Bva Decision Not Followed By Ro

[tk3000]

Hello Folks,

Not a long time ago, I started a thread in this forum regarding a recent BVA favorable retropayment decision, but this decision subsquent awarding letter relayed by the Detroit Regional Office missed other important BVA adjudications, deliberations, and decisions regarding other claims pertaining and presented on the appeal: Detroit Regional Office simply missed or ignored the BVA decisions regarding the GERD and "Left Ankle" rating increases

In order to address the clear-cut fact that some of the BVA decisions were amiss on the RO awarding letter, I sent few messages and to the Detroit Regional Office which simply went on without any response for over two months, which then let me in a limbo of administrative disgrace and chronic incompetence purported by an entity whose goal is to dodge past cases that reflect an abbherration of incompetence on its part concomitant with the practice of deliberately ignoring any case that is beyond the bare trivial.

Altogether, the mainstay herein is that the RO observed and obliged with the BVA deliberation and decision to grant me retropayment for the IU Early Effective Date appeal, but then simply ignored the BVA's deliberation and decision to grant me increases for my GERD and “Left Ankle” conditions: GERD from 10% to 30%, “Left Ankle” from 10% to 20%. Thus the RO did not observe, did not oblige, and did not comply with the BVA's clear-cut deliberation and decisio to increase ones rating for the GERD and the "Left Ankle" conditions under appeal. One should note that the BVA is a higher adjudicating entity (and a real court of law), thus the RO has to comply with its final decision and not tamper with it or request another C&P for an already decided matter at the BVA level.

Below is a concise message that I sent to the RO explaining the matter at hand:
“
On occasion of my last, the Detroit Regional Office made a determination which, whilst satisfactory in other respects (granted the IO retroactive payment), completely ignored the remaining portions of the BVA decision regarding one's appeal and BVA's remaining decisions regarding such appeals. Please, note that the BVA made a clear cut, object, and explicit decision regarding my GERD and "Left Ankle" conditions that the Detroit Regional Office simply failed to read, skimp reading it, or choose not to read the whole paragraph or sentences pertaining the totality of the BVA decisions. So, the question is: Do one really need to send all the pertaining documents issued directly by the BVA along with any other ancillary document to my Congressman's Office, thus exposing this non-sense situation that is more than another simple lapse from the RO? Or, could the RO simply rectify this failure originated from the RO's inability to read very clear, objective, and concise BVA deliberations concerning my case before issuing the Awarding Letter for my last appeal? And for one having to wait for yet another "claim" simply because the RO failed to read clear-objective BVAs statements and deliberations concerning my appeals previous to issuing the Decision and Awarding Letter is utterly absurd to say the least.

“

In order to raise awareness about this issue sometime ago (1 month ago) I went to county representative (the county rep. who has my power of attorney -- thus he can see things that I can not see -- and he also can back me on the dating of the material and claim sent, etc) in the hope that even though the RO simply did not answer the IRIS message regarding these issues that it would address the issue without further steps once I had followed the formal channels. But then, it only made matters worse: first off, they transfer my case to a different RO office (from Detroit, MI, to Cleaveland, OH) which then requested a C&P exam for well established BVA deliberation, determination, and decision regarding my past appeals that have been fully adjudicated and decided at the BVA level.

Any inputs about how to approach this situation would be appreciated.

Thanks

Edited March 5, 2015 by tk3000

[Gastone]

Win or lose, let us know how this plays out.

The info regarding your additional SC's is very helpful. The (6) SC's have a CSC of 91.53 rounded to 90% CSC. That 70% MH is what got you the IU Award. The "Effective Date" of the MH SC should be the date that establishes your Retro for both the IU and SMC S (1).

Semper Fi

[ArNG11]

This is awesome info you guys and tk3000 I hope that this goes as the regulations state.  Inferred and duty to assist is what is coming to mind here with me.  Oh and that regulation somewhere about the affording the veteran the highest possible rating which he or she qualifies for.  

[ArNG11]

Gastone, a comment on this, why is it that so many times the VA doesn't follow the law or regulation and have no accountability for breaking the law at the detriment of Veterans.  

Whether infered or not the VA has the obligation of Duty to Assist and in affording  the highest possible rating to the Veteran that his or her disability allows and qualifies for.

Then again that is like asking what is wrong with the VA.  Too long of an exhaustive list to mention or write down.

[Gastone]

ArNG, (2) RO's have Denied his EED for the SMC S (1) and if you read his page (15) from the Remand, it doesn't appear to be a favorable discussion by the BVA Judge.

We'll just have to wait and see how it plays out.

The SMC S(1) Award is inextricably linked to the IU Award Date, not original GERD & Ankle Increase from 2007. However, that 07 claim Increase did trigger the VA Requirement of an SOC be issued, even though both increases were granted.

Semper Fi