Well After 8 months I received my advisory opinion from the BCMR. It came back unfavorable as they still concurred with the reason of my medical condition was EPTS due to it being genetic. I am confused however is that the opinion said that although the original doc said that there could have been a possible environmental trigger they can not pin point to an exact trigger. I have 30 days from the date on the paper to rebuttal. I am not sure where to start or how to go about fighting back. I went all my evidence but it looks like the opinion only reviewed my dd-149. So for those of you all that have gone through this what would you do?
Received my Advisory opinion not favorable
- Thread starter Ed2w1
- Start date
From a fly on the wall
Send him this article Civilian and Military Genetics: Nondiscrimination Policy in a Post-GINA World. It discusses genetic conditions and military service members. If he’s been in 8 years he may still be awarded benefits. If not, he may be able to argue the condition was aggravated by military service since he was given presumption of soundness when he entered service. Good luck!
Send him this article Civilian and Military Genetics: Nondiscrimination Policy in a Post-GINA World. It discusses genetic conditions and military service members. If he’s been in 8 years he may still be awarded benefits. If not, he may be able to argue the condition was aggravated by military service since he was given presumption of soundness when he entered service. Good luck!
Link
www.sciencedirect.com
Civilian and Military Genetics: Nondiscrimination Policy in a Post-GINA World
Evidence is emerging of a growing societal consensus about appropriate and inappropriate uses of genetic information. The Genetic Information Nondiscr…
Thank you Manmumar unfortunately time was not on my side I served 4.5 years when this disease hit me. In 2006 and I was discharged in 2007. The president signed the
Law in 2008 and in effect in 2009. A big kick in the nuts to happen after I got out. The 2008 NDAA came out and gave more presumption to help those who came in with genetic predisposition but I do t think that would apply to me. The only thing I can fight for is that the doc can not pinpoint an exact trigger of evidence in record that effected me. Which can create an argument that how can they disprove that the environment could or couldn’t have had an effect on me. The rigors of the military itself and plus I was on the flightline working on aircrafts with exhaust fuels and plenty other crap I came in Contact with.
Nonetheless I have a very uncertain uphil battle of only 15 days to respond.
Law in 2008 and in effect in 2009. A big kick in the nuts to happen after I got out. The 2008 NDAA came out and gave more presumption to help those who came in with genetic predisposition but I do t think that would apply to me. The only thing I can fight for is that the doc can not pinpoint an exact trigger of evidence in record that effected me. Which can create an argument that how can they disprove that the environment could or couldn’t have had an effect on me. The rigors of the military itself and plus I was on the flightline working on aircrafts with exhaust fuels and plenty other crap I came in Contact with.
Nonetheless I have a very uncertain uphil battle of only 15 days to respond.
On this site I posted a memo by the Undersecretary of Defense saying that Boards shall consider changes in regulation that would have applied to an applicant favorably. In essence, if the law changed after you were discharged you can still use the new law based on that memo (I would submit the memo).
Wow are you serious ? I didn’t know that that’s something I can definitely use this as a great argument. Your a giant help. Thank you so much. I am laying my last fight on the line I got to give them all I got. Is that info on the same link you sent prior ?
I will try and search it out and let you know. No rush thank you for giving me your time. I’ll message if I find it.
I think I found it but I can’t open it I will try and open it on my computer instead. I believe it’s the thread that you posted and then asked if someone had the rest of it ?
Attachments
What condition was considered genetic?
I am contesting they didn’t use the presumption of aggravation. I am using this case for it as well O'Bryan v. McDonald, 771 F.3d 1376 | Casetext Search + Citator
LHON is clearly genetic. Interesting legal opinion regarding aggravation. I'd love to understand how aggravation/non-aggravation is parsed by the VA in genetic conditions. Please let me know how it turns out. Best wishes.
Clearly genetic yes I will agree with that but that is only part. This is research of my disease from leading researchers.
A maternally inherited mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) mutation is necessary but not sufficient to develop optic neuropathy. There are three common mtDNA mutations affecting complex I (i.e. m.11778G>A/MT-ND4, m.3460G>A/MT-ND1 and m.14484T>C/MT-ND6). Most cases remain as asymptomatic carriers, with males much more likely than females to undergo conversion to the affected state. Thus, male prevalence and incomplete penetrance remain areas of active investigation.
Environmental factors have now been demonstrated as frequent triggers of the disease. The most common is tobacco smoke, in combination with or without alcohol consumption (Sadun et al., 2003), as corroborated by Kirkman and colleagues (2009) with their large survey of LHON affected and unaffected mutation carriers. More rarely, exposure to toxins, various forms of smoke, or certain drugs appear to trigger the disease (Mackey et al., 2003; Luca et al., 2004; Sanchez et al., 2006; Carelli et al., 2007; Seo et al., 2010).
The VA service connected me saying it was directly service connected. I have an uphill battle and I don’t think I have a chance in hell especially the way the board thinks and how they side with the advisory opinion. I just got to throw every piece of evidence to have them rethink they should have looked at aggravation.
A maternally inherited mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) mutation is necessary but not sufficient to develop optic neuropathy. There are three common mtDNA mutations affecting complex I (i.e. m.11778G>A/MT-ND4, m.3460G>A/MT-ND1 and m.14484T>C/MT-ND6). Most cases remain as asymptomatic carriers, with males much more likely than females to undergo conversion to the affected state. Thus, male prevalence and incomplete penetrance remain areas of active investigation.
Environmental factors have now been demonstrated as frequent triggers of the disease. The most common is tobacco smoke, in combination with or without alcohol consumption (Sadun et al., 2003), as corroborated by Kirkman and colleagues (2009) with their large survey of LHON affected and unaffected mutation carriers. More rarely, exposure to toxins, various forms of smoke, or certain drugs appear to trigger the disease (Mackey et al., 2003; Luca et al., 2004; Sanchez et al., 2006; Carelli et al., 2007; Seo et al., 2010).
The VA service connected me saying it was directly service connected. I have an uphill battle and I don’t think I have a chance in hell especially the way the board thinks and how they side with the advisory opinion. I just got to throw every piece of evidence to have them rethink they should have looked at aggravation.