Pursuant to 38 C.F.R. § 3.2501 and the Sergeant First Class Heath Robinson Honoring our Promise to Address Comprehensive Toxics (PACT) Act of 2022, I respectfully submit a Supplemental Claim requesting reconsideration of the rating decision dated [DENIAL DATE] that denied service connection for [QUALIFYING CONDITION]. The denial applied the direct service-connection standard requiring a nexus opinion. Presumptive service connection under 38 C.F.R. § 3.320 applies to my claim, and no nexus evidence is required.
Qualifying service. I served on active duty in the [BRANCH] from [ENTRY DATE] to [SEPARATION DATE]. My DD-214, attached as Exhibit A, documents deployment to [QUALIFYING LOCATION — e.g., Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc.] from [DEPLOYMENT START] to [DEPLOYMENT END]. This deployment falls within the qualifying period and locations for the Southwest Asia theater of operations under 38 C.F.R. § 3.320(a)(2), as expanded by the PACT Act to include service from August 2, 1990 to the present in any of the covered Southwest Asia and post-9/11 locations.
Qualifying condition. [QUALIFYING CONDITION] is included in the list of presumptive conditions established at 38 U.S.C. § 1119 and codified at 38 C.F.R. § 3.320(b). The diagnosis is documented in my VA medical records dated [DIAGNOSIS DATE] by [PROVIDER NAME], attached as Exhibit B. Under the presumptive framework, the only required showings are (1) qualifying service in a covered location and time period, and (2) a current diagnosis of a presumptive condition. Both elements are established by the documents already in my claims file.
Error in prior decision. The decision dated [DENIAL DATE] denied my claim on the grounds that "no medical opinion linking the condition to service has been associated with the file." This standard is the direct-service-connection standard. The presumptive standard at § 3.320 does not require a nexus opinion — that is the central purpose of the presumption. Applying the higher direct-SC standard to a presumptive claim is legal error and warrants reversal.
New and relevant evidence. Submitted with this Supplemental Claim: (1) [NEW EVIDENCE — e.g., updated pulmonary function test from MM/YYYY confirming severity]; (2) [ANY ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTATION OF EXPOSURE OR DIAGNOSIS]. This evidence is new in that it was not associated with the file at the time of the prior denial, and relevant in that it further documents the qualifying condition.
Relief requested. I respectfully request that the rater (1) grant presumptive service connection for [QUALIFYING CONDITION] under 38 C.F.R. § 3.320; (2) assign an effective date of [ORIGINAL CLAIM DATE], the date of my original claim, pursuant to the continuous-pursuit rule for Supplemental Claims; and (3) award retroactive benefits from that effective date.