Sorry for the mess!

The site is undergoing a massive update. All the content on the site still works but things just might look a little messy and disorganized. Most of the upgrades will probably be don by the end of the month. Thank you for your understanding!

Updated Jun 24, 2024

In This Section

 
This section contains the following topics:
 
Topic
Topic Name
1
2
3
4
5
6

 
 1.  Overview of the DRO Process 

 

Change Date

 

 May 27, 2022

7.C.1.a.  Overview of the DRO Process

 
The table below describes the stages of the Decision Review Officer (DRO) process in the legacy appeals system.
 
Stage
Description
1
The appellant elects the DRO process.
 
2
The DRO conducts a de novo review of prior decisions under appeal.
 
Reference:  For more information on de novo review, see M21-5, Chapter 7, Section C.4.
3
Based on a review of the evidence of record, is there enough evidence to make a new decision?
  • If yes, the DRO makes a new decision.
  • If no, the DRO
    • pursues additional evidence necessary to resolve the claim, and/or
    • conducts an informal conference to obtain additional evidence from the appellant and their representative.
4
Based on evidence gathered, the DRO
  • upholds or overturns the original decision
  • works with the appellant and their representative to
    • identify and clarify the issue(s), and
    • fully explain the decision in an effort to resolve the appellant’s disagreement, and
  • begins to prepare the appeal for the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) review by sending a statement of the case (SOC), unless the DRO fully grants the benefit(s) sought. 
Reference:  For more information on documenting appeal decisions, see M21-5, Chapter 7, Section D.
 

 
2.  DRO Duties and Responsibilities

 

Introduction

 

This topic contains information on DRO duties and responsibilities, including

Change Date

 

 June 25, 2024

7.C.2.a.  DRO Duties

 
The following lists the duties of DROs:
  • hold informal conferences and formal hearings
  • evaluate the evidence of record, including the need for additional evidence as a result of information obtained during the conference or hearing
  • decide disagreements based on the entire evidentiary record
  • directly contact appellants and their representatives
  • perform journeyman Rating Veterans Service Representative (RVSR) duties
  • play a central role in employee development, including
    • mentoring new employees, such as appeals RVSRs
    • participating in the training of RVSRs
    • providing feedback to the Office of Administrative Review (OAR), Compensation Service, or Pension and Fiduciary (P&F) Service managers at all levels, and
  • certify and coordinate the transfer of appeals to the Board.

Notes:  

  • The DRO may also be a member of the appeals team and the appeals team coach may assign work to the DRO.
  • The composition of the local appeals team may vary.  At some regional offices (ROs), the team may consist of only DROs, while at others, it may also include
    • RVSRs
    • Veterans Service Representatives (VSRs), and
    • Claims Assistants. 

Reference:  For more information on the definition of DRO, see M21-5, Chapter 7, Section A.1.c.

7.C.2.b.  Decision Review Operations Center Manager (DROCM), Veterans Service Center Manager (VSCM), or Pension Management Center Manager (PMCM) Duties

 

The Decision Review Operations Center Manager (DROCM), Veterans Service Center Manager (VSCM), or Pension Management Center Manager (PMCM) (or Assistant DROCM, VSCM, or PMCM)

  • may exercise all duties and authorities of the DRO
  • assigns duties that are appropriate to the DRO’s grade level and position, as time allows, provided such duties do not conflict with the DRO’s status as an impartial and independent decision-maker
  • appoints acting DROs during the temporary absence or disqualification of a DRO, and
  • assigns personnel who did not participate in the decision to hold a personal hearing in
    • cases where the appellant has elected the traditional appellate review process , and
    • unusual or emergency circumstances.

7.C.2.c.  Responsibility for the Quality of DRO Decisions

  

The DROCM, VSCM, or PMCM is responsible for the quality of decisions produced in their centers.  This responsibility extends to ensuring that DROs properly apply all laws, regulations, and instructions to decisions rendered.

In some cases, where the DROCM, VSCM,or PMCM disagrees with the substantive decision of a DRO, the DROCM, VSCM, or PMCM may

  • request reconsideration in the decision, or
  • seek an advisory opinion or administrative review. 
Important:  As stated in M21-1, Part X, Subpart ii, 5.A.3.e, the DROCM/VSCM/PMCM or designee must approve all CUE decisions prepared by a DRO when the CUE decision would
  • reduce a service-connected (SC) evaluation(s), or
  • sever service connection (SC) for a disability(ies).
References:  For more information on

7.C.2.d.  DRO Work Measurement Responsibilities

 

The DRO

  • maintains an accurate record of the actual hours spent performing DRO duties at different ROs, should the need arise, and
  • prepares a report for the DROCM, VSCM, PMCM, or appeals team coach at the RO where the service was performed. 

7.C.2.e.  Acting DRO

 

When the DRO is temporarily absent or disqualified because they participated in the decision under review and there are no other qualified DROs available, the DROCM, VSCM, or PMCM of the RO where the hearing is scheduled appoints an acting DRO.

The acting DRO

  • shall have considerable understanding of the issue that is the subject of the hearing
  • shall not be less than a GS-12, except in extraordinary circumstances, and
  • cannot have participated in the decision being reviewed.

 
 3.  DRO Jurisdiction and Authority

 

Introduction

 

This topic contains information on DRO jurisdiction and authority, including

Change Date

 
May 27, 2022

7.C.3.a.  DRO Jurisdiction Over Appellate Issues

 
Once the DRO assumes jurisdiction of a notice of disagreement (NOD), they work in partnership with the appellant and representative to resolve all issues covered by the NOD in accordance with the laws and facts in that particular case. 
 
Notes:  The DRO has
  • de novo review jurisdiction only over legacy appeals for benefits governed by
  • limited jurisdiction over a rating issue raised during an informal conference or formal hearing, provided the issue was part of the rating decision that is the subject of the hearing, and
  • no jurisdiction over an appeal on a rating decision made by the DRO him/herself.

Important:  The DRO must review the record to ensure that any issues that are within scope of the issue(s) on appeal are addressed.

References:  For more information on the

7.C.3.b.  Issues Not Under the Jurisdiction of the DRO

 

The DRO does not have jurisdiction over

  • disagreements to decisions made on or after February 19, 2019, to which the modernized review system applies
  • Committee on Waivers and Compromises (COWC) issues
  • loan guaranty
  • insurance, and
  • hearing requests concerning a denial of benefits from a medical determination rendered by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) medical activity for
    • clothing allowance
    • automobile and adaptive equipment, or
    • specially adapted housing.

7.C.3.c.  Jurisdiction of the Visiting DRO

 
If the DRO at the host RO participated in the decision being reviewed, a visiting DRO may be requested to hold hearings or conduct de novo review.  The visiting DRO will render a decision in such disagreements, but not maintain jurisdiction of the appeal.
 
Important:  The DROCM, VSCM, or PMCM at each RO has the authority to grant the issue on appeal based on a de novo review or CUE without referral to the visiting DRO.  The DROCM, VSCM, or PMCM is not permitted to delegate this authority to anyone else.
 
Note:  Submit a written request to obtain a visiting DRO to the OAR, P&F Service, or Compensation Service, as appropriate.

7.C.3.d.   DRO Decisional Authority

 
The DRO may
  • amend, reverse, or uphold a decision
    • based on de novo review, or
    • based upon new evidence
  • exercise single-signature CUE authority. 
Exceptions:
  • Unless a CUE exists, the DRO cannot revise the decision in a manner that is less advantageous to the appellant than the decision under review.
  • DROCM, VSCM, or PMCM signature is required for all decisions citing CUE if the decision involves
    • reduction of SC evaluation(s), or
    • severance of SC for a disability(ies).
Notes: 
  • The signature of the DROCM, VSCM, or PMCM is required on the rating even if the reduction or severance based on a CUE would not cause a reduction or termination of the total benefits paid.
  • A DRO’s decision is final and binding on all ROs and is not subject to revision on the same factual basis, except by the Board or as provided under 38 CFR 3.105(a).
References:  For more information on

7.C.3.e.  DRO Authority in Subsequent Hearing Request

 
The DRO has no authority to participate in a formal hearing if they participated in the decision now under appeal.
 
Example:  If the DRO decided or provided the second signature on the rating decision on appeal, the DRO does not have authority to conduct a hearing requested in connection with the NOD.
 
References:  For more information on authority to conduct hearings, see

7.C.3.f.  DRO Requirement to Follow Board Decisions

 
A Board decision is binding; therefore, the DRO is required to follow a Board decision for an individual claim and cannot recommend a change based on de novo review of that Board decision.
 
Exception:  VBA is not permanently bound by a Board decision if VBA subsequently receives new and relevant evidence with the appropriate form, which requires a new decision. 

7.C.3.g. Prohibition on DRO Bargaining

 
A DRO cannot bargain with an appellant or their representative by requesting or requiring the appellant or representative to withdraw a claim or take any action in exchange for the granting of any benefit.
 
Example:  A DRO cannot tell an appellant’s representative that they will grant a 50-percent evaluation for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) if the appellant withdraws the claim for secondary SC for hypertension. 
 
Important:  A DRO is not prohibited, however, from
  • discussing the lack of merit in any particular case, or
  • from encouraging the claimant or their representative to withdraw a meritless appeal.

 
 4.  De Novo Review

 

Introduction

 

This topic contains information on a de novo review, including

Change Date

 

 June 25, 2024

7.C.4.a.  Who May Receive a De Novo Review

 

An appellant has a right to de novo review of the claim if a timely NOD is filed with the decision on a benefit claim, and either

  • requests de novo review at the time of submission of NOD, or
  • requests de novo review within 60 days of the date VA sends the appeal election letter.
Notes: 
  • The 60-day time limit cannot be extended.
  • An appellant cannot have more than one de novo review of the issue on appeal.

References:  For more information on

7.C.4.b.  Who Conducts a De Novo Review

 

At VA discretion, the de novo review is conducted by the

  • DROCM
  • VSCM
  • PMCM, or
  • DRO. 
Note:  Only an individual who did not participate in the original decision being appealed may conduct the de novo review.
 
References:  For more information on

7.C.4.c.  What May Be Subject of a De Novo Review

 
De novo review, when elected by the appellant, will encompass only the decision(s) with which the appellant has expressed disagreement in the NOD.
 
Note:  As stated in 38 CFR 3.2600(e), during de novo review, the reviewer may also reverse or revise (even if disadvantageous to the claimant) prior decisions of an agency of original jurisdiction (including the decision being reviewed or any prior decision that has become final due to failure to timely appeal) on the grounds of CUE.
 
References:  For more information on CUEs, see

7.C.4.d.     De Novo Review of Contested Claims

 
The DRO or a designee of the DROCM, VSCM, or PMCM conducts one hearing or de novo review for each of the different appellants in contested claims.
 
In some cases, the appellant requests a hearing or de novo review but does not live in the same jurisdiction as the station having jurisdiction over the appeal.
 
The table below describes the process for reviewing contested claims when the appellant does not live in the same jurisdiction as the station having jurisdiction over the appeal.
 

Stage

Who Is Responsible

Description

1

DRO/DROCM/VSCM/PMCM at RO closest to the appellant’s residence
  • Holds a hearing
  • prepares a transcript
  • uploads the transcript into the appropriate electronic claims folder (eFolder), and
  • provides notification to the DRO/DROCM/VSCM/PMCM at the station with jurisdiction over the appeal once the transcript is uploaded.
Reference:  For more information on uploading documents into the eFolder, see the VBMS User Guide.

2

DRO/DROCM/VSCM/PMCM with jurisdiction over the appeal
  • Reviews the transcript, and
  • makes a decision.
Note: The Board has jurisdiction of contested claims under the modernized appeals process.
 
Reference:  For more information on issuing appeal decisions in contested claims, see M21-5, Chapter 7, Section D.1.g.

 
 5.  Informal Conferences

 

Introduction

 

This topic contains information on informal conferences for legacy appeals, including

Change Date

 

 June 25, 2024

7.C.5.a.  Purpose of an Informal Conference

 

The purpose of an informal conference is to

  • clarify the issues the appellant wishes to appeal
  • provide explanations regarding
    • the rating decision(s)
    • which evidence was considered, and
    • how the evidence was considered, and
  • identify additional sources of pertinent information.

References:  For more information on the definition of informal conferences,

7.C.5.b.  When to Schedule and Conduct an Informal Conference

 
Informal conferences are scheduled and conducted at the discretion of the DRO.
 
Note:  An informal conference of the DRO in a legacy appeal serves a different function than an informal conference in an HLR.  See M21-5, Chapter 7, Section A.1.j.

7.C.5.c.  Requesting, Canceling, or Rescheduling an Informal Conference

 
A claimant may request, cancel, or reschedule an informal conference in writing, by e-mail, by telephone, or in person.  VA’s request for clarification of a disagreement does not constitute, in and of itself, an informal conference.
 
Important:  If the claimant communicates by telephone or in person, the DRO or employee receiving the request should promptly complete and upload a VA Form 27-0820, Report of General Information, to document the request.

7.C.5.d.  Where and How to Conduct an Informal Conference

 

Conduct an informal conference

  • in person at a VA facility
    • of jurisdiction, or
    • nearest to the appellant’s residence
  • by telephone, or
  • by videoconference. 
Informal conferences may be conducted in work areas as long as all participants agree on the location.

7.C.5.e.  Who May Attend an Informal Conference

 
The appellant and their representative may attend an informal conference at their discretion.
 
Note:  If the appellant’s representative is an attorney, emphasize
  • the informality of the conference
  • that rules of evidence do not apply, and
  • that leading questions are permissible.

7.C.5.f.  Presenting Evidence During an Informal Conference

 

During an informal conference, the appellant or their representative may

  • introduce evidence into the record, and
  • make arguments and contentions with respect to the facts and applicable law.

7.C.5.g.  Informal Conference Report

 

Use the Informal Conference Report to

  • document the informal conference, and
  • describe
    • all the issues in detail (Example:  The Veteran seeks a rating increase from 50 percent to 70 percent for PTSD.)
    • specific additional evidence required
    • a summary of the discussion during the informal conference, and
    • the course of action agreed upon by the parties. 
Note:  The Informal Conference Report should be placed in the claims folder.
 
Reference:  For a sample of the Informal Conference Report, see M21-5, Chapter 7, Section C.6

7.C.5.h.  Handling New Issues Raised During an Informal Conference

 
Use the table below to determine how to handle a new issue raised during an informal conference.
 

If the appellant …

Then …
raises a new non-appeal compensation issue that is not a supplemental claim
Note:  Typically, documentation is on a VA Form 27-0820.
raises a new non-appeal supplemental compensation issue
indicates a desire to file a new NOD or substantive appeal
Notes: 
  • If there is no appealable decision with which to disagree, or if an SOC has not been issued on any issue in NOD status, advise the claimant and representative (if applicable) and record it in the Informal Conference Report.
  • If an NOD or VA Form 9 is clearly untimely, notify the claimant and representative (if applicable) and record it in the Informal Conference Report.  Advise the claimant of the proper method for filing an NOD or appeal, if still desired. 
Reference:  For more information on the acceptable appeal form, see 38 CFR 20.202.
 
Reference:   For more information on new issues raised during a formal hearing, see M21-1, Part X, Subpart v, 1.D.5.a.

7.C.5.i.  Considering the Informal Conference Report

 
Consider the information recorded in the Informal Conference Report when making a new decision. 
 
Reference:  For a sample of the Informal Conference Report, see M21-5, Chapter 7, Section C, 6.a.
 

6. Exhibit :  Informal Conference Report

 

Change Date

 

 March 2, 2020

7.C.6.a. Informal Conference Report

 
An example of an Informal Conference Report is below.