EED straight from the horse's mouth!!!

[Buck52]

https://www.va.gov/disability/effective-date/

[vetquest]

I was diagnosed with a condition that I suffered twenty-five years after service.  It was neuropathy; a medical doctor wrote a medical opinion that heat injuries can cause neuropathy the same as cold injuries years following service.  He supported his opinion with medical literature.  I had the three Caluza events at that time.  

[awgv001]

https://ptsdlawyers.com/blog/effective-dates-date-va-received-claim-date-entitlement-arose-4/

I wanted to attach this here - I think it explained it in a way I could better understand.

[Buck52]

On the injurys or deseases if we never had them in service and come down with a desease  or anything that could be related to an injury

to make these service connected.

you need to go see a Dr (Specialist preferred)

let the Dr know what you did in service take him your DD 214 it has your MOS on it ask this Dr if anything from your MOS Could cause desease or injury later on.

example  hearing loss was ok at your separation but years later you started losing your hearing loss slowly but year and years late rit got so bad you didn't understand what people were saying....well you ask a dr to give you an hearing test  follow va guidelines and use the Maryland CNC word discrimination test  and if this Dr (audiologist) but prefer a ENT  State Licenses Board Certified ..if you show you have a hearing loss ask the Dr if the loud noise you were around while in military could cause or be related to your hearing loss or cause your hearing loss?  if the Dr says yes it can  from the loud noise you were around while in the military.  that usually will service connect you for hearing loss  but keep in mind you need to be damn near deaf to compensation. The Dr may need to name the noise  like artillery gun fire, or if you were in combat and  was around  air craft  Motars rounds grenades RPG ,IED Roadside bombs  ect,,,ect,, or just  very loud sudden noise ...this is called noise induced hearing loss  and usually it effects both hears  and also if you have a ringing in your head  this is known as tinnitus  you need to tell the audiologist you have it  there's no test for tinnitus  and can be a 10% rating for both ears 

 See you was not diagnose for hearing loss at your separation from the military  but years later you were diagnose for hearing loss and...this is how you get Hearing loss service connected and a possible rating.

[awgv001]

On 1/18/2020 at 4:18 PM, broncovet said:

AWGV001:

   You posted:

  You dont have to be "diagnosed" in service.  Caluza element 1:  CURRENT diagnosis.  Caluza element 2 "In service EVENT".  ....

Alex gave the example of Hep. C.  There was no test or diagnosis for Hep C in the 60's or 70's.  Because there was no test for it, nor was it given a name, for a while it was referred to as "Non A- Non B Hepatitis".   Does that mean Vets "cound not be infected" with blood from jetguns?  No.  It means that they probably did not know they had it..often for decades.   Later some scientist called it hep C.  And, yes, Alex gets SC for Hep C as many other Vets he helped.  YOu do NOT need an "in service diagnosis".  Its a myth.  

    Stick STRICTLY with the Caluza elements exactly like they say:  Current diagnosis, in service event or aggravation and nexus.  

    The BVA should judge your claim on the Caluza elements.  If they fail to do so, appeal to the CAVC!!!  

I was confused on this - because then how is the effective date applied?? To the day after EAS? The claim? The diagnosis----??? because of the whole "date entitlement arose" nonsense.

[awgv001]

BTW ---- I found something on EED's that seems very well constructed to help out folks (myself included) on any confusion.

Claims for compensation based on direct SC are governed by 38 CFR 3.400(b)(2)(i).    There are two main provisions of this effective date rule.   For claims received more than one year following discharge from active duty, the general rule applies.  Thus, the effective date will be date of receipt of claim or date entitlement arose, whichever is later. For claims within one year of discharge from a period of active duty, the effective date may be as early as the day following discharge.  Refer to the table below for more information on the application of this provision of 38 CFR 3.400(b)(2)(i).   Step Action 1 Is the date of receipt of the claim within one year of discharge? If yes, go to Step 2. If no, then apply the general rule, unless another effective date rule applies. 2 Review the character of discharge (COD) for the most recent period of service.  Refer to the table below to determine appropriate action to take based on the COD.   If the separation from service was ... Then ... under conditions other than dishonorable go to Step 3. dishonorable and only a single period of service was performed refer to M21-1, Part III, Subpart v, 1.B. dishonorable but   there were multiple periods of continuous service, and the prior period of service was under conditions other than dishonorable refer to M21-1, Part III, Subpart iv, 5.C.3.d.   References:  For more information on the necessity of a COD determination in claims involving dishonorable service, see M21-1, Part III, Subpart v, 1.B.1, and conditional discharge determinations following a period of dishonorable service, see M21-1, Part III, Subpart v, 1.B.5.   3 Determine when the disability was incurred or aggravated during the Veteran’s military service.    Did active duty service continue without a break in service from the date the claimed disability was incurred or aggravated? If yes, go to Step 4. If no, then apply the general rule unless another effective date rule applies. 4 Were the entitling criteria for a grant of SC met as of the day following discharge? If yes, then grant SC effective the day following discharge. If no, then grant SC effective the date entitlement arose.   Exception:  If a claim is received to reinstate compensation following a return to active duty, apply 38 CFR 3.654(b) and follow the procedures in M21-1, Part III, Subpart v, 4.E.1.g.   Note:  A Veteran may seek entitlement to SC for new disabilities concurrently with a request to reinstate compensation following discharge from a period of active service.  The effective date of SC for the newly-claimed disabilities is assigned in accordance with the steps in the table above.   Reference:  For more information on effective dates for the resumption of compensation following release from active duty, see M21-1, Part III, Subpart i, 2.C.3.c.   ALSO --- The General Rule   The general rule is that the effective date is assigned based on the date of receipt of claim or the date entitlement arose, whichever is later.  Before applying the general rule, however, all information gathered during evidence review must be considered to determine whether a more specific effective date rule applies.   Note:  Date of claim and effective date are not synonymous.  Although the effective date is often the date of receipt of the claim, the effective date is determined by a variety of factors and is frequently not the same date as the date on which the claim is received.    References:  For more information on the general effective date rule, see 38 CFR 3.400 determining the date of receipt of a claim, see M21-1, Part III, Subpart ii, 1.C.1 reviewing claims, see M21-1, Part III, Subpart ii, 2.B stating the effective date and explaining the reason for effective date in a rating decision, see M21-1, Part III, Subpart iv, 6.C.5.a effective date procedures associated with the rating codesheet, see M21-1, Part III, Subpart iv, 6.E, and the impact of a previously withdrawn claim on the assignment of effective date for a subsequent claim, see M21-1, Part III, Subpart ii, 2.G.1.e-g.   III.iv.5.C.1.c.  Definition:  Date Entitlement Arose    There is no regulatory definition of the phrase date entitlement arose. However, in Wright v. Gober, 10 Vet.App. 343 (1997), the phrase "date entitlement arose" was found to be similar to the phrase "facts found."  This case, along with the regulatory context, strongly suggest that the date entitlement arose is the date on which the facts in the case demonstrate that the entitling criteria are first met.   III.iv.5.C.1.d.  Determining the Applicable Date of Claim for Effective Date Purposes   When determining the date of claim and its relationship to the proper effective date for assignment, consider the date of receipt of a complete claim, as well as a related intent to file (ITF) or incomplete claim filed within a year prior to the date of receipt of the complete claim.   Notes:  Do not associate an ITF with a supplemental claim. If a claimant files both an ITF and an incomplete claim before the complete claim is filed, the complete claim will be considered filed as of the date of receipt of whichever was filed first, provided it is perfected within the necessary timeframe. References:  For more information on determining the date of claim for claims establishment purposes, see 38 CFR 3.155(d), and M21-1, Part III, Subpart ii, 2.B.2.c effect of ITFs on effective dates, see M21-1, Part III, Subpart ii, 2.C.2.c handling incomplete claims, see M21-1, Part I, 1.B.1.g, and supplemental claims, see M21-1, Part III, Subpart ii, 2.D. III.iv.5.C.1.e. Determining Whether Date of Claim or Date Entitlement Arose is Later    The determination as to whether the date of claim or date entitlement arose is later, as specified in the general rule, is dependent on the date when the entitling criteria for the benefit sought are met.   The entitling criteria for a claim are frequently met on or before the date of claim based on the lay, medical, and other information presented during the entire process of claim development. When applying the general rule, the assignment of an effective date based on date entitlement arose being later than the date of receipt of the claim is only appropriate when the evidence clearly establishes that the entitling criteria were not met as of the date of receipt of the claim.  Example 1:  A Veteran claims SC for a knee condition with pain on March 21, 2015.  There are no post-service treatment records submitted with the claim.  Service treatment records (STRs) do show treatment for chronic knee pain and complaints of instability during service.  The VA examination dated July 14, 2015, confirms a diagnosis of patellofemoral pain syndrome.    Analysis:  The entitling criteria are met on or before the date of the claim because the Veteran reported the presence of a chronic disability which was later confirmed on examination and linked to military service.  There is no affirmative evidence indicating that the knee disability was not present on the date of receipt of the claim.  In fact, the evidence indicates the presence of a chronic knee disability due to the in-service knee problems that predated the claim.  Thus, the effective date may be assigned based on the date of receipt of the claim unless a different, specific effective date provision otherwise applies.   Example 2:  A Veteran claims SC for elevated blood sugar due to possible diabetes on October 8, 2014, associated with confirmed Vietnam service.  Private treatment records are requested and received showing that his blood sugars were first slightly elevated in June 2013, and the records document continued monitoring thereafter.  A VA examination dated January 3, 2015, indicates a diagnosis of type 2 diabetes mellitus, and the physician notes that the diagnostic criteria for diabetes were first met as shown in the private treatment records on November 13, 2014, when blood sugars and other testing met the American Diabetes Association criteria for a diabetes diagnosis, as the documented symptoms prior to that time were not sufficient for a diagnosis.      Analysis:  The entitling criteria were not met as of the date of the receipt of the claim because the symptoms were not sufficient for a diagnosis of the disability at that time.  There is affirmative evidence showing that the entitling criteria (which require the presence of a chronic disability) were first met on November 13, 2014, which is later than the date of receipt of the claim.  Thus, the effective date is assigned based on the date entitlement arose since it is later than the date of claim, unless a different, specific effective date provision otherwise applies.

Edited January 22, 2020 by awgv001
Somebody Pin this thing!

[Buck52]

WELL YEAH

BUT I NEVER SAID YOU HAD TO BE DIAGNOSE IN THE SERVICE....APERSON CAN COME DOWN WITH SOMETHING YEARS LATER THAT WAS CAUSED FROM HIS MILITARY SERVICE.

THE HIP-C was more than likey cause from A.O. From Vietnam, but it seems they would not believe that and Alex had to use the  Injection Guns from basic training  for this blood diseases Hip -C as t was transferd to him in this way.

Normally  if we can prove something in our military days  caused us a diseases later  on in life it can be Adjudicated and service connection established  ,that is the hardest part with claims is getting service connection established  without it your claims will always be denied.