Jump to content
  • veteranscrisisline-badge-chat-1.gif

  • Advertisemnt

  • Trouble Remembering? This helped me.

    I have memory problems and as some of you may know I highly recommend Evernote and have for years. Though I've found that writing helps me remember more. I ran across Tom's videos on youtube, I'm a bit geeky and I also use an IPad so if you take notes on your IPad or you are thinking of going paperless check it out. I'm really happy with it, I use it with a program called Noteshelf 2.

    Click here to purchase your digital journal. HadIt.com receives a commission on each purchase.

  • 14 Questions about VA Disability Compensation Benefits Claims


    When a Veteran starts considering whether or not to file a VA Disability Claim, there are a lot of questions that he or she tends to ask. Over the last 10 years, the following are the 14 most common basic questions I am asked about ...
    Continue Reading
  • Ads

  • Most Common VA Disabilities Claimed for Compensation:   


  • Advertisemnt

  • VA Watchdog

  • Advertisemnt

  • Ads

  • Can a 100 percent Disabled Veteran Work and Earn an Income?

    employment 2.jpeg

    You’ve just been rated 100% disabled by the Veterans Affairs. After the excitement of finally having the rating you deserve wears off, you start asking questions. One of the first questions that you might ask is this: It’s a legitimate question – rare is the Veteran that finds themselves sitting on the couch eating bon-bons … Continue reading

  • 0
Sign in to follow this  

Filed 3 CUEs, have 3 C&P exams: Question...


Good news, I filed three CUEs and now have three C&P exams.  Great news, it's with the VES and not the VA.  The best news, I've seen one of these VES Doctors before and he rated the disability exactly correct!

My question is, since I was given the C&Ps for the three disabilities that I filed the CUEs against, does this mean that the VA is agreeing that they made a CUE?  I understand the exams still have to happen for the rating portion, but does this mean the bureaucratic part of the VA agrees there was a mistake?  Logic tells me "yes, why would they schedule an exam if they were just going to deny the CUE."  However, this is the VA and logic is hard for them.

Last night I was going through my records to get them ready for the C&Ps.  While I was doing this, I found another CUE that if accepted will net me another 10% back to 2005.  Go through your records, DBQs, and Rating Decision letters, you might have CUEs just waiting to be found!


Thank you,


Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Recommended Posts

  • 0

I will put the CUE information up when I get the BBE.

I know I want to CUE the effective dates.  Is their a SOP for filing a CUE like Berta did in the appeals period?  I've read around here and it looks like it's still a new tactic.  If someone can point me to the right thread or give me some advice I will make a new thread with how I did it and how it goes.

Second question, I have a bilateral condition, 10% and 10%, which should add up to 1.9% with the VA's math.  How is that counted in towards my rating?  I don't see it in Ebenefits.  Is that 1.9% rounded down to 0% or is it rounded up to 2%?  Here is a break down of my ratings.  I think this only gets me to 82% if we use VA math.  Is that right?  God that just feels so wrong.

  1. 70%
  2. 20%
  3. 10%
  4. 10% 10% Bilateral

Thank you all,


Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

So all three of my CUEs where denied. 

All three of my CUEs where for denied service connection due to lack of evidence in my record.  I had STR evidence that wasn't in my C-File and I attached it for all three of the CUEs when I filed them.  The VA took this as an opportunity to reopen my claims.  I was awarded 20% for hemorrhoids, 10% for painful motion of knee, and denied hearing loss because they said I hear fine.  The two effective dates are the date that I submitted the CUEs.  Here is what the RDL (ratings decision letter) said.


The effective date of this grant is October 17, 2017.  Service connection has been established from the date the VA received your claim.  When a claim of service connection is received more than one year after discharge from active duty, the effective date is the date the VA received the claim.

A clear and unmistakable error was not found in the previous rating decision dated September 2, 2015. The rating decision denied service connection for hemorrhoids because evidence of record at the time showed no evidence of hemorrhoids. Therefore, an earlier effective date establishing service connection was no shown.

I believe, that by entering the STR from the navy medical doctors and that the VA stated the "evidence of record at the time showed no evidence of 'symptom'", that 38 CFR 3.156(c) should apply and I should be granted an earlier effective date since I filed a claim for these disabilities with in one year of my discharge in 2005.  Would someone please chime in and tell me if that is correct?  Here is a link to the code (https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/38/3.156)  Here is a link to the https://www.veteranslawblog.org/the-ultimate-va-claims-effective-date-checklist-how-to-get-an-earlier-effective-date-in-your-va-claim-or-appeal/ where I found out about this.

So I think I can NOD or CUE the effective dates.  Should I ask for DRO review and point this out?

Edited by mrstephens11
To make post clearer.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Based on what Berta has said about "Go CUE yourself" (asking the VA to file a CUE on their behalf during your appeals period), I have drafted this request.  Please let me know what you think.



I respectfully request the VA to call a clear and unmistakable error "CUE" on themselves under “38 CFR 3.156(c) New and Material evidence” and to correct the effective date of my claim for hemorrhoids and chondromalacia right knee.  I am still within my time limit for appeal and I reserve my right to appeal and to file my own CUE.  The VA reopened my claim after denying CUEs for both hemorrhoids and chondromalacia right knee.  However, I was award service connection for both based on the new and material evidence I submitted.  This new and material evidence is “Service Department Records” and were not a part of the “evidence of record” at the time of reopening of the claim.  Since I submitted a claim for both hemorrhoids and chondromalacia right knee within one year of my discharge, the effective date should be 09/17/2005 instead of 10/17/2017.  My first claim for hemorrhoids and chondromalacia right knee are in my C-File.  To add to this, the ratings decision letter I received in 2015 stated that my chondromalacia left knee was back dated to 09/17/2005 because of the un-adjudicated claim within one year of my discharge, which is the same claim I originally claimed hemorrhoids and chondromalacia right knee.

I respectfully request the VA to call a clear and unmistakable error "CUE" on themselves under “38 CFR 4.59 – Painful Motion” and “38 CFR 3.103 - Procedural due process and appellate rights” and to correct the lack of rating painful motion for both diagnostic code 5260 (Leg, limitation of flexion) and 5261  (Leg, limitation of extension). I am still within my time limit for appeal and I reserve my right to appeal and to file my own CUE.  The VA reopened my claim after denying a CUE for chondromalacia right knee.  However, I was award service connection for painful motion of the knee based on the new and material evidence I submitted.  The VA didn’t specifically state in the rating decision letter which range of motion this was grated for.  Since I have pain in both flexion and extension, as noted in the C&P exam dated 11/28/2017, I should be rated for 10% for diagnostic code 5260 and 10% for diagnostic code 5261.  The effective date for these disabilities should be 09/17/2015, based on the reasoning and law stated in the first paragraph of this request for the VA to call “CUE” on themselves.


Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

I am a little confused here on all of this-you apparently have 2 decisions you disgree with.

Can you scan and attach those decisions here ( Cover C file #, name, etc) as to their Reasonand rationales for the decisions and also the Evidence list they used?


Also is it possible the recent C & P exam results might lead to a new decision that covers everything?

If these issues can be handled under the 38 CFR 3.156(c) New and Material evidence regulations, that is often a far better approach then filing a CUE.

I think they denied your CUE claims but used 38 CFR 3.156 correctly to re-open?




Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0



Yes, I have two issues with the way this played out.  One is that the effective dates for both the hemorrhoids and chondromalacia right knee are wrong, since I gave them new evidence from Service Treatment Records.  The other issue is the fact that I feel I should have been rated for painful motion for both flexion and extension.  The VA didn't say which diagnostic code they used for rating the painful motion and since both flexion and extension have painful motion, I feel I should be rated at 10% for both.

How should I proceed?


Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Answer this question...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Ads

  • Our picks

    • Rating "Protections"
      The VA has several regulations governing various levels of "protection". The terms "permanent", "protection", and "total" are misnomers due to the various ways the VA has defined them.

      Here is some information on VA ratings protection (but the word "protection" has a different meaning to the VA). The exception to these rules is if they can prove fraud.

      5 years

      The key part to remember about the 5 year rule is found 3.327(a) indicating that these are guidelines which are not necessarily set in stone. The key takeaway for most veterans is reduction should not occur if there has not been material improvement over 5+ years or if the veteran is over the age of 55.


      10 years

      In brief, ratings in effect for 10 years cannot have service connection severed.


      20 years

      In brief, a disability rated for 20 years cannot be reduced below the lowest rating percentage it has held for the previous 20 years.








      Disclaimer: I am not a legal expert, so use at own risk and/or consult a professional representative. The VA updates their regulations from time to time, so this information may become outdated.
        • Like
      • 5 replies
    • Everything Veterans Affairs does with your service connected disability compensation claim, is governed by law. You may want to bookmark this page as a reference as you proceed with your claim.

      It can be a bit daunting. Just remember the U.S.C. is the law, the C.F.R. is how they interpret the law and last but certainly not least is the V.A. adjudication manuals that is how they apply the law. The section of the law that covers the veterans benefits is Title 38 in the U.S.C. in the C.F.R. is usually written 38 C.F.R. or something similar.

      It's helpful to understand how statutes, regulations, and VA directives such as the VA’s Adjudication Procedures Manual, the M21-1MR (Manual M21-1MR.) are related. Of these three sources of law, the statute, written by Congress, is the highest form. The statute that governs veterans’ benefits is found in Title 38 of the United States Code (U.S.C.). The VA writes regulations to carry out the laws written by Congress; these are found in Title 38 of the Code of Federal Regulations (C.F.R.). The VA’s internal instructions for adjudicating claims are contained in the Manual M21-1MR. VA regulations may not conflict with any statute; the manual’s provisions may not conflict with either statute or regulations. If they do, the Court has the power to invalidate them.


      U.S.C. United States Code United States Code is the law and the U.S.C. is the governments official copy of the code.

      U.S.C.A. United States Code Annotated U.S.C.A. contain everything that is printed in the official U.S. Code but also include annotations to case law relevant to the particular statute.

      C.F.R. Code of Federal Regulations The C.F.R. is the interpretation of the law

      VA M-21 Compensation and Pension Manual

      VA M-21-4 C & P Procedures

      VA M28-3 Vocational Rehabilitation

      VA M29-1 VBA Insurance Manual
      • 0 replies
    • HadIt.com Branded 11oz Coffee Mug for sale
      11oz Coffee Mug with HadIt.com Logo and Motto $12
      • 0 replies
    • Show your support with HadIt.com logo items. Only a few to start, t-shirts and ball caps coming https://hadit.com/shop/ Can holder, Coffee Mugs and Notebook currently come take a look and check back https://hadit.com/shop/

      • 0 replies
    • I was unable to find a reply box to your post.

      We have a full Agent Orange forum here.

      Many veterans (and even their survivors) have succeeded in getting a disability, not on the presumptive list, service connected due to their proven exposure to AO.

      Also Secretary Wilkie is considering a few new presumptives, but we have no idea if  he will even add any to the list.

      I wrote to him making a strong argument, as  to the potential for HBP to be added, as well as ischemic stroke and have prepared a personal claim based on the same report a veteran used at the BVA, who also had a strong IMO/IME, and the BVA recently granted his HBP as due to his exposure to AO in Vietnam.

      Most veterans with HBP were deemed as having "essential" - a medical term for no know cause- now we have a cause in Vietnam veterans---AO caused it.


      The report is here:


      On page 8 they found there is "Sufficient" evidence that AO caused HBP in Vietnam veterans.

      The BVA case and this report is also searchable in our AO forum.



      • 0 replies
  • Ads

  • Popular Contributors

  • Ad

  • Latest News
  • Create New...

Important Information

{terms] and Guidelines