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

Recommended Posts

John, I recommed you not worry, but instead take some action.  Order a new copy of your cfile.    Check to see if there is evidence of "actual improvement under ordinary conditions of life".    Given the regulation which follows, its tough for VA to reduce you.  

"Ordinary conditions of life" means while working, because "ordinary" people work, while disabled people dont.  

Read the part about "prolonged rest" and single exam.  

You can not be reduced over a single C and P exam, UNLESS that exam is consistent with your medical history.    

Go over this regulation..with a fine tooth comb.  I have, but its been a while.

 3.344 Stabilization of disability evaluations.

(a)Examination reports indicating improvement. Rating agencies will handle cases affected by change of medical findings or diagnosis, so as to produce the greatest degree of stability of disability evaluations consistent with the laws and Department of Veterans Affairs regulations governing disability compensation and pension. It is essential that the entire record of examinations and the medical-industrial history be reviewed to ascertain whether the recent examination is full and complete, including all special examinations indicated as a result of general examination and the entire case history. This applies to treatment of intercurrent diseases and exacerbations, including hospital reports, bedside examinations, examinations by designated physicians, and examinations in the absence of, or without taking full advantage of, laboratory facilities and the cooperation of specialists in related lines. Examinations less full and complete than those on which payments were authorized or continued will not be used as a basis of reduction. Ratings on account of diseases subject to temporary or episodic improvement, e.g., manic depressive or other psychotic reaction, epilepsy, psychoneurotic reaction, arteriosclerotic heart disease, bronchial asthma, gastric or duodenal ulcer, many skin diseases, etc., will not be reduced on any one examination, except in those instances where all the evidence of record clearly warrants the conclusion that sustained improvement has been demonstrated. Ratings on account of diseases which become comparatively symptom free (findings absent) after prolonged rest, e.g. residuals of phlebitis, arteriosclerotic heart disease, etc., will not be reduced on examinations reflecting the results of bed rest. Moreover, though material improvement in the physical or mental condition is clearly reflected the rating agency will consider whether the evidence makes it reasonably certain that the improvement will be maintained under the ordinary conditions of life. When syphilis of the central nervous system or alcoholic deterioration is diagnosed following a long prior history of psychosis, psychoneurosis, epilepsy, or the like, it is rarely possible to exclude persistence, in masked form, of the preceding innocently acquired manifestations. Rating boards encountering a change of diagnosis will exercise caution in the determination as to whether a change in diagnosis represents no more than a progression of an earlier diagnosis, an error in prior diagnosis or possibly a disease entity independent of the service-connected disability. When the new diagnosis reflects mental deficiency or personality disorder only, the possibility of only temporary remission of a super-imposed psychiatric disease will be borne in mind.

(b)Doubtful cases. If doubt remains, after according due consideration to all the evidence developed by the several items discussed in paragraph (a) of this section, the rating agency will continue the rating in effect, citing the former diagnosis with the new diagnosis in parentheses, and following the appropriate code there will be added the reference “Rating continued pending reexamination ___ months from this date, § 3.344.” The rating agency will determine on the basis of the facts in each individual case whether 18, 24 or 30 months will be allowed to elapse before the reexamination will be made.

(c)Disabilities which are likely to improve. The provisions of paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section apply to ratings which have continued for long periods at the same level (5 years or more). They do not apply to disabilities which have not become stabilized and are likely to improve. Reexaminations disclosing improvement, physical or mental, in these disabilities will warrant reduction in rating.

[26 FR 1586, Feb. 24, 1961; 58 FR 53660, Oct. 18, 1993]


Edited by broncovet

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Geeky mention 

''why do you think they would do that''.

Even with what all you mention is true  but that still don't keep them from giving a Veteran problems getting close to his 20 year protection!

Unfortunately  the VA can and will do what they please,  if they happen to call john999 up for c&p and review his records , it could cause him problems  and could/ may reduce him...

I think if a Veteran with 19 plus years with consecutive disability's gets a call or  letter to come to a C&P they have reason that his s.c. disability has shown improvement. (that should go by the VA development to deny) regulations)

The Veteran should in my opinion write the VA Secretary a nice short to the point letter in an email why the C&P SHOULD BE CANCELED.


 I  AM GETTING BY THE BEST WAY I CAN, There's been NO IMPROVEMENTS WHAT SO EVER  WITH MY S.C. DISABILITY'S AND I  Would like this C&P Be canceled  its a waist of tax payers $$ When there's other younger veterans that need this time. ect,,,,ect,,,,and detail your disability and your age and your way of life ect,,,ect,,

Remember Hadit memeber Adim/Mod and CUE Expert  our late and beloved Carlie Cash   wrote a similar letter to the VA Secretary (under secretary) and they canceled her C&P

...This was just a year or so before she died.  her letter is in the Hadit Archives  if you want to go read it.  ''My email to the VA UNDERSECRETARY) or something close tot his  Carlie had made sure it went into the Hadi Archives For future reference in case any other veterans get called up like she did.

I don't think a Veteran needs to prove anything to them  as for as getting your C-FILE AND PREPARING FOR A FIGHT the veteran has fought the fight to get his benefits  the VA Accepted this and awarded him his due benefits...so why in the hell would they dare try to take this veterans benefits away?   its a crying damn shame if a Veteran has to go through what he went through 19 plus years ago  all over again. ...No one knows his/her s.c. disability better than the Veteran them self. (jmo)

All Veterans that are close to the 20 year protection rule should read Carlie Cash email to the VA Undersecretary  to get a better insight as to what   what to say in their request to VA Undersecretary  the C&P Exam should be canceled.

Edited by Buck52

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's easy to put up regulations that are suppose to help a Veteran(but most of the time they don't) because the VA Comes back with regulations that we never heard of,  but in this type situation  the Veteran needs to try his best to get this C&P Exam canceled.

if not then yes  prepare to fight them.  check all your medical records and see why or what caused the proposal to reduce or a C&P Exam?

because thats what there after at this stage of the Veterans life

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe Alex is in court helping a 19 year  plus Veteran that  got a proposal to reduce because he has shown improvements.  or VA got word he did?

Edited by Buck52

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Buck52 said:

but that still don't keep them from giving a Veteran problems getting close to his 20 year protection!

Buck, everyone is entitled to their opinion and all that, but exactly how many vets running up on 20 year protection do you personally know that were put through all the stuff you mention? how many do you know that had a 19 year C&P and then the VA started the process to reduce?

Starting the process to reduce should not toll your 20 year protection, if it does point me to that law; so starting it in year 19 is not gonna fly. Remember that our compensation is based on their evaluation of the reduction of our ability to earn an income compared to the "average person".

So do you really think that for shits and giggles the VA is gonna come after someone on the cusp of 20 year protection?

The youngest a 20 year protected vet can be is 38 and that assumes a path of boot camp-duty station-injury-out-va in one year. so there at not many of those.

The vast majority of 20 year protected vets will be over 55, mostly over 65. What kind of work can they suddenly start doing at that age they could not the previous 18 years? and how can the VA prove it?

Can it happen? sure it CAN happen....but does it happen? and how often? if it was common it would be all over the news. Pissed off vets are not quiet and when there is a group of pissed off vets they really are not quiet.

The OP can worry if he wants, but without solid proof of it being a common practice it is a waste of energy based on an urban myth that the VA is out to get us.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

  • 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