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]

Lack of accountability, incompetency, ignorance and stupidity all play a huge role. 

Few days ago, I received the SOC for this appeal that I filed selecting it to be handled at BVA (traditional appeal) level instead of the DRO (another waste of time). Within the SOC they yet again denyed the appeal providing unsubstantiated  and disconnected basis for their denial. I tried to be very didactic and spell out the points made and principles evoked by the BVA on its rules, but it feels that they have not clue. 

I am a little bit rusty with all that the VA process, but I believed that on occasion of filing my appeal I elected to have it going to the BVA and filed the form 9 accordingly. Nonetheless, the SOC seems to require me to file a form 9 again or else they will dump my appeal/case.

[Berta]

Does this have anything to do with the original BVA remand?

[tk3000]

7 hours ago, Berta said:

Does this have anything to do with the original BVA remand?

Yes, it has. It is a remand that never took its due course: instead of issuing a supplemental statement of the case making a case for retropayments going back to October 2007 (as laid out by the BVA's decisions and deliberations based on its duty to assist), the RO simply granted retropayment back to 2010 (which is what I asked for, but the BVA went above and beyond based on evidence raised by the record thus granting retropayment going back to October 2007).

About two years ago, I filed a timely NOD electing the traditional appeal process... After all the whirlwind of time (two years since NOD), I receive another statement of case that reinstates the absurdity of the first one which then seemed to have been written by someone who was lobotomized or choose to completely ignore the pertinent points raised on my NOD and the BVA decision itself. It simply stated the following: "Entitlement to an earlier effective date for the grant of individual unemployability is denied because April 23, 2010 is the date your claimed individual unemployability"

Edited July 5, 2017 by tk3000

[Gastone]

TK, you started this Posting Topic 3/2015, at which time you were on a BVA single issue Remand regarding an EED, right?

As of 7/17 (9) pages of posts, what's the "Readers Digest" version of the status of your original EED Appeal? Do all (9) pages of posts deal exclusively with the referred to EED Remand?

What and when, was the Final Remand Decision? Any chance of seeing the redacted Award/Denial Letters, SSOC?

You mentioned that at some point, your EED Remand got Brokered to the Cleveland RO, did Cleveland issue a SSOC?

Semper Fi

[tk3000]

4 hours ago, Gastone said:

TK, you started this Posting Topic 3/2015, at which time you were on a BVA single issue Remand regarding an EED, right?

As of 7/17 (9) pages of posts, what's the "Reacders Digest" version of the status of your original EED Appeal? Do all (9) pages of posts deal exclusively with the referred to EED Remand?

What and when, was the Final Remand Decision? Any chance of seeing the redacted Award/Denial Letters, SSOC?

You mentioned that at some point, your EED Remand got Brokered to the Cleveland RO, did Cleveland issue a SSOC?

Semper Fi

Hello Gastone, 

Sure enough, this thread was dormant for a long time... And all of a sudden I resurrected it, it is partly due to long wait time to get even the most minimal thing done at the VA that we are used to.  

Correct, the mainstay herein is the EED that I initially claimed on my initial appeal to BVA as been retroatctive to 2010, but the BVA went beyond that initial claim and established an early effective date going back to Oct 2007 based on its duty of assist and the theory of an even earlier effective date raised by the record. In order to follow BVA's order, the RO would have to remand the claim and issue a new SOC with aforementioned earlier effective date (Oct 2007), but the Regional Office simply did not follow suit and instead simply granted the an early effective date retroactive to 2010 and closed my appeal thus forcing me to file another appeal for the appeal. It seems that the VA lacks even the most  rudimentary  understand of due process and on how to following its own rules and regulations. 

The original debacle of not following the remand or granting an early effective date of Oct. 2007 was a blow dealt with by the Detroit RO, but once the claim was transferred to Cleaveland the same pattern was followed (after requests of reconsideration explaining the situation, etc) , and ultimately after two years in the making I received another SOC stating the same thing they stated before and completely ignoring the remand and the early effective date of OCt 2007 as established by the BVA.

There are lots of regulation and rules they simply copied and pasted, ironically of rules and regulations that they lack even the most basic understanding. But the essence of the SOC is the following sentence: "Entitlement to an earlier effective date for the grant of individual unemployability is denied because April 23, 2010 is the date your claimed individual unemployability"

Edited July 5, 2017 by tk3000

[Gastone]

Do you have a current EED Appeal filed?

Semper Fi