Jump to content



Search



Toggle shoutbox Shoutbox Open the Shoutbox in a popup

@  Tbird : (22 November 2014 - 04:54 PM) Tbird Accepted To 2015 Conference: V-Wise: Another Entrepreneurship Project Of The Whitman School Of Management Http://ow.ly/ej9Qg
@  Tbird : (22 November 2014 - 04:13 PM) Arng11 Thank You For Your Contribution To Our Funding Campaign.
@  britton : (22 November 2014 - 02:57 PM) Thank You Ms T For Starting This Web Site For All Veterans, You Helpd Me And My Family And I'll Be Forever Gratful To You & Hadit.com
@  Tbird : (22 November 2014 - 08:19 AM) Thank You All For Helping With The Funding The Site. It Is Really Helping!
@  Tbird : (22 November 2014 - 08:18 AM) Britton Pm Me And I. Can Check This Out For You
@  britton : (22 November 2014 - 06:44 AM) What Does ''you Missed Your Quota For Postives Votes Today'' Mean??
@  coriemboh : (19 November 2014 - 08:29 AM) Hold Time For Peggy Was Approximately 1 Minute. That Was 17 Minutes Ago. They Really Need To Change This Hold Music.
@  Tbird : (17 November 2014 - 02:42 PM) Stretch Thanks For The Extra Contribution To Our Fundraiser This Month.
@  maxwell18 : (16 November 2014 - 09:04 PM) I Still Have To Bitch About The Navy Hosp Cutting My Meds By 2/3 On My Norco. I Contacted Customer Service Or What Ever You Want To Call It Who In Turn Contacted The Navy Hosp Pensacola Commander Who In Turn Did Nothing. Thanks To All The People That Are Affair Of There Jobs And I Feel That Medical Malpractice Should Come Into Place. I Guess Just Do What Ever They Want To Because They Can, But Don't Give A Sh T For The Vets That Suppose To Being Supporting From All The Military  organizations. This Is Not The Way They Have Been Trained And Promised To Do. 
@  carlie : (16 November 2014 - 11:26 AM) Delayed Onset Tinnitus - Ref To Va Training Letter 10-028 - Link - Http://veteranclaims.wordpress.com/2014/05/06/single-Judge-Application-Va-Training-Letter-10-028-Delayed-Onset-Tinnitus/
@  carlie : (16 November 2014 - 11:03 AM) Here's A Good Tinnitus Link To Check Out From M21-1 Change Dated Jan 10,2014 - Http://veteranclaims.wordpress.com/tag/section-B-Duty-Military-Occupational-Specialty-Mos-Noise-Exposure-Listing-Fast-Letter-10-35-Tinnitus-Hearing-Loss-Vbms-Rating-Decision-Tools/
@  Asiadaug : (16 November 2014 - 02:08 AM) "rolled" Not Ruled! :)
@  Asiadaug : (16 November 2014 - 02:07 AM) Thanks. I Have Seen The Fast Ltr 10-35 And Have Seen Cases Where The Va Has Apparently Agreed That Tinnitus Can Have Delayed Onset. I Did Not In Looking Over The Fast Ltr See Where They Had Ruled 10-028 Into That. And, I Am Not Sure In The Vas Issuance Of ‘policy’ Type Letters How They Might Roll In Previous Instructions Into Newer Ones. Maybe There Is Some Intranet Traceability Capability? I Was Just Curious As There ‘appeared’ To Be Conspicuous Absence Of That 10-028. I Am Assuming 10-028 Was Written In 2010. But It May Be I Should Not Assume Anything.
@  carlie : (15 November 2014 - 05:56 PM) Asiadaug - You Might Be Looking For Fast Letter 10-35, Http://www.hadit.com/forums/topic/40962-Va-Fl-10-35/ Also Check Out This Link To Links For Delayed Onset Tinnitus - They All Refer Back To Fast Letter 10-35, Https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=Chrome-Instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=Utf-8#q=Tinnitus, Delayed Onset, Va Fast Letter
@  Tbird : (15 November 2014 - 07:50 AM) Asiadaug Searched All Over For Va Training Letter 10-028 But No Luck So Far.
@  Asiadaug : (15 November 2014 - 02:12 AM) Several Cases I've Run Across Mention Va Training Letter 10-028 With Apparent Discussion About Delayed Onset Of Tinnitus. I Have Been Unable To Locate That Trng Ltr. Any Suggestions?
@  Tbird : (12 November 2014 - 05:56 PM) Stretch Thanks For Contributing To Our Fundraising Campairg
@  Tbird : (12 November 2014 - 04:01 AM) Atomicwidow Thank Your For Donating To Our Funding Campaign.
@  Tbird : (11 November 2014 - 07:00 AM) Veterans Day 2014 - Veterans Thank You For Your Service And Your Sacrifice.
@  Tbird : (10 November 2014 - 07:19 AM) Semper Fi Marines

Photo
- - - - -

Ptsd Denials


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
1 reply to this topic

#1 Berta

 
Berta

    HadIt.com Elder/SVR Radio Panelist

  • SVR
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 29010 posts
 

Posted 16 February 2007 - 10:38 AM

I was surprised to notice today how many legitimate PTSD claims have bee denied by VAROs in 2006.I didnt read them all just enough to wonder what is going on.

This one is good example:

http://www.va.gov/ve...es3/0618731.txt

"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
harmless error)."
"ORDER

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.


#2 Stretch

 
Stretch

    HadIt.com Elder/SVR Radio IT

  • SVR
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1966 posts
 

Posted 16 February 2007 - 11:28 AM

I think it could be the difference between 38 U.s.c. 1154 vs. 38 U.s.c. 1154[b]. Although this is VA law, maybe the BVA reserves the right to discriminate between who was in combat and who was not.