exact amount of times aren't stated, but from the rest of your posts it sounds like the couple of times you were seen over the 11 month peroid wasn't enough to constitue a "chronic" condition. According to the law VA can only grant service-connection for a "chronic" disability. If a veteran is unable to show a "chronic" condition is service, they must be able to show continuity of treatment of the claimed condition. According to the remand, you were seen for a "variety of disorders" in the late 1960's, which is about 5 years later. The VA will need to see treatment within that 5 year period. If there isn't any treatment within the 5 years, how is the VA suppose to know if the treatement starting 5 years later isn't the result of something due to after your service? Now, if you have treatment of your claimed disability from 1964 to presumbably 1968-69 you need to get that to the VA ASAP. Also the remand states that you were seen again in the mid 1970's for a mental disorder. Again there is about 5 years in between. How is the VA suppose to know that these episodes are due to your inservice treatment and not from something that happened within those undocumented 5 year (Late 60's to mid 70's)? If you have the actual records from Reverend B.O.B, then that will help the VA to establish service-connection. If you cannot show actual treatment within those two periods, you should get an IMO from a certified mental health professional. The IMO will connect everything together. Further, an apparent drowing of a friend while in service may also establish a link as to why you have a chronic mental condition. Normally, this is a stressor and is needed for PTSD claims, but in your case, it may help in an IMO with a shrink to help connect everything. Apparently the IMO Dr. P had written wasn't very probative, otherwise the VA would have applied more weight to it and used it to grant service-connection. The doctor must state his rational for why he/she thinks your current disability is related to your in service condition. This is where the drowning of your friend will help alot. By Dr. P not stating his rational for his decision, the two VA shrinks trumped his opinion and the VA was unable to resovle resonable doubt in your favor.

Second, according to the remand you contend that this claim has been opened since 1978. Do you have copies of the claim you submitted back then or any follow up letters from the VA shortly thereafter?To succeed with this, you'll need some sort of documentation to support your contentions. VA cannot simply grant effective dates just because a veteran said "Well, I submitted a claim back then, but I haven't heard anything!" If this was the case, the VA would be flooded with even more fraud then there is now. Not to mention the VA as a whole would go broke and the all of us deserving veterans would be SOL. Do you see what I mean? Also, why have you waited all these years to get this resolved?

And last, as far as the remand because of the VCAA issue. It looks like the VA sent you all of the proper notices up until your claim went to the BVA. However, while your claim was in Washington, D.C. The Court enacted another decision. Your VA regional office did not have your claim anymore at that time, so how were they suppose to know to send you the latest letter. When the BVA finally got to your case, they noticed it and have taken the needed steps to get it taken care of. YOu cannot fault anyone for that. Your claim happened to be in line waiting when the new ruling came into effect.

I'm not trying to be jerk or anything. I'm just trying to give yo a little insight as to what the VA saw in your claim and why they have decided what they did. No one at VA is intentionally denying your claim to cheat you out of your benefits. If you can produce the documentation I mentioned above, you should prevail with your claim.

Vike 17

Edited October 7, 2006 by Vike17

[Josephine]

Thanks,

Josephine

Edited October 10, 2006 by Josephine

[john999]

Josephine

5 months of my mental health records at my last duty station seem to have disappeared. I wrote to the last duty station and they referred my FOI to the VA which does not seem to have the records. This was all part of the discharge I got in 1971. I bet the records went into the circular file so I would not have a comeback regarding the nature of the discharge. It was the difference between a medical and unsuitability discharge. I do think that money is always at the bottom of these kinds of decisions. I never got the treatment I need in-service. It was always just a question of my the nature of my discharge.

[Josephine]

John999,

Josephine

Edited October 10, 2006 by Josephine

[gdsnide]

I once put in a request for some Hospital records to help on a claim.

Was told records had been retired. Taken off computer.

After VA did all they could they could not find where they had retired my records to.

Was suppossed to be in one of 2 places utthey could never find them hence I had no evidence.

The bVA even remanded this claim to the RO but RO still couldn't find them so than it was OK at BVA as the RO had did all it could. hmmmmmmmm I sometimes wonder if they did.

[Vike17]

Josephine,

The C&P exam stated "Since the service extensive medical records began in 1965 with her pregnancy and then pick up again on November 25, 1967 when Libriun was ordered 5 mg. prn. From that point through 1979 she was given Elavil in 1975 and Etrafon 1975, Valium in 1976, Elixir of Butisol 1975, Valium1975, and Mellaril in 1975, Adapin in 1976, Ativan in 1978 along with Stelazine for " chronic anxiety reaction" and then in 1979 she began on Valium again 5 mg daily. also in 1979 there are prescriptions for Serax, Doxepin, Vistaril, Tranxene, and Ativan. In 1980 she began Valium 5 mg. and began Darvocet and reported takes these to date"

Just because a physician uses the word "chronic" in a write-up or diagnosis doesn't constitute a chronic condition according to the law. The regulation states the folowing;

"Chronicity and continuity. With chronic disease shown as such in service (or within the presumptive period under §3.307) so as to permit a finding of service connection, subsequent manifestations of the same chronic disease at any later date, however remote, are service connected, unless clearly attributable to intercurrent causes. This rule does not mean that any manifestation of joint pain, any abnormality of heart action or heart sounds, any urinary findings of casts, or any cough, in service will permit service connection of arthritis, disease of the heart, nephritis, or pulmonary disease, first shown as a clearcut clinical entity, at some later date. For the showing of chronic disease in service there is required a combination of manifestations sufficient to identify the disease entity, and sufficient observation to establish chronicity at the time, as distinguished from merely isolated findings or a diagnosis including the word “Chronic.” When the disease identity is established (leprosy, tuberculosis, multiple sclerosis, etc.), there is no requirement of evidentiary showing of continuity. Continuity of symptomatology is required only where the condition noted during service (or in the presumptive period) is not, in fact, shown to be chronic or where the diagnosis of chronicity may be legitimately questioned. When the fact of chronicity in service is not adequately supported, then a showing of continuity after discharge is required to support the claim.

To show a chronic condition, the VA need to see the actual treatment records to determine a chronic condition. Apparently, there are just too many lapses of time in between your treatments to show that they are linked in some way to your episodes in the service.

You state "Dr. B.O. B has written 3 letters to the BVA"

The VA needs to see the actual treatment records from him. I beleive this is actually stated in the remand.

"Dr. P has written 2 letters since the first letter.Dr. P has written 2 letters since the first letter"

Is Dr. P. board certified? If not, that may be the reason why his opinion doesn't hold as much weight as the others do.

"Dr. C. in the remand was my treating physician in the military. He treated me with Librium for anxiety and cafferfot for Headaches. He also referred me to the two Military Psychaitrist, which are stated as medical records and the Adminstrative records are from my C.O"

How many times during your military service were you seen? If it were only a couple of times, even in that short amount of time, this probably wouldn't be enough to establish a chronic condition; especially if you were then seen in 1967 for your mental condition.

"Yes, I have documentation of a filing of 1978, but there was never a filing of 1992. I do not have a record and neither does the Va"

The 1992 filing the BVA references looks like it was a application for a home loan garantee, which would have nothing to do with disability compensation. If you have the documentation you say you have, then the VA will, upon awarding service-connection, grant the appropriate effective date.

"The BVA did not receive my claims file until February 2006. My name had been in a holding station in order waiting for my number to come up. I recieved my final denial a SSOC in December of 2006"

This means you were on the BVA docket and the RO apparently issued a SSOC referencing additional evidence that came to light after the SOC was sent.

"After my first C&P, my file was transferred to another R.O. for rating. Five months later I had the second slanderous C&P, full of lies by that lady psychiatrist. I have medical proof that the complete write up is lies and changing of my military and private medical records. One member of the Board refused to sign the examination"

Apperently after the first C&P your RO was heavily backlogged and they farmed your claim out to a less worked office. As far as the "lies" go, different doctors interpert medical records different. From a layman's perspective such as you and me, we may think that one particular doctor is full of $hit and doesn't know that doctor is talking about. When in actuallity it is just their interpertation. That's why the VA sent your claim for another opinion. By that doctor giving her opinion, that doesn't mean she actually changed your medical records. Changing medical reords is when someone really goes and physically and changes what the medical records state in black and white. If a one member of the board didn't sign the other exam, maybe they thought she was full of it too. The lady doctor is still entitled to her medical opinion no matter how absurd it may be.

"I called the R.O and ask them why I needed to fill out a form 9, when the DRO stated that his decision was not final and that I was being scheduled for a C&P for an Acquired Chronic Psychiatric Disorder.After the first C&P came in in October of 2004. His decision was more than likely that her anxiety began in service, with a diagnosis of chronic anxiety not otherwise specified with depression.My form 9 was turned in to Washington to the BVA, but my claims file was transferred to another Regional Office, where it stayed for 12 months. This R.O order the second C&P after the first one by the Board of two Psychiatrist, the one where the lady psychiatrist, changed all of my medical records.This is the reason the BVA states the examination should go back for them to reconcile their differences and rationale their decision

Like I said in my previuos post, it looks like there wasn't enough evidence to resolve reasnable doubt in your favor. That's why the BVA is trying to have the doctors "reconcile their differences and rationale for their decision."

I have to admitt from a layman's perspective, I would also say there are just too many holes and different circumstances in the 40 some years of treatment. I can see why the VA needs the mentioned documentation in their remand to grant service-connection. I suspect once the listed records are obtained from all the sources, you'll prevail in your claim.

Vike 17