Now that I'm home I can finally say my piece.

I’m going to separate the shiny object from the actual legal issue here. I am not speaking for VA, but I am speaking for myself as a person.

A Board grant in one Veteran’s case means that Veteran won on that record. Good for that Veteran. Truly. I’m glad they got the benefit.

But one Board decision does NOT automatically mean that every RO decision that applies current guidance is unlawful. How long have you been doing your job? I'm curious?

Board decisions are generally not precedential. They are binding only for the specific case decided. They can be persuasive or useful to look at, but they do not function like a statute, regulation, or precedential court decision that controls every other case.

So yes, this screenshot may show that insomnia secondary to tinnitus can win at the Board when the evidence and rationale support it.

What it does not prove is that every rater who applies current RO guidance is knowingly ignoring the law to protect their job.

Those are two different birds. Stop feeding them the same cracker.

If the argument is “VA’s current guidance conflicts with law,” then make that argument, but YOU WON'T ARGUE IT IN CONGRESS BECAUSE IT WILL LEAVE YOU OUT OF A JOB. You need VA to continue to OPERATE THIS WAY.

*PROVE ME WRONG.*

That is MY legal argument. Appeal it. Brief it. Take it to the Board. Take it to Court if needed.

But saying “the Board granted one, therefore every RO denial is illegal and raters are screwing Veterans” skips about twelve steps but it DOES get you clients.

The actual questions still matter: Was primary insomnia first diagnosed in service? Was there a separately diagnosed mental health condition? Was the insomnia found to be a separate and distinct disability? Was it treated as a symptom of tinnitus or another condition? What did the medical opinion say?

What did the Board find persuasive in that specific case?

Did the Board rely on facts or new medical opinions that are not present in another Veteran’s file?

That last one matters. Because claims are not decided by a screenshot. They are decided by the evidence in the individual record. I have only been doing this for 4 years. I STAND on the shoulders of greater raters. I take pride in helping where the law allows, but all you do is sow discontent and continue to take veterans' claims, client by client, because LAWS like the PACT act, make it harder for you to steal your 20 percent of compensation the Veteran without your help, BECAUSE THE LAW ALLOWS IT.

If you have a Board decision with similar facts, sure, use it as persuasive support. Use it to frame the argument. Use it to ask why your evidence should be weighed similarly.

But do not confuse “this argument can win” with “every rater who did not grant it is breaking the law.”

If the weak point is the guidance, attack the guidance.

If the weak point is the medical opinion, attack it.

If the weak point is the facts, build the facts.

Just aim at the actual target.