Jump to content
  • 0

Widow AO Okinawa DIC claim


Berta

Question

  • HadIt.com Elder

I saw this article in the new News Section Tbird has put here:

https://vanews.wpengine.com/

https://www.erienewsnow.com/story/42619109/widow-of-vietnam-era-veteran-appealing-denial-of-claim-by-va

In part:

"Veterans Affairs states there’s no record of a cancer diagnosis while Richard served in the 1960s nor is there evidence of exposure to herbicides.

“They actually want a photo of him standing by this particular plane that he guarded, however, that’s not possible because he was in a high-secured area,” Mary said.

So tying the discovery of Agent Orange barrels to where Richard’s unit was stationed is strategic to the appeal."

The VA wants to identify what planes he had worked on in Okinawa. It is unfortunate that often widows do not recall things their husband discussed with them, about their service, that could become highly relevant to a successful DIC claim, after they pass.

," that’s not possible because he was in a high-secured area,” Mary said." from the above link- but a highly secured area would be an ideal place for the AO to have been sprayed. I assume he worked close to the flight line.

In the large stack of paperwork in the photo-I hope it includes the veterans SMRs and Personnel file.

It often pays for veterans to try to find their unit buddies in their lifetime- if not for a VA claim, for the comradery. And one never knows when a unit buddy can help turn a denied claim around ,for living, and even deceased veterans.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Answers 1
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters For This Question

Popular Days

Top Posters For This Question

1 answer to this question

Recommended Posts

  • 0
  • HadIt.com Elder

To add, I believe  the VA is looking for proof of contact with C 123s, via the veterans MOS

https://amcmuseum.org/history/airlift-during-the-vietnam-war/

because of this:

https://www.va.gov/disability/eligibility/hazardous-materials-exposure/agent-orange/c-123-aircraft/

We would not even have this important regulation , but Wes Carter, C 123 vet with cancer, proved his AO exposure due to certain contaminated C 123s ,and other veterans have been able to do the same thing.

There are hundreds of C 123 cases at the BVA- Most of them appear to have been denied, but there are some awards:

"CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The criteria for entitlement to service connection for a left knee disability have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303. 2. The criteria for entitlement to service connection for a right knee disability have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303. 3. Resolving reasonable doubt in favor of the Veteran, the criteria for entitlement to service connection for non-hodgkin’s lymphoma have been met. 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303, 3.307(a)(6)(v), 3.309(e)."

https://www.va.gov/vetapp20/files1/20004302.txt

This veteran jumped by parachute into Italy and the C 123 he jumped from was contaminated with AO.

Nothing is Impossible!!!!!!! It just often takes a lot of research and leg work.

 

 

Link to comment
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.

Guest
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.

  • Ads

  • Ads

  • Similar Content

    • By Vync
      I have several questions which are at the end of my post, but here is some background information.
      I got an email from CCK law firm with a link to this Youtube video. It indicates that the National Defense Authorization Act of 2021 was enacted and includes the three new AO presumptives: Bladder Cancer, Hypothyroidism, and Parkinson's-like symptoms (symptoms similar to Parkinson's without actually having a Parkinson's diagnosis).
       
      My father served in Vietnam boots on the ground, non-combat, for one year and had a number of ailments arise over time both during and after service. He did file for one musculoskeletal disability in the early 1990s and won 10% SC, but nothing else. Whenever I asked him to consider filing new claims, he simply did not want to deal with it. I didn't question him, but brought the idea up periodically. Now, after many discussions, my father recently finally agreed to allow me to help him file new VA claims. 
      Here are the issues, some are AO-related:
      Mental health, memory problems, antisocial behavior, and triggers related to hearing helicopters. This is in part related to AO/Vietnam, but also due to a head injury later in service. Head injury residuals due to a head injury later in service. Sleep impairment and daytime tiredness due to a head injury later in service and hypothyroidism. Digestive issues including heartburn, dysphagia, voiding dysfunction, and alternating constipation and diarrhea in part related to AO/Vietnam, but also in-service diagnosis of food poisoning, frequent gastroenteritis including hospitalization after drinking contaminated water Residuals of insect bites including Lyme disease due to numerous in-service treatments for chiggers and tick bites, including one describing circular formations. Nocturia, frequent nighttime urination (3+/night) Hypothyroidism due to to AO/Vietnam; He was repeatedly diagnosed with this years ago. Parkinson's like symptoms to AO/Vietnam including apathy, cognitive changes, early stage dementia, depression, fatigue, occasional hallucinations, problems swallowing, etc... Fortunately, he had not developed cancer.
      My mother and I are working to write buddy letters to support each of the claims. She has letters, photographs, and even videos to help reinforce this.
       
      Question: My father retired from the Army and has a 10% rating. If he happens to get 50% or more, would that mean he would get paid from both Army retirement and VA disability?
      Question: Any recommendations or tips?
      Question: Would he qualify under Nehmer?
      Question: Under Nehmer, because he has never filed for any of these conditions, is there any chance for a backdated EED?
       
      Thanks!
       
    • By Berta
      As you all know the recent Agent Orange Defense Dept Bill does not include HBP.
      I found another recent HBP due to AO award at the BVA- there are more, and some I already posted here-
       
      "In the December 2019 examination, the examiner provided a positive nexus for the Veteran’s hypertension. In support, she explained that according to medical literature, the Veteran’s hypertension is more likely due to his exposure to herbicides during service. She cited a news article that reviewed health impacts between Agent Orange exposure and hypertension.    The Board finds this opinion to have probative value. While it was somewhat conclusory as it relies on the news article, the Board notes that it is the only opinion that addresses hypertension based on herbicides exposure. As such, the Board finds the opinion to have some probative value.    Moreover, the Board notes that the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) has found that there is “limited or suggestive evidence of an association between” hypertension and exposure to herbicide agents (such as Agent Orange) based on a recent statistical study. See Determinations Concerning Illnesses Discussed in National Academy of Sciences Report: Veterans and Agent Orange: Update 2012, 79 Fed. Reg. 20308 (Apr. 11, 2014); see also 38 U.S.C. § 1116 (b) (2012). The category “limited or suggestive evidence of an association” means that the “evidence suggests an association between exposure to herbicides and the outcome, but a firm conclusion is limited because chance, bias, and confounding could not be ruled out with confidence.” Id.    A more recent study by NAS released on November 15, 2018, indicates that “[t]he latest in a series of congressionally mandated biennial reviews of the evidence of health problems that may be linked to exposure to Agent Orange and other herbicides used during the Vietnam War found sufficient evidence of an association for hypertension.” NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES, Hypertension Upgraded in Latest Biennial Review of Research on Health Problems in Veterans That May Be Linked to Agent Orange Exposure During Vietnam War (Nov. 15, 2018), available at: http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?RecordID=25137."   https://www.va.gov/vetapp20/files1/20007929.txt   In this case the C & P examiner gave a probative statement to award the claim. It still was denied at the RO level.   The veteran or their rep should have sent them the actual report-it could have been awarded at the RO level,if their RO can read.   I have posted a link to the National Academy Of Science Report , that many vets have used, in order for them to attain, with proof of AO exposure, a SC rating for Hypertension. I used this same report for my HBP accrued claim, but the VA said they do not have that claim, I am used to them lying, and will need to find the time to pressure them to find it or file it all over again.   Due to my accrued widow status and the fact it is a Nehmer claim, the EED ( 1998) will be the same anyhow.   If an AO vet has "essential" hypertension or no other known cause for it, and they were exposed to AO,they should file the claim using the above most recent report that states the "sufficient" association of HBP to AO has been determined.   Unlike former Sec Shulkin Sec Wilkie sent my VARO a coy of my letter to him, making a strong argument why HBP should be an AO presumptive.   Deemed as a "sufficient association" by NAS -that is a higher level of association than many of the established presumptives have.   If VA has never attributed your HBP to any other cause, and you are an incountry veteran ( to inlude BWV AO vets),  they would be hard pressed to suddenly find  some other NSC cause for the HBP,  but they might try.                              
    • By Berta
      Defense Bill Would Add 3 New Diseases to Agent Orange Presumptive Conditions List | Military.com
    • By Berta
      I feel like asking the BVA to CUE itself but I dont have a BVA case.
      There are 3 law judges here . 2 opining on an older NAs report and only one, the third case judge below ,  knows what he is talking about- as the remand in that third case here calls for the consideration of the 2012 report-
      Previously the HAS considered a limited and/or suggestive " association of AO to causing HBP- but after the 2010 , they found a "Sufficient" association between AO and HBP
      In this remand dated 04/28/20
        In part it states: "Furthermore, the Board notes that the Veteran has medical trainingIn this remand (dated 04/28/20) "Furthermore, the Board notes that the Veteran has medical training, and new research, memorialized by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine (NAS), shows a positive association between hypertension and herbicide exposure in service. However, there is insufficient evidence of record by which the Board can make a decision. The Veteran was not afforded a VA examination to determine the nature and etiology of his hypertension, and the Board affords the Veteran every benefit of the doubt. As the four McLendon elements are satisfied, the Veteran is entitled to a VA examination and medical opinion." Caroline B. Fleming Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals https://www.va.gov/vetapp20/files4/20029600.txt But in this case the BVA stated: "The Board previously denied this claim in a February 2019 decision finding the most persuasive evidence of record did not support a nexus between hypertension and service or his PTSD.   With regard to Agent Orange exposure, the Board noted recent NAS findings (the most recent Agent Orange update) indicative of “limited or suggestive” association between hypertension and herbicide exposure, but found such association was not conclusive in this Veteran’s specific case.  Rather, according to a June 2018 VA examiner’s opinion and the examiner’s research into the relevant medical literature, a connection between Agent Orange exposure and the development of hypertension would only be possible within individuals in the Army Chemical Corps whom directly handled herbicides. Since the Veteran served as an M-113 armored personal carrier and not in the Army Chemical Corps, the June 2018 VA examiner found a nexus in this case unlikely.  The Board denied the claim mainly relying on the June 2018 VA examiner’s opinion." Yet in this case ,the BVA stated: "The February 2019 Board denial was vacated and remanded by virtue of a February 2020 JMR.  Therein, the parties agreed that the June 2018 VA examination relied upon by the Board was inadequate.   In particular, the parties agreed the matter was previously remanded in September 2015 and again in September 2016 for a VA examiner to specifically consider the 2012 NAS conclusion that found suggestive evidence of an association between herbicide exposure and hypertension notwithstanding that VA has not added hypertension to the list of conditions presumptively associated with Agent Orange exposure.   In contrast, the June 2018 VA examiner noted review of the Journal of Occupational Environmental Medicine, but no specific mention or consideration of the NAS Agent Orange update.  The examiner found a nexus between hypertension and Agent Orange exposure unlikely because “[e]xposure to herbicides is not presumptive for service connection.”  While the examiner noted suggestive data of a connection between hypertension and Agent Orange exposure where a serviceman had more direct handling of herbicides, there is nothing in the VA examination report that indicates the examiner specifically considered the NAS Agent Orange update as directed in two prior Board remands." This case was decided  a little over 3 weeks later than the other one I posted first here.  SHEREEN M. MARCUS Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals https://www.va.gov/vetapp20/files5/20032464.txt BUT Yet the two AO Hypertension BVA awards ( maybe there are more by now) clearly refers to (as I did in the accrued claim I have pending) to the most recent AO HBP NAs report which I have posted here in the AO forum months ago: "In the alternative, as explained above, the Veteran is presumed to have been exposed to Agent Orange in service and the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) moved hypertension from the “limited or suggestive” category and indicated that there is now “sufficient evidence” of an association between hypertension and Agent Orange exposure. See Veterans and Agent Orange: Update 11 (2018). Also, early onset peripheral neuropathy is a disease that is presumed to be associated with herbicide agent exposure. Lastly, the Board has awarded service connection for diabetes mellitus and hypertension and neuropathy are recognized by VA as being potential complications of diabetes." And "The clinician must provide reasons for each opinion given. In this regard, the clinician should address the NAS’s determination that there is now sufficient evidence of an association between hypertension and Agent Orange exposure (See Veterans and Agent Orange: Update 11 (2018)). The fact that hypertension is not yet on the list of diseases presumed to be associated with exposure to Agent Orange should not be the basis for a negative opinion." https://www.va.gov/vetapp20/files4/20024447.txtIn this remand dated 04/28/20 "Furthermore, the Board notes that the Veteran has medical training, and new research, memorialized by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine (NAS), shows a positive association between hypertension and herbicide exposure in service. However, there is insufficient evidence of record by which the Board can make a decision. The Veteran was not afforded a VA examination to determine the nature and etiology of his hypertension, and the Board affords the Veteran every benefit of the doubt. As the four McLendon elements are satisfied, the Veteran is entitled to a VA examination and medical opinion." Caroline B. Fleming Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals https://www.va.gov/vetapp20/files4/20029600.txt But in this case the BVA stated: "The Board previously denied this claim in a February 2019 decision finding the most persuasive evidence of record did not support a nexus between hypertension and service or his PTSD.   With regard to Agent Orange exposure, the Board noted recent NAS findings (the most recent Agent Orange update) indicative of “limited or suggestive” association between hypertension and herbicide exposure, but found such association was not conclusive in this Veteran’s specific case.  Rather, according to a June 2018 VA examiner’s opinion and the examiner’s research into the relevant medical literature, a connection between Agent Orange exposure and the development of hypertension would only be possible within individuals in the Army Chemical Corps whom directly handled herbicides. Since the Veteran served as an M-113 armored personal carrier and not in the Army Chemical Corps, the June 2018 VA examiner found a nexus in this case unlikely.  The Board denied the claim mainly relying on the June 2018 VA examiner’s opinion." Yet in this case ,the BVA stated: "The February 2019 Board denial was vacated and remanded by virtue of a February 2020 JMR.  Therein, the parties agreed that the June 2018 VA examination relied upon by the Board was inadequate.   In particular, the parties agreed the matter was previously remanded in September 2015 and again in September 2016 for a VA examiner to specifically consider the 2012 NAS conclusion that found suggestive evidence of an association between herbicide exposure and hypertension notwithstanding that VA has not added hypertension to the list of conditions presumptively associated with Agent Orange exposure.   In contrast, the June 2018 VA examiner noted review of the Journal of Occupational Environmental Medicine, but no specific mention or consideration of the NAS Agent Orange update.  The examiner found a nexus between hypertension and Agent Orange exposure unlikely because “[e]xposure to herbicides is not presumptive for service connection.”  While the examiner noted suggestive data of a connection between hypertension and Agent Orange exposure where a serviceman had more direct handling of herbicides, there is nothing in the VA examination report that indicates the examiner specifically considered the NAS Agent Orange update as directed in two prior Board remands." This case was decided  a little over 3 weeks later than the other one I posted first here.  SHEREEN M. MARCUS Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals https://www.va.gov/vetapp20/files5/20032464.txt Yet the two AO Hypertension awards ( maybe there are more by now) clearly refers to (as I did in the accrued claim I have pending) tothe most recent AO HBP NAs report which Ihave posted here in the AO forum months ago: "In the alternative, as explained above, the Veteran is presumed to have been exposed to Agent Orange in service and the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) moved hypertension from the “limited or suggestive” category and indicated that there is now “sufficient evidence” of an association between hypertension and Agent Orange exposure. See Veterans and Agent Orange: Update 11 (2018). Also, early onset peripheral neuropathy is a disease that is presumed to be associated with herbicide agent exposure. Lastly, the Board has awarded service connection for diabetes mellitus and hypertension and neuropathy are recognized by VA as being potential complications of diabetes." And "The clinician must provide reasons for each opinion given. In this regard, the clinician should address the NAS’s determination that there is now sufficient evidence of an association between hypertension and Agent Orange exposure (See Veterans and Agent Orange: Update 11 (2018)). The fact that hypertension is not yet on the list of diseases presumed to be associated with exposure to Agent Orange should not be the basis for a negative opinion." https://www.va.gov/vetapp20/files4/20024447.txt This case was decided on 04/09/20 Jonathan Hager Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Right ---the 2012 report is clear-  "sufficient evidence of association between AO and Hypertension." The first two remands here are wrong -maybe I should contact the BVA ombudsman, because two of three of these decisions ( and maybe there are more) are in conflict, with the most recent NAS report,dated 2018 , In the final third BVA case lawyer correctly determined it had to be considered by the RO. This case was decided on 04/09/20 Jonathan Hager Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Right ---the 2012 report is clear-  "sufficient evidence of association between AO and Hypertension." , and new research, memorialized by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine (NAS), shows a positive association between hypertension and herbicide exposure in service. However, there is insufficient evidence of record by which the Board can make a decision. The Veteran was not afforded a VA examination to determine the nature and etiology of his hypertension, and the Board affords the Veteran every benefit of the doubt. As the four McLendon elements are satisfied, the Veteran is entitled to a VA examination and medical opinion."   Caroline B. FlemingIn this remand dated 04/28/20 "Furthermore, the Board notes that the Veteran has medical training, and new research, memorialized by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine (NAS), shows a positive association between hypertension and herbicide exposure in service. However, there is insufficient evidence of record by which the Board can make a decision. The Veteran was not afforded a VA examination to determine the nature and etiology of his hypertension, and the Board affords the Veteran every benefit of the doubt. As the four McLendon elements are satisfied, the Veteran is entitled to a VA examination and medical opinion." Caroline B. Fleming Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals https://www.va.gov/vetapp20/files4/20029600.txt But in this case the BVA stated: "The Board previously denied this claim in a February 2019 decision finding the most persuasive evidence of record did not support a nexus between hypertension and service or his PTSD.   With regard to Agent Orange exposure, the Board noted recent NAS findings (the most recent Agent Orange update) indicative of “limited or suggestive” association between hypertension and herbicide exposure, but found such association was not conclusive in this Veteran’s specific case.  Rather, according to a June 2018 VA examiner’s opinion and the examiner’s research into the relevant medical literature, a connection between Agent Orange exposure and the development of hypertension would only be possible within individuals in the Army Chemical Corps whom directly handled herbicides. Since the Veteran served as an M-113 armored personal carrier and not in the Army Chemical Corps, the June 2018 VA examiner found a nexus in this case unlikely.  The Board denied the claim mainly relying on the June 2018 VA examiner’s opinion." Yet in this case ,the BVA stated: "The February 2019 Board denial was vacated and remanded by virtue of a February 2020 JMR.  Therein, the parties agreed that the June 2018 VA examination relied upon by the Board was inadequate.   In particular, the parties agreed the matter was previously remanded in September 2015 and again in September 2016 for a VA examiner to specifically consider the 2012 NAS conclusion that found suggestive evidence of an association between herbicide exposure and hypertension notwithstanding that VA has not added hypertension to the list of conditions presumptively associated with Agent Orange exposure.   In contrast, the June 2018 VA examiner noted review of the Journal of Occupational Environmental Medicine, but no specific mention or consideration of the NAS Agent Orange update.  The examiner found a nexus between hypertension and Agent Orange exposure unlikely because “[e]xposure to herbicides is not presumptive for service connection.”  While the examiner noted suggestive data of a connection between hypertension and Agent Orange exposure where a serviceman had more direct handling of herbicides, there is nothing in the VA examination report that indicates the examiner specifically considered the NAS Agent Orange update as directed in two prior Board remands." This case was decided  a little over 3 weeks later than the other one I posted first here.  SHEREEN M. MARCUS Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals https://www.va.gov/vetapp20/files5/20032464.txt Yet the two AO Hypertension awards ( maybe there are more by now) clearly refers to (as I did in the accrued claim I have pending) tothe most recent AO HBP NAs report which Ihave posted here in the AO forum months ago: "In the alternative, as explained above, the Veteran is presumed to have been exposed to Agent Orange in service and the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) moved hypertension from the “limited or suggestive” category and indicated that there is now “sufficient evidence” of an association between hypertension and Agent Orange exposure. See Veterans and Agent Orange: Update 11 (2018). Also, early onset peripheral neuropathy is a disease that is presumed to be associated with herbicide agent exposure. Lastly, the Board has awarded service connection for diabetes mellitus and hypertension and neuropathy are recognized by VA as being potential complications of diabetes." And "The clinician must provide reasons for each opinion given. In this regard, the clinician should address the NAS’s determination that there is now sufficient evidence of an association between hypertension and Agent Orange exposure (See Veterans and Agent Orange: Update 11 (2018)). The fact that hypertension is not yet on the list of diseases presumed to be associated with exposure to Agent Orange should not be the basis for a negative opinion." https://www.va.gov/vetapp20/files4/20024447.txt This case was decided on 04/09/20 Jonathan Hager Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Right ---the 2012 report is clear-  "sufficient evidence of association between AO and Hypertension." Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals https://www.va.gov/vetapp20/files4/20029600.txt But in this case the BVA stated:   "The Board previously denied this claim in a February 2019 decision finding the most persuasive evidence of record did not support a nexus between hypertension and service or his PTSD. With regard to Agent Orange exposure, the Board noted recent NAS findings (the most recent Agent Orange update) indicative of “limited or suggestive” association between hypertension and herbicide exposure, but found such association was not conclusive in this Veteran’s specific case. Rather, according to a June 2018 VA examiner’s opinion and the examiner’s research into the relevant medical literature, a connection between Agent Orange exposure and the development of hypertension would only be possible within individuals in the Army Chemical Corps whom directly handled herbicides. Since the Veteran served as an M-113 armored personal carrier and not in the Army Chemical Corps, the June 2018 VA examiner found a nexus in this case unlikely. The Board denied the claim mainly relying on the June 2018 VA examiner’s opinion."   Yet in this case ,the BVA stated: "The February 2019 Board denial was vacated and remanded by virtue of a February 2020 JMR. Therein, the parties agreed that the June 2018 VA examination relied upon by the Board was inadequate. In particular, the parties agreed the matter was previously remanded in September 2015 and again in September 2016 for a VA examiner to specifically consider the 2012 NAS conclusion that found suggestive evidence of an association between herbicide exposure and hypertension notwithstanding that VA has not added hypertension to the list of conditions presumptively associated with Agent Orange exposure. In contrast, the June 2018 VA examiner noted review of the Journal of Occupational Environmental Medicine, but no specific mention or consideration of the NAS Agent Orange update. The examiner found a nexus between hypertension and Agent Orange exposure unlikely because “[e]xposure to herbicides is not presumptive for service connection.” While the examiner noted suggestive data of a connection between hypertension and Agent Orange exposure where a serviceman had more direct handling of herbicides, there is nothing in the VA examination report that indicates the examiner specifically considered the NAS Agent Orange update as directed in two prior Board remands." This case was decided a little over 3 weeks later than the other one I posted first here. SHEREEN M. MARCUS Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals https://www.va.gov/vetapp20/files5/20032464.txt Yet the two AO Hypertension awards ( maybe there are more by now) clearly refers to (as I did in the accrued claim I have pending) tothe most recent AO HBP NAs report which Ihave posted here in the AO forum months ago:   "In the alternative, as explained above, the Veteran is presumed to have been exposed to Agent Orange in service and the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) moved hypertension from the “limited or suggestive” category and indicated that there is now “sufficient evidence” of an association between hypertension and Agent Orange exposure. See Veterans and Agent Orange: Update 11 (2018). Also, early onset peripheral neuropathy is a disease that is presumed to be associated with herbicide agent exposure. Lastly, the Board has awarded service connection for diabetes mellitus and hypertension and neuropathy are recognized by VA as being potential complications of diabetes." And "The clinician must provide reasons for each opinion given. In this regard, the clinician should address the NAS’s determination that there is now sufficient evidence of an association between hypertension and Agent Orange exposure (See Veterans and Agent Orange: Update 11 (2018)). The fact that hypertension is not yet on the list of diseases presumed to be associated with exposure to Agent Orange should not be the basis for a negative opinion." https://www.va.gov/vetapp20/files4/20024447.txt This case was decided on 04/09/20   Jonathan Hager Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals   Right ---the 2012 report is clear- "sufficient evidence of association between AO and Hypertension." Geez, if the BVA judges are not all up on the latest NAS report- they have denied some vets of their rights- because the report might not award all AO exposed vets for HBP, but it is still at a high level that should prompt consideration. "Sufficient" is a higher level of association then many past AO disabilities have had in NAS reports.
      Any takers on this?????? I was stunned to see how two of these law judges were not aware of the NAS 2018 report.
      Tomorrow I might find more BVA judges don't know about it either---- this means on remand, the veteran might get a lousy C & P exam and be denied again, unless the veteran finds out about the NAS 2018 report.
       
       
             
    • By Foxhound6
      Berta and all. Here is what I have so far from my friend and his mother that I was speaking about the other day. From what I can tell, They do have the DD214 and DD215's. However, there DD214 itself does not show any type of locations of service as the newer ones do.It does show a previous command which I assume is the one he deployed with. I took notice of the "Foreign/Seas service" section of his 214 and noticed he has Foreign service for 11 months and 20 or so days, just long enough to be in Vietnam... However, I feel I may have to dig up records pertaining to that unit at the time in order to prove it? I am unsure on that exactly. It was also strange they had 2 DD215's, also unsure what to make of that. *edit - I remember the wife speaking about the veteran making a stop in Okinawa before Vietnam. I found a unit that fits that timeline of when the veteran would have arrive in Okinawa to link up with as a support engineer. I dont have a way to confirm, but it fits...:
      " On July 4, 1965, 2nd Battalion, 9th Marines was ordered to Vietnam. During this first year 9th Marines took part in approximately 45 battalion-sized and several company-sized operations. During the next four years 2nd Battalion, 9th Marines operated in or around Danang, Hue, Phu Bai, Dong Ha, Camp Carrol, Cam Lo, Con Thien, Than Cam Son, Quanq Tri, Cua Viet, Vandergrift Combat Base and Khe Sanh. For its actions in Vietnam 2nd Battalion, 9th Marines was awarded a third Presidential Unit Citation, a bronze star in lieu of second award of the National Defense Service Medal, the Vietnam Service Medal with two silver stars, and Vietnam Cross of Gallantry with Palm. In August 1969, 2nd Battalion, 9th Marines left Vietnam and returned to Okinawa. Its role in the Southeast Asian Conflict ended with the recapture of the Mayaquez and the landing on Koh Tang Island in May 1975 (Veteran completed his training sometime in 1969). In February 1979, 2nd Battalion, 9th Marines became the first battalion to rotate to the United States as part of the unit deployment program. " via http://www.2ndbattalion9thmarines.org/About_Us
      As far as medical is concerned, I believe I have enough to prove the VA wrong. The mother has HUNDREDS upon HUNDREDS of medical records pertaining to his disability. I couldn't copy them all but I found many pertinent ones that show the initial DX plus ongoing treatment. I am posting all of it here in hopes someone might make more sense of it along with the Rating decision. Sorry for some of the photos, the mother found more docs after I left and sent them via her phone.
       








      Matt Spina Bifida_Redacted.pdf
  • Ads

  • Our picks

    • I already get compensation for bladder cancer for Camp Lejeune Water issue, now that it is added to Agent Orange does it mean that the VA should pay me the difference between Camp Lejeune and 1992 when I retired from the Marine Corps or do I have to re-apply for it for Agent Orange, or will the VA look at at current cases already receiving bladder cancer compensation. I’m considered 100% Disabled Permanently 
      • 20 replies
    • 5,10, 20 Rule
      The 5, 10, 20 year rules...



      Five Year Rule) If you have had the same rating for five or more years, the VA cannot reduce your rating unless your condition has improved on a sustained basis. All the medical evidence, not just the reexamination report, must support the conclusion that your improvement is more than temporary.



      Ten Year Rule) The 10 year rule is after 10 years, the service connection is protected from being dropped.



      Twenty Year Rule) If your disability has been continuously rated at or above a certain rating level for 20 or more years, the VA cannot reduce your rating unless it finds the rating was based on fraud. This is a very high standard and it's unlikely the rating would get reduced.



      If you are 100% for 20 years (Either 100% schedular or 100% TDIU - Total Disability based on Individual Unemployability or IU), you are automatically Permanent & Total (P&T). And, that after 20 years the total disability (100% or IU) is protected from reduction for the remainder of the person's life. "M-21-1-IX.ii.2.1.j. When a P&T Disability Exists"



      At 55, P&T (Permanent & Total) or a few other reasons the VBA will not initiate a review. Here is the graphic below for that. However if the Veteran files a new compensation claim or files for an increase, then it is YOU that initiated to possible review.



      NOTE: Until a percentage is in place for 10 years, the service connection can be removed. After that, the service connection is protected.



      ------



      Example for 2020 using the same disability rating



      1998 - Initially Service Connected @ 10%



      RESULT: Service Connection Protected in 2008



      RESULT: 10% Protected from reduction in 2018 (20 years)



      2020 - Service Connection Increased @ 30%



      RESULT: 30% is Protected from reduction in 2040 (20 years)
        • Like
      • 58 replies
    • Post in New BVA Grants
      While the BVA has some discretion here, often they "chop up claims".  For example, BVA will order SERVICE CONNECTION, and leave it up to the VARO the disability percent and effective date.  

      I hate that its that way.  The board should "render a decision", to include service connection, disability percentage AND effective date, so we dont have to appeal "each" of those issues over then next 15 years on a hamster wheel.  
        • Like
    • Finally heard back that I received my 100% Overall rating and a 100% PTSD rating Following my long appeal process!

      My question is this, given the fact that my appeal was on the advanced docket and is an “Expedited” appeal, what happens now and how long(ish) is the process from here on out with retro and so forth? I’ve read a million things but nothing with an expedited appeal status.

      Anyone deal with this situation before? My jump is from 50 to 100 over the course of 2 years if that helps some. I only am asking because as happy as I am, I would be much happier to pay some of these bills off!
      • 18 replies
    • I told reviewer that I had a bad C&P, and that all I wanted was a fair shake, and she even said, that was what she was all ready viewed for herself. The first C&P don't even  reflect my Treatment in the VA PTSD clinic. In my new C&P I was only asked about symptoms, seeing shit, rituals, nightmares, paying bills and about childhood, but didn't ask about details of it. Just about twenty question, and  nothing about stressor,
  • Ads

  • Popular Contributors

  • Ad

  • Latest News


  • veteranscrisisline-badge-chat-1.gif

  • Fund HadIt.com

    406%
    $6,103.00 of $1,500.00 Donate Now
  • Advertisemnt

  • 14 Questions about VA Disability Compensation Benefits Claims

    questions-001@3x.png

    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
     
  • Most Common VA Disabilities Claimed for Compensation:   

    tinnitus-005.pngptsd-005.pnglumbosacral-005.pngscars-005.pnglimitation-flexion-knee-005.pngdiabetes-005.pnglimitation-motion-ankle-005.pngparalysis-005.pngdegenerative-arthitis-spine-005.pngtbi-traumatic-brain-injury-005.png

  • 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

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

{terms] and Guidelines