Earlier Effective Date-Confused

[Jimmer]

Hi Everyone,  I want to thank all for your support and great advice that you have provided.  It has certainly helped me!   I had been on the "hamster wheel", until I came here.  I have a question pertaining to a E.E,D.  My situation may be a little unusual but hear goes:  I have been working with a VSO and she has been pretty good, but know I get the feeling she thinks I am "reaching" and trying to "milk" the system, which I am not!   My situation involves, I was discharged from the Marines, April 15, 1969.  I filed a claim pertaining to my eyes in November 1969, received a denial April 24, 1970.  I filed again in 1978, denied, 1987, denied, finally in 2007, I started using a VSO, and later found this site.  I had a BVA hearing in 2013, and I was awarded compensation on the eye at 10%.  Now, I was discharged from the Marines, because of an accident that happened, that effected my eyes.  This is all in my SMR, and I was sent to Balboa naval Station Hospital, where they told me I was going to be discharged because of the incident.  The VA maintained that I was discharged because of being nearsighted.  I have the records of the entry physical in which I was deemed fir for the Marines, passed the eyesight tests and was told my vision was "normal".  The VA fought me on this all they way to the BVA hearing.   My 10% disability was granted based on some notes the VA had.  I then had a VA C&P exam, and was increased to 60%, then they CUE"D themselves and raised it to 80%.  I now found out I basically have no sight in the left eye.   I do feel that the 1970 date should be the date of the E.E>D.  I also feel that the VA established via exam that I was at 60%, and I feel I should have that from the day the BVA approved my claim.  Am I wrong?   As I said I feel that the VSO thinks I am being "greedy" without saying in actual words.  At the Hospital, I remember the  eye doctor giving me his card and saying "you need to get my notes, because if you ever file a disability claim", you will have a battle on your hands".  I did get his info, and kept it.    Thanks again for all your help.

[broncovet]

Fight for your effective date!  

Do not listen to your VSO.  

You will eventually need to hire a lawyer to win this, IMHO.  Virtually "all" large retro's (except maybe Berta's) are won with an attorney.  

Here is why:

Your retro, back to 1970 is surely in the six figure range.  

VARO employees, GS5-GS11, dont have the authority to sign a document which results  on giving you a half million in retro.  So, they just deny it.  

To get your effective date, you are "almost certainly" going to have to go to the CAVC.  Even a BVA judge probably does not want to sign on a half million in retro.

     This is the typical rhetoric that VSO's spout..most likely its to save themselves work.  

     Of course, I have not looked at your file, but, based on what you posted, you should get an earlier date, but it may be a Fenderson (staged) rating.  

Edited May 25, 2019 by broncovet

[Berta]

Did they rate your eye condition at least at 10% as NSC when they denied?

If so you possible can file a CUE- nice to see they are using my input to Shulkin to change M21-1MR and are  CUE before decision are formally made. They did that to other vets here as well. Good news.

If they did rate you at 10% NSC in any past decision, can you scan and attach the deision here -cover your F file , name , prior to scanning it.

 

[Jimmer]

Berta/Broncovet,  When I filed in 1970, they denied, stating because I was "nearsighted", that I exceeded the allowable vision to be in the Marines.  When I was accepted into Marines, I told them I wore glasses, regularly and was near sighted.  I had 2-3 exams and the Marines deem my eyes "normal"  They didn't for whatever reason address the fact that I was admitted to Balboa Hospital and a eye specialist, recommended that I be discharged because of "trauma" to my eye.  When I would file a claim on my eye, it seemed like I was getting the same letter, with a different signature.  I never received any compensation until the BVA hearing in which the judge stated it was service connected.   I do have a feeling, Broncovet, that because they paid me 10% in 2013 retroactive to 2007, the would use the percentage from 1970 to 2007, which would amount to about $22,000.  But I feel the 60% is correct, that is what the C&P exam showed then CUE'D to 80&.     I am seeing a "outside" Board certified Eye Specialist, who I have seen  off and on for over 20 years, to really nail this down with a exam, letters etc.  If the VA has to go back to the 60% retro, then it would be a high six figure amount.    As I said this is all in my SMR file, and the VA has had copies of it.  They make refence to it, but had continued to stand by their claim, that I had poor eyesight entering the Marines, in which the BVA judge shot down quickly.    Thanks for everyone's help.

[broncovet]

The obvious answer is to get your medical records, and compare your symptoms to the criteria, to find out if your symptoms warranted 70 percent, or higher way back when.  

If you do this, you can get an idea of what will happen, that is, if you wind up with a Fenderson staged rating.  

[vetquest]

Never listen to the people who accuse or treat you like you are milking the system.  I was discharged for a "condition" that was not a physical disability.  I got a lot of crap for that.  The VA first diagnosed me with nine different mental problems including two personality disorders.  This wound up with my getting a rating for PTSD.  After I lost my job it took ten years but now I am 100% scheduler.  

A wise VSO once told me to never listen to the people who try to tell you that you do not deserve benefits.  You signed the line putting yourself at risk and were discharged as medically unfit.  You have paid for your benefits.

[Jimmer]

Broncovet, thanks for the information.  I do have the documentation from Balboa Hospital, and the doctor's notes.  I will fight this,  as I feel the VA completely ignored this information.  Vetquest, thanks for the advice.  You are 100% correct!   I am going to fight for my EED, regardless how or what the VOS said.