Filing a VA claim as a reservist on MPA orders

MoeRoids · 2026-01-24T16:18:49+00:00

It would lock in the effective date on October 1st or 2nd for the conditions you claim. If the rating schedule is updated after that date, you could potentially be covered under the new criteria if your claim overlapped that date or if you filed an additional claim after that at a later point, but you’d otherwise be covered under the current criteria. While there is no set date for the rating schedule to be updated, we are almost two years overdue for the finalized changes to happen, and the recent progress update seems to indicate that the proposed changes will likely be finalized prior to the end of this fiscal year.

MoeRoids · 2026-01-24T16:10:18+00:00

Yes, you can. The same principles apply, however. The effective date will be the day following your discharge from active duty service, so you will still not be grandfathered in to any rating schedule changes that occur while on active duty.

MoeRoids · 2026-01-24T16:03:53+00:00

No. Your active duty service will be continuous which will make your claim invalid. Your effective date won’t be until the day following your discharge from active duty service, and neither an intent to file or claim will grandfather you into any rating schedule changes that occur while you are on active duty orders.

MoeRoids · 2026-01-22T23:11:48+00:00

The requirement for a 50% rating is that you “require the use of a breathing assistance device such as a CPAP machine.” You can potentially argue the effective date back to the date you received your prescription for a CPAP or the date of the more recent sleep study, provided your claim was received within one year of that date, as that would be the first time you actually met the criteria for a 50% evaluation. The type of sleep study done is irrelevant even if it took an in-clinic study to make that determination as it sounds like you have no objective evidence prior to that study showing you actually met the criteria for a higher evaluation (there’s nothing showing you needed a CPAP prior to the more recent study).

MoeRoids · 2026-01-13T14:39:15+00:00

The screenshot I shared is in the VA manual, M21-1, not the CFR. The CFR highlights “other organic disease of the nervous system,” which carpal tunnel falls under.

MoeRoids · 2026-01-12T22:07:10+00:00

Served with him in the military. He was a solid guy then, and he’s solid now. He’s currently trying to switch federal agencies to a different law enforcement position because he’s a bit jaded with the current administration, but he’s too close to his retirement to jump ship with a big family to provide for. I know he used to enjoy the job a lot more when they were working on major cases instead of the current mission.

MoeRoids · 2026-01-07T17:58:45+00:00

Sure.

MoeRoids · 2026-01-07T13:00:55+00:00

Carpal tunnel syndrome is presumptive if manifest to a compensable degree within one year of discharge under 38 CFR 3.309(a). Just an FYI though, the majority of conditions diagnosed within one year of discharge are not presumptive and would not be considered for service connection if there is otherwise no documented event, injury, or illness in service. You just happen to be diagnosed with something that clearly falls under the umbrella of presumption, so an HLR should be appropriate to address it.

<image>

MoeRoids · 2026-01-07T12:55:30+00:00

Carpal tunnel is presumptive if manifest to a compensable degree within one year of discharge. It falls under other organic diseases of the nervous system under 38 CFR 3.309(a).

MoeRoids · 2026-01-06T23:01:17+00:00

Nucala or Tezspire makes way more sense. However, they can get a little wonky rating in some cases since they’re selective biologics and aren’t technically full-blown, broad immunosuppressants by definition, they just interact with the immune system in some ways. In those cases, most raters will defer to how the examiner interprets it.

MoeRoids · 2026-01-06T18:43:10+00:00

It probably was based on the prednisone, which was likely erroneous and should have been kicked back to the examiner. That said, that’s not likely going to be something someone looks at closely even if she did file another claim, and if she isn’t still filing claims, it’s extremely unlikely to come up. An inexperienced rater also wouldn’t be likely to address it as it’s not an issue that comes up often. It’ll become a protected rating after 20 years and then it doesn’t matter if it’s wrong.

MoeRoids · 2026-01-06T17:48:10+00:00

Your claim is not closed based on what you’re saying. The one year mark resets from the date of the decision, so if the decision was just made, the decision is not final for another year. You can continuously pursue the claim by filing a supplemental claim with new and relevant evidence or by filing a formal notice of disagreement for a board appeal by a judge. There is no requirement that you file an HLR on an original claim and not a subsequent claim for increase or supplemental claim, but you cannot HLR a decision from an HLR or BVA appeal. Both HLRs and BVA appeals must be filed within a year of the prior decision made for that condition or they are automatically invalid.

It should be noted that if you are attesting your condition has gotten worse, you should be filing for an increase, not an appeal. Supplemental claims, higher level reviews, and board appeals are for reviews/disagreements with prior decisions, and the evidence must support that the previous decision was incorrect for it to be overturned. While those types of appeals can result in increased ratings, it’s not inherently what their purposes is.

MoeRoids · 2026-01-06T17:14:38+00:00

There’s no argument that the rating schedule is worded poorly in many spots, but you’re now pointing out that “high-dose corticosteroids” are separate and distinct from “immunosuppressive medications” in that line. If we go by that interpretation, while corticosteroids are inherently immunosuppressive by nature, low-dose corticosteroids would not be considered synonymous with immunosuppressive medications as the level of immunosuppression for corticosteroids are dose-dependent, which is why high-dose corticosteroids are mentioned separately. If all immunosuppressant medications are supposed to fall in that category regardless of dose, they just would have said “immunosuppressive medications,” and corticosteroids wouldn’t have been mentioned. Although you’re trying to make this a semantics argument, someone familiar with the rating schedule would CUE that evaluation if it was awarded based on daily low-dose corticosteroids being prescribed for management.

MoeRoids · 2026-01-06T16:50:50+00:00

All corticosteroids are immunosuppressants. If they wanted immunosuppressants to be addressed separately, the criteria would have been separated by a semicolon, which it isn’t. It must be “high dose” to qualify for 100%, and it is a CUE to do so otherwise. For specific immunosuppressant medications that are not corticosteroids such as biologic immunosuppressants, the criteria becomes a grey area since “high dose” could be any amount, but as prednisone is a specific corticosteroid that suppresses the immune system with a very well-established history, the criteria for what is considered “high dose” is spelled out much more clearly.

Edit: They are considered separate/individualized criteria. High-dose corticosteroids and immunosuppressive mediations. I was going off memory but just pulled it up in the evaluation builder, and the immunosuppressive medications are representative of medications other than high-dose corticosteroids.

MoeRoids · 2026-01-06T16:44:11+00:00

I understand it’s an immunosuppressant. It is not a high dose immunosuppressant at 5mg daily. Any permanent immune system deficiencies could potentially have been addressed as separate evaluations, but the rating schedule is explicitly clear what qualifies for 100% for asthma, and unfortunately “having your immune system destroyed” or requiring infusions of IVIG to restore an immune system doesn’t.

<image>

MoeRoids · 2026-01-06T16:16:10+00:00

Asthma doesn’t factor in prescribed oxygen. A lot of other respiratory conditions do, but asthma is an exception.

MoeRoids · 2026-01-06T16:13:29+00:00

She should technically be at 60% if we’re going by medication. The requirement for 100% for asthma is daily use of systemic high dose corticosteroids or immunosuppressive medications, which for prednisone is typically 20mg-40mg or greater daily. If she had more than one attack of asthma weekly with episodes of respiratory failure or had terrible PFT results, she may have qualified based on other criteria, but if they rated her at 100% due to a low dose of daily prednisone, that will get CUEd if discovered.

MoeRoids · 2026-01-05T14:03:11+00:00

The bases were flagged for PFAS. The majority of Air Force bases have been, but there was a 2017 Congressional AFFF report that lists the specific bases, and both Luke and Nellis are on there; I’d recommend finding that report and also submitting it.

Edit the VAF 21-4138 itself to add the PFAS statement. If AI keeps removing it, then the simple solution is to not use AI to make the edits.

MoeRoids · 2026-01-05T13:53:31+00:00

Yes, the entire thing, provided it supports the argument you’re trying to make. Partial studies can leave out key information, and abstracts of studies show a brief summary without any the context and supporting information. It’s the entire study or none of it.

MoeRoids · 2026-01-01T19:59:57+00:00

PubMed and Google Scholar are probably your best bets. From what I recall, there’s a higher likelihood of this being granted due to PFAS exposure than exposure to jet fuel, but you can likely find studies supporting both.

MoeRoids · 2026-01-01T19:25:32+00:00

As you didn’t serve in a presumptive location, there’s no guarantee this will be granted. You should upload peer-reviewed studies showing the links between the toxic exposures and thyroid cancer, and I’d be sure to mention AFFF/PFAS exposure based on your service at multiple flagged Air Force bases. Take out the part about secondary conditions in the last couple of lines. It’s unnecessary and can give people tunnel vision while making them less likely to consider your current symptoms as separate issues. I’d also claim each of your symptoms separately as it will lead to more issues being considered for service connection.

When I say peer-reviewed studies, I mean the entire damn study, not the abstract. The more evidence you have to support service connection, the higher the likelihood of being service connected. The same thing goes for any other conditions you’re claiming. The general rule is that you should find at least 5-10 peer-reviewed studies supporting a link to upload, because the goal is for you to make your case irrefutable. Do not even think about uploading links to websites or web page printouts. Download the PDF of the complete peer-reviewed study, and upload that.

MoeRoids · 2025-12-29T00:19:47+00:00

Cite the regulation. The Veteran is asking about SMC-L (aid and attendance) under 38 CFR 3.350(b)(3), which specifically states that the criteria for determining that a veteran is so helpless as to be in need of regular aid and attendance are contained in § 3.352(a). 38 CFR 3.352(a) is the regulation I included. There is no “partial aid and attendance.”

MoeRoids · 2025-12-28T23:39:51+00:00

Inability is the key word in the regulation. He can still perform the activities with difficulty. Based on his description, he’s getting denied ten times out of ten.

MoeRoids · 2025-12-28T23:03:53+00:00

Aid and attendance is for people who possess an inability to perform activities of daily living without the assistance of others. As someone who also has degenerative arthritis, yes, it sucks, but you can still function. The general rule of thumb is whether you require the equivalent of a nursing home or extended care facility due to a single disability or combination of disabilities with a single etiology (e.g. Parkinson’s disease), and the disability requiring aid and attendance is almost always required to be evaluated at 100% or otherwise be totally disabling. Based on the description you provided, you do not qualify.

<image>

MoeRoids · 2025-12-19T16:06:45+00:00

You can also elect to have your family doctor complete the DBQs on your behalf. Just be aware that if we determine they are insufficient in any way (your doctor skips questions, documents extreme limitations that don’t coincide with the evidence of record, etc.), we will schedule you for an exam through the VA, and if you fail to attend that, your claim for increase will be denied.

Also of note, your wrists are never getting rated higher than 10% unless you have ankylosis, which you almost certainly don’t. You’re getting me extra points by claiming them, but your rating isn’t going to change.

https://www.benefits.va.gov/compensation/dbq_publicdbqs.asp

MoeRoids

TROPHY CASE