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  

Intent to File from 2018 ED decision


Another question about the AMA process.

In 2018 I filed for SMC for ED. I was awarded 0% but SMC allowed. yippee.

At that time the Award letter said I had a potential claim for Voiding Dysfunction if I choose to file for it.

Since my other claims were tied up on the VA hamster wheel, I filed an Intent to File.

AS I understand it since Feb 19 that Intent to File is gone? and my earlier date is done, meaning when I file for the Voiding Dysfunction my file date will be the earliest possible under the new AMA process?

Is there a way around this to get an EED back to 2018?

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Recommended Posts

  • 0

Well, yes.  

   SMC is inferred..always to when you are eligble for it, not the date you applied, necessarily.  

   If you told your doctor you had ED, then your backpay for ED (which is SMC K) should go back to that date, regardless of the date you applied.  

    Your effective date should be the date it was first recorded in your records that you had ED.  

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
8 minutes ago, broncovet said:

Your effective date should be the date it was first recorded in your records that you had ED


Thank you for the response but back pay for the ED was not my question.

My question is if my Intent to File for Voiding Dysfunction made in 2018 has been canceled due to the Feb 19, 2019 switch to AMA process? If it is, how do I get the EED back to the IIF date?


Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Have you received a decision for "voiding dysfunction?"  If you have, was it at the wrong effective date?

Claims are processed strictly in this order:

1.  Service connection or no. 

2.  Disability percentage.

3.  Effective date.

      Therefore, there isnt a lot you can do to dispute an effective date, on a claim that has not yet been adjuticated.  Instead, you have to wait for the envelope, then file a nod if you dispute the effective date.  

     If it makes you feel better, you can send a 21-4138 explaining you filed an ITF on this issue and you dont want to lose your effective date because of ramp.

     However, dont expect VA to bother to read your letter, tho stranger things have happened.  But, keep a copy of the letter when/if you have to appeal the effective date.  

      You cant do much about the effective date until after its adjuticated.  

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
1 minute ago, broncovet said:

Have you received a decision for "voiding dysfunction?" 


The original question is what happened to my Intent to File when the system changed on Feb 19, 2019.

The VA notified me in my 2018 Award letter that I could file for Voiding Dysfunction. I have not yet filed as I was waiting for the fustercluck going on with my Vertigo claim to be settled.

The ITF was made to hold my date, as that is what ITF"s were meant to do.

With the change on Feb 19th, 2019, it seems that all previous ITF"s are erased, or so I have read elsewhere.

At this point I will just file a new claim for the Voiding Dysfunction, indicate that I had an ITF and see what happens.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0



''With the change on Feb 19th, 2019, it seems that all previous ITF"s are erased, or so I have read elsewhere.''


Intent to File Preserves the Effective Date of a Potential Claim You will have up to one year from the date VA receives your intent to file to submit a formal claim.

This process also allows VA to award backdated benefits from the date of your diagnosis or treatment. Your intent to file just needs to be filed within one year of the diagnosis or treatment. Then, your required claim form needs to be filed within one year.

Other Important Information About Intent to File • You can only submit one intent to file at a time. • After you submit a completed claim, your intent to file will no longer be active. If you expect to file an intent to file for another general benefit, you must submit a new form. Consider this sample process:

1. VA receives an intent to file for compensation benefits on April 1, 2015.

2. VA receives an application for compensation benefits on Aug. 1, 2015.

3. You file another application for compensation benefits on Jan. 1, 2016. In this case, VA considers an effective date of April 1, 2015 for any benefits awarded as a result of the Aug. 1, 2015 application.

However, the April 1, 2015 intent to file date will not be used for any benefits awarded as a result of the Jan. 1, 2016 application. If a second intent to file for compensation benefits is received on Oct. 1, 2015, VA considers an effective date of April 1, 2015. This is the date VA received the intent to file''

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  

  • Similar Content

    • By GeekySquid
      Several discussions about ITFs under the AMA process have cropped up in other forums. Today in talking about one it dawned on me I could find out a few things by simply starting to file under the AMA process.
      In short what I found is that ITF's do indeed exist under the AMA process for New Claims. The process also recognizes automatically if you have an existing ITF from before Feb 19, 2019.
      Attached are 5 screen caps on the process. Caps 1 and 5 related to filing a New Claim. The other 3 show what your options are depending on the date of the decision you are appealing.
      Read the fine print on Cap 5 concerning previous ITF's.
      Will this change? who knows, but as of now the application process under AMA for a New Claim indicates that ITF's are alive and breathing on their own.

    • By GeekySquid
      This is directed @Tbird and the other people who manage HADIT.
      Will there be a new section for AMA now that RAMP is closed?
      Things are kind of a jumble right now and as I am trying to find clarity on what lane I am "supposed" to file in, having a separate AMA section would be helpful.
    • By SA_oatmeal
      In anyone's experience in preceding a formal claim submission with an Intent To File notification, does CFR 20.305 (Computation of Time Limit for Filing) rule apply to the Intent To File process timeframe requirements for completed claim award effective date?
      My scenario: On 8/06/2015 (Thursday) my Intent To File notification was received/logged online by VA via eBenefits. The next month my mother was hospitalised by coma and died at end of month. For several months afterwards, I did nothing with the claim. During July 2016 I completed the claim in eBenefits but could not submit for system errors over 2+ weeks of attempts (as Support Desk advised they only assisted with access to eBenefits and not any problems using it).
      1-2 days before Intent To File expiry, I recreated the claim via paper form and was forced to mail it out via USPS the morning of Intent To File expiry. As a result of inquiring with VA personnel at both the regional hospital and attached CBOC, as well as via 800-827-1000, and being informed that VA would adhere to postmark date for preserving Intent To File effective date, I paid an extra fee to guarantee USPS postmark the submittal that morning (Saturday 8/06/2016) and cause issue of postmark verification document. The completed claim form was received by VA on 8/09/2016.
      After retention of legal representative, VA awarded me benefits for a portion of my claim's conditions (the remainder of the claim being still in Appeal) with effective date of 8/09/2016, the day they received my mailed claim submittal.
      If Intent To File timeframe requirement is exempt from Rule 305, then, since my mailed claim submittal wasn't received until 3 days past Intent To File expiration, my effective date is correct as presented.
      If Rule 305's Time Limit Computation directives DO apply to the Intent To File process, then my effective date should be nearly a full year earlier than was presented, to encompass the Intent To File's preserved receipt/initiated date of 8/06/2015.
      My lawyer, upon a cursory review of the information I just related above, is of the INITIAL opinion that the VA's presentation of effective date is NOT challengable due to the Intent To File process being exempt from Rule 305. This is based partly on the word choice* that frames the Intent To File process description (in at least one place, though not consistently in what documentation** of the process that I have been able to reference).
      Please ask away if more information is felt necessary, and I will further furnish what I can.
      *  "received within 1 year" ... rather than "filed" or "submitted" (as with Rule 305 employing " filed within a specified period of time")
      ** https://www.benefits.va.gov/BENEFITS/factsheets/general/ITF.pdf
    • By VN-Vet
      Hey Guys - I need to know if it is possible to file an 'Intent to File' and then submit multiple claims?
      When I first started to file a few years back I was told just a letter stating that you would be filing for multiple claims for service connected disabilities, connected to conditions to, but not limited to,  disabilities,related to Agent Orange, back, injuries, scars, and more, would suffice for a year while you prepared your claim.
      The was I read the info sheet on the new 'Intent to File' (21-0966), it looks like it is good for only your 'next' claim - and going by the VA example, it looks like you have to then file a claim before you can submit another 'Intent to File'.
      This really doesn't make sense, and I would think there was a way to save the date for multiple claims - but in reading the forum it does not appear so, or at least I haven't looked in the right place yet.
      So if possible, how do we file an 'Intent to File' for multiple claims?
  • Ads

  • Our picks

    • Peggy toll free 1000 last week, told me that, my claim or case BVA Granted is at the RO waiting on someone to sign off ,She said your in step 5 going into step 6 . That's good, right.?
      • 6 replies
    • I took a look at your documents and am trying to interpret what happened. A summary of what happened would have helped, but I hope I am interpreting your intentions correctly:

      2003 asthma denied because they said you didn't have 'chronic' asthma diagnosis

      2018 Asthma/COPD granted 30% effective Feb 2015 based on FEV-1 of 60% and inhalational anti-inflamatory medication.

      "...granted SC for your asthma with COPD w/dypsnea because your STRs show you were diagnosed with asthma during your military service in 1995.

      First, check the date of your 2018 award letter. If it is WITHIN one year, file a notice of disagreement about the effective date. 

      If it is AFTER one year, that means your claim has became final. If you would like to try to get an earlier effective date, then CUE or new and material evidence are possible avenues. 


      I assume your 2003 denial was due to not finding "chronic" or continued symptoms noted per 38 CFR 3.303(b). In 2013, the Federal Circuit court (Walker v. Shinseki) changed they way they use the term "chronic" and requires the VA to use 3.303(a) for anything not listed under 3.307 and 3.309. You probably had a nexus and benefit of the doubt on your side when you won SC.

      It might be possible for you to CUE the effective date back to 2003 or earlier. You'll need to familiarize yourself with the restrictions of CUE. It has to be based on the evidence in the record and laws in effect at the time the decision was made. Avoid trying to argue on how they weighed a decision, but instead focus on the evidence/laws to prove they were not followed or the evidence was never considered. It's an uphill fight. I would start by recommending you look carefully at your service treatment records and locate every instance where you reported breathing issues, asthma diagnosis, or respiratory treatment (albuterol, steroids, etc...). CUE is not easy and it helps to do your homework before you file.

      Another option would be to file for an increased rating, but to do that you would need to meet the criteria for 60%. If you don't meet criteria for a 60% rating, just ensure you still meet the criteria for 30% (using daily inhaled steroid inhalers is adequate) because they are likely to deny your request for increase. You could attempt to request an earlier effective date that way.


      Does this help?
    • Thanks for that. So do you have a specific answer or experience with it bouncing between the two?
    • Tinnitus comes in two forms: subjective and objective. In subjective tinnitus, only the sufferer will hear the ringing in their own ears. In objective tinnitus, the sound can be heard by a doctor who is examining the ear canals. Objective tinnitus is extremely rare, while subjective tinnitus is by far the most common form of the disorder.

      The sounds of tinnitus may vary with the person experiencing it. Some will hear a ringing, while others will hear a buzzing. At times people may hear a chirping or whistling sound. These sounds may be constant or intermittent. They may also vary in volume and are generally more obtrusive when the sufferer is in a quiet environment. Many tinnitus sufferers find their symptoms are at their worst when they’re trying to fall asleep.

        • Like
    • Precedent Setting CAVC cases cited in the M21-1
      A couple months back before I received my decision I started preparing for the appeal I knew I would be filing.  That is how little faith I had in the VA caring about we the veteran. 

      One of the things I did is I went through the entire M21-1 and documented every CAVC precedent case that the VA cited. I did this because I wanted to see what the rater was seeing.  I could not understand for the life of me why so many obviously bad decisions were being handed down.  I think the bottom line is that the wrong type of people are hired as raters.  I think raters should have some kind of legal background.  They do not need to be lawyers but I think paralegals would be a good idea.

      There have been more than 3500 precedent setting decisions from the CAVC since 1989.  Now we need to concede that all of them are not favorable to the veteran but I have learned that in a lot of cases even though the veteran lost a case it some rules were established that assisted other veterans.

      The document I created has about 200 or so decisions cited in the M21-1.   Considering the fact that there are more than 3500 precedent cases out there I think it is safe to assume the VA purposely left out decisions that would make it almost impossible to deny veteran claims.  Case in point. I know of 14 precedent setting decisions that state the VA cannot ignore or give no weight to outside doctors without providing valid medical reasons as to why.  Most of these decision are not cited by the M21.

      It is important that we do our due diligence to make sure we do not get screwed.  I think the M21-1 is incomplete because there is too much information we veterans are finding on our own to get the benefits we deserve

      M21-1 Precedent setting decisions .docx
        • Thanks
        • Like
      • 5 replies
  • Ads

  • Popular Contributors

  • Ad

  • Latest News
  • Create New...

Important Information

{terms] and Guidelines