Jump to content
VA Disability Community via Hadit.com

VA Disability Claims Articles

Ask Your VA Claims Question | Current Forum Posts Search | Rules | View All Forums
VA Disability Articles | Chats and Other Events | Donate | Blogs | New Users

  • hohomepage-banner-2024-2.png

  • 27-year-anniversary-leaderboard.png

    advice-disclaimer.jpg

  • donate-be-a-hero.png

I think this will help with smc

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

  • Content Curator/HadIt.com Elder

Please be aware that document was authored in 2010, so some of it may have changed in the past eight years. I do agree that it is a much easier read than the VA regulations governing how they approach SMC, for which I have linked the most recent version below.

M21-1, Part IV, Subpart ii, Chapter 2, Section H - Special Monthly Compensation (SMC)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Possibly- I dont have time to read it but I used a page from the VBM by NVLSP describing the SMC mandate for my SMC CUE.

I am sure I posted their explanation here in the topic re: my SMC CUE.

The decision was from a 1998 award letter. You could use my exact citation.

Husband had 100% SC PTSD and 100% from a 1151 stroke. It was all on the rating sheet and they never mentioned SMC at all in the decision.

My CUE was based on their lack of consideration of the SMC mandate and also I sent in an excerpt from M21-1MR.

That CUE stayed at Buffalo RO from 2004 to 2012, so I asked the Nehmer RO ( I had a AO IHD claim) to adjudiate the CUE-they did and awarded it-2012- and also a 2003 IHD  CUE I had, the Buffalo RO never made a decision on was awarded as well.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BTW , my former vet rep told me not to even file a NOD on the award ( it contained 4-5 CUEs)because" 1151s are different than regular  claims. What a dope -I did believe him for a while , and the award had been a battle, but then by 2003-2004 I knew he was wrong.

Edited by Berta
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is  my SMC CUE claim:

To whom it may concern:

This is a claim under CUE, 38 USC, 5109A.

I believe that VA erred in the lack of application of 38 USC 1114 regarding the above veteran’s entitlement to SMC. Although M21-1,Part 6 provides that SMC will be considered and rated as it is an inferred issue for any claim with SMC potential, VA failed to consider a retroactive award of SMC in adjudicating the veteran’s Section 1151 , which I re-opened after his death.”

( I referred to and enclosed copy of the SMC statutory mandate,I also enclosed the 1998 DIC decision I received, that the CUE was in and also I enclosed the veteran's posthumous 100% SC P & T PTSD award.

100% SC plus 60%SC of in independent system equals SMC.

I also stated the CVA ratings were wrong...they rated the CVA at 80% in 1998 and then awarded 100% under 1151 for the CVA last year as well as the SMC Housebound award..

I also stated The medical evidence had been established , and in VA's possession at time of the 1998 decision and the VA errors in the 1998 decision manifested an outcome that was detrimental to me.


 

I used copy of M21-1MR Part VI, March 25,2003 Change 102, Erratum under 3.09 ISSUE and 3.10” Inferred issues and Ancillary benefits” to support the SMC mandate in 38 USC 1114.

Also I used this page:


 

"The VA Adjudication Procedures Manual (M21-1MR) mandates that VA adjudicators consider entitlement to 

    special monthly compensation as an inferred issue. VA rating activities are obligated to consider entitlement to 

    special monthly compensation in all decisions where the medical evidence indicates possible entitlement."

    Source:  2009 Edition of the Veterans Benefits Manual by National Veterans Legal Services Program.Page 333.

Also the 2010 Edition of VBM by NVLSP has this statement:

 

"In Chapter 17, Note 261 of the 2010 Edition of the VBM, NVLSP makes this statement referencing the CAVC Bradley decision:

"the effective date of payment for Special Monthly Compensation is not when the issue was specifically raised by the evidence, but when the evidence first suggested a need for this benefit."

And enclosed a copy of the 1998 erroneous decision.

Hope it helps.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Guidelines and Terms of Use