02/27/2026
I am sharing a post from one of my veterans pages as some of the information inside important if you are filing a claim. Take out what you need and ignore the rest.
****Let me be clear, I am not a VSO, I am not affiliated with any LAW group, I am not asking for money, AND I WILL NOT HELP YOU COMMIT FRAUD. My tips only help if you have proof and certifiable, credible evidence. If I get any more people messaging me with requests to "fudge" using vocab lists, I am just going to start reporting to VA Fraud tip line. Honor Courage Commitment!***
I am ready to share any and all notes I've collected while helping other vets destroy the VA's faulty process of determining service connections without gimmicks or tricks, and this 100% is based on what you truly have. For example, easy condition to claim is severe headaches/migraines:
Under the new Toxic Exposure Risk Activity (TERA) rules, your duty stations alone can prove you were exposed to things that cause neurological issues like migraines. The VA now uses a TERA Memorandum—a document they create using your personnel records to list every toxin you likely encountered based on where you were stationed and your MOS.
Garrison Life (Anywhere): Even if you weren't "deployed," the VA recognizes that working on a flight line, in a motor pool, or around CARC paint, jet fuel (JP-8), or firefighting foams (PFAS) counts as TERA.
A key court case, Nieves-Rodriguez v. Peake, says the VA can't just ignore how these toxins interact. If you were around burn pits in the sandbox AND solvents at Lejeune, the examiner has to look at the combined effect on your brain.
You don't have to prove a specific event caused the migraine anymore. You just have to show you have the diagnosis and that you participated in TERA (which your service record already proves). Because of a case called Buchanan v. Nicholson, the VA must accept your word about when your symptoms started. They can’t call you a liar just because you didn't go to Medical in the fleet.
For an infantry Marine during the Global War on Terrorism (GWOT), "TERA locations" are effectively anywhere they were stationed or deployed. While the PACT Act defines specific
presumptive locations (where the VA assumes you were exposed to burn pits), a Toxic Exposure Risk Activity (TERA) can be conceded at any duty station
From what I have in my notes, the VA automatically concedes exposure to airborne hazards for the following locations:
Afghanistan, Iraq, Djibouti, Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, Uzbekistan (including K2), Yemen, and the airspace above any of those.
Presumptive "Burn Pit" locations:
Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, and the UAE
Persian Gulf, Red Sea, Gulf of Oman, Gulf of Aden, and the Arabian Sea
When you do your write up include Court decisions that overrule the M21-1:
Jandreau v. Nicholson (2007): This expanded on Buchanan. It held that veterans are competent to provide testimony about "medical" symptoms that are observable to a layperson (like a broken bone, a rash, or a fall), even if they aren't doctors.
Davidson v. Shinseki (2009): This case reinforced that the VA cannot require "scientific" proof for things a veteran clearly experienced. If you say you had a knee injury in 1972, the VA cannot say your testimony is "not competent" simply because you aren't an orthopedist.
Nieves-Rodriguez v. Peake (2008): This is a critical case. It ruled that a VA medical opinion is only as good as the reasoning behind it. If a doctor provides a "conclusory" statement (e.g., "It is not service-connected") without explaining why based on the facts, the decision is legally flawed.
Saunders v. Wilkie (2018): This changed the definition of a "disability." The VA used to argue that if you had pain but no clinical diagnosis, you weren't disabled. Saunders ruled that pain itself can be a functional impairment/disability, even without a specific diagnosis.
Gilbert v. Derwinski (1990): This is the "Old Faithful" of VA law. It established that the VA must provide "adequate reasons and bases" for their decisions. If they don't explain why they chose a negative doctor's opinion over a positive one, they have violated their policy.
Lynch v. McDonough (2021): A recent win that clarifies the "Equipoise" rule. It forces the VA to actually apply the benefit of the doubt rather than just paying it lip service in the fine print.
The VA often relies on "M21-1" (their internal adjudication manual). However, the M21-1 is not the law—it is just their interpretation of it. Cases like Buchanan and Nieves-Rodriguez allow you to argue that their manual or their rater's logic contradicts the higher Court's rulings.
