Who was that masked rater?

[FormerMember]

Have you ever wondered who came up with that gomer denial with no logical rationale? Here's how you find out who wrote it. This will help you if you wish to talk to them.

https://asknod.org/2016/05/09/varo-hide-and-seek/

[Buck52]

Asknod has always had great information to help veterans  its up to the veteran to use it. &  no one has control of what another person does.

What are the chances a veteran gets the same rater after a NOD is filed?

If a veteran uses violence  and goes after a rater....this of course would jeopardize his claim even more (obviously)   so in my opinion I think the chance of that would be around 1%  very low.

 Sure we all get upset if were denied but give a veteran a little bit of common sense here....unless he goes into a rage and causes problems in the VA RO of course he be kicked out by VA Security & his claim will be even be harder to adjudicate if it is looked at again?

 I get asknod point it  would be commutations between the veteran and the rater .

  IF VETERAN KNOWS WHO THE RATER WAS...can talk to the rater about his claim and hopefully the rater will listen and make a better decision...by communicating with one another.

some times and I imagine it happens a lot with the raters   when you read some thing in writing  its hard some times to make a decision  vs talking to a person in person/phone

I certainly understand asknod post &point.

and in my opinion most veterans will not go to his RO and whip up on a rater  that would be Ridiculousness 

i Can''t say I or other veterans never thought about it at times but most of us do have a little common sense & cool down and get our thoughts back.

jmo

.................Buck

[FormerMember]

Having joined the "Big Boys Club" 44 years ago, and having errors and omissions insurance, I certainly do not need a minder to protect me from what I post. While I do appreciate other's concern for my legal standing and potential lawsuits, I am relatively certain no one would abuse the information and links I have provided. Should they do so, I cannot be sued for the knowledge freely accessible in another website. Would I feel bad? Yes, but not for my actions. I like to think of Veterans who come to our sites as intelligent,  responsible adults and not skulking chuckleheads with an ax to grind.

Now to answer a huge misconception and a gross mistruth  Mr. Broken Soldier seems to be laboring under. I also apologize for casting any aspersions about personality disorders earlier. I merely noted the self-admitted MDD rated at 30%,50%-- 100%. He is correct. It is not a personality disorder but a Major Depressive Disorder as described in the DSVM IV. Personality disorders are not compensable.

<<<  You are missing the point- that VA rater employees are not, nor should they be, direclty (sic) answerable to the veteran. If they were then nothing would ever get done.>>>

Allow me, sir to elucidate with more "hyperbole". Hyperbole is defined as exaggeration. I do not exaggerate when I cite to 38 CFR § 3.103(c)(1)(2) which you apparently are not acquainted with. It involves a concept called Due Process under 38 USC § 501. Anyone who helps Vets, or professes to, is intimately aware of it. It is the bedrock principle that allows me (or you) to march into a VARO and ask to talk to the author of the decision. S/he is in charge of my decision (and denial) unless or until I file a Notice of Disagreement that requires a de novo review by a higher rating authority such as a DRO review. to wit:

 

(c) The right to a hearing.

(1) Upon request, a claimant is entitled to a hearing at any time on any issue involved in a claim within the purview of part 3 of this chapter, subject to the limitations described in § 20.1304 of this chapter with respect to hearings in claims which have been certified to the Board of Veterans' Appeals for appellate review. VA will provide the place of hearing in the VA office having original jurisdiction over the claim or at the VA office nearest the claimant's home having adjudicative functions, or, subject to available resources and solely at the option of VA, at any other VA facility or federal building at which suitable hearing facilities are available. VA will provide one or more employees who have original determinative authority of such issues to conduct the hearing and be responsible for establishment and preservation of the hearing record. Hearings in connection with proposed adverse actions and appeals shall be held before one or more VA employees having original determinative authority who did not participate in the proposed action or the decision being appealed. All expenses incurred by the claimant in connection with the hearing are the responsibility of the claimant.

(2) The purpose of a hearing is to permit the claimant to introduce into the record, in person, any available evidence which he or she considers material and any arguments or contentions with respect to the facts and applicable law which he or she may consider pertinent. All testimony will be under oath or affirmation. The claimant is entitled to produce witnesses, but the claimant and witnesses are expected to be present. The Veterans Benefits Administration will not normally schedule a hearing for the sole purpose of receiving argument from a representative. It is the responsibility of the VA employee or employees conducting the hearings to explain fully the issues and suggest the submission of evidence which the claimant may have overlooked and which would be of advantage to the claimant's position. To assure clarity and completeness of the hearing record, questions which are directed to the claimant and to witnesses are to be framed to explore fully the basis for claimed entitlement rather than with an intent to refute evidence or to discredit testimony. In cases in which the nature, origin, or degree of disability is in issue, the claimant may request visual examination by a physician designated by VA and the physician's observations will be read into the record.

(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 501)

 

That seems pretty clear to most of us who do this for Veterans. 38 CFR and 38 USC have a wealth of assets for Veterans-- but only if they are aware of them. My question still stands. What, pray tell, is to be gained by suppressing knowledge helpful to winning a claim, sir? I have never suggested any Veteran forego visiting the Pink site. I merely point to the quality of the advice given- or lack thereof. Censorship is a vestige of power over knowledge exerted by those who fear the truth. And that's all I'm gonna say about that. 

 

[RUREADY]

I think this is knowledge and you can learn something ever/y day

I never knew this great post . Question is this only at the RO

office and not BVA appeals correct.?

 

 

[Meddac]

23 hours ago, RUREADY said:

I think this is knowledge and you can learn something ever/y day

I never knew this great post . Question is this only at the RO

office and not BVA appeals correct.?

 

 

You can search BVA if you know who you're looking for I guess. It's loaded down with General Attorneys.