Mistakes in initial-make changes in review?

[drago]

Hi All,

Once again, hoping this is posted correctly. Not sure, but can't quite seem to get the hang of this particular version of a forum, so my apologies if I'm doing this wrong.

Real quick background, I'm rated for PTSD/major depression/alcohol/TBI at 70%, kidneys 60%, bladder 10%, headaches 0%, and seems like something else I'm forgetting at the moment. Those were all completed about 13 months ago. Pending is a back issue, hypersomnia, hypertension, and heart disease. Total after VA math is 91% (maybe 92?). I was involved in a training in which another soldier died.

Due to the hypersomnia claim, the VA has asked that I be reviewed for the PTSD and TBI. In preparing for those reviews, I've found various mistakes in both reports, some which seem immaterial, and some that may matter. For example:

1. The report states I was cleared of charges at trial. That is inaccurate. I was cleared of charges during the investigation phase due to a malfunctioning piece of equipment. I was never charged (that I know of... 1st sarge got defense attorney involved pretty quick, so I kind of lost track of a lot of the process). I was in the brig for a while, and then on supervised house arrest until the investigation was over, which I told the examiner. Seems immaterial to the overall findings, but still not accurate.
2. The report states that I was "dazed for 3-4 minutes". That is inaccurate. I was dazed for 3-4 days, not minutes. Depends on the clinical definition of dazed I suppose. I have zero recollection of the minutes following the incident (probably 3-4), and only wispy memories of the 3-4 days following the accident. Frankly, as I've thought about it over the past year, I'm not completely sure what is actual memory, and what is "recollection" based on what my squad members who were supervising me told me about the incident.

I'd like to get those cleared up, but don't want to get tagged with a "veteran has changed his story" line somewhere. I guess the answer is they are inaccuracies, and I need to take them head on, but was interested in the thoughts of those who have more experience with this sort of thing.

Should these inaccuracies be addressed in the these review exams, or is there a different and/or more appropriate process to challenge the inaccuracies?

[ShrekTheTank]

IMO they should be addressed.  Personally I would write a Lay statement and submit it to the claim, so it is on file.  I would be straight forward in what was incorrect and what was correct.  Do not go down the rabbit hole of maybe or it could have or any of that swamp.  Tell what you know and the truth as far as you know it.  It is ok to add in what those around you said, but make sure it is not your saying this is what happened when you actually have no idea.  

Just be clear and they should clear it up and if you have to go to the BVA/CAVC or higher then you have the evidence and can show it.  

[GBArmy]

Good advice from Shrek. Big difference between 3-4 minutes and 3-4 days! Submit for your file. In fact, if you can get a buddy letter form someone in your outfit that can provide more isight about what happen to you, or a close relative, they can also provide input.