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

[tk3000]

19 hours ago, Gastone said:

Do you have a current EED Appeal filed?

Semper Fi

Yes, I do. 

In spite of all my attempts to explain the nature of the situation the rational that came along with the SOC for the EED appeal was basically the same (as pointed out above). 

However, my understanding is that I elected the traditional appeal process and filed out a form 9 on occasion of filing the EED appeal, but the new SOC indicates that I have 60 days to file a form 9. Also, on the ebenefits website it is indicated that my form 9 has been received. So that is confusing...

 

thanks

Edited July 6, 2017 by tk3000

[Gastone]

TK, who is Reping you at the BVA, VSO or VA Attorney?

Is my take on your (10) pages close, you're CSC 80% Awarded IU by your Det RO,  based on a BVA Remand. You filed a NOD regarding the RO Remand Decision, for an EED of the IU? That NOD was Denied by the Det RO & an SOC was included? At some point, the  Cleveland RO became involved and also Denied your IU EED NOD. 

So you have the same EED Issue Remanded by the BVA to (2) different RO's and obviously when you completed the previous Form 9's, you indicated that the respective RO could make the Remand Rating Decision.

Could you post the Redacted SOC, why do they continue to deny the EED?

Semper Fi

[tk3000]

3 hours ago, Gastone said:

TK, who is Reping you at the BVA, VSO or VA Attorney?

Is my take on your (10) pages close, you're CSC 80% Awarded IU by your Det RO,  based on a BVA Remand. You filed a NOD regarding the RO Remand Decision, for an EED of the IU? That NOD was Denied by the Det RO & an SOC was included? At some point, the  Cleveland RO became involved and also Denied your IU EED NOD. 

So you have the same EED Issue Remanded by the BVA to (2) different RO's and obviously when you completed the previous Form 9's, you indicated that the respective RO could make the Remand Rating Decision.

Could you post the Redacted SOC, why do they continue to deny the EED?

Semper Fi

A VSO is representing me, but I gather and write up most relevant documents and the VSO send them to the VA.
 

The following is the info regarding the appeal whenever I check it on ebenefits:

"Appeal Pending - Statement of the Case (SOC)

VA has received your Form 9 and will begin completing final actions regarding your appeal before it is sent to the Board of Veterans’ Appeals."

You take is accurate. I provided the relevant information for the Cleveland RO but they again reinstated the same non-sense on the SOC. As shown above, according to ebenefits, my appeal is heading to the BVA.

The relevant page in the SOC : 
 

[Gastone]

Thanks, that info helps. The SC condition that resulted in your IU Award, what and when was it DX'd?

Am I mistaken, did you mention that you hadn't actually filed an IU Claim?

I'm going to have to look back at what you listed was the Evidence of Record or New & Material Evidence that was included in your NOD as support for the EED Appeal issue.

What does your VSR have to say about your appeal?

Semper Fi

[tk3000]

2 hours ago, Gastone said:

Thanks, that info helps. The SC condition that resulted in your IU Award, what and when was it DX'd?

Am I mistaken, did you mention that you hadn't actually filed an IU Claim?

I'm going to have to look back at what you listed was the Evidence of Record or New & Material Evidence that was included in your NOD as support for the EED Appeal issue.

What does your VSR have to say about your appeal?

Semper Fi

I filed an IU claim back in 2010, and the RO granted the claim maybe at some point in 2013 or 2014 but they only provided retropayment for few months instead of going backwards to 2010; so I filed an appeal for EED requesting an EED of April 2010. The appeal was filed at the  BVA level which on its reasoning considered that the information on the record (fist Appeal for GERD filed in October 2007) would indicate a theory of entitlement to IU going back to Oct. 2007. Instead of following BVA's guideline and orders and thus remanding the case and issueing another SOC with EED of Oct 2007, the RO simply granted retropayments going back to 2010 and closed the case.
 

What do you mean service condtion DX'd?

Even though the service condition that mainly motivated the IU at the time was a mental health issue, the BVA considered the first appeal (appeal for GERD, filed on Oct 2007) as early evidence raised by the record and theory of entitlement in order   to affix a date for my EED for the IU claim going backwards to Oct 2007.

 

Back when  I talked to the VSO over two years ago, he seemed to be impressive with the case and its development and believed that my chances of winning were very high. 

Thanks!

Edited July 8, 2017 by tk3000

[tk3000]

Just now, tk3000 said:

 

 

Edited July 8, 2017 by tk3000