Veterans Benefits Network-SMC-T for 100% TBI (2024)

Peanut711 wrote: ↑

May 18, 2021

When we finally received the decision letter, there was no "denial" because no specific issue was claimed by the VSO (didn't know what he was doing). The determination was only that the veteran is entitled to SMC-S(1) and that he rate is "confirmed and continued". I honestly think the VA got the 21-2680 and lay statements and had no idea what we were applying for because it lacked any narrative by the filing official (VSO)..

The VA Form 21-2680 is the form used to claim aid and attendance in addition to housebound. No narrative is required as the rater would know to put aid and attendance at issue. In the majority of cases in which aid and attendance is being claimed all that VA receives is the 3680.

VA should have known exactly what was being claimed; therefore, I would not be so quick to conclude that the VSO "didn't know what he was doing." If I had been his VSO I would have done the same thing and if I was still the rater at VA I would have known what was being claimed.

We spoke with a state rep (aide) that said he handles VA stuff "all day long", but I am leery of anyone claiming to understand how the VA functions.

Most accredited VSOs with any significant experience know how the VA functions.

We have used the same VSO since 2013 when we filed his first claim, but grew tired of never being able to get ahold of the guy and did most everything, short of filing the paperwork, by ourselves. The VSO that filed this claim came highly recommended by the Legion, but is pretty clueless and put everything back on us. He even went so far as to say it's not his job to do this stuff. Shameful.

While I don't know your situation or the VSO in question I can't agree or disagree that his conduct is "shameful." As an accredited VSO for 10 years for American Legion, VFW, and my state veterans affairs office I can tell you what the role of the VSO is and I can also tell you that many of my clients were clueless about my role.

An accredited VSO is supposed to be knowledgeable enough to review your situation and advise you on a course of action, know what paperwork and evidence is required to follow that course of action, submit the paperwork, and then assist explain and assist you with the decision regarding any further action that is warranted. Along the way they are supposed to help you navigate any problem areas.

What the VSO is not is a personal assistant standing by waiting to spring into action at every beck and call by the claimant. In the majority of cases there is little if any contact required between the filing of the claim and the decision notification letter beyond assisting with any letters received from VA during this period.

Unfortunately things like va.gov and ebenefits have actually made the VSO's job more difficult as many claimants start calling and walking into the office every time they read something new on one of these sites. VA does not use these sites to communicate with claimants. Heck, VA employees can't even see these sites nor can VSOs.

When I was a VSO I simply did not have the time to promptly respond to many of my clients. I generally knew which ones needed attention and which ones I could hold off on, especially those that called every few days.

Again, I can't comment on your situation due to a lack of knowledge. Maybe you did have a crappy VSO, but then again maybe you didn't. One of my clients fired me as his VSO calling me "worthless" as he left my office and then stated on this site that he wished he could get a good VSO like Cruiser since Cruiser gave a lot better advice on this forum. Clearly he had no idea that Cruiser had been his VSO that he fired for being worthless.

As for the decision on his claim, based on what you said it was the rater at VA and not the VSO who took the wrong course of action. The rater should have denied aid and attendance (if that was the intent) and confirmed and continued the housebound. It sounds like the decision merely confirmed and continued the housebound with the assumption by the rater that denial of aid and attendance would be inferred by the client. That would be wrong if that's what they did. Are you positive that the letter didn't also contain a denial decision for aid and attendance?

Cruiser