FormerMember

<<<<<<<<<<<Because it was a DRO decision, the process to appeal starts with a NOD back to the 'RO.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Be careful. You filed a Form 9. That is a substantive appeal. When the VA's DRO suddenly grants on this with less than the requested or desired relief, the matter is still in contention. A VA 9 sets the appeals process in motion and nothing can impede it. As some of you know, I finally went to the CAVC with an Extraordinary Writ to force VA to $hit or get off the pot on my longstanding 21 year old claims. The DRO had confirmed their denial of a CUE motion on October 6, 2014. https://asknod.wordpress.com/2015/02/22/cavc-birth-of-a-writ-act-iii-scene-3-two-tickets-to-paradise/ After the Writ hit, they quickly revised that and granted almost all I had asked for. Almost all. They stopped short at granting the requested 100% for the AO disease and gave me an increase to 60% + 10%. They also sent out another SSOC telling me I had thirty (30) days to file a new VA 9 if I was not happy with their less than 100% rating. This was in the form of a SSOC. Never assume anything VA says is the truth for time limits. They are finite and immutable. If you stub your toe and are late, there is little recourse to repair it other than claiming estoppel. I'll let you guess how often that defense works. Filing a new NOD all over again simply means two more years in the in-basket at your RO. ​My suggestion is to proceed as if you never got what you asked for and to continue the appeal so as not to lose your place in the BVA docket line. Lord knows, it's out the door and down the block already. It will not interfere with an interim rating or financial settlement up to now. It merely informs them that in their haste, they somehow overlooked some important evidence. Send in the probative stuff that ennunciates your point. Who cares if it's duplicative or redundant? If they didn't spot it on the first trip, maybe this will provoke a more thorough review yet again. I've done this before and gone through as many as 4 SSOCs trying to get a point across. The worst case scenario is that they send you a note saying your VA 9 is out of time judicially. That's a whole new argument. Best of luck

When you receive your SOC, you have 60 days in which to file your VA Form 9 completing the substantive appeals process. If you filed the F-9 with any new and material evidence, they have to review it, make another decision up or down and then send you a SSOC confirming it is still denied. You are not required to answer a SSOC but if you have more new evidence, you can always submit it to the BVA once the claim is certified and moved to DC. If you wish to answer the SSOC, you have 30 days in which to do so before they begin packing up the file for shipment to DC. To me, the SSOC is concrete proof that the RO is never going to give you a fair shake or a grant at the eleventh hour. No guarantees at the BVA either but certainly better odds.

When asking for something with the VA, it is imperative that you put belts and suspenders on everything you ask for. Leave nothing to chance or VA will run in the wrong direction with it. I asked, after a bogus rating on my Porphyria, for VA to consider other Diagnostic Codes in the VASRD. They did. They dropped the 10% for skin to 0% and then changed over to another for 40% for phlebotomies. Lost in this whirlwind 16 month DRO review was the 100% totally disabled finding of the QTC examiner. Ergo-no dice and no 100%. Be specific when you file your motions. VA's strong suit is obfuscation and they have elevated it to an art form. I can't count how many Vets I've helped who sent in queries to ask where their claims were and VA promptly fired up the "reopen" machine and began an entirely new claim knowing full well there was one in the pipeline. Of course, since you cannot have two claims open for the same malady, they politely closed the older, more valuable one knowing you had no desire to continue it. __x__ o o

A realistic timeline was about 13 months back in 2011 from the VLJ hearing to decision. With the VA sending all these to DC on appeal to clear the ROs out, it is getting longer and longer. I don't want to rain on the parade. It's at least a year unless you asked for advancement on the docket via 20.900 (c ). Just to FYI, VA has not employed "panels" of judges since 1994. In the rare instance where you had a BVA hearing and the judge retired before he decided your case, they ask you if you'd like a new hearing. If not, they can assign a three judge panel in lieu of it and proceed if you object. There is also a big difference in a Travel Board hearing and a videoconference version. You will normally have to wait up to two years in some places like Oakland for a true face- to- face hearing. Maybe less than a year after certification for a video version. I prefer face to face but it didn't avail me. The Judge (Hindin) felt I had way too much knowledge of how this works. He was polite but the bitchslap was not. He blew an ass gasket when I won at the CAVC and dawdled around for six months before revising the BVA decision in violation of the 20.900 strictures. Even then, he purposefully ignored my Porphyria claim which is why I had to go back to the Court for a Writ in January. My DRO hearing in 1990 was a fiasco. Bozo refused to look at my Air America records and said they were not "official service department records" and yes, I lost there and on appeal to DC in 92. BVA VLJs each have a staff of VA attorneys (4-8) who review the cases and write them up. The Judge reviews it and signs off. The top sheeting disease we suffer at the RO infects them as well. The best decisions, oddly enough. come from the Acting VLJs-those in training for the big banana in the future. They strive to get it anally correct and are far more open-minded. Unfortunately, you will rarely meet them unless you have your hearing at 810 Vermin Ave. NW in DC. Only the older, established VLJs get to go on these Travel board junkets to faraway cities and stay in really nice five-star hotels. Hindin stayed across the street from the Seattle RO at the Hotel Alexis. Google it. The cheapest room there is about $225 a night and they have a restaurant that ain't McFlougal's prices. Best of Luck to you chief.

Print this up for your doctor, Rick . https://asknod.wordpress.com/6051-2/It gives him the parameters and why. It's a word doc. so you can play with it . BVA usually gives you a 60-day letter to the evidence cut off date if you ask for notification. Call them. a

Rick. I apologize. You were Navy and didn't pull the trigger on very many guns. Quite simply phrased, when you get to the BVA in DC, you are actually dealing with living, breathing, intelligent human beings. If you have new and material evidence to submit, you always run the danger of having the BVA judge and his flunkies remand it back to your RO (where you filed) for a "new" rating decision taking into account what you just added. You do not want to do this. It will add another year to your claim at a bare minimum. You want to get the info in pronto along with a waiver of review to be safe. You have a narrow window from the time they begin to adjudicate it there. VA tends to "top sheet" your claims and ignore the real, meaty evidence. To get around this, you file new stuff at the BVA to make them realize you need a comprehensive "re-review" that will provoke some thought on why they denied in the first instance eight years ago. The waiver of review prevents them from shipping back to the RO. VA's latest FAST letter implies they do this as a matter of course but with older claims that occurred before the issuance of the FAST letter, there is still some confusion.I find Vets as short a time as last fall that ended up with the claim trundling back to their RO via the panama Canal. I'm sorry if my analogies are confusing. I see you only have ten "missions" (posts) under your belt. I think it would be advisable for Theresa to consider putting up a VA dictionary of terms explaining some of the more esoteric terms we use here to avoid confusion. She may have and I just do not know where to look. I'm not the sharpest tool in the shed. Best of luck on this. You'll most likely win but it may take a while. Don't be disheartened. It took me 22 years and I'm just finishing up as we speak. \x/ clear prop

Roger that, Carlie. There's words in there VA will never understand. I like the oversimplified : 1) this is wrong 2) here is why a), b),c)... 3)Here's the right way and you can do it legally using this DC and CFR. 4) send the money to_______________________

Vets should move more frequently in order to alleviate the VARO's workloads. I like the one about FDCs sailing through to completion in no time flat. Or by 2015 they'll be punching these things out every 125 days like license plates at the penitentiary with 98% accuracy. Smokin'....

The "conference" of which you speak will be between three people- the VSR, who is the assigned rater and his coach will be there to represent the VA. The PA will represent the medical side of the equation. You are not invited and would never be allowed to sit in on this. Even if you were represented by a VSO or Attorney, neither would be allowed to "sit in". Many things will be said and the word "deny" will be mentioned frequently. It will befall the PA to stand fast and say "it is at least as likely as not that it's secondary or part of the LBP" or sign up for the bonus and say "not at least as likely as not". The VA Slot machine pays out, on average, 15% of the time. This is an internal C&P that is often remote as in teleconference. The PA can be in Pittsburg with you and the raters could be in Sioux Falls where they farmed it out to. Or even raters at the AMC in DC. VA is global now. It will result in a grant and a rating or it will result in an SSOC and go back to DC to the BVA and join the queue(again). Best of luck sir.

They have probably made the decision to grant if they sent it out for C&P. Otherwise you would have gotten the "Dear Concern, It is with the utmost grief and sadness we must inform you you just augered in again." VA, and BVA as well, take IMO/IMEs seriously. As I teach in my book, the more you have, the greater the odds of a positive outcome. Having the evidence in service of the injury/disease is essential but is no guarantee of a win without the linkage. There are exceptions to every rule, however. Those of us who have evidence of combat evinced by medals are often given a pass and the fabled benefit of the doubt. I won without and wondered why I never got the 1154(b) combat presumption. I found I had never been awarded my medals. Were I to refile for something again, my testimony would undoubtedly be accepted unquestioned. Congratulations in advance. I'm sure you drew blood, sir.

AB v Derwinski 1991 (highest and best rating)

Make sure you read the BVA decision carefully. When remanded for an action item, such as associating the SSI records with the c-file and reviewing them, which the RO knows full well should have been done before the Form 8 was completed sending them to DC, there is a codicil saying RFN or "as expeditiously as possible”. This is true for remands. This claim must be afforded expeditious treatment. The law requires that all claims that are remanded by the Board of Veterans' Appeals or by the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims for additional development or other appropriate action must be handled in an expeditious manner. See 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 5109B, 7112 (West Supp. 2014). Now, look again at your BVA win and remand for a rating. Nada. If, and only if, you just won the lotto like I did, or got a 100% /TDIU after a long, drawn out six or seven-year battle, will you get a prompt rating in short order. A grant from the BVA has no terminology sending it back to the RO on afterburner. There are several things that may change the story. If your RO and claim are out of Sioux Falls Medicine Trail Coulee Memorial Veterans Service Center, it could happen in as few as two weeks after BVA returns the c-file. If Oakland, perhaps 65 -125 days after receipt. Speeds of remands for Initial ratings are moved up in the lineup but it's a triage game. Homeless first, financial/medical/old age consideration second, claims longest in the queue third, and your remanded grant in fourth. Seems there's a new Call Bob or Allison line that is forming up, too. If they have a good run of easy denials in the third queue, it leaves them time to usher your 20% for Diabetes 2, 30% for sleep apnea and the 10% for tinnitus through a quick low ball process just to clear the decks faster. They know you'll have to NOD it for a higher rating or TDIU. That will constitute another, future decision that they already know the outcome of. I've had seventeen decisions since I reopened in 2007 with four in the last week and two more today. Each one is a “task”. Granting a tombstone and a flag for burial has an equal “task” code attached to it. Issuing a Form 8 to certify a claim is the same task value. A claim remanded, without a pressing triage impetus, is taken care of in a more relaxed mode than what we hope would be a RFN DEFCON 2. My CAVC remand to comply came out April 23, 2013. The BVA played with it for seven months until November 21st. The AMC whipped it out December 10th but forgot the other ratings and the SMC. VA finally rounded up ten signatures and it hit the bank January 28th, 2014. I’m just now getting it cleaned up with the Writ. Simply put, depending on the RO, the workload, the willingness of raters, the size/age of the grant and Murphy’s law, your claim is out, rated and funded on different time paths that are not similarly measurable. If you had an older claim that you had signed off on with a waiver to nail it down at the BVA, it will almost always be rated at the AMC right around the corner from the BVA. ​The Regional Offices are in high gear denying claims now in order to meet the 125 day process @ 98% accuracy USB Hickey promised in 2015. This simply shifts the backlog to the BVA. They know it but have their marching orders. Some are starting to rebel and speak up. The repair order is to farm it out to 3M or IBM until they get caught up but they refuse to let anyone into the process because it would reveal the truth and a lot of Vets would suddenly arrive with their hands out after a fair, independent review. If you're running a crooked roulette wheel, you can't let anyone else set up a casino in town. The cowboys might get wise to it.

One thing I find working with attorneys is that the bigger the outfit-one with 10 partners and a lot of newbies- is that there is a disconnect between the claimant Veteran and the front office. It's a "We know what we're about and we simply don't have time to hold the guy's hand. Let us do our job without endless rhetoric." Bad idea. A Vet has a very vested interest in this and wants to be in the loop. My attorney fortunately is very loquacious. I can't shut him up sometimes and stay on point. He is brilliant and has far more insight than I . That's why I pay him so well. He wins. He's batting ,1000 on my Writ as we speak. Chalk up another $70 K to the prior win. Law dogs in one-horse offices are more inclined to converse with Vets than the big ones with offices in several states. Some have a combined VA/SSI practice and supplement their meagre 20% with the standard 33% they can draw from SSI/SSD claims. Regardless, we use them for the simple reason they work. VSOs don't have that primal urge to kick ass and take names. VA's own statistics BroncoVet showed me several years ago prove it unequivocally. Law dogs win- sooner and with superior results. With that said, I would ask again-why hire a lawyer and then work at cross purposes against him? I'm sure SM395's intentions were to insure a speedier conclusion but attorneys cannot have their clients bargaining behind their backs. There can only be one skipper on this boat. If you hire one and then try to wrestle the steering wheel away from him, you can understand the problem as well as their concern. I make no argument for or against this subject. I just want all to understand what attorneys can do, can't do and perhaps why they engage in what appears to be ignoring you or your claims. I certainly wish for the best for all Veterans in their fight. That's what Theresa had in mind when she advocated tying our lifeboats together on this ocean. Bashing attorneys like the one who handled my divorce is all well and fine. Have at it. Keep it objective and balanced. Knowledge in this endeavor is the route to success. Eventually, for the least successful, an attorney will eventually be the only panacea. There are good and bad ones but there are none out there that make more money by delaying them. That's like thinking you're going to get more on your paycheck at Boeing if you only get paid once a year instead of every two weeks. In the meantime you can't pay the rent or eat. \x/

Note I did not say the attorney was "waiting 360 days", sir. I merely imply that sometimes you can "fix" it faster and with better results by bargaining at the RO. No attorney, let alone a Vet, relishes the idea of an eight year appeal to the CAVC like mine. If it can be repaired at the RO prior to committing to a NOD, it avoids that horrible delay. You act like a one year "delay" is horrendous. Look what awaits you after filing the 21-0958. At a minimum, you're looking at a minimum of TWO years to a SOC and another 15 months to a Form 8 to certify it to the BVA. The backlog at the BVA is currently three years. If you are not in this for the long run, you're barking up the wrong tree legally. Best to go over to SSI and get your claim in there pronto. You'll get served sooner. Filing a NOD is the first step of a very long appeal process. If you can resolve your differences with the Rater at a hearing in the first 30 days following a denial, isn't that infinitely preferable to years of litigation? Lawyers do that. VSOs rarely. As for attorneys shopping claims, if an attorney doesn't see merit in your claims, worries it may not be winnable or feels uncomfortable representing you, it's his call. Yes, there probably are some who shop for the big dollar claims but attorneys like Ken Carpenter and Virginia Girard-Brady get most of those. Your reputation for winning precedes you. If Joe Average law dog feels your claim won't fly, he's not shopping around for big ticket claims. He has to pay the rent and the hired help. He has to carry the financial water for you until you win---if you win. Ask yourself this. Would you enter the Boston Marathon with a sprained ankle on the off chance you might win? Go back to the 20% conundrum. Why even practice VA law unless you have altruistic ambitions? I don't see the milking it for money argument. I hired Bob Walsh for one reason. He wins. If my claim had been for a $50K win and was questionable, maybe he would have and maybe not. It was for $340 K and I wanted a winning attorney. He sure didn't know at the outset he was going to win big . Neither did I. Every attorney has to give 31 hours on the clock each year for pro bono work. That's free. No charge to you. I know from experience that many attorneys are leery of representing Vets who apply for bent brain syndrome. Many feel they are too flighty and will jump ship if it isn't done their (the Vet's) way. History bears their concerns out. I am not an attorney nor do I have attorneys as friends per se. I converse daily with many in the course of my work. As a class of citizens, I bear them no ill will. They are a necessary evil, I suppose-much like a doctor. Unlike a doctor, they can choose to help you or not. That is free will. As a builder, I was always leery of working for any professional -most especially doctors, lawyers or engineers who "knew" more than me. Always keep this uppermost in your mind re litigation. Vet attorneys are not limited to 800-827-1000 to contact the RO. Their legal avenues are endless and are not always blatantly evident. That's why they spend three years learning the trade-after four years of preparing for it. Seven years invested makes one careful where s/he puts their efforts. Lawyers are like oil well drillers. They don't like to drill on the off chance they might get lucky. Dry holes don't pay. Any argument about attorneys should be balanced. When you get to the CAVC, you can't use Jimbo from the VFW with his 40 hours on the clock this year. You can do it pro se but few prevail. So, at some point if you keep losing, you are going to have to avail yourself of their services if you intend to prevail. Using an attorney merely means it will take less time in the long run. I wish I'd done that in 1994. Perhaps I wouldn't have squandered 22 years chasing this rainbow. I respect others' opinions if they bring a cogent argument to the table.

You don't suppose that attorney was attempting to drive a bargain at the RO and avoid a lengthy substantive appeal and two-year DRO review hold up? Attorneys move in strange ways that we don't always understand. I strongly doubt any would hang you out to dry for more retro. That's asinine. They work for 20%. Ever been out in the traffic with ambulance chasers? Their minimum is 40%. There's method to the madness. For instance, if your impending homelessness is documented, he could get it done in less that 90 days based on 20.900© and an emergent situation. Over the years, I have yet to meet a VA attorney with ulterior motives aimed at "milking" Vets. That's some old VSO wive's tale that surfaces every two weeks over at Peggy's Pretty Pink Site and usually emanates from a reputed former VA employee with a fondness for bourbon and late night pontificating. Ask yourself one question. Why would anyone go to law school and rack up $200,000 in debt from student loans (with a 4% interest rate) in order to find the least lucrative venue for making money from their Juris Doctorate? Were it me, I'd be hanging around the Emergency rooms of large hospitals with a wad of business cards. That's where the money is. J1VO. \x/

Tomorrow is Show and Tell Day at the CAVC. I believe the OGC has until sundown over the Appalachians to show their faces and explain the "misunderstanding" to Judge Davis. One thing is for sure. Davis isn't going to give them another 14 days to formulate post hoc rationalizations for their 22 year old brain fart. As for Hindin, that will be interesting. My guess is Hindin won't even be mentioned. \x/ Clear Prop!

Even though I cannot discuss it in detail, I think you folks can understand from my "uniform" and personal sidearm that I wasn't in Kansas with Toto when I was over there. Our humorous refrain over the fence was "Badges? We don't need no stinkin' badges!" VA seems to have appropriated it for themselves, unfortunately. What you can't see there is my .25 ACP FN Baby on the inside of my left ankle. Gun. Never leave home without it. Ball ammo, naturalment. We wouldn't want to violate the Geneva Conventions.

There is one other avenue. You can send in a rebuttal to the SSOC indicating you have more N&ME in the pipeline and it will be forwarded directly to the BVA with a waiver of review in the first instance shortly so it will not require a remand back down through the AMC to your RO for another de novo decision. This will allow the BVA judge to make a decision on it sooner, too. Perfectly legal. You guys have to think outside the box more thoroughly. Surely, the last thing you want to embark on is a request for another DRO review at the RO. Time strictures are just roadblocks. Discern a path around them and press on. What I find amazing is you got to the BVA without signing a waiver of review in the first instance when you got the Form 8 signed off. Without it, they can play remand ping pong with your appeal for years. In fact, that is what just happened to you! I teach one brand of claims prosecution. If they do not grant at the AOJ (your RO), there's something wrong with it. If, after a really good presentation of all the probative evidence, they still deny, hanging around for a DRO review is going to be a 585-day waste. Getting it docketed at the BVA is paramount-especially for PTSD/ Hepatitis C claims or their like. The quicker you get an up or down there, the more quickly you can get to the CAVC. There, you will experience a maximum of a one-year delay to a win or a vacate and remand. VA gets the message. You aren't going away and the squeaky wheel syndrome kicks in. They grant to get rid of you. The CAVC reverses, vacates or sets aside 65 percent of what appears before them exclusive of Writs and EAJA. Conversely, VA denies 85% of what you file. Where do you want your case heard? In a demonstrably Veteran-friendly venue or one that is purported to be? If you were in the Army or Marines, they taught you enfilading fire. Set up your M-2s and M-60s on your flanks and shoot across the area of engagement. Make the gomers run into the bullets (evidence) instead of trying to lead them to get the ordnance (evidence) on target. In the Air Force, we took it to a higher level and did it from altitude in 3D. J1VO.

Navy 04, if you go the colostomy route on Crohn's I believe that will get you 100% 7333Rectum and anus, stricture of: Requiring colostomy 100 I believe a colostomy would be analogous under 4.20 to an ileostomy aka Hartman's pouch. The only difference is the bag would be on the left rather than the right. VA hamburgered me four times with peritonitis/sepsis surgeries in less than a year. I don't need to tie up the claims system again with pointless 1151 claims as I have all the comp. percentages I can possibly get now. You, on the other hand, are hanging out there with no disease other than Crohn's that might kill you. Focus on developing that under DC 7323 or 7333 if they 86 the colon. I have Crohn's. First operation in 1996 got 33 cm of small bowel and ileum. Remission until Interferon treatment in 2007. In 2009 VA Doogie Housers nicked me for 16, 11, 8 and 34 cms more. Yeppers, short bowel syndrome. I have to eat high calorie all the time to keep the weight from evaporating. Currently in remission. Fingers crossed. Praying for you but Howard hasn't answered me since Vietnam.

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<I am not sure what the % of veterans that are rated with a 10% or 20 30 60 or 70% rating that either appeals his/her rating or ask for an increase! (Buck 52)>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Seek and ye shall find...https://asknod.wordpress.com/2013/03/20/disabled-veterans-by-rating-and-state/ Like your new font Buck. It's easier to read for us poor, blind (but not to VA) Vets

I might have walked away when I lost in 1994 but they made one mistake. I only have my honor. They said I never served in Vietnam. Not only that, I did two tours-730 days in several countries on the Indochinese Peninsula. My statute of limitations on my non-disclosure agreements expires in October 2020. Maybe I'll write a book. My fondest wish would be that my brothers in Air America could be grandfathered in to the VA system. Fat chance.

Well, Cragwex, what you have is a compendium of ratings that VA combines to give you 100%. Here's the formula as you post it: First the duelies 10% + 10% bilaterally is 22% and 30 + 20 is 44%. Combine those two for 66% and begin with 4.25: 66% + 50% (83) + 20 (86) + 20 (89) + 10 (90) + 10 (91)+ 10 (92) + 10 (3) + 10 (94) + 10 = 95% which rounds up to 100% . Most, but not all ratings schedules, go from 0 to 100% . Some top out at 30 or 60%. My hepatitis is one that goes to 100% and I am rated such. This is called a 100% schedular rating ( a stand alone). The sum of your injuries makes you incapable of work but there is the possibility in the future that one of your diseases/injuries will increase in severity to the 100% schedular level assuming arguendo that the rating table goes to 100%. By the same token, there is the possibility that one of your injuries will improve in VA's eyes. Therefore you are not substantially protected against a decrease in the future. This is also where you enter SMC land for increased ratings. If you are substantially housebound, you'll get the SMC S for an extra $347 a month. If you have ED or some of the other diseases/ injuries that qualify for SMC K, you can pick up some extra $ there. You can have three SMC Ks at one time legally (even with less than a 100% rating) unless or until you exceed the dollar value of SMC L. At that point they give you the L. ($3617. 10) VA has a storied history of taking back that which they give you. Be prepared for that until you hit the 20 year protection clause. I had a guy that got hauled in at 19 years and 3 months that got whacked back down but they substituted TDIU instead of the 100% schedular. His compensation check remained the same but he had to start all over on the 10 year clock for Dependents Indemnity Compensation (DIC) for his wife in the event of his demise. VA can be very devious in what appears to be a neutral transaction. Be careful.

Yeah, but have you ever heard of a 2011 CUE revision filing remodeled into a grant of benefits four long years later and then a SSOC issued several days later saying you have 30 days- not a year- to file a new VA9 ? Marijuana is now legal here but I think it was unfair to get stoned before they rated me. A mind is a terrible thing to get wasted.

Well, it looks like we got pretty much everything we asked for except for the 100% on the Porphyria. I say give it a week and the OGC will come around. If they don't, they need to see a shrink pronto and be treated for being in denial. Chances are smarter heads than the DROs at Fort Fumble in Seattle will intercede and pony up. The C&P doctor's admission of totally disabled is like Monica Lewinsky's blue dress. §4.15 is pretty explicit https://asknod.wordpress.com/2015/02/25/cavc-birth-of-a-writ-act-iii-scene-5-you-cant-hide-your-lying-eyes/ Cowboy up

New and Material evidence, in the eyes of the VA, the BVA and the CAVC consists of evidence (new) that has never seen the light of day. Material evidence can consist of evidence submitted earlier that is probative of the new evidence submitted. The metric is simple. It has to be new but can be submitted in conjunction with older evidence that would help to explain the probity of the new evidence. Material in a legal sense means it’s related to the subject (claim) you are filing. With that said, NM&E can be a new IMO/IME that you have obtained that shows the correlation between your present condition and relates to service connection. It cannot be an update that describes the current progress of your disease/injury. The NM&E must specifically help tie the current disease/injury to the event in service which you claim was the cause. Many of you will file what you believe is NM&E that isn't material and VA will reject it as redundant or simply immaterial. VA will make a determination on the NM&E aspect first and then determine the credibility of it afterwards.