This one is good example:
"The veteran was awarded the air crewman badge which is
indicative of combat exposure. Therefore, the veteran is
entitled to the combat presumption under 38 C.F.R.
§ 3.304(f). Additionally, the veteran's personnel records
reflect that he was a lineman/wireman which likely would have
placed him in a combat zone.
The veteran has reported several credible stressors. At a VA
examination in September 2003, the veteran reported driving a
truck as part of a convoy which was shot at, causing him to
lose control of the truck and get into an accident. At a
hearing before the Board, the veteran's representative stated
that the veteran was repeatedly exposed to rocket and mortar
attacks on Hill 837 (and the veteran indicated that they were
shelled every other night for six months on Hill 837); and
the veteran referenced several accidents in which he ran over
civilians while driving a truck. "
Apparently the VARO screwed up on VCAA or DTA regs too:
"In light of this result, a detailed discussion of VA's
various duties to notify and assist is unnecessary (because
any potential failure of VA in fulfilling these duties is
Service connection for PTSD is granted."
Is it beyond my comprehension why claims like this cannot be properly resolved at the RO level- cant they read at all?
It took 2 years for this decision from the VA and who knows how many more years it was at the RO-with all the evidence needed to award-and then denied and sent to the BVA.
Makes you sure wonder what the VFW (POA on the brief so I assume on the initial decision too) did to help him-
obvious DTA errors in the RO decision as well as probative evidence in the c file-ridiculous!
(The aircrewman badge does not specify combat but the regs indicate what it is for:
Crew Member: Individual must be on flying status as a crewmember in a specified position or non-crewmember in the case of observers, medical aidmen, gunners, aircraft maintenance supervisors or technical inspection)
I believe his MOS in a combat zone was more indicative of "engaged in combat" for the presumption.)
Edited by Berta, 16 February 2007 - 10:46 AM.