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 Feb 27, 2025

In This Section

  
This section contains the following topics:
 
 
 

1.  Reviewing and Processing Board Decisions

Introduction

  
This topic contains information on reviewing and processing Board decisions, including

Change Date

  
January 3, 2025

7.G.1.a. Handling Vacated Decisions

  
If the Board grants a motion for reconsideration (MFR), a motion to vacate, or a motion for revision based on clear and unmistakable error (CUE), the action has the effect of vacating the Board’s original decision(s) on the issue(s).
 
In this case, the legacy appeal will again stand in an “undecided status” and all relevant evidence received since the regional office (RO) decision must be considered by the Board.  The RO will take no action to implement the vacated decision.

7.G.1.b. Handling Board Decisions on a CUE

  
Under 38 CFR 3.105(a), a CUE concerning a final unappealed RO decision may not be considered when the Board has reviewed the entire record of the claim and has decided to continue the denial of the previously unappealed decision.
 
After the Board affirms the prior denial of benefits, the claimant must receive a 
  • decision notice that includes a notice of appellate rights, and
  • statement of the case (SOC) that includes a citation to VAOPGCPREC 14-1995.
Important:  The Board has the authority to determine, on a de novo basis, whether a claim has been properly reopened, and to reverse any finding as to whether new and material evidence exists to reopen the claim.
 
For example: The Veteran files a claim raising allegations of CUE in a 1976 RO denial of service connection. The Veteran did not appeal the 1976 decision, and it became final. The Veteran reopened the claim in 1979 by submitting new and material evidence. The RO denied the reopened claim in 1979, and the Veteran appealed to the Board.
 
In 1981, the Board, after reviewing the evidence of record, denied service connection. In 1986, upon reconsideration, the Board affirmed the 1981 decision, concluding that the decision did not involve obvious error and is final. The Veteran then claimed CUE in the original, 1976, RO decision.
 
ROs do not have jurisdiction to review a claim of CUE in an unappealed rating decision if, following reopening of the claim, a later Board decision included a review of the entire record and affirmed the prior denial of benefits in the unappealed decision.
 
Reference:  For more information on determining jurisdiction of CUE claims, see VAOPGCPREC 14-1995.

7.G.1.c.        Board Authority to Review Evidence That Was Not Considered by the RO

  
The Board has the authority to consider new evidence without remanding the case to the RO for initial consideration or obtaining the appellant’s waiver of the right for initial consideration by the RO.
 
Reference:  For more information on the Board’s authority to consider additional evidence that was not previously considered by the RO, see

7.G.1.d.  Determining When an Examination Is Needed for Board Grants

  
When effectuating a grant of service connection (SC), the medical and lay evidence in the claims folder must be reviewed to determine if it is sufficient to establish the appropriate level of disability evaluation for the period of entitlement covered by the grant of benefits.  If the evidence is not sufficient to establish a current evaluation, an adequate examination must be obtained. All evidence of record should be reviewed in the event that a staged rating is required.
 
Note: If the evidence of record warrants service connection, but is insufficient to establish an appropriate evaluation for an issue, defer the issue in its entirety and continue the End Product (EP) pending completion of an examination identifying the appropriate evaluation.
 
References:  For more information on

7.G.1.e. Reviewing the Claims Folder and/or Implementing the Board Decision

  
When a decision has been made, the Board returns the claim to the Decision Review Operations Center (DROC) or the RO for review of the claims folder and implementation of the decision, if necessary.
 
Important:  The assigned DROC or RO should implement the Board’s grant or partial grant of benefits in any favorable decision before initiating development of the remand.
 
Use the table below when reviewing the claims folder and/or implementing the Board’s decision.
 
If the Board’s decision …
Then …
awards benefit(s)
  • review the decision
  • determine the effective date in accordance with M21-5, Chapter 7, Section G.1.g, if not provided in the Board decision
  • follow the guidance in M21-5, Chapter 7, Section G.1.d and obtain an exam, if necessary, to determine the appropriate current evaluation; however, all evidence of record must be reviewed in the event that a staged rating is required to fully cover the entire period of entitlement 
  • issue a rating decision addressing the Board grant of benefit(s),and
  • route the claim to the authorization activity.
Note:  Whenever possible, issue a partial rating decision as described in M21-1, Part V, Subpart ii, 3.B.1.c while undertaking development.
remands any issue(s) under appeal
follow the procedures for remands in M21-5, Chapter 7, Section G.3.
refers an issue raised by the record which has not been addressed by VBA
ensure all issues are addressed and properly adjudicated.
 
Note:  Referred issues are generally discussed in the introduction paragraph of a Board decision.
 
Reference:  For more information on referrals by the Board, see 38 CFR 19.9(b).
denies any issue under appeal
the Board affirms a rating decision, so the VBA determination is incorporated into the Board’s decision and no action is needed by the DROC or RO.
 
Reference:  For more information on a Board decision affirming the disallowance, see 38 CFR 20.1104.
 
References:  For more information on

7.G.1.f. Ensuring the Appellant Received the Decision

  
When reviewing folders returned by the Board, ensure that the Board’s decision was mailed to the appellant’s current address.
 
If the decision was not mailed to the appellant’s current address
  • mail a printed or photocopy of the decision to the most recent address of record
  • update the appellant’s new address in
    • the Veterans Appeals Control and Locator System (VACOLS)
    • the Veterans Benefits Management System (VBMS), or
    • Share
  • annotate the decision with the new address and the date it was remailed; however,
  • do not, under any circumstances, change the date stamped on the first page of the decision. 
References:  For more information on

7.G.1.g. Determining the Effective Date for a Grant of Benefits by the Board

  
When a Board grant does not prescribe a specific disability evaluation and/or effective date, the RO or DROC must review the appeal record and take jurisdiction of these downstream issues.
 
To determine the effective date for a grant of benefits by the Board, take the steps in the following table.
 
Note:  Use the VBMS-Rating (VBMS-R) embedded Effective Date Builder tool based on the effective dates rules in 38 CFR 3.400. 
 

Step

Action

1
Determine the period of entitlement covered by the Board decision and assign the appropriate effective date, typically the later of the
  • date of claim, or
  • date entitlement arose.
Note:  While the above represents the general rule, decision makers must determine whether any other effective date rules apply to the facts of the case.

2

Review available medical and lay evidence relevant to level of disability or other benefit entitlement requirements, from the effective date to present.

3
  • Consider the applicable evaluation criteria for the issue.
  • Stage the rating appropriately by assigning one or more disability evaluations (or other ancillary entitlement(s)) based on the facts gathered in Step 2 for the period from the effective date (identified in Step 1) to present.
Reference:  For more information on staged ratings, see Fenderson v. West, 12 Vet.App. 119 (1999).
 
References:  For more information on

7.G.1.h.  Handling a Subsequent Claim Received After a Board Decision

  
To file a claim on the same factual basis that has been finally disallowed by the Board, a claimant must submit or identify new and relevant evidence on decisions made on or after February 19, 2019. The new and material evidentiary standard applies for those under the legacy system.
 
Reference: For more information on

7.G.1.i. Subsequently Raised IU

  
The Board may determine the issue of entitlement to total disability based on individual unemployability (IU) has been reasonably raised by the record and remand the case back to VBA or grant entitlement to IU.
 
If the Board determines that entitlement to IU has been reasonably raised by the record and issues a decision remanding or granting IU, then complete all development actions and use the table below to document the decision on IU.
 
If entitlement to IU is…
Then…
remanded
granted

  • review the file to determine if the VA Form 21-8940, is already in evidence. If no, develop for a VA Form 21-8940.

  • if VA Form 21-8940 is in evidence or upon completion of development, implement the Board’s grant of IU in a rating decision and provide notification to the Veteran.

Note: If the Veteran fails to complete and return VA Form 21-8940, and the evidence of record shows the Veteran is currently employed, send the remand and attach the evidence of employment to OAR Quality and Training at VBAWASOARQUALITYTRN@va.gov. OAR will review the remand and evidence and submit to the Board if necessary.

If the Veteran fails to complete and return VA Form 21-8940 and there is no evidence of record showing employment, implement the Board’s decision granting entitlement to IU in a rating decision, assigning the applicable effective date based on the available evidence of record.
 
Reference:  For more information on reasonably raised claims for IU, see

7.G.1.j.  Processing Board Requests for Quality Assurance Records

  
When a remand decision requires the RO or DROC to obtain quality assurance documents, the RO or DROC must complete reasonable efforts to request from the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) any quality assurance records or documents that are relevant to the claim.
 
If needed, request the appellant provide sufficient information to help locate documents or records from VHA.  All efforts to secure the records must be documented and associated with the claims record.
 
If VHA denies access to the documents on the basis that they are protected by Section 38 U.S.C. 5705(a), appeal VHA’s denial to the Office of General Counsel (OGC) under 38 CFR 17.506 within 60 days of the denial. 
 
The final decision will be made by the General Counsel or the Deputy General Counsel.  Follow the instructions in the table shown below when contacting OGC, Information Law Group.
 
If OGC concluded the documents …
Then the RO …
are protected by 38 U.S.C. 5705(a)
cannot consider the quality assurance records in adjudication of the claim.
are not protected by 38 U.S.C. 5705(a)
can consider the quality assurance records in adjudication of the claim.
 
References:  For more information on

2.  Disagreements With Board Decisions

 

Introduction

  
This topic contains information on handling disagreements with Board decisions, including

Change Date

  
January 3, 2025

7.G.2.a.  Finality of Board Decisions

  
For information on how to determine the finality of Board decisions, see M21-1 Part X, Subpart ii, 1.A.1.e .

7.G.2.b.  Appealing Board Decisions

  
Under 38 U.S.C. 7266, an individual is allowed 120 days to appeal a final decision made by the Board to the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC). 
 
An appellant must file a notice of appeal (NOA) in writing with the Clerk of the Court prior to the expiration of the 120-day time limit unless they
  • furnish good cause as to why the NOA cannot be filed timely, or
  • file an MFR with the Board. 
Important:  CAVC decides if an NOA was timely filed. 
 
Reference:  For more information on requirements of an MFR, see M21-5, Chapter 7, Section G.2.c.

7.G.2.c.  Requirements For an MFR of a Board Decision

  
An MFR of a Board decision must be in writing and must include
  • the name of the
    • Veteran, or
    • claimant or appellant (such as the Veteran’s survivor, legal guardian, or appointed fiduciary), if other than the Veteran
  • the applicable VA file number, and
  • date(s) of Board decision(s) to be reconsidered. 
The motion must state clearly and specifically
  • the alleged obvious error(s) of fact or law in the decision, or
  • other appropriate basis for requesting reconsideration. 
If the Board decision(s) involves more than one issue on appeal, the claimant must identify the specific issue(s) to which the motion pertains.  Issues that are not specified in the motion will not be considered by the Board.
 
Important:  The Board determines the adequacy of MFRs.
 
References:  For more information on

7.G.2.d.  Filing an MFR With the Board

  
Appellants may suspend the NOA filing period by filing an MFR with the Board within 120 days of the date of its final decision.  A new 120-day time limit for filing an NOA begins effective the date of the Board’s decision on the MFR.
 
It is imperative that the DROCs and ROs quickly identify possible MFRs and promptly forward them to the Board.  Only the Board can act on an MFR, and CAVC will not consider an appeal while an MFR remains pending.
 
Notes:
  • Upon receipt of the documents, the Board will determine whether they are true MFRs or misfiled NOAs.
  • When handling NOAs and MFRs in a paper claims folder, DROCs and ROs must follow the special claims folder handling procedures in M21-5, Chapter 6, Section C.

7.G.2.e.  Identifying Documents That Disagree With Board Decisions

  
The law permits appellants to submit documents disagreeing with Board decisions.  Examples of documents expressing disagreement include
Important: 
  • An MFR of a Board decision is not a claim; therefore, the motion does not need to be submitted to the Board on a prescribed form.
  • The Board decides whether the communication from a claimant is an acceptable MFR.

7.G.2.f.  Handling Documents Disagreeing With Board Decisions

  
Although the Board provides clear instructions to appellants on how to file a document disagreeing with a Board decision, appellants often send these types of documents to VBA instead of the Board.
 
The table below shows the steps involved in handling documents that disagree with Board decisions.
 
Step
Action
1
A claims processor
  • reviews the possible MFR to ensure it is date-stamped, and
  • hand carries the document with its corresponding claims and/or temporary folders (if available) to a Coach or designee for review. 
Note:  If the possible MFR is associated with an electronic claims
folder (eFolder), the claims processor must annotate the document
in VBMS and notify the Coach or designee.
 
Reference:  For more information on annotating a document in VBMS, see the VBMS User Guide.
2
The Coach or designee reviews VACOLS to determine the action needed. Use the table below to determine the next appropriate action.
 
If the Board has …
Then …
rendered a final decision on any appeal
go to Step 3.
never rendered a decision on any appeal, but there is an appeal pending
go to Step 4.
 
Note:  If neither of the above applies, the Coach will route the document and claims folder to the next appropriate activity.
3
If the Board has rendered a final decision on any appeal, the claims processor
  • prepares the Disagreement with BVA Decision letter from the Letter Creator, or equivalent letter from the Personal Computer Generated Letters (PCGL)
  • associates a copy of the letter in the claims folder or temporary folder, as appropriate
  • mails the letter to the appellant and representative, if any, and
  • uses the table below to process the correspondence. 
If the claims folder is…
Then the claims processor…
paperless
  • annotates the correspondence in VBMS, and
  • routes the mail to the Board queue in the Centralized Mail Portal.
paper
  • photocopies the correspondence, and
  • mails the original date-stamped document, if available, to the Board at 
Board of Veterans’ Appeals
P.O. Box 27063
Washington, DC 20038
 
Important:
  • ROs and DROCs should mail documents pending transmission to the Board on a weekly basis.
  • Upon receipt of the documents, the Board will review the documents to determine the next appropriate action.
 
References:  For more information on
4
If the Board has never rendered a decision on any appeal, but there is an appeal pending, the claims processor
  • reviews the submitted document for necessary action
  • telephones or otherwise contacts the appellant and/or the appellant’s representative and asks for any necessary clarification
  • routes claims, evidence, or arguments concerning issues not currently on appeal to the next appropriate activity, and
  • follows the table below to process the correspondence. 

If the appeal is pending with …

Then the claims processor forwards the correspondence to …

the Board

the Board, per the instructions in Step 3 above.

a DROC or RO

the appropriate DROC queue in the Centralized Mail Portal.
 
 
 

3.  Remands

Introduction

  
This topic contains information on remands, including

Change Date

  
January 3, 2025

7.G.3.a.  DROC Role With Remands

  
The Decision Review Operations Centers have complete authority to develop remands, reach decisions based on additional evidence gathered, and authorize the payment of benefits. If the DROC is unable to grant an appeal in full, it returns the appeal to the Board for continuation of the appellate process.

7.G.3.b.  DROC Jurisdiction

  
If the Board determines a remand is in order, they will send the remand directly to a DROC for additional processing.  However, in some cases, the remand must be sent to the RO for processing.  The DROC will not process a remand if it involves any of the following issues:
  • remands requiring formal, in-person DRO hearings where remote DROC resources are unavailable near the regional office of jurisdiction and Veteran has opted to not have a virtual hearing
  • Committee on Waivers and Compromises (upon completion of the validity of debt determination by the DROC)
  • spina bifida claims requiring specialized development by the Denver RO
  • Mustard gas claims requiring specialized development by the Muskogee RO
  • Service connection based on C-123 aircraft claims requiring specialized development at St. Paul RO
  • Forfeiture cases requiring specialized development at the Roanoke RO
  • foreign claims involving Philippine service, falling under Manila’s jurisdiction
  • incompetency issues (the DROC will complete all decisions pertinent to the issues on appeal and the final rating of incompetency, at which point, the file will be returned to the RO or the Salt Lake Fiduciary Hub, as appropriate, for processing of VA Form 21-592, Request for Appointment of a Fiduciary, Custodian or Guardian.
  • issues involving VBA business lines other than Compensation Service and Pension and Fiduciary Service (such as Veterans’ Readiness and Employment, Education, Insurance, and Loan Guaranty)
Upon identification by the DROC,  remands that involve one of these types of appeals will be returned to the appropriate RO for processing. DROC personnel should ensure all proper claim attributes are added to the claim to indicate it is a special mission claim, add a claim note in VBMS indicating the reason for the transfer and the RO it should be transferred to (example:  Mustard Gas Claim, transfer to Muskogee RO).
 
Notes:
  • Dependent on workload capacity and considerations, the Office of Administrative Review (OAR) may broker certain remands in accordance with timeliness and agency goals.
  • Board remands regarding claims involving exposure to radiation, Camp Lejeune Contaminated Water (CLCW), and claimants with a foreign residence will be routed to the Seattle DROC for action.
Reference: For more information on

7.G.3.c. Requirements for Expeditious Processing of Remands

  
Remands are among the oldest cases and must be worked on a priority basis.  PL 103-446, Veterans Benefits Improvement Act of 1994, mandates that remands be given special attention and expeditious processing.
 
Important:  CAVC may impose sanctions if it is determined that VA did not make a reasonable effort to expeditiously comply with the remands.
 
References:  For more information on

7.G.3.d. Who Is Responsible for Timely Processing

  
RO and DROC management are responsible for timely processing of Board remands.

7.G.3.e. Processing the Remand

  
Upon receipt of a Board remand the
  • claims folder is assigned to the Decision Review Officer (DRO), RO management staff member, or their designee, and
  • the designee ensures that
    • development of the remand is initiated within 15 days from the date of receipt, and
    • VACOLS is updated within seven days, and
    • VBMS 070 series end product (EP) is established with an appropriate claim label as discussed in M21-4, Appendix B.
Upon receipt of the requested evidence or after a reasonable effort to obtain evidence, the designee
  • prepares a new decision or SSOC, and
  • returns the case to the Board after expiration of the 30-day response period. 
Note:  The EP 070 must not be cleared until the legacy remand has been recertified to the Board or the full benefit sought on appeal is granted by VBA. 
 
Reference:  For more information on the use of EP 070s, see M21-4, Appendix B.

7.G.3.f.  Manlincon Remands

  
If, during the review of an appeal, the Board discovers a timely notice of disagreement (NOD) filed on another issue, but an SOC is not issued by the RO, the Board must remand, not refer, the NOD issue to the RO or DROC for issuance of an SOC.
 
ROs and DROCs must handle Manlincon remands in the same expeditious manner as all other remands. 
 
Important:  Once the RO or DROC issues an SOC on the Manlincon remand, the appellant must submit a timely VA Form 9, Appeal to Board of Veterans’ Appeals, to continue the appeal process.
 
References:  For more information on

7.G.3.g. Stegall Remands

  
VA must ensure compliance with the terms and conditions set forth in remand orders from both the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims and the Board of Veterans’ Appeals.  See Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268 (1998).  When the RO or DROC fails to comply with multiple remand orders before an appeal is recertified to the Board, the appeal is remanded back to VBA for action and such cases are designated in VACOLS as Stegall.
 
To prevent further delays in processing, when a Stegall remand is ready for recertification to the Board, a DRO must review the appeal, certify compliance with all remand directives and complete all required actions to issue a new decision and if applicable, recertify the appeal to the Board.
 
DROs must follow the steps in the table below once development is complete on a Stegall remand.
 
Step
Action
1
Review all development actions.
2
Were all remand directives followed and fully completed?
  • If yes,
  • Complete certification requirement by adding the following language as a permanent note in VBMS and:
I certify that I reviewed Board decision dated MM/DD/YYYY and all remand directives were followed to the fullest extent possible.
  • Issue the new decision and recertify the appeal back to the Board, if applicable.
  • If no,
  • If development instructions appeared improper or VBA had to otherwise deviate from the Board’s instructions, prepare a memorandum detailing the facts and circumstances to inform subsequent reviewers why VBA took alternate action, or
  • Complete a deferral with required actions and enter a permanent note in VBMS.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Reference:  For more information on preparing memoranda to explain deviations from Board remands, see M21-5, Chapter 7, Section G.4.a. 
 
 
 
4.  Developing, Reviewing, and Transferring Remands
 

Introduction

  
This topic contains information on developing, reviewing, and transferring remands, including

Change Date

  
January 17, 2025

7.G.4.a. Developing Evidence in Remands

  
Follow the Board’s detailed directives when developing evidence for a remand by ensuring all required actions are taken in compliance with the remand.  If any action is not undertaken, or is taken in a deficient manner, appropriate corrective action is required.  
 
If a deviation from the Board directives is required, the claims processor must prepare a memorandum detailing the facts and circumstances to inform the subsequent reviewers why alternate action was taken (refer to the Deviation from Board Remand Directives Memorandum template). The memorandum is necessary to explain the use of different methods for obtaining the Board’s intended result. Requests for clarification of the Board’s directives should be routed through the local Quality Review Team (QRT) for guidance. If unable to provide clarification locally, DROC QRT management may submit inquiries through the VBA Feedback Loop SharePoint site. Management from non-DROC offices may send inquiries to OAR Quality & Training at VAVBAWASOARQUALITYTRN@va.gov. 
 
Example:  Veteran is seeking SC for an injury that occurred during a period of unverified service. The remand directs VBA to contact the Records Management Center to verify the Veteran’s service.
 
Since the Board directive would not fulfill the intent of the remand, the claims processor should detail the facts of why the remand directives were not followed and contact the proper records custodian.

7.G.4.b. Determining Adequate Examinations

  
The Board is not required to remand an appealed disability benefit claim solely because time has elapsed since an adequate examination report was obtained. 
 
An examination deemed adequate for the purposes of determining a claim by the RO (or DROC) will ordinarily be adequate for the Board.
 
The Board may request an additional examination when the claimant asserts that the disability in question has undergone an increase in severity since the last examination.
 
Reference:  For more information on reviewing examination reports for adequacy, see M21-1, Part IV, Subpart i, 3.A.1.a.

7.G.4.c. Requesting Examinations for Remands

  
In some situations, the remand requires some type of examination or other efforts from the VHA or a contract examiner. While remand instructions may dictate that a specific type of medical professional conduct the examination, the Board recognizes that such specialists are not always available for VA purposes (for example, rural areas or claimants with a foreign address), and therefore will accept a medical examination from an appropriate examiner as long as VBA has made reasonable efforts to obtain an exam/opinion from a specialist and the examiner indicates that they have the appropriate knowledge base and/or skill set to complete the exam or render the requested opinion.
 
Follow the steps in the table below to request an examination for a remand.
 
Step
Action
1
Request the examination in the normal manner, identifying the case as a Board remand.
 
Note:  The examination request should be stated in neutral, objective terms, without implying the expected result of the examination. When necessary, use the exact remand language (copy and paste) for examination language specifically requested by the Board.
 
Reference:  For more information on examination request procedures, see M21-1, Part IV, Subpart i, 2.A.1.
2

The Board requires the examiner to review the claims folder in conjunction with an examination.  Request the examiner to review

  • a copy of the remand special examination instructions, and
  • all documents in VBMS.

Note: Relevant evidence in the claims folder must be tabbed or annotated for the examiner’s attention in accordance with M21-1, Part IV, Subpart i, 2.A.8.d.
 
When a specific type of medical professional is not available to conduct the C&P examination and/or medical opinion for VA purposes (for example, rural areas or claimants with a foreign address) as directed by the Board, prepare a memorandum for the Veteran’s file documenting all efforts taken to obtain an examination specialist and explain why the specialist could not be obtained. If VHA or a contract examiner state that another qualified medical professional is available to complete the examination and/or medical opinion instead, document this response within the memorandum. The memorandum should include:
  • date(s) of request(s) for the examination specialist,
  • response from VHA or a contract examiner confirming an examination specialist is not available to conduct the C&P examination and/or medical opinion for VA purposes,
  • justification from VHA or a contract examiner for why an examination specialist is not available to conduct the C&P examination and/or medical opinion for VA purposes (for example, rural areas or claimants with a foreign address), and
  • confirmation from VHA or a contract examiner that another qualified medical professional is available to complete the examination and/or medical opinion for VA purposes instead.

Refer to the Examination Specialist Unavailable Memorandum template.

References:  For more information on

7.G.4.d.  Routing the Claims Folder for an Independent Medical Opinion

  
In some situations, a specialist at a medical school will need to review the claims folder received from the Board to conduct an independent medical examination.
 
In this situation, a representative from a VA facility will personally deliver and pick up the claims folder from the medical school.
 
Notes:  
  • If the claims folder exists in an electronic database, the VA facility must print the documents to provide to the specialist.  
  • The Board may temporarily remove a Board medical advisor’s opinion, prior to forwarding the claims folder to the independent medical expert.  Such action would not violate 38 U.S.C. 7104 (a).
Reference: For more information on requesting an independent medical opinion, please see M21-1, Part IV, Subpart i, 2.E.5.a and 38 CFR 3.328.

7.G.4.e.  Referring Remands for Rating or Authorization Activity

  
Refer the remand to the appeals rating or authorization activity when
  • all evidence is received,
  • VA has fulfilled its obligations to attempt to obtain that evidence, or
  • the suspense date has matured, and no additional action is warranted.

7.G.4.f. Reviewing Additional Evidence and Development Actions for the Remand

  
Follow the steps in the table below when reviewing additional evidence or development action(s) for the remand.
 
Step
Action
1
Did VA receive the requested evidence?
2
  • If any benefit(s) sought on appeal can be awarded
    • issue a rating decision on the awarded benefit(s)
    • update VACOLS to reflect the issue(s) granted, and
    • route the claim to the authorization activity.
  • If any issue remains denied, go to Step 3.
3
If one or more benefit remains denied
  • issue an SSOC
  • update VACOLS with the SSOC date
  • DROC Appeals Processors: add the AMC NOD brokering project special issue in VBMS – do not add the SSOC Issued – Awaiting Certification to the Board tracked item
  • Regional Office Special Mission Legacy Appeals Processors: update VBMS with SSOC Issued – Awaiting Certification to the Board tracked item
  • create a VACOLS diary with a 30-day suspense, and
  • go to Step 4. 
Reference:  For more information on preparing and issuing an SSOC, see M21-5, Chapter 7, Section D.4.
4
After waiting 30 days for the appellant to respond to the SSOC, close the SSOC Issued – Awaiting Certification to the Board tracked item (if applicable). Did VA receive any relevant evidence that was not previously considered?
  • If yes, but now additional development is required
    • take appropriate action to obtain additional evidence, and
    • return to Step 2.
  • If yes, but the benefit still cannot be granted, go to Step 3.
  • If no, return the remand to the Board as instructed in M21-5, Chapter 7, Section G.4.g.
 Note:  After the RO or DROC renders a decision on the remand, the appellant may submit additional evidence during the SSOC 30-day response period.  The appellant may also submit an SSOC waiver that waives the right to have VA wait a minimum of 30 days before returning the appeal to the Board for final disposition. Additionally, the appellant may opt into the modernized review system within 60 days of the issuance of the SOC/SSOC. See M21-5, Chapter 4, Topic 3.
 
Reference:  For more information on using VACOLS, see

7.G.4.g. Returning the Remand to the Board

  
Follow the steps in the table below to return a remand to the Board.
 
Note:  Remands have already been assigned a docket number and receive active consideration upon receipt by the Board.
 

Step

Action
1
Ensure all remand instructions have been followed and all relevant evidence obtained.

2

Once the appeal is determined to be ready for return to the Board, update the

  • Appeal Certification to BVA Worksheet, if used, and
  • follow the steps shown in the table below. 

If …

Then add the following language as a permanent note in VBMS …

no additional evidence is received

The appellant, and their representative, has failed to submit evidence requested in the Board remand within the prescribed period, and the claims folder is returned to the Board for appellate consideration on the basis of the evidence of record.

additional evidence is received, but all or part of the remanded issues remain denied

Determination of [date shown in the “Date” block of VA Form 8 on file] confirmed. File returned to the Board for further appellate consideration.
 
Notes: 
  • If the VA Form 8 exists in VBMS, ensure the form is identified accurately in the subject line.
  • If processing a paper claims folder, make the above annotations in the Remarks box on the VA Form 8, and reposition the form so that it is the top document in the center section of the claims folder. 

References:  For more information on

3
In VACOLS under the DISPATCH APPEAL tab, input the date in the DISPOSITION DATE field and select the REMAND RETURNED TO BVA in the DISPOSITION OF REMAND field.
4
If a paper claims folder exists, route the claims folder for immediate transfer to the Board.

5
Send the Remanded Appeal Returned to BVA letter from the Letter Creator, or equivalent letter from PCGL, to the appellant and their representative notifying them that their remanded case has been returned to the Board.
 
Note:  The use of locally generated language for notification of appeal re-certification is not authorized.  ROs must immediately discontinue use of notification letters that include any language not approved by the Office of Administrative Review.
 
References:  For more information on

6

Clear an EP 070 as provided in M21-4, Appendix B.