tinnitus What The Heck --- ? ? ? ?

[carlie]

http://www.va.gov/vetapp07/files1/0700312.txt

Citation Nr: 0700312 Decision Date: 01/05/07 Archive Date: 01/17/07DOCKET NO. 01-03 411A ) DATE ) )On appeal from theDepartment of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in St. Petersburg, FloridaTHE ISSUES1. Entitlement to service connection for generalized osteoarthritis.2. Entitlement to service connection for gastroesophageal reflux disease.REPRESENTATIONAppellant represented by: The American LegionATTORNEY FOR THE BOARDDouglas E. Massey, CounselINTRODUCTIONThe veteran served on active duty from April 1955 to April 1958 with the U.S. Army. He subsequently had over 19 years of service in the Air Force Reserves, and was activated for Desert Storm service from January 1991 to April 1991.This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a January 1999 rating decision of the St. Petersburg, Florida, Regional Office (RO) of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), which denied service connection for bilateral hearing loss, tinnitus, generalized osteoarthritis, and gastroesophageal reflux disease.In a March 2004 rating decision, the RO granted service connection for bilateral hearing loss and tinnitus. As this determination constitutes a full grant of the benefits sought as to those claims, they are no longer in appellate status. See Grantham v. Brown, 114 F.3d. 1156 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Therefore, the only two issues remaining on appeal are service connection for generalized osteoarthritis and gastroesophageal reflux disease.The Board remanded the case in September 2004 for additional development. That development has been accomplished, and the case is once again before the Board for review. FINDINGS OF FACT1. Medical evidence relates the veteran's generalized osteoarthritis to his period of military service. 2. The veteran's gastroesophageal reflux disease is proximately due to medication for his service-connected generalized osteoarthritis. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW1. Generalized osteoarthritis was incurred in service. 38 U.S.C.A §§ 1110, 1131, 5107 (West Supp. 2005); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303 (2006).2. Gastroesophageal reflux disease is proximately due to a service-connected disability. 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 1110, 1131 (West Supp. 2005); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303 3.310 (2006).REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONSI. Generalized OsteoarthritisService connection may be granted for a disability resulting from a disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by service. See 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 1110, 1131; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a). In addition, certain chronic diseases such as arthritis may be presumed to have been incurred in or aggravated by service if manifest to a compensable degree within one year of discharge from service. See 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 1101, 1112, 1113, 1137 (West Supp. 2005); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.307, 3.309 (2006).In general, service connection requires (1) medical evidence of a current disability; (2) medical, or in certain circumstances, lay evidence of in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) medical evidence of a nexus between the claimed in-service disease or injury and the current disability. See Hickson v. West, 12 Vet. App. 247, 253 (1999).In this case, the veteran claims that he has generalized osteoarthritis involving multiple joints as a result of numerous parachutes jumps while on active duty. Unfortunately, the service medical records from the veteran's first period of service were apparently destroyed in a fire at a government facility in 1973. In such cases, where service medical records are unavailable through no fault of the veteran, VA has a heightened obligation to explain its findings and conclusions and to carefully consider the benefit-of-the-doubt rule. O'Hare v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 365 (1991). The remainders of his service medical records make no reference to joint pain. Nevertheless, post service medical evidence indicates that the veteran's generalized osteoarthritis is related to service. The veteran was afforded several VA examinations to determine whether he has generalized osteoarthritis as a result of service. A September 1998 VA examination report lists a diagnosis of diffuse osteoarthritic degenerative joint disease of the ankles, feet, knees, hands, elbows, and wrists. However, since the examiner did not offer an opinion concerning the etiology or date of onset of this condition, the veteran underwent another VA examination in March 2005. During this examination, another VA examiner explained that the veteran's osteoarthritis in his hands, wrists, elbows, knees, and back is as likely as not related to his military service from April 1955 to April 1958 and from January 1991 to April 1991. He added that "it is as likely as not that the osteoarthritis is a result of any incident in the veteran's military service." The examiner explained that there was no injury documented in the record, but that his opinion was based on the veteran's history of joint pain while in service. In a July 2005 addendum report, the same examiner provided the following explanation in an attempted to clarify his opinion concerning the etiology of the veteran's osteoarthritis:I would not be able to relate his apparent osteoarthritis to any injury or activity in the military without resorting to speculation. However, osteoarthritis is a disease that can be precipitated by repetitive use and repetitive motion; therefore, as far as osteoarthritis is concerned, and given this [veteran's] 22-year history in the military, I cannot specifically rule out that his osteoarthritis was caused by his military experience. Therefore, although he did not have any specific injury date, or specific military records to that affect, I am unable to directly link his military experience to his current osteoarthritis. However, as above, given his prolonged military experience and the type of work he was doing, it is possible that his current osteoarthritis is due to his previous military experience. Therefore, this is the reason for my opinion that it is as likely as not that the veteran's osteoarthritis was due to an incident in the veteran's military experience. After carefully reviewing the above evidence, the Board finds that service connection for generalized osteoarthritis is warranted. The Board recognizes that generalized osteoarthritis was not documented either in service or during the one-year presumptive period and it is possible that some or all of the veteran's disorder is related to age. Nevertheless, the Board is sensitive to the fact that some of his service medical records were destroyed while in the government's possession, thereby triggering a heightened obligation to carefully consider the benefit-of-the-doubt rule. O'Hare, 1 Vet. App. at 367. In adjudicating this claim, the Board has also considered the doctrine of reasonable doubt. As the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court) has written: A unique standard of proof applies in decisions on claims for veterans' benefits. Unlike other claimants and litigants, pursuant to 38 U.S.C. § 3007(b) [now 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107(b)], a veteran is entitled to the "benefit of the doubt" when there is an approximate balance of positive and negative evidence.Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49, 53 (1990).Citing to the Supreme Court of the United States, the Court in Gilbert noted that the standard of proof is to instruct the fact-finder in the "'degree of confidence our society thinks we should have in the correctness of a factual conclusion for a particular type of adjudication.'" This burden "'reflects not only the weight of the private and public interest affected, but also a societal judgment about how the risk of error should be distributed between the litigants.'" Id. (citations omitted).As currently codified, the law defines the "benefit of the doubt" doctrine as: When, after consideration of all evidence and material of record in this case before the Department with respect to benefits under laws administered by the Secretary, there is an approximate balance of positive and negative evidence regarding the merits of an issue material to the determination in the matter, the benefit of the doubt in resolving each such issue shall be given to the claimant.38 U.S.C.A. § 5107(b).The Court noted that under this standard, when the evidence supports the claim or is in relative equipoise, the appellant prevails. Where the "fair preponderance of the evidence" is against the claim, the appellant loses and the benefit of the doubt rule has no application. Gilbert, 1 Vet. App. at 56. "A properly supported and reasoned conclusion that a fair preponderance of the evidence is against the claim necessarily precludes the possibility of the evidence also being in an approximate balance." Id. at 58. The Court has further held that where there is "significant evidence in support of the appellant's claim," the Board must provide a "satisfactory explanation" as to why the evidence is not in equipoise. Williams v. Brown, 4 Vet. App. 270, 273 (1993).Under the benefit-of-the-doubt rule, the Board also finds that the VA examiner's opinion is sufficient to grant the claim. On one hand, the examiner's opinion appears to be based, at least in part, on speculation and derived largely from the veteran's self-reported history, thereby diminishing its probative value. See Obert v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 30, 33 (1993) (holding that service connection may not be based on resort to speculation or remote possibility); Leshore v. Brown, 8 Vet. App. 406, 409 (1995) (holding that information recorded by a medical examiner, unenhanced by any additional comment by that examiner, does not constitute competent medical evidence). Since the examiner's opinion is based on a review of the claims file and has not been contradicted by any other medical evidence, the Board finds that the evidence is in relative equipoise with regard to whether there is a causal relationship between the veteran's generalized osteoarthritis and his military service. See Ashley v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 52, 59 (1993), citing 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.102. Accordingly, service connection for this generalized osteoarthritis is warranted. The nature and extent of the disorder associated with service is not at issue before the Board at this time. However, the RO should, if possible, take into consideration nonservice related factors in evaluating his disorder.II. Gastroesophageal Reflux DiseaseThe veteran also claims that he developed gastroesophageal reflux disease in service. The Board notes that this condition was first diagnosed several years after the veteran retired from service in September 1996. However, medical evidence indicates that he developed gastroesophageal reflux disease as a result of medication he has been on for his service-connected generalized osteoarthritis. Accordingly, service connection for gastroesophageal reflux disease is warranted. VA regulation provides that a disability which is proximately due to or results from another disease or injury for which service connection has been granted shall be considered a part of the original condition. 38 C.F.R. § 3.310(a). When aggravation of a veteran's nonservice-connected condition is proximately due to or the result of a service-connected condition, such veteran shall be compensated for the degree of disability (but only that degree) over and above the degree of disability existing prior to the aggravation. Id.; see also Allen v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 439, 448 (1995).In this case, medical evidence indicates that the veteran developed gastroesophageal reflux disease as a result of medication for his service-connected generalized osteoarthritis. In this regard, an October 1998 VA examination report notes that the veteran was taking Naproxen (500 mg twice a day) for osteoarthritis. Under the diagnoses section, the examiner noted, "Gastroesophageal reflux causing stomach problems due to the medications." Since this opinion indicates that the veteran's medication to treat his service-connected generalized osteoarthritis is the cause of his gastroesophageal reflux disease, service connection for gastroesophageal reflux disease is warranted. See 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.102.In conclusion, the Board finds that service connection is warranted for both generalized osteoarthritis and gastroesophageal reflux disease. In light of the favorable outcome, there is no need to discuss whether VA has satisfied its duties pursuant to the Veterans Claims Assistance Act of 2000. 38 U.S.C.A. § 5100 et seq. In other words, the Board finds that no further notification or assistance would be helpful, and deciding the appeal at this time is not prejudicial to the veteran. See Bernard v. Brown, 4 Vet. App. 384, 393 (1993).ORDERService connection for generalized osteoarthritis is denied.Service connection for gastroesophageal reflux disease is denied.____________________________________________JOHN J. CROWLEYVeterans Law Judge, Board of Veterans' Appeals Department of Veterans Affairs

[sixthscents]

Yeah they failed to delete the rest of the decison, its a form letter set up, and the clerk just didnt delete it.. You can get this fixed really easy... as stated above.

Its hopefully just a fairly minor inconvenience, and the raters at the VARO should work past it as long as its explained to them in really simple single syllable words (sigh... sorry I just am a bit disgusted with our raters today)

Bob Smith

[Chuck75]

I wonder what an inquiry from/via the appropriate political representative would do!

Looks like a Clear and Unmistakable Error to me.

http://www.va.gov/vetapp07/files1/0700312.txt

Citation Nr: 0700312 Decision Date: 01/05/07 Archive Date: 01/17/07DOCKET NO. 01-03 411A ) DATE ) )On appeal from theDepartment of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in St. Petersburg, FloridaTHE ISSUES1. Entitlement to service connection for generalized osteoarthritis.2. Entitlement to service connection for gastroesophageal reflux disease.REPRESENTATIONAppellant represented by: The American LegionATTORNEY FOR THE BOARDDouglas E. Massey, CounselINTRODUCTIONThe veteran served on active duty from April 1955 to April 1958 with the U.S. Army. He subsequently had over 19 years of service in the Air Force Reserves, and was activated for Desert Storm service from January 1991 to April 1991.This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a January 1999 rating decision of the St. Petersburg, Florida, Regional Office (RO) of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), which denied service connection for bilateral hearing loss, tinnitus, generalized osteoarthritis, and gastroesophageal reflux disease.In a March 2004 rating decision, the RO granted service connection for bilateral hearing loss and tinnitus. As this determination constitutes a full grant of the benefits sought as to those claims, they are no longer in appellate status. See Grantham v. Brown, 114 F.3d. 1156 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Therefore, the only two issues remaining on appeal are service connection for generalized osteoarthritis and gastroesophageal reflux disease.The Board remanded the case in September 2004 for additional development. That development has been accomplished, and the case is once again before the Board for review. FINDINGS OF FACT1. Medical evidence relates the veteran's generalized osteoarthritis to his period of military service. 2. The veteran's gastroesophageal reflux disease is proximately due to medication for his service-connected generalized osteoarthritis. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW1. Generalized osteoarthritis was incurred in service. 38 U.S.C.A §§ 1110, 1131, 5107 (West Supp. 2005); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303 (2006).2. Gastroesophageal reflux disease is proximately due to a service-connected disability. 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 1110, 1131 (West Supp. 2005); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303 3.310 (2006).REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONSI. Generalized OsteoarthritisService connection may be granted for a disability resulting from a disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by service. See 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 1110, 1131; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a). In addition, certain chronic diseases such as arthritis may be presumed to have been incurred in or aggravated by service if manifest to a compensable degree within one year of discharge from service. See 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 1101, 1112, 1113, 1137 (West Supp. 2005); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.307, 3.309 (2006).In general, service connection requires (1) medical evidence of a current disability; (2) medical, or in certain circumstances, lay evidence of in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) medical evidence of a nexus between the claimed in-service disease or injury and the current disability. See Hickson v. West, 12 Vet. App. 247, 253 (1999).In this case, the veteran claims that he has generalized osteoarthritis involving multiple joints as a result of numerous parachutes jumps while on active duty. Unfortunately, the service medical records from the veteran's first period of service were apparently destroyed in a fire at a government facility in 1973. In such cases, where service medical records are unavailable through no fault of the veteran, VA has a heightened obligation to explain its findings and conclusions and to carefully consider the benefit-of-the-doubt rule. O'Hare v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 365 (1991). The remainders of his service medical records make no reference to joint pain. Nevertheless, post service medical evidence indicates that the veteran's generalized osteoarthritis is related to service. The veteran was afforded several VA examinations to determine whether he has generalized osteoarthritis as a result of service. A September 1998 VA examination report lists a diagnosis of diffuse osteoarthritic degenerative joint disease of the ankles, feet, knees, hands, elbows, and wrists. However, since the examiner did not offer an opinion concerning the etiology or date of onset of this condition, the veteran underwent another VA examination in March 2005. During this examination, another VA examiner explained that the veteran's osteoarthritis in his hands, wrists, elbows, knees, and back is as likely as not related to his military service from April 1955 to April 1958 and from January 1991 to April 1991. He added that "it is as likely as not that the osteoarthritis is a result of any incident in the veteran's military service." The examiner explained that there was no injury documented in the record, but that his opinion was based on the veteran's history of joint pain while in service. In a July 2005 addendum report, the same examiner provided the following explanation in an attempted to clarify his opinion concerning the etiology of the veteran's osteoarthritis:I would not be able to relate his apparent osteoarthritis to any injury or activity in the military without resorting to speculation. However, osteoarthritis is a disease that can be precipitated by repetitive use and repetitive motion; therefore, as far as osteoarthritis is concerned, and given this [veteran's] 22-year history in the military, I cannot specifically rule out that his osteoarthritis was caused by his military experience. Therefore, although he did not have any specific injury date, or specific military records to that affect, I am unable to directly link his military experience to his current osteoarthritis. However, as above, given his prolonged military experience and the type of work he was doing, it is possible that his current osteoarthritis is due to his previous military experience. Therefore, this is the reason for my opinion that it is as likely as not that the veteran's osteoarthritis was due to an incident in the veteran's military experience. After carefully reviewing the above evidence, the Board finds that service connection for generalized osteoarthritis is warranted. The Board recognizes that generalized osteoarthritis was not documented either in service or during the one-year presumptive period and it is possible that some or all of the veteran's disorder is related to age. Nevertheless, the Board is sensitive to the fact that some of his service medical records were destroyed while in the government's possession, thereby triggering a heightened obligation to carefully consider the benefit-of-the-doubt rule. O'Hare, 1 Vet. App. at 367. In adjudicating this claim, the Board has also considered the doctrine of reasonable doubt. As the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court) has written: A unique standard of proof applies in decisions on claims for veterans' benefits. Unlike other claimants and litigants, pursuant to 38 U.S.C. § 3007( [now 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107(B)], a veteran is entitled to the "benefit of the doubt" when there is an approximate balance of positive and negative evidence.Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49, 53 (1990).Citing to the Supreme Court of the United States, the Court in Gilbert noted that the standard of proof is to instruct the fact-finder in the "'degree of confidence our society thinks we should have in the correctness of a factual conclusion for a particular type of adjudication.'" This burden "'reflects not only the weight of the private and public interest affected, but also a societal judgment about how the risk of error should be distributed between the litigants.'" Id. (citations omitted).As currently codified, the law defines the "benefit of the doubt" doctrine as: When, after consideration of all evidence and material of record in this case before the Department with respect to benefits under laws administered by the Secretary, there is an approximate balance of positive and negative evidence regarding the merits of an issue material to the determination in the matter, the benefit of the doubt in resolving each such issue shall be given to the claimant.38 U.S.C.A. § 5107(B).The Court noted that under this standard, when the evidence supports the claim or is in relative equipoise, the appellant prevails. Where the "fair preponderance of the evidence" is against the claim, the appellant loses and the benefit of the doubt rule has no application. Gilbert, 1 Vet. App. at 56. "A properly supported and reasoned conclusion that a fair preponderance of the evidence is against the claim necessarily precludes the possibility of the evidence also being in an approximate balance." Id. at 58. The Court has further held that where there is "significant evidence in support of the appellant's claim," the Board must provide a "satisfactory explanation" as to why the evidence is not in equipoise. Williams v. Brown, 4 Vet. App. 270, 273 (1993).Under the benefit-of-the-doubt rule, the Board also finds that the VA examiner's opinion is sufficient to grant the claim. On one hand, the examiner's opinion appears to be based, at least in part, on speculation and derived largely from the veteran's self-reported history, thereby diminishing its probative value. See Obert v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 30, 33 (1993) (holding that service connection may not be based on resort to speculation or remote possibility); Leshore v. Brown, 8 Vet. App. 406, 409 (1995) (holding that information recorded by a medical examiner, unenhanced by any additional comment by that examiner, does not constitute competent medical evidence). Since the examiner's opinion is based on a review of the claims file and has not been contradicted by any other medical evidence, the Board finds that the evidence is in relative equipoise with regard to whether there is a causal relationship between the veteran's generalized osteoarthritis and his military service. See Ashley v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 52, 59 (1993), citing 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107(:); 38 C.F.R. § 3.102. Accordingly, service connection for this generalized osteoarthritis is warranted. The nature and extent of the disorder associated with service is not at issue before the Board at this time. However, the RO should, if possible, take into consideration nonservice related factors in evaluating his disorder.II. Gastroesophageal Reflux DiseaseThe veteran also claims that he developed gastroesophageal reflux disease in service. The Board notes that this condition was first diagnosed several years after the veteran retired from service in September 1996. However, medical evidence indicates that he developed gastroesophageal reflux disease as a result of medication he has been on for his service-connected generalized osteoarthritis. Accordingly, service connection for gastroesophageal reflux disease is warranted. VA regulation provides that a disability which is proximately due to or results from another disease or injury for which service connection has been granted shall be considered a part of the original condition. 38 C.F.R. § 3.310(a). When aggravation of a veteran's nonservice-connected condition is proximately due to or the result of a service-connected condition, such veteran shall be compensated for the degree of disability (but only that degree) over and above the degree of disability existing prior to the aggravation. Id.; see also Allen v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 439, 448 (1995).In this case, medical evidence indicates that the veteran developed gastroesophageal reflux disease as a result of medication for his service-connected generalized osteoarthritis. In this regard, an October 1998 VA examination report notes that the veteran was taking Naproxen (500 mg twice a day) for osteoarthritis. Under the diagnoses section, the examiner noted, "Gastroesophageal reflux causing stomach problems due to the medications." Since this opinion indicates that the veteran's medication to treat his service-connected generalized osteoarthritis is the cause of his gastroesophageal reflux disease, service connection for gastroesophageal reflux disease is warranted. See 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107(B); 38 C.F.R. § 3.102.In conclusion, the Board finds that service connection is warranted for both generalized osteoarthritis and gastroesophageal reflux disease. In light of the favorable outcome, there is no need to discuss whether VA has satisfied its duties pursuant to the Veterans Claims Assistance Act of 2000. 38 U.S.C.A. § 5100 et seq. In other words, the Board finds that no further notification or assistance would be helpful, and deciding the appeal at this time is not prejudicial to the veteran. See Bernard v. Brown, 4 Vet. App. 384, 393 (1993).ORDERService connection for generalized osteoarthritis is denied.Service connection for gastroesophageal reflux disease is denied.____________________________________________JOHN J. CROWLEYVeterans Law Judge, Board of Veterans' Appeals Department of Veterans Affairs

[jbasser]

OK, I'm new at this game but could somebody tell me how they can state both generalized osteoarthritis and gastroesophageal reflux disease warrant service connection and then deny service connection on those disabilities?

Am I reading this correctly?

In conclusion, the Board finds that service connection is warranted for both generalized osteoarthritis and gastroesophageal reflux disease.

In light of the favorable outcome, there is no need to discuss whether VA has satisfied its duties pursuant to the Veterans Claims Assistance Act of 2000. 38 U.S.C.A. § 5100 et seq. In other words, the Board finds that no further notification or assistance would be helpful, and deciding the appeal at this time is not prejudicial to the veteran. See Bernard v. Brown, 4 Vet. App. 384, 393 (1993).

ORDER Service connection for generalized osteoarthritis is denied.Service connection for gastroesophageal reflux disease is denied.____________________________________________

This system is more messed up than I realized if I am reading this correctly. How anyone could say the VA satisfied its duties to assist after reading this is beyond me.

Have I understood this correctly?

And they wonder why vets want legal representation!!

Thanks,

ts

The meds for the Osteoarthritis caused his gerd. The Aggravation factor was proved.

A lot of vets have same condition that they are unaware of.

Kind of like Service connected heart disease agravates Pulmonary disease and Pulmonary HTN.

They call it COPD.

John

Edited April 19, 2007 by jbasser

[Testvet]

a perfect example of a catch 22 situation sounds like a normal decision to me next!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Ricky]

This happens a lot and leaves the veteran in limbo on mars. One of my last ratings read: Evidence of the record indicates that the claim MEETS the requirements for an increased disabiltiy, therefore, the request is denied, specifically due to no evidence of a recent or active disease.

It ain't easy to correct - they force me into a NOD -after 10 mos of waiting on a response about the wording in the rating, I had to act. The FUNNY THING IS, it was denied again. The SOC gave the same reasons above WORD FOR WORD, hahahahahahahahaha.

When I brought this up at a hearing the hearing officer, shook her head and said "Mr. H I read the SOC response during our break, and I FULLY understand your position and I have no ideal what HE was doing. He said it meets the requirements, which it does, then he denied the claim. We will get it fixed.

Maybe she will. When she issues the SSOC hopefully she will not forget to use cut and paste operation without proofing her final.

[Berta]

I see this as a small problem - these BVA lawyers are great and make excellent decisions- but they sure feel the pressure of the backlog too- I see it as a minor (although quite upsetting)

mistake.

Dont know who they are but if they are in hyperspace- they just need to tell the BVA Ombudsman at

BVAOmbudsman@mail.va.gov

This email addy is really NOT for most BVA claimants to use

-only for specific matters or if you email the BVA and they refer you to the ombudsman.

I only have this addy because I dealt with BVA directly to get my fast remand.

It would be appropriate in this situation for this vet or his SO or rep to use it.

When the BVA ombudsman emailed me and said my claim had already been remanded based on my letter to the BVA with the regs etc--(I should frame that email)

it was the First Time in over 3 years that I had gotten any of my rights under 38 CFR acknowledged by the VA.

This decision is really just a typo and can be corrected quickly.