Every so often, I find posts by NOD on other websites with information and warnings. I came across NOD’s response to a post–2-years ago– about FDCs on the site DoDLive. The BVA employee offered cheery advice to vets. (One wonders how many of these “Fully Developed Claims” have been successful and decided within the promised time limits since the program began.)
Here are NOD’s caveats with my emphasis added:
Unfortunately Ms. Trombley overlooks one glaring fact. VA has a habit of failing to go after that which you inform them of. I gave VA the name , location and everything but the GPS coordinates of the civilian hospital I was in during the Vietnam Boundary dispute. Six times. In the 21-526, in my Hearing at the RO, in my SOC, in my SSOC and in evidence submitted to the BVA on appeal. Results? Negative. They said the records they had were adequate. At what point will it occur that VA will not feel sufficiently motivated to even query St. Louis’ NPRC over your STRs?
As for DBQs, I suggest Ms. Trombley, an admitted Veterans Service Representative, look carefully and tell us where the space is for the doctor’s nexus? There is none. Nevertheless, we are admonished to provide a) proof of current disease/injury; proof of same in service and doctor’s nexus letter linking the two aforementioned items. It appears the VA would prefer that they be allowed to supply the nexus. Since 85% of all compensation claims are denied, we can assume that many arrive without this. Can we blame the poor Vet for his ignorance? There are only two venues for compensation claims. Either you DIY or you allow a VSO to represent you. I have had three and none proffered the need for the nexus. I did it myself the fourth time and won everything at the RO without an appeal (100%+40% +10%). I finally wrote a book about it to show other Vets why they lose (asknod.org) Ms. Trombley would do us all a great favor if she more clearly identified why a fast track claim is better. DBQs simply take the VA off the hook for assembling the claim. It does nothing to ensure success and may be more harmful in its present configuration. Stick with the guaranteed requirements of the Caluza triangle above. Lack of nexus sinks more claims than any other factor and Vets are not apprised of it until they get good legal representation.
Considering this is a non adversarial venue in which to present our claims. I would hope Ms. Trombley can explain why the BVA needs a phalanx of 500 lawyers against unrepresented Vets or even VSOs with no juris doctor degree. Veteran friendly? Yes. They smile when they deny. If we’d just give them more evidence, we’d win? No one has explained why there are so many deadbeat Vets filing claims. One can only assume that from the horrific denial statistics.
As for accuracy in claims decisions, by who’s measurement is it 86%? When the fox is in charge of the hen house and egg production, one must look more closely at the purported statistics. Entrusting that measurement to the selfsame fellows who work there is not scientifically or statistically defensible.
I have read the DBQ for HCV and it is defective. For example, many extrahepatic conditions aren’t given. Mental health sequela is left off the form. The Hepatitis C DBQ needs to be challenged and improved. As far as trusting VA employees to have your best interests at heart, that is a pipe dream so I guess vets better study up on the Caluza Triangle before going for the FDC carrot.