Has it been too long for my appeal to be assigned?

[BeAWarriorNOTaWorrior]

Just to get to the nuts and bolts of it, I appealed a claim decision. The denial was June 2012, I appealed it through my vso just before the deadline, 2013 via certified mail. It's been over 2 years and the appeal status still states "at local office" 

 

Honestly I never thought anything of it until I started reading through Hadit. Now I'm reading some people who are asking about NODs after 16-18 months...  should I be converted? I've written an iris letter asking for a status update but have not heard back. 

Any advice? Thanks for the expertise.

[Guest]

Chuck that is a very good question. I bet VA have a system that determines what claim has priority.

Maybe that is why VA got caught in the "date switchgate" (changing the suspense date to make their records look better).

[BeAWarriorNOTaWorrior]

So..ironic or not... A gentleman from the Waco office just called me, names Bret. Left me a vm stating he would call me back in an hour? :/ 

 

I have so much anxiety I could die! Btw, it is not reassuring to see the numbers on vets dying before adjudication. My father has Alzheimer's and it took him almost killing many people, including my mother before he got help, and before they completed his claim. 

[FormerMember]

In the brave new world of VBMS and the incipient electronic frontier, we have a new conundrum. Being an electronic file rather than a paper one, assuming your file has been converted to a word-searchable .PDF, it can now appear in two (or more) places simultaneously. We used to see this occasionally when a Congressional Inquiry (CI) became too blunt. VA would promptly make a copy of your file (concerning the pertinent parts) and ship it back from the BVA to your RO for dual action on two fronts. This was politely called a ''temporary'' folder, in spite of the fact that they have adhered to the inviolate procedure of one Vet-one c file for over a century. With VBMS, the ability of the file to be in numerous places simultaneously is now a given. VA still tries to contend otherwise. That dog won't hunt anymore.

I ran into this dichotomy last October when I called Bob. The Seattle RO, in response, claimed my c-file (all eleven folders) had not been converted to an electronic format yet- thus creating what you speak of. Always remember, if the claims have ever been to the BVA and above, they have been converted. Seattle had a complete copy of mine complete from July 1989 to April 2011 to work from and couldn't be bothered. They insisted on sloggin through the paper file. VA used to use Virtual VA, an electronic folder that  was the earlier precursor to the VBMS.  However, in the Fully Developed Claims (FDC)  era we now enjoy, any new claims are automatically created in VBMS and there is no paper c-file-ever. Keep that in mind when they try to pop red smoke and give you the wave off on a hot LZ. 

[Gastone]

I may have missed it, What type of Hearing did your VSO ask for, BVA or DRO? Did you get a copy of the Actual Appeal, requesting what ever type of Hearing you had decided on?

All 1 VA but the VAROs seem to be another story. Just last week, a Nam Vet got notified that his Det RO DRO Hearing was on deck for mid 09/15. A mere 3 yrs from the date of his NOD. I had my Det RO DRO Hearing 06/27/14, 4.25 years after my NOD.

2 other Nam Vets  are currently waiting for notification of their Local VARO BVA Hearings, 1 Video and 1 Travel Board. Well over 3 years now for both.

Where does your VARO rank as far as Claims Decision Accuracy? BVA Remands seem to be the rule rather than the exception.

 

Semper Fi

 

 

 

 

[BeAWarriorNOTaWorrior]

I do have a full copy. I didnt think it was a bva hearing but sinve dro(?) Isn't ringing any bells (I'm new to researching the appeals on my own) it must be bva. 

Gastone, from what your telling me, my aside from but hearing anything) isn't too out of the norm. 

I am not sure about waco's claim accuracy. I do know they are pretty fast so to speak, all my claims are complete quick and I've only had to appeal the one. 

 

I got a call today from the varo at waco and he want to know if it was ok to waive one contention decision so he can comete my claim now...they awarded me 100% iu. I was very nervous about the call but surprised he was asking my permission to waive the contention. He told me that when the records I requested come in I can request reconsideration because they wasn't to grant it but can't without the records......I wasnt following because my brains messed up but I was happy nonetheless.

 

[Chuck75]

There is a suspicion and question that needs to be considered concerning C file conversion to electronic records.

First, what was actually "converted". Next, is the electronic file an exact copy of the original paper file.

What is left out?

Government records, convenient or not, are subject to various regulations that in general prohibit destruction without

"authorization". Unfortunately, the rules are often vague, as are what is covered and what is not. Even when the regs are breached,

there is little or no personal responsibility, and naturally, bureaucratic rules are intended to further minimize personal liability or responsibility.

"We can't have the minions held accountable when they are "just doing what they are told", can we?

Sadly, I'm afraid that the VA and it's problems are a poster child of what is wrong and how wrong things can get when  the bureaucrats

reign supreme.

 

Ancient history is an example. Look at China and the historical bureaucratic system it once had.

In such systems, rules and procedures are more important than people or end results.

A slightly more modern example might be Krupp Industries in WWII. Seems that virtually all their factories were bombed out of production,

to the point that they did not really exist.  Yet, an inspection at the headquarters showed that the administrative side of the company was

running as if noting had happened, and the paper mill was churning out meaningless documents at an ever increasing rate.

Another sort of related example was an experience I had during the Vietnam War. I was transfered on "emergency" orders to

a small ship that was classed as a "support vessel', as many "non combat" vessels were.  (It made no difference that the ship

provided on call fire support in and around Vietnam, and, in terms of fire power, rivaled the fire power of up to three destroyers.)

Anyway, it was soon obvious that the ship and it's sisters were deployed without the required supporting electronic instruments

and test equipment needed to sustain long term operations. The on board electronic systems were a mishmash of WWII, Korean War,

and then modern electronics. 

(Think vacuum tubes, electromechanical fire control computers, transistorized communications equipment, and even some integrated circuits.)

Virtually none of the scheduled and preventive maintenance could be accomplished "by the book".

Pleas to high up were ignored, mainly because of the support classification. A destroyer (DD) or DE had a higher support priority!

Rather than just not doing the maintenance, and just doing was we could when things quit, a plan of attack was developed.

Seems the the Navy had recently implemented a maintenance tracking system that used magnetically read

IBM "punched cards".  We started filling them out in mass, stating that the maintenance actions could not be accomplished, due to lack of

required support equipment. It was also true that the actual needed maintenance could be done, just not "by the book".

This caused a bit of conflict, since we were fully operational, but if you believed the documented "we cannot do that" evidence,

there was no way we could be!  What finally happened was that  the batch of cards we submitted caused a nice and shiny

pride of the navy computerized system to crash big time.  A couple of months later, we received a double shipment of modern electronic instruments

and test equipment, with  a radio message to the effect that "don't ever do that again!"