Lemuel

My suggestion is that you call 800 827 1000 and insure the BVA decision under your file number is  your name.  When I received my 2017 decision and waited 6 months for payment with nothing happening.  Checked the problem and found a negative decision a month earlier with my first name but a different last name had been entered under my file number.  Took another 2 months to correct that and get my 9 years of back pay.
My April Executive Director, Compensation Services / DROC decision took from April to August because it was over $250,000.00 in back pay back 2009 to 1985.  There were a half a dozen calculations submitted before one was finally approved.  The printed back pay schedules only go back to 1994.

My suggestion is that you call 800 827 1000 and insure the BVA decision under your file number is  your name.  When I received my 2017 decision and waited 6 months for payment with nothing happening.  Checked the problem and found a negative decision a month earlier with my first name but a different last name had been entered under my file number.  Took another 2 months to correct that and get my 9 years of back pay.
My April Executive Director, Compensation Services / DROC decision took from April to August because it was over $250,000.00 in back pay back 2009 to 1985.  There were a half a dozen calculations submitted before one was finally approved.  The printed back pay schedules only go back to 1994.

I filed a Rule 21 Petition at the CAVC on 02/17/2020 because my NOD and BVA remand exams and processing had stalled more than 30 months based upon Godsey v Wilkie, Vet. App. 17-4361 which held that an NOD must be processed within 18 months.
On 02/24/2020 I had the first examination at VAMC Hot Springs, SD.  There were to be follow up examinations by VES contract physicians and appointment were made within 2 weeks but I had developed CORVID symptoms after visiting with the motel owner who had just returned from India by air where I stayed for the examinations.  By the time the exams were being scheduled there was a questionnaire re: CORVID symptoms for face to face appointment scheduling.
Still waiting to get over the symptoms.
To answer your question, ordinarily you could expect the exams to the rating decision to take 18 months since Godsey v Wilkie.  But this is not ordinary and with bone spurs and a back you need some one to poke around on you.  eBendfits shows longer.
The NPs that did my exams ignored all favorable items in my charts and focused only on the unfavorable.  I was granted an additional 20% for cervical disc disease but denied lumbar disc disease?  It won't be a problem to get the exams redone but it will be a delay.
I expect another class action if things do not speed up and the VA doesn't find a way around the problem for those of us who are over 75.  But for now, because I can't tell if I have it or not, I don't want to cause anyone to get sick.  I'll wait as the VA expects me to do although I may try to get a decision based upon the record through the Executive Secretary, Compensation Services.

I have another thread on the subject of TBI.  Haven't transferred the new material there yet but will.  Wil check "jfrei" out.

Thanks, Berta and Bronco, for the links.  I signed up for alerts on the "Military Medical Accountability Act" Berta posted and downloaded the "due process" article from Bronco.  Just to bring you up to date:
My Petition for a Writ of Certiorari was denied on Veterans' Day.  Knew there was less than a 1 in 10,000 chance of getting it heard (shredder gate) as a part of my denied appeal of the 10th on the Feres Doctrine.
I'll write to my congresswoman (Cheney) who is on the Veterans Affairs Committee and ask her to amend the MMAA to allow those of us who have raised complaints in the past and who have been blocked from receiving medical evidence, should have their SOL extended to 3 years after the effective date of the MMAA.
My CAVC case, 17-2990, (link below) on the failure to provide a complete RBA to the BVA Judge, to me and my Attorney, just went to Judge Meredith on 11/08/19.  The Docket link is:
https://efiling.uscourts.cavc.gov/cmecf/servlet/TransportRoom
There are 27 docket items between 11/18/17 and 12/04/18 on the RBA dispute (shredder gate).  Most are delaying notices from the VA GC.  There was a Clerk's Conference which the Clerk closed not having gotten his orders to the VA GC full filled.  I immediately filed an Appeal to the CAFC and the CAVC and the CAFC failed to follow FRAP 3 (d) and their local Rule 3.
So hopefully I'll get somewhere with "shredder gate".
I now have experience with filing a SCOTUS petition for a Writ of Certiorari.  Even though a Pro Se litigant has less than a 1 in 10,000 chances of being heard at SCOTUS, the failure of the following of the rules and enforcement of orders by the CAVC and CAFC should get me a quick single judge decision from SCOTUS that would then have to be appealed by the VA once I have CAVC and CAFC decisions in hand if necessary.  I don't believe the CAFC will ignore an adverse decision from the CAVC and therefore hopeful that Judge Meredith will see things differently than the Clerk did. 
 

The question is;  Will I be among the less than 1% Pro Se Petitioners to SCOTUS of the 1% over all Petitioners for a Writ of Certiorari that will be heard by SCOTUS.
The Petition is Bray v United States Docket No. 18-9532 Re: "The Feres Doctrine" with 15 related constitutional questions.
The documents can be downloaded from the Supreme Court of the United States, (SCOTUS), web site here:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/18-9532.html
The answer will come sometime after the 40 copies have been distributed to the Justices and their Clerks for the November 8, 2019 Conference.  Only 1% are granted a hearing before SCOTUS.  Will the Feres Doctrine continue to stand up as Constitutional continuing a 69+ year old precedence that prevents you from filing a Tort case for your mistreatment and failure to be compensated for subtle but employability disabling temporal lobe seizures ignored by the military and the VA to reduce entitlements?
Some relief was granted in 2008 for TBI victims.  Those who had TBI claims from 2007 on will be fully compensated.  Those of us from previous wars have been stiffed until we were allowed to file our claims after receiving the 2008 letter.
 

I feel I have a possibility.  The 10th gave me a good start on my petition in their decision quoting other decisions that stated the Feres Doctrine should be reviewed but could only be reviewed by SCOTUS.  The 10th didn't go as far as the quoted decisions only stating that the decision could only be reviewed by SCOTUS.  But their quotes said what they didn't say.  And they didn't make any decision quotes that were outright in support of the Feres Doctrine.

The question is;  Will I be among the less than 1% Pro Se Petitioners to SCOTUS of the 1% over all Petitioners for a Writ of Certiorari that will be heard by SCOTUS.
The Petition is Bray v United States Docket No. 18-9532 Re: "The Feres Doctrine" with 15 related constitutional questions.
The documents can be downloaded from the Supreme Court of the United States, (SCOTUS), web site here:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/18-9532.html
The answer will come sometime after the 40 copies have been distributed to the Justices and their Clerks for the November 8, 2019 Conference.  Only 1% are granted a hearing before SCOTUS.  Will the Feres Doctrine continue to stand up as Constitutional continuing a 69+ year old precedence that prevents you from filing a Tort case for your mistreatment and failure to be compensated for subtle but employability disabling temporal lobe seizures ignored by the military and the VA to reduce entitlements?
Some relief was granted in 2008 for TBI victims.  Those who had TBI claims from 2007 on will be fully compensated.  Those of us from previous wars have been stiffed until we were allowed to file our claims after receiving the 2008 letter.
 

My arbitrary and capricious issues.  (I know Berta understands as stated what an arbitrary and capricious act is so going beyond saying mine are similar to her issues is stated for Sailorman)
1.  Disappearing evidence. 
             a.  Proof in the RBA that 8 months of Spinal Clinic OPTR should be there but aren't. (spinal disc disease claim secondary to MVA caused by seizure)  The appearances are that evidence was stripped from the record leaving some evidence behind that it exists.
              b.  Proof in the RBA of 5 months of Seizure Clinic OPTR of confirmed partial and complex partial seizures (atypical absences seizures) treated with Tegretol which according to the 1990 PDR wasn't supposed to be used for atypical absence seizures or for anyone with a sensitivity to amitriptyline which also has been removed from my record.  The Pharmacy Record shows the change from amitriptyline to Prozac but the notes and entries of the sensitivity reaction are not in the C-File.  
2.  Inability to get a copy of the Archived Medical File.  FOIA issue
3.  Failure of the VA GC to obtain the Archived Medical File to settle the RBA Dispute.
4.  Failure of the AOJ to certify or address my raised CUE and lack of assistance issues to the BVA.
5.  Denial by the Board for Correction of Naval records that I have subtle anosognosia which is defined as being unable or unwilling to recognize handicaps or lack of skills.  Think of trying to get the car keys from someone who has had too much to drink except that is transient and goes away with sobering up.  From conscious side anterior temporal lobe brain damage or subconscious side mid parietal brain damage you never sober up.  And seizure states make it worse.
6.  Using unqualified examiners that declare disabilities non existent.  The combined PA examination and rating decision claimed that my tinnitus was not service connected.  I was denied a forklift operator's permit 9 years before my finale discharge from the Navy at the Great Lakes Naval Hospital because of my tinnitus which is clearly in the record.  The denial didn't address the issue claimed.  The tinnitus was granted as a CUE in 1992 but dated from 1989 instead of 1974.
7.  Failure to provide the base data for reports.  EEG tracings for a second opinion.  Radiographic images to obtain an etiology statement which is supposed to be provided by the C & P examiner or the Rating Officer.  The Medical examiners are reportedly not supposed to make such statements and leave them for the Rating Officer who is most frequently not qualified to make such determinations.
8.  Closing of a claim/appeal when I was in a period of having to travel.  I would notify the DRO when I was not going to be available and when I was.  He would schedule a hearing after receipt of a notification letter for the time which I notified the DRO I would be out of state or out of the country.  He did this two times and scheduled a third after I had moved notifying him I the date I was moving to DC and requesting the hearing move with me as it had from LA to Denver for Denver to have it.  And then closed the appeal.
9.  Making me travel to Japan from DC because I listed it as my permanent address while using a temporary DC mail box address for a C&P exam that couldn't be done in Japan.  (The military was sending their personnel to Tripler in Hawaii for the type of exam needed and no longer had the capacity in Japan.  The Embassy couldn't locate an English Speaking examiner to do a TBI exam) 
So, yes mine are similar to Berta's.  And I'm sure Sailor man is experiencing some of the same.  Otherwise it wouldn't be necessary to get a remand.

I just filed a petition for a Writ of Certiorari to SCOTUS on the "Feres Doctrine" which is used to deny veterans access to evidence and tort claims.  No jury trier of fact.  The BVA is unable to order evidence be made available to claimants.  The DVA thumbs its nose, as it did in my case, at the RBA disputes lodged under the rules to obtain evidence.  The Circuit Courts won't get involved because of the Feres Doctrine while expressing concerns about the Feres Doctrine's Constitutionality.
Petition was mailed Saturday.  Don't know how long it will take to get an answer but only 1% get heard by the Supreme Court (SCOTUS).  Have a much better chance at it this time than when I attempted in 1989.  I shelled out more than $1,000.00 in printing and mailing 45 copies (143 pg.)  to SCOTUS and 1 copy each to 10 interest parties this time.  Big gamble on my part.  Need to publicize it.  Is there a Journalist on board?
Search Bray v United States at SCOTUS (new petition) in a week or so.  Bray v United states at the 10th Circuit, #18-8051, in a couple of days should have the SCOTUS petition posted on PACER.  Also submitted a pre-decision copy to the Court of Veterans Claims (CAVC) which should post to the docket of Bray v Wilkie, #17-2990.
Is anyone interested in joining?  Does anyone know a law school that might take it up?  I'm self represented because it is extremely difficult to get an attorney because of the Feres Doctrine.

At least get service connected.  Hard to get a rating for anything but tinnitus anymore because the hearing aids have improved so much.  Hearing aids are supplied every 5 years.
I'm asking the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals to rate my "tinnitus" at 30% from July 19, 1974 because the EENT consult in 1965 was a result of denying me a Navy forklift operator's permit.  That was 9 years before I got out.  And the consult indicates a "definite" loss of employability options for safety concerns.  The attached draft Pro Se form is a work in progress.  Have some duplicate statements that need to be downsized removing Arguments from Statement of Facts.  Most is a Copy and Paste from notes from my 4,624 page RBA (Record Before the Agency).
I'm also attaching a copy of Comer V Peake from the 3rd Circuit which a lot of Veterans on this site can use.
This is a result of discovering you can "Petition for Review" and "Agency Decision" to the Federal Court of Appeals.  My claims have been in progress for over 30 years.  Like Comer, I never gave up because the decisions were "arbitrary and capricious," like your decision, choosing to only look items that are negative to your claim.
In my case I had seizures confirmed in 1990 but the diagnosis changed to pseudo seizures when they didn't respond to Tegretol.  In fact Tegretol made them worse.  I obtained a Physicians' Desk Reference from ABE BOOKS after looking up Tegretol online and discovering it was contraindicated for the type of seizures diagnosed currently.  It was also in the 1990 PDR.  I had a sensitivity to amitriptyline which was also contraindicated.  5 months of treatment in 1990 and then no treatment until 2015 when I was put on Keppra.  So there is also a 38 CFR 3.154 claim.  The Rating Officers, DRO and BVA of 1990 only referenced the WNL EEGs and not the ones showing "with or without seizures," which occurs frequently with Temporal Lobe Seizures.
If you are accused of being a little "drifty" you may need to look into getting some EEGs done also.  If you do stop all antidepressants or similar drugs for 3 days before you scheduled EEG.  Also don't sleep for at least 24 hours before the EEG.  And make sure you get at least 3 EEGs at times when you feel foggy brained.  There is an NIH study showing "blast concussive damage" occurs.  If, in your noise induced hearing loss you had any of these symptoms the sinus bouncing may have damaged your anterior temporal lobes of your brain and be causing, short absences, concentration problems, enervations (sudden onsets of loss of muscle tone--hard to hold your head up or infrequent drop attacks (knees buckling with quick recovery), nose bleeds during the firing exercise, etc. 
This also applies to malaria victims.  A December of 2016 NIH study shows p. falciparum malaria also damages the temporal lobes primarily.  From almost 50 years of getting worse, I can tell you temporal lobe seizures are hard to diagnose and no fun.  I'm fortunate in the Oakland Naval Hospital inpatient record shows complex partial seizure symptoms in the nursing notes twice during my recover from 50 hours of unconsciousness followed by 30 hours of amnesia.
20180815 DC 10th Brief BVA 20170511.pdf
Comer v. Peake, 552 F.3d 1362 (Fed. Cir., 2009).pdf

I had to appeal to the 10th.  Have two positive orders to the VA and U S ATTY from the 10th.  Working hard on my Pro Se Brief.  Will keep you all posted.
 

"My amended (to date) Petition to Appeal VA adjudication decisions and refusal to certify CUEs because of a one year time limit are attached.  (20180305... is the letter denying certification of CUE and wrongful closing of an appeal)  Do you think I have a chance?
It seems you have a TDIU claim pending- but I see you now have 100%-
The downloads I read are clear as to this-it seems a NOD was not filed within  one year of the receipt of some very old decisions. I agree with the 20180305 letter from VA.
CUE claims have no time limit-I was told by some dumb vet rep I had ,not to file a NOD on a 1151 DIC- because 1151 claims are "different" than regular claims.
He was wrong. Because I didnt file a NOD, I had to file instead 4 CUEs with one more to go-
They were all awarded-the most recent CUE award on the 1998 decision was in 2015.
Failure in Duty to Assist is NOT a CUE.
The legal error (s)  must be clearly defined and the established medical record at time of the alleged CUE must reveal the error(s) were detrimental to you.
Everything I know about CUE is in our CUE forum here-I have filed many-some taking years and some taking mere weeks to resolve-I never had a CUE at the BVA because I won them all at the RO level.
I have read so many BVA decisions on CUE since they came on line- that 
I learned everything I know from their awards and their denials of CUE.
Much of that info is here in the CUE forum-
All I can suggest is that you read over the CUE regulations very carefully.
You might have to file them again.I see someone represented you , per the recent VA letter_
"We sent a copy of this letter to your representative, VANESSA G. ELLERMANN, whom you can also contact if you have questions or need assistance. "
Perhaps Ms. Ellermann would agree.
 
 
 
 

Mine never made it that far on eBenefits.  Just suddenly got a decision and then a few days later it was registered on eBenefits.

https://www.leagle.com/decision/infdco20130117f04
One of our new members mentioned this case and I thought it would be a good example of how involved many FTCA issues can become, to put into this forum.
The veteran filed in a Federal District  Court after one of two things happened- either his FTCA was denied by OGC or he refused their offer of settlement.(probably the latter reason)
He was awarded quite a tidy sum of cash by the Fed District Court. 
One reason he succeeded in what- at first glance would be a very difficult case to win, is with the Timeline he provided of how VA had been negligent with primarily their administration of  improper medications that resulted in negligently treating his PTSD.He also had a superb expert opinion.
"We award the plaintiffs the following damages:
Stanley P. Laskowski, III's Past Lost Earnings and Lost Earning Capacity: $214,582.00
Stanley P. Laskowski, III's Future Loss of Earnings and Lost Earning Capacity: $2,144,803.00
Stanley P. Laskowski, III's Past Non-Economic Damages in a lump sum, including pain and suffering, embarrassment and humiliation and loss of the ability to enjoy the pleasures of life: $500,000.00
Stanley P. Laskowski, III's Future Non-Economic Damages in a lump sum, including pain and suffering, embarrassment and humiliation and loss of the ability to enjoy the pleasures of life: $700,000.00
Marisol Laskowski's past, present and future loss of her husband's services to her and the past, present, and future loss of companionship of her husband, including her spouse's company, society, cooperation, affection, aid in the marital relationship, support, comfort, assistance, association, and the loss of ability to engage in sexual relations: $140,615.00"
Anyone considering  pursuing a FTCA matter in a Federal Circuit Court should study this case carefully.
The court notes that there was a "preponderance" of evidence.... meaning these cases -whether settled at the VA General Counsel level or filed after  a OGC denial or refusal of a settlement by the plaintiff, have to go  much further , with evidence, than a traditional award of any other VA claim -that is based on Benefit of Doubt.....
to raise to the level of a Preponderance of Evidence against the VA. 

This is one of the most important links  many veterans need:
https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/retrieveECFR?gp=&SID=8c534c4d785c7a0f20e233de73dcea45&mc=true&n=pt38.1.4&r=PART&ty=HTML
You are looking for Analogus Ratings and this is under part 4.20.
 
 
 

I just received an email from the VA re pro bono legal services. There are 4 clinics in Alabama.  Don't know if they will take your case, adodd.
https://www.va.gov/ogc/docs/LegalServices.pdf
 

This post is much clearer.  He can ask for TDIU presumptively because of his current rating.  He probably hasn't previously claimed it.
That would be the first claim to get in.  I had requested TDIU in 1987.  It had never been developed as some of your husband's claims haven't.  But it enabled me to get a BVA decision on May 11, 2017 granting me TDIU back to my first combined rating of 70%.  But I was appealing that claim dated in July of 2009.  Back pay of 8 years.  And, additionally, a remand to develop my first claim for TDIU.
So look through his record carefully.  Even if he said he was "unable to work"  in a letter or on a claim from it is an informal claim of TDIU and they should have developed it.  If they did try and because of his mental state he didn't do the necessary follow up it is as Berta presented above.  An ADA case.  They took advantage of his disability to deny him compensation.
It is clear Mr. Dodd was highly mentally functioning at some point and still has enough left to get Berta and I to know there was a real problem with the way he has been treated.  Keep in touch here and we'll do our best to help.

You are right about the DUTY TO ASSIST regulations being relatively new.  I just noticed that when I tried to find them in old 38 CFR chapter 3.  1990 and earlier.
Did you have a TBI?  That may explain your effort of trying but not accomplishing the minimal effort.  Even if the TBI was post service.

VA's duty to assist spelled out:
§ 21.1032 VA has a duty to assist claimants in obtaining evidence.
(a)VA's duty to assist begins when VA receives a complete or substantially complete application.
(1) Except as provided in paragraph (d) of this section, upon receipt of a complete or substantially complete application for educational assistance under subpart C, D, G, H, K, L, or P of this part, VA will -
(i) Make reasonable efforts to help a claimant obtain evidence necessary to substantiate the claim; and
(ii) Give the assistance described in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section to an individual attempting to reopen a finally decided claim.
(2) VA will not pay any fees a custodian of records may charge to provide the records VA requests.
(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 5103A)
(b)Obtaining records not in the custody of a Federal department or agency.
(1) VA will make reasonable efforts to obtain relevant records not in the custody of a Federal department or agency. These records include relevant records from:
(i) State or local governments;
(ii) Private medical care providers;
(iii) Current or former employers; and
(iv) Other non-Federal governmental sources.
(2) The reasonable efforts described in paragraph (b)(1) of this section will generally consist of an initial request for the records and, if VA does not receive the records, at least one follow-up request. The following are exceptions to this provision concerning the number of requests that VA generally will make:
(i) VA will not make a follow-up request if a response to the initial request indicates that the records sought do not exist or that a follow-up request for the records would be futile.
(ii) If VA receives information showing that subsequent requests to the initial or another custodian could result in obtaining the records sought, reasonable efforts will include an initial request and, if VA does not receive the records, at least one follow-up request to the new source or an additional request to the original source.
(3) The claimant must cooperate fully with VA's reasonable efforts to obtain relevant records from non-Federal agency or department custodians. The claimant must provide enough information to identify and locate the existing records, including -
(i) The person, company, agency, or other custodian holding the records;
(ii) The approximate time frame covered by the records; and
(iii) In the case of medical treatment records, the condition for which treatment was provided.
(4) If necessary, the claimant must authorize the release of existing records in a form acceptable to the person, company, agency, or other custodian holding the records.
(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 5103A)
(c)Obtaining records in the custody of a Federal department or agency.
(1) VA will make as many requests as are necessary to obtain relevant records from a Federal department or agency. These records include but are not limited to:
(i) Military records;
(ii) Medical and other records from VA medical facilities;
(iii) Records from non-VA facilities providing examination or treatment at VA expense; and
(iv) Records from other Federal agencies.
(2) VA will end its efforts to obtain records from a Federal department or agency only if VA concludes that the records sought do not exist or that further efforts to obtain those records would be futile. Cases in which VA may conclude that no further efforts are required include cases in which the Federal department or agency advises VA that the requested records do not exist or that the custodian of such records does not have them.
(3) The claimant must cooperate fully with VA's reasonable efforts to obtain relevant records from Federal department or agency custodians. At VA's request, the claimant must provide enough information to identify and locate the existing records, including -
(i) The custodian or agency holding the records;
(ii) The approximate time frame covered by the records; and
(iii) In the case of medical treatment records, the condition for which treatment was provided.
(4) If necessary, the claimant must authorize the release of existing records in a form acceptable to the custodian or agency holding the records.
(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 5103A)
(d)Circumstances where VA will refrain from or discontinue providing assistance. VA will refrain from providing assistance in obtaining evidence for a claim if the substantially complete or complete application for benefits indicates that there is no reasonable possibility that any assistance VA would provide to the claimant would substantiate the claim. VA will discontinue providing assistance in obtaining evidence for a claim if the evidence obtained indicates that there is no reasonable possibility that further assistance would substantiate the claim. Circumstances in which VA will refrain from or discontinue providing assistance in obtaining evidence include, but are not limited to:
(1) The claimant's ineligibility for the benefit sought because of lack of qualifying service, lack of veteran status, or other lack of legal eligibility;
(2) Claims that are inherently not credible or clearly lack merit; and
(3) An application requesting a benefit to which the claimant is not entitled as a matter of law.
(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 5103A)
(e)Duty to notify claimant of inability to obtain records.
(1) VA will notify the claimant either orally or in writing when VA:
(i) Makes reasonable efforts to obtain relevant non-Federal records, but is unable to obtain them; or
(ii) After continued efforts to obtain Federal records, concludes that it is reasonably certain they do not exist or that further efforts to obtain them would be futile.
(2) For non-Federal records requests, VA may provide the notice to the claimant at the same time it makes its final attempt to obtain the relevant records.
(3) VA will make a record of any oral notice conveyed under paragraph (e) of this section to the claimant.
(4) The notice to the claimant must contain the following information:
(i) The identity of the records VA was unable to obtain;
(ii) An explanation of the efforts VA made to obtain the records;
(iii) The fact described in paragraph (e)(1)(i) or (e)(1)(ii) of this section;
(iv) A description of any further action VA will take regarding the claim, including, but not limited to, notice that VA will decide the claim based on the evidence of record unless the claimant submits the records VA was unable to obtain; and
(v) A notice that the claimant is ultimately responsible for obtaining the evidence.
(5) If VA becomes aware of the existence of relevant records before deciding the claim, VA will notify the claimant of the existence of such records and ask that the claimant provide a release for the records. If the claimant does not provide any necessary release of the relevant records that VA is unable to obtain, VA will ask that the claimant obtain the records and provide them to VA.
(6) For the purpose of this section, if VA must notify the claimant, VA will provide notice to:
(i) The claimant;
(ii) His or her fiduciary, if any; and
(iii) His or her representative, if any.
(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 5102(b), 5103(a), 5103A)
[ 72 FR 16965, Apr. 5, 2007, as amended at 74 FR 14665, Mar. 31, 2009]
 

As I understand it there are 4 avenues of redoing a Rating decision.  CUE back to original claim.  New evidence from date new evidence is supplied.  "Duty to assist" complaint.  (I only know this exists because it was mentioned in my BVA Decision) and Medical Malpractice to the date of incident.
I don't know of any other ways.  You need to quote the 38 CFR sections that apply.  I don't have time at the moment to drag them out of my files.

To get it keeps changing because of the try at integration of computer systems.
I received my last CD From this address:
Department of VA, Records Management Center
DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS
Records Management Center
P.O. Box 5020
St. Louis, MO 63115
I would recommend sending it directly there.  It doesn't mean you'll get all you need.  I didn't as can be seen from my Motion to Correct the RBA at the CAVC.  Many of the things I received in the 3,157 page CD from them weren't in the 4,529 page CD received from GC as the RBA.  Plus additional VA medical records that should have been in both are missing from both.
You can also submit an FOIA request to the Evidence Intake Center.
I'm attaching a redacted copy of my request that got the 3,157 page CD when I discovered much was missing from the 1420 page CD sent to my attorney.  Mine is probably more complicated than yours needs to be.
 
Army Discharged, retired, or separated from any component 10/16/1992 to 12/31/2013
Department of VA, Records Management Center on or after 01/01/2014 AMEDD Record Processing Center Navy Discharged, retired, or separated from any component 01/31/1994 to 12/31/2013 Department of VA, Records Management Center on or after 01/01/2014 BUMED Navy Medicine Records Activity Air Force Discharged, retired, or separated from any component 05/01/1994 to 12/31/2013 Department of VA, Records Management Center on or after 01/01/2014 AF STR Processing Center Discharged or retired from Reserves or National Guard 06/01/1994 to 12/31/2013 Department of VA, Records Management Center on or after 01/01/2014 AF STR Processing Center Marine Corps Discharged, retired, or separated from any component 05/01/1994 to 12/31/2013 Department of VA, Records Management Center on or after 01/01/2014 BUMED Navy Medicine Records Activity Coast Guard Discharged, retired, or separated from Active Duty - Reservists with 90 days active duty for training 04/01/1998 to 09/30/2014 Department of VA, Records Management Center 20160811 FOIA request_Redacted.pdf

Your RO set you up for "new evidence" which requires a new claim and is dated from that date.  I'm not sure you could claim a CUE except that the RO didn't wait for the evidence.  Still they will claim it wasn't available to him/her.  You'll have to quote those specifics in 3.159 and draw a reasonable judge.
There is that caveat in each provision from your C&P file:  "We are withholding all information which if disclosed: would fall under the deliberative process privilege under FOIA Exemption 5 [5 U.S.C. § 552 (b)(5)]."
It was not in the Record Before the Agency but items were still missing.  To give you an idea, the CD that contained the caveat above was dated 02092017 and 3,157 pages.  The RBA CD dated 11072017 has 4,529 pages with probably another 1,000 pages still missing that ROs didn't get back in the file so the most relevant pages.
In my case most of it is copies from my medical file which should still be intact if I can get a new copy of it as requested or at least the portions that are clearly missing.

You don't say what rating level you are appealing from?  TDIU is pretty automatic if you have one disability rated at 60% or more or a combined rating of 70%.  If you are like me on the remand of my 1987 TDIU claim from a combined rating of 50% it needs to be reviewed by the Director of Compensation Services which hadn't been done.
I got a combined rating in July of 2009 of 70% with the "TBI" review so back to 2009 was easy for the BVA Judge to grant TDIU and should have been for the RO at the AOJ.  It is presumptive.
If you don't meet one of the presumptive standards you are in for a long wait.  I'm trying to break the wait with a FTCA 1151 filing (was given the wrong medication per the PDR for the type of seizures I had which made me worse and the physician wouldn't change the medication.) concurrently with CUE claims to make the AOJ take a better look at the 4,529 page Record Before the Agency and a lot of errors in the Rating Decisions and some errors in a 1990 BVA decision.  Most of the Rating Decision errors are definitely CUE.  The BVA decision rests upon whether the BVA read page two of my part time employer's statement and some documents that were missing from the file that should have been in.  Some recent decisions I've read on Hadit Forums make me feel positive about all of my CUE claims.
The only issue not remanded and denied was a revision of my tinnitus due to noise trauma.  A RO discovered I hadn't been granted the liberalization and awarded from 12091989 instead of going back to the liberalization date of 03161976.  My tinnitus is dated from 1964 with the first recording in 1965 on an EENT consult at Naval Hospital in Great Lakes, IL.  I didn't understand nor did my attorney pick up the "liberalization" clause.  I would also be able to use a CUE to apply the "liberalization clause" to a year earlier of my TBI.  It goes from the date of the condition or the date of liberalization which ever is earlier.  I didn't get the year allowed in the TBI change.
I think the Judge denied the revision of the date of tinnitus to give me something to do a Notice of Appeal on in order to get the Record Before the Agency and get the missing items that I pointed out in my hearing.  The more I deal with this the better I like the BVA Judge that I drew.

My case sat on a DRO's desk in Pittsburg VARO from 05032011 until I finally got it moved to Cheyenne, WY in 2015.  I recommend against allowing a DRO review and would suggest having your attorney withdraw your appeal from DRO review and move on to the BVA.  If your NOD is on point to the issues there is no sense wasting time at the DRO who will probably automatically reject and then you probably have to do a new NOD to get it to the BVA before you can get to the CAVC.  I think at the BVA level the Judges don't want to be overruled by the CAVC so your chances of getting your claim remanded and done properly at the AOJ level is better than standing by for a DRO decision.
My case moved fairly fast at the AOJ in Cheyenne.  A new C&P was done 06152015 by unqualified PAs.  A neuropsychological assessment was done by a contractor who didn't follow the VA protocol and caught me on a good day at my best time.  But at least after that was done, my attorney got it to the BVA expedited on the Docket because of my 75th birthday. 
I caught a really good judge and have learned a lot from her 05112017 decision which I am using for CUE claims and noting at the same time failures in "Duty to Assist."  Many of the issues are in remand and I expect some CUE decisions.  Hopefully at the AOJ level without having to go back up the ladder.  
The Judge gave me a denial on one issue.  That let me file an NOA to the CAVC and get a copy of the Record Before the Agency (RBA).  I have additional documents that were not considered which bode well for my CUE claims both for revision dating and for increases in rating.
Plus I found a smoking gun for my filing under the Federal Tort Claim Act in U S District Court.  I'm very happy with the treatment I received from the BVA Judge I drew.