burn pits

[blahsaysme2u]

first question to mods here and @Tbird: can we add a section for burn pit under the specialized cases? i posted in "gulf war" cuz i didn't know where else to put my question. please move this post/question to the appropriate spot if a desginated "burn pit" cant be created. thanks in advance.

ok so i submitted a claim when i first got out back in 2008...below is the denial from the VA. if i reopen this claim based on the new law, will i be awarded SC back to 2008(along with back pay?)??? i have lots of medical records showing sinus issues to support SC but i don't even think i need that with the presumptive conditions related to burn pits added, right?

https://www.publichealth.va.gov/exposures/burnpits/index.asp

thanks guys and gals!

6. Service connection for allergic rhinitis (claimed as sinuses).
Service connection may be granted for a disability which began in military service or was
caused by some event or experience in service.
Your service treatment records were reviewed and considered with your claim for allergic
rhinitis; however, they failed to show evidence of this conditon. Please note that your
service treatment records appear incomplete. We have requested them from the Records
Management Center, St. Louis; however, they replied negatively. We also requested
them form your last unit of assignment; however, they failed to reply. If you have a copy
of them, please submit them to us and we will reevaluate your claim.
Your VA examination revealed the examiner's diagnosis of allergic rhinitis; however,
there was no evidence found relating this condition to your active military service.
Service connection for allergic rhinitis (claimed as sinuses) is denied since this condition
neither occurred in nor was caused by service.

 

[Tbird]

Ok burn pit forum set up under specialized claims.

[Berta]

Great!!!!! We have over 1,000 posts here on Burn pits already but I will try to get the most recent stuff into the new and important forum.

 

https://www.publichealth.va.gov/exposures/burnpits/

This link has the three new presumptives for exposures to "particulate matter"claims ( ie Burn Pits) In part:

VA added 3 presumptive conditions related to particulate matter exposure

"The new presumptive conditions are asthma, rhinitis, and sinusitis. To be eligible for benefits, you must have gotten one of these conditions within 10 years of your separation from active service.

This will expand benefits for Veterans who served in:

Afghanistan, Djibouti, Syria, and Uzbekistan during the Persian Gulf War, from September 19, 2001, to the present, or
The Southwest Asia theater of operations from August 2, 1990, to the present."

I put a more detailed definition of SW Asia here somewhere and some maps-

and will try to get that info into the new forum. Toxic Exposure claims are one of my prime interests and finally VA is doing something positive about the disabilities Burn Pit exposure can cause.

 "if i reopen this claim based on the new law, will i be awarded SC back to 2008(along with back pay?)??: "That is a good question and I would have to see the new regulations again. I have hours of snow removal here to do- we got hit hard where I live - will do that as soon as I can-

Can you scan and attach the denial here ? Redact C file #,name, address, and include the evidence list.

There is so much on the net and even at hadit already on this important issue! I will use the Burn Pit forum for my future posts on this.

This is a recent remand of a surviving spouse claim that her husband had COPD etc, from burn pits Vietnam.https://www.va.gov/vetapp21/Files4/21022935.txt

My husband and other Vietnam vets told me they used empty Agent Orange canisters to barbeque food,in Vietnam , as well as used them to wash clothes in, and also used them  as "Sh _tters". No wonder Vietnam vets have so many problems due to AO.

Service personnel  who had the task of burning the contents of the shitters  were obviously exposed to burn pit fumes and smoke that might have contained more crap than they thought- meaning other toxic fumes.

 

 

 

 

Edited January 18, 2022 by Berta
added more. (see edit history)

[blahsaysme2u]

18 hours ago, Berta said:

Can you scan and attach the denial here ? Redact C file #,name, address, and include the evidence list

i posted this in my question..below is the denial(this letter has multiple denials listed...number 6 was the one for sinuses):

6. Service connection for allergic rhinitis (claimed as sinuses).
Service connection may be granted for a disability which began in military service or was
caused by some event or experience in service.
Your service treatment records were reviewed and considered with your claim for allergic
rhinitis; however, they failed to show evidence of this conditon. Please note that your
service treatment records appear incomplete. We have requested them from the Records
Management Center, St. Louis; however, they replied negatively. We also requested
them form your last unit of assignment; however, they failed to reply. If you have a copy
of them, please submit them to us and we will reevaluate your claim.
Your VA examination revealed the examiner's diagnosis of allergic rhinitis; however,
there was no evidence found relating this condition to your active military service.
Service connection for allergic rhinitis (claimed as sinuses) is denied since this condition
neither occurred in nor was caused by service.

 

the evidence list is as follows but as you can see, they had almost none of my service records when they made these decisions. this is one reason i was able to win my OSA case(i found my own records and resubmitted them as evidence...now fighting EED on that one...):

also, i found my DX was actually for Chronic rhinitis in november 2008 by my primary care provider. i just cant find his notes in medical records...

 

[blahsaysme2u]

https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-38/chapter-I/part-3/subpart-A/subject-group-ECFR39056aee4e9ff13/section-3.320

https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2021/08/05/2021-16693/presumptive-service-connection-for-respiratory-conditions-due-to-exposure-to-particulate-matter

just some links with more info i found. 

[ArNG11]

Someone needs to poke the bear with VA as will all the Gulf War presumptive in my opinion because they sure as heck won't admit anything to the contrary of denying.  I bought up some of the regulations changes in my hearing, I don't know if it fell on deaf ears but I hope the VLJ can at least pay attention to my claims and refrences with the regulations.  Still got to wait on a decision.  My guess is one or all that apply to Gulf war changes will be overlooked. But who knows maybe there will be a legal aide or heck maybe even the judge might be knowledgeable of the new regulations before he decides my case.   I can always dream right, hope maybe,  nah better get my appeals pen ready this one isn't gonna go anywhere fast.  Slow yes slow is smooth, smooth is fast.  Sites set, target acquired bombs and regulations away.   

Can you tell I was a little bothered by my claims denied because of the burn pits.  Amazing, I wonder how long before Veterans actually get some positive movement on this issue??

 

Edited January 20, 2022 by ArNG11 (see edit history)

[blahsaysme2u]

need some experts here:

so i sent in my claim for sinus related to burn pits. first it was rejected because reasons....my lawyer sent me this:

There are no retroactive benefits for rhinitis based on the new law back to the date of claim, though we do think that the filing should be one year prior to the date of filing under rules that have to do with the change in law.  

 

Nehmer is a class action settlement that applies only to Agent Orange disabilities, not Gulf War illnesses.  

 

XXX can prepare the Supplemental claim form for the rhinitis claim, or you can do this on your own.  The date of the denial of the rhinitis claim is 4/2/19 and that is the date that must go on the Supplemental Claim form, along with your exhibits attached, which are what you need.

 

FYI, the issue on retroactive benefits was decided by a higher court over the summer, and I am not sure if the VA has been consistently implementing it.  Here is the case:  https://cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/20-1911.OPINION.7-28-2021_1810901.pdf

 

my OG claim was in 2008. i tried reopening in 2019 and both were denied. so my lawyer is saying i have to use 4/2/19. i am not sure why? and i am not sure why this doesn't follow the same rules as NEHMER. i understand it was Agent Orange, but it was also ruling on presumptive conditions in general, i thought?

 

HELP?

 

[ArNG11]

You have a claim from 2008? Gulf war issues right? I never got anywhere my self in my claim specifically. Granted I didn't file for Gulf war issues until 2013-2014, because I lacked the knowledge of such issues. I did get some issues service connected but not under Gulf War and not on individually claimed issues such as IBS.  The best according to VA was to merge GERD and IBS together and still play their game of not implementing correct ratings per law changes in 2017 and so on.  You know the drill I started of with 0% and got a couple changed.  Still trying to get them to 30% per the new regulation and law changes.

I had to claim rhinitis separately and it is at the Board as one of my issues.  Sinusitis got nixed as well and of course sleep apnea but my IME with those claims were weak.  A stronger IME would have given relative equipoise.   

The VA hardly ever follows the law and regulations when it's to their detriment.  Always, most times, the Veteran has to know the law and remind them of it.  Regulation and law with some strong IME's.  

[blahsaysme2u]

YUP:

[ArNG11]

This is kind of personal to me as are all Veterans claims to each individual.  I will document more when I get my board decision on the Rhinitis.  I am seeing a pattern much like every other, not sure if I am wrong here, I may be. If a service member claims a back condition,  doesn't the DUTY TO ASSIST  doctrine apply and the VA has the obligation by law to investigate the claim fully to award benefits for service related injury, whole spine. Not counting other areas affected such as nerve ratings.  As both cervical spine and thoroco-lumbar are separate segments that can be awarded separately.

We'll whether allergic rhinitis or as claimed "rhinitis" is that a defining factor on whether or not a claim is approved for rhinitis. Rather service connection for rhinitis in whatever compensable form yes? Rhinitis is rhinitis. correct.  whether allergic or otherwise???

 

§ 3.320 Claims based on exposure to particulate matter.

(a) Service connection based on presumed exposure to particulate matter - 

(1) General. Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, a disease listed in paragraph (a)(2) of this section shall be service connected even though there is no evidence of such disease during the period of service if it becomes manifest to any degree (including non-compensable) within 10 years from the date of separation from military service that includes a qualifying period of service as defined in paragraph (a)(4) of this section. 

(2) Chronic diseases associated with exposure to particulate matter. The chronic diseases referred to in paragraph (a)(1) of this section are the following: 

(i) Asthma. 

(ii) Rhinitis. 

(iii) Sinusitis, to include rhinosinusitis. 

(3) Presumption of exposure. A veteran who has a qualifying period of service as defined in paragraph (a)(4) of this section shall be presumed to have been exposed to fine, particulate matter during such service, unless there is affirmative evidence to establish that the veteran was not exposed to fine, particulate matter during that service. 

(4) Qualifying period of service. The term qualifying period of service means any period of active military, naval, or air service in: 

(i) The Southwest Asia theater of operations, as defined in § 3.317(e)(2), during the Persian Gulf War as defined in § 3.2(i). 

(ii) Afghanistan, Syria, Djibouti, or Uzbekistan on or after September 19, 2001 during the Persian Gulf War as defined in § 3.2(i). 

(b) Exceptions. A disease listed in paragraph (a)(1) of this section shall not be presumed service connected if there is affirmative evidence that: 

(1) The disease was not incurred during or aggravated by a qualifying period of service; or 

(2) The disease was caused by a supervening condition or event that occurred between the veteran's most recent departure from a qualifying period of service and the onset of the disease; or 

(3) The disease is the result of the veteran's own willful misconduct.

am I missing something or am I off my rocker more than I am?

[ArNG11]

The thing I think I fall short on even with the law changes is that documented symptoms were not in service, however, I have had hypothyroid service connected even though I didn't start taking medication for it until after 2009.  Not in service but service connected.  Not sure if my decisions specifies Gulf War or direct service connection?   I think it was the latter. I'm sorry I may be going off to the deep end again.   

Noting that none of these issues state particulate matter or burn pits...... I gotta look at my files again. this has me curious now beyond what I am normally paranoid obsessively curious...

[blahsaysme2u]

well for my claim, i specifically was general in 2008 and claimed sinus issues...i didnt claim any specific disease. but the question stands- shouldnt the EED be for the original claim in 2008, just like blue water and Nehmer? why are burn pits any different in presumption? 

@Berta i know you have expertise in this field of VA claims. thoughts? i trust my lawyer a lot but this just doesnt seem right

[ArNG11]

4 hours ago, blahsaysme2u said:

need some experts here:

so i sent in my claim for sinus related to burn pits. first it was rejected because reasons....my lawyer sent me this:

There are no retroactive benefits for rhinitis based on the new law back to the date of claim, though we do think that the filing should be one year prior to the date of filing under rules that have to do with the change in law.  

 

Nehmer is a class action settlement that applies only to Agent Orange disabilities, not Gulf War illnesses.  

 

XXX can prepare the Supplemental claim form for the rhinitis claim, or you can do this on your own.  The date of the denial of the rhinitis claim is 4/2/19 and that is the date that must go on the Supplemental Claim form, along with your exhibits attached, which are what you need.

 

FYI, the issue on retroactive benefits was decided by a higher court over the summer, and I am not sure if the VA has been consistently implementing it.  Here is the case:  https://cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/20-1911.OPINION.7-28-2021_1810901.pdf

 

my OG claim was in 2008. i tried reopening in 2019 and both were denied. so my lawyer is saying i have to use 4/2/19. i am not sure why? and i am not sure why this doesn't follow the same rules as NEHMER. i understand it was Agent Orange, but it was also ruling on presumptive conditions in general, i thought?

 

HELP?

 

Im going to say liability. When I claimed gulf war illness I was general but specific in listing some of the symptoms.  I had symptoms of sleep apnea in 09 within the year of getting off active duty but the VA and BVA denied on that matter because no inservice records but they awarded my hypothyroid which was in my civilian medical records and eventually got into my military records as taking the medication. My contention with the sleep apnea was that I was exhibiting symptoms of sleep apnea but with Ellis weak link on the service connection it was denied.  The VA did not follow the same philosophy consistently with each disease/claim/one.  I believe its because of the rating value sleep apnea has it was 50% if you got it service connected.  I can't help wonder why my first Board decision  didn't touch on this.

In the claims process you are dammed if you do dammed if you don't.  Can't be too specific on a claim and at the same time can't be too vague.  If you claim under the blanket of Gulf war illness it dies as well.  So many pitfalls and landmines that a Veteran has to manuevr. 

When the BVA rules on my claim on rhinitis and sinusitis I will post it and let you and the forum know.

[blahsaysme2u]

so am i reading this right? this is a bill that hasnt passed yet, but looks like it secures previously denied claims...so might jsut have to wait to get EED after this passes

https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/3967/text

“§ 1167. Reevaluation of compensation determinations pursuant to changes in presumptions of service connection

“(a) Reevaluation.—Except as provided in subsection (b), whenever a law, including through a regulation or Federal court decision, establishes or modifies a presumption of service connection, the Secretary shall—

“(1) identify all claims for compensation under this chapter that—

“(A) were submitted to the Secretary;

“(B) were evaluated and denied by the Secretary before the date on which such provision of law went into effect; and

“(C) might have been evaluated differently had the establishment or modification been applicable to the claim;

“(2) allow for the reevaluation of such claims at the election of the veteran; and

“(3) with respect to claims approved pursuant to such reevaluation, provide compensation under this chapter effective as if the establishment or modification of the presumption of service connection had been in effect on the date of the submission of the original claim described in paragraph (1).

 

 

CALL YOUR CONGRESS AND REPRESENTED AND TELL THEM TO SUPPORT THIS BILL NOW!!!!!

[Berta]

Blahsaysme2- you are getting the favorable EED criteria for Nehmer claims that specifically fall under Nehmer Footnote One confused with this new legislation regarding Burn Pits.

Nehmer was a Class Action lawsuit. 

We Nehmer vets ( and Nehmer widows like me)  were part of the Class action, that NVLSP won.

I think Broncovet posted this info:

https://www.nvlsp.org/what-we-do/burn-pits-claims-assistance-program/

I have no idea if NVLSP would consider filing a lawsuit regarding burn pits, but they do offer help with these claims.

This vet as an individual won a lawsuit against VA for 3 Million bucks-

"He sued the federal government in a first-of-its-kind claim, saying the VA never took burn pit exposure into account and he was misdiagnosed."

(He died shortly after the settlement.)

https://www.wcax.com/2021/11/08/battle-over-burn-pits-vt-soldier-1st-of-its-kind-lawsuit-dies-cancer/

I dont understand why the past lawsuit  against  KBR  and Halliburton  failed - I guess they were using the original AO Settlement Fund lawsuit as a template-whch also was a lawsuit against private companies.

I need to read the decision from the Supremes-because it was the USA who determined what service personnel were burning in burn pits in Southwest Asia ,as well-probably everything from human feces to body parts from incountry surgeries.

 

My husband and then I as his widow were in the original  AO Settlement Fund.

All a vet had to prove was that they served in Vietnam and had a total disability.

The Judge actually denied my husband's claim at first so I wrote back that I needed his personal assurance in writing ,that

the AO they dumped on him after a tropical jungle, where he had been in combat manuvers, USMC, had been sprayed with AO, that soaked his utilities ( that he could not wash or change for weeks later) ... a load of AO ,sprayed by air  plane, that dramatically devastated this dense jungle within 48 hours to mere twigs and rubble...

would Never cause my husband to have any major disabiity from his exposure to AO in Vietnam.

The Judge then awarded his claim.I wondered how many vets who had the 100% disabiity and were exposed to AO in Vietnam,  were denied right off the bat and never appealed.

The Burn pit situation needs a new Class Action attempt, that involves the fact that burn pits were not only from oil fires etc, but also from hazardous material that service personnel were ordered to burn. The USA is responsible for that. When we came to NY to a farm community, my husband tried to burn some plastic milk containers and they smelled horrible and he put them out quickly- They can be sent to the local dump to be recycled.

I read somewhere that plastic releases fumes that are  a carcigenic if burned.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited January 30, 2022 by Berta
added more (see edit history)

[blahsaysme2u]

On 1/27/2022 at 1:18 AM, blahsaysme2u said:

so am i reading this right? this is a bill that hasnt passed yet, but looks like it secures previously denied claims...so might jsut have to wait to get EED after this passes

https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/3967/text

“§ 1167. Reevaluation of compensation determinations pursuant to changes in presumptions of service connection

“(a) Reevaluation.—Except as provided in subsection (b), whenever a law, including through a regulation or Federal court decision, establishes or modifies a presumption of service connection, the Secretary shall—

“(1) identify all claims for compensation under this chapter that—

“(A) were submitted to the Secretary;

“(B) were evaluated and denied by the Secretary before the date on which such provision of law went into effect; and

“(C) might have been evaluated differently had the establishment or modification been applicable to the claim;

“(2) allow for the reevaluation of such claims at the election of the veteran; and

“(3) with respect to claims approved pursuant to such reevaluation, provide compensation under this chapter effective as if the establishment or modification of the presumption of service connection had been in effect on the date of the submission of the original claim described in paragraph (1).

 

 

CALL YOUR CONGRESS AND REPRESENTED AND TELL THEM TO SUPPORT THIS BILL NOW!!!!!

But afar about this language in the new PACT bill... thoughts? 

[ArNG11]

Class Action ??? I mean this issue was raised against KBR, in a direct agency being responsible,  what about going against the Government, whether directly or indirectly. Would that monumental task be possible.  How much traction would that move gain, hypothetically.  Would it change anything for the generations to come.

My concerns with such a move is that it would be tied up in litigation for decades or longer.  Meaning delaying direct benefits to Veterans affected by these issues.  Consequently how many of "US" would pass away from illness and complications from what was done in order for the government to start fixing some of the issues they helped start.???

I 've edited this in my head a few times.  I hope that I am making some sense in what I am trying to convey.

Edited January 31, 2022 by ArNG11
wording (see edit history)

[ArNG11]

A key thing that is messed about this "

The VA’s new policy is effective as of August 5, 2021 — which means if a veteran filed a claim in the past that was rejected, new benefits will only become available once a new claim is filed."

Say what, wouldn't that be detrimental to claimant s benefits.  This action would affect thousands upon thousands of claims and future claims for Veterans that are possibly just starting to have symptoms and complications that haven't show up yet.   

Am I getting worried for nothing or is this a bigger concern than what I am thinking?

[blahsaysme2u]

That's why the PACT act is so important...please contact your state reps

[Berta]

I agree with you ArNG-in both posts you made above.

Veterans can now file Class actions themselves :

https://www.militarytimes.com/news/pentagon-congress/2019/06/17/court-allows-a-class-action-lawsuit-against-va-for-the-first-time/

There is more here on this under a hadit search.

But the problem was put ratherly bluntly by a former member Pete Sawyer -on the older hadit board-

Getting vets to unite to do something ,he said, to affect the VA, is like "herding cats."

I exerienced this myself when a bunch of the VAMC vets wanted to get a grant to start Vet Link NY. We had meetings in my house whereby a plan of action was prepared. At the next meeting, my husband  asked them over for dinner before the meeting and they decided as I cooked dinner for them who would do what on the task list for the action plan.

My name was the only name put on fulfilling each task. 

I was involved with Prodigy BBS on line , Vet Link modem to modem -very expensive -thus the need for a grant, 

I had to take my daughter every week to numerous  after school activities, she was in plays, etc and horse back riding lessons- all more than 25-30 miles away and I  was also a livestock farmer. I certainly could not handle those tasks.

All of these vets were disabled, but all were PC literate at the time and some had far better PCs than I had.And a lot more time than I had. Vet Link NY went no where.

By the way- many vets have won Burn Pit claims.

"ORDER Entitlement to service connection for a respiratory disorder, to include allergic rhinitis and to include as due to burn pit exposure and particulate matter exposure, is granted."

https://www.va.gov/vetapp21/Files9/21061001.txt

'As noted above, the Veteran had a diagnosis of glioblastoma and was exposed to burn pits. The Board finds that the Veteran's glioblastoma was etiologically related to his exposure to burn pits because the most probative evidence in the record, the August 2021 medical opinion by Dr. K., found that the Veteran's glioblastoma was related to exposure to Gulf War environmental hazards. Therefore, service connection on a direct basis is warranted."

https://www.va.gov/vetapp21/Files11/21067192.txt     (widow's claim)

https://www.va.gov/vetapp21/Files11/21069760.txt

https://www.va.gov/vetapp21/Files10/A21016749.txt

https://www.va.gov/vetapp21/Files5/21030475.txt

And more in the 2021 decisions.

This new policy regarding burn pits and particulate matter seems to prevent the veteran , if getting a SC award -from filing a CUE claim on any past denial of what the VA SCs under the new presumptives.

That is very concerning.But I think it would only apply to the three new burn pit presumptives.     ???????

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[blahsaysme2u]

8 hours ago, Berta said:

Getting vets to unite to do something ,he said, to affect the VA, is like "herding cats.

SO TRUE!!! tho i think this group is pretty special- i have hope many will do the contact your state reps from the links i provided. 

8 hours ago, Berta said:

By the way- many vets have won Burn Pit claims.

"ORDER Entitlement to service connection for a respiratory disorder, to include allergic rhinitis and to include as due to burn pit exposure and particulate matter exposure, is granted."

https://www.va.gov/vetapp21/Files9/21061001.txt

'As noted above, the Veteran had a diagnosis of glioblastoma and was exposed to burn pits. The Board finds that the Veteran's glioblastoma was etiologically related to his exposure to burn pits because the most probative evidence in the record, the August 2021 medical opinion by Dr. K., found that the Veteran's glioblastoma was related to exposure to Gulf War environmental hazards. Therefore, service connection on a direct basis is warranted."

https://www.va.gov/vetapp21/Files11/21067192.txt     (widow's claim)

https://www.va.gov/vetapp21/Files11/21069760.txt

https://www.va.gov/vetapp21/Files10/A21016749.txt

https://www.va.gov/vetapp21/Files5/21030475.txt

And more in the 2021 decisions.

This is very true and i think i have a winning case. just not to get EED to my original claim denial. at least with the current law change and regulation changes the VA put in place last year. 

EDIT: my plan is to just make sure i get SC. then if this new law passes i will file to reopen and get EED for my original dinal and claim. this law also provides a longer time frame for cancers to become diagnosed WHICH IS HUGE. one of my largest fears is to get cancer from my exposure and then the VA leave me hanging in the wind! The PACT Act challenges and adds basically any form of cancer you are DX with in the future to the presumptive list.

Another reason to Contact your state Reps guys!!!

 

8 hours ago, Berta said:

This new policy regarding burn pits and particulate matter seems to prevent the veteran , if getting a SC award -from filing a CUE claim on any past denial of what the VA SCs under the new presumptives.

That is very concerning.But I think it would only apply to the three new burn pit presumptives.     ???????

this is why i am trying to get input on the new law that i posted above called the PACT Act. its looks to fix these issues. from my understanding(i watched the round table on the PACT Act that someone posted, might have been you @Berta but i cant remember) the VA pushed through the presumptive conditions without input from congress or law makers. they just did it. they also circumvented the normal process allowing public input on the purposed regulations. this is why there are no safeguards for EED or CUE allowances. 
the new PACT Act wording seems to regulate and fix this-from my understanding of the wording. calling out previously denied claims before the new law went into effect to be "reevaluated" and in section 3 saying compensations for SC they day of the original claim. 

 i highlighted in red what stands out to me @Vync:

“§ 1167. Reevaluation of compensation determinations pursuant to changes in presumptions of service connection

“(a) Reevaluation.—Except as provided in subsection (b), whenever a law, including through a regulation or Federal court decision, establishes or modifies a presumption of service connection, the Secretary shall—

“(1) identify all claims for compensation under this chapter that—

“(A) were submitted to the Secretary;

“(B) were evaluated and denied by the Secretary before the date on which such provision of law went into effect; and

“(C) might have been evaluated differently had the establishment or modification been applicable to the claim;

“(2) allow for the reevaluation of such claims at the election of the veteran; and

“(3) with respect to claims approved pursuant to such reevaluation, provide compensation under this chapter effective as if the establishment or modification of the presumption of service connection had been in effect on the date of the submission of the original claim described in paragraph (1).

Edited January 31, 2022 by blahsaysme2u (see edit history)