Jake206th

When we need access to the VBMS THEY SHOULD GIVE THE PASSWORD TO EVERY VETERAN THAT ASK FOR IT/ OR PUT ON MYHEALTHVET...AND HE  HAS THE ONLY ACCESS HIS/HER RECORDS.
TO ME THATS FAIR..I MEAN AFTER ALL THERE OUR RECORDS.
SOME  VSO;s like to have the power over the VETERAN  and like to watch us  /suffer
WHEN  DAV VSO TELLS YOU TO TAKE WHAT YOU GOT  YOU DON'T WON'T TO ROCK THE BOAT...IT'S TIME FOR THAT VETERAN GET GET AWAY  AND FIND SOME ONE WITH YEARS OF EXPERINCE...LIKE COME TO HADIT
I  AM TRYING TO FIND A VETERAN FRIENDLY VA CERTIFIED ACCREDITH CLAIMS AGENT WITH ACCESS TO THE VBMS, ONE THAT WILL LET YOU SIT BESIDE HIM AND LOOK AT YOUR OWN RECORDS...WE NORMALY CAN FIND WHAT WE NEED.
I KNOW FOR A FACT  SOME OF MY RECORDS ARE NOT IN MY C-FILE  AND I NEED THEM NOW.
I AM WISHING THEY  PUT THE VBMS AVAILABLE TO ALL VETERANS  OR PUT IT IN THERE MYHEALTHVET.
i HERD THEY ARE DOING AWAY WITH MYHEALTHVET   MID/ SPRING.

Couldn't agree with Jake206th more.  Everyone trying to navigate the VA benefits system  is going to need some assistance at least sometime. But all advice is not the same, and it is bottom line, up to the veteran to educate themselves to be able to make the best choices.  Just doing the simple task of getting more than one opinion will tell you there is more to find out in order to make the right decision. The easiest way isn't always the best way.

Well I wrote a nice statement to this effect when my claim was remand by the cavc back to bva judge.
Well the bva judge remand my case even stated I can refuse the exam.  But they need a examiner to make the determination of if I have loss of use under smc benfits.
Well the law is the rater is to make the determination.
My case was shop for 6 month for a bogus medical opinion with lhi qtc.
It got to were they start tell me I have to report for there exam.
I just withdraw.
Now I am back at the cavc wait for a VA lawyer to respond to my brief.
They got 6 more days I can't wait to see this.
But there is a lot of good info showing that we can tell the VA to make a decision on our record.
With out a need for exam if you feel you have the evidence to granted the claim.
 
But the way the VA is set up now it a 50/50 chance they even address it 

CUE you should use the "DBQ Election, Duty to Assist Waiver, &  C & P Decline Notice to VA Regional Office" in the attached VA Form 20-10208, "DOCUMENT EVIDENCE SUBMISSION"  that I posed in another forum and have attached below. 
To answer everyone's question YES you can waive the VA's duty to assist. (or there no assistance). If you use the Regulations in the form you can also refuse the C & P Exam and tell them to use the medical records in your C-file to make there decision. (assuming that you have evidence in your C-File)
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
DBQ Election, Duty to Assist Waiver, and C&P Decline Notice for 526EZ and 0995 claims signed 02/10/2022.
- I ELECT TO USE PRIVATE DBQs IN LIEU OF REPORTING FOR C&P EXAMS.
-IWANEANYPARTOFVA's "DUTY TO ASSIST" (38 USC5103A(d)) RESULTING IN C&Ps.
- I DECLINE TO REPORT FOR ANY C&P EXAMS.
- I WAIVE TELEPHONE CONFIRMATION OF THIS ELECTION.
- I request compliance with M21-1 IV.i.2.C.i.d: "If the examination facility cancels a pending examination
request based on a Veteran's election to submit a privately prepared disability benefits questionnaire (DBQ)
in lieu of reporting for a clinical appointmen4 then follow guidance as it appears in [IV.i.2.C.i.e]."
-This DBQ election is not a "refusal" to attend C&Ps nor does it trigger the denial provisions of 38 CFR 3.655
and M21-1 IV.i.2.G which are based on "failing to report." M21-1 IV.i.2.C.1.d restricts VA:s definition of
"failure to report" to an actual "No Show" for a C&P appointment. I am not a "No Show" and I am not
"refusing to attend" or "failing to report." I am merely exercising my choice under VA policy to use private
DBQs instead of C&P exams to provide the medical information for my claim.
- Federal statute requires VA to weigh private DBQs equally with C&Ps (38 USC 5101 as amended by Pub. L.
116 315, title II, 2006(d), Jan. 5, 2021, 134 Stat. 4976). This equal status is now expressed most explicitly
by the policy regarding increased rating claims: "Do not routinely request an examination if a disability
benefits questionnaire, completed by a private or VA physician, was submitted" (M21-1 IV.i.1.B.1.g).
However, this same principle applies to all types of claims.
- I submitted DBQs that are adequate for rating my claim. M21-1 V.ii.i.A.3.j allows that "A statement
from any physician can be accepted for rating purposes without further examination if it is otherwise
sufficient for rating purposes" and has a proper diagnosis. This policy derives from 38 CFR 3.326 which
makes a similar declaration. Further, my DBQs meet the definition of "competent medical evidence" (38
CFR 3.159(a) (1)). If my DBQs are insufficient in any way, then VA must contact me or my private physician
for correction (38 Use 5101). It is improper to send a private DBQ to a C&P examiner for clarification when
they did not write it in the first place. Such action could only be construed as an effort to "develop to deny"
by VA.
- Congress has declared its support for Veterans using private medical evidence to support their VA claims
because it "properly protects veterans" (38 USC 5101). Consideration should be given to the DBQs I have
submitted with my claim. They are sufficient for rating purposes, and they make C&Ps unnecessary.
-VA cannot "develop to deny" a claim. Since I have already submitted a complete package of private
evidence, any further development with C&Ps would violate VA policy: "Decision makers may not arbitrarily
or capriciously refuse to assign weight to a claimant's evidence or develop with the purpose of obtaining
evidence to justify a denial of the claim" (M21-1 V ji.3.B.1.a). This prohibition was emphasized in a law
review article published by the BV A: "additional evidence should not be procured for the sole purpose of
denying the veteran's claim" (1 Veterans L. Rev. 94 (2009)). Even CAVC has strongly affirmed this policy:
"Because it would not be permissible for VA to undertake such additional development if a purpose was to
obtain evidence against an appellant's case, VA must provide an adequate statement of reasons or bases for
its decision to pursue further development where such development reasonably could be construed as
obtaining additional evidence for that purpose" (Mariano v Principi, 17Vet. App. 312 (2003)).
-VA cannot arbitrarily minimize or deny benefits. Rather, the official pol icy is to "award benefits where
supported under the facts and law or when the evidence is in relative equipoise or balance while denying
only when we must under the facts and law that require it" (M21-1 V.ii.1.A6.b). I request application of this
policy to my claim and the private medical evidence I have submitted. According to the facts and the law, my
claim can be decided without C&Ps. I request that VA simply proceed with a decision on my claim based on
the evidence already in its possession.
(See The continuation pages attached to the form for more supporting Reg's.)
 
 
 
DBQ Election, Duty to Assist Waiver, & C & P Decline Notice to VA Regional Office.pdf

Yes, Allan.  This regulation  makes it difficult to reduce a P and T Vet:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/38/3.344  
They have to show "actual improvement under ordinary conditions of life", to reduce you.  
The regulations for a rating which is not p and t, or not over 5 years, are much less stringent for VA to reduce you.  

I hate to say it, but you are jumping the gun. You have to wait for the decision and speculation can be very stressful. Let the VA do their job and then take it from there. As to fibromyalgia: 
5025 Fibromyalgia (fibrositis, primary fibromyalgia syndrome)
 With widespread musculoskeletal pain and tender points, "with or without"
associated fatigue, sleep disturbance, stiffness, paresthesias, headache, irritable bowel symptoms, depression, anxiety, or Raynaud's-like symptoms:
That are constant, or nearly so, and refractory to therapy 40%
That are episodic, with exacerbations often precipitated by environmental or emotional stress or by overexertion, but that are present more than one-third of the time 20%
That require continuous medication for control 10%
Note: Widespread pain means pain in both the left and right sides of the body, that is both above and below the waist, and that affects both the axial skeleton (i.e., cervical spine, anterior chest, thoracic spine, or low back) and the extremities.
The highlighted portion was explained to me as these symptoms could be rated separately because a veteran may still have symptoms of multiple joint pain and due to the severity of the condition/disability a 40% rating may not show how severe the veteran symptoms are.
P. S. Anyone living with chronic pain will most likely have some sort/kind of depression.
 

It sounds like there are 2 or 3 questions here:
1.  Effective date.  Effective dates are always the later of the "facts found" or date of claim.  The "facts found" is the date the doctor says your condition began, with reference to the degree of disability.  There are, however, many exceptions on the effective date(s).  One example is if you apply within a year of exit from service, still another is if the claim was for an increase.  
    To repeat, "if" your medical records show an effective date prior to 2021, then an appeal to the BVA is in order.  If your medical records show that you dont have evidence of your disability (with respect to your degree of disabiity), then you will need additional evidence to support an earlier effective date claim.  That is, you will need another doctor to opine that your records demonstrate you have had this condition prior to 2021.  
2.  Reductions.  In addition to the regulation posted, regarding "revision of decisions", there is another protective regulation, 38 CFR 3.344 "stabilization of disability ratings".  
https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/38/3.344.  Its my humble opinion that VA likes to complicate the issue with 2 or more regulations on reductions, so to confuse Veterans, sometimes in disregarding the other regulation.  These 2 regs could be together, but are seperated.  
Generally, if the Veteran fights a proposed reduction, its hard for VA to reduce you, especially if you are P and T, or have been rated 5 years or more.  
4.  Pyramiding.  Since I dont have a lot of practice on this one, I mostly decline to answer pyramiding questions.  
 
 

As Pacman pointed out, the VA has a process they must follow to try to reduce you.  Exception:  Temporary ratings, such as a convalescent 100 percent while you are getting surgery and recovering.  
I have been on hadit a lot of years.  In general, I see 99 percent of Veterans "afraid of reductions", but only 1 percent of those happen.  Personally, I dont fear reductions in no small part because I have reviewed regulations the VA must comply with, such as those Pacman posted, and the ones I posted.  Its very hard for the VA to reduce you, if you are P and T, or have been rated over 5 years.  
You see, VA carries a presumption that they did their job right, and this is both a pain and a blessing for Veterans.  In your case, its a blessing.  You see, for VA to reduce you, they would need to demonstrate "clear error" (CUE) in reducing you.  Not a judgement call.  Clear error.  OR, VA could reduce you "if you have improved".  
So, 2 things:
1.  CUE.  VA is unlikely to admit they made a clear unmistakable error in rating you.  Cant you see that makes themselves look bad?  How many people want to have a list of their mistakes published in the newspaper for your boss and everyone else to see?? Possible but unlikely.  Remember, CUE is made to be difficult to prove..its hard for us, and equally hard for VA.  
2.  Improvement.  Did your condition get better since your were rated a year ago?  If it did, then, well, perhaps you deserve a reduction, as maybe you can go back to work and make some extra money.  I would accept a reduction, gladly, if it meant I could go back to work and earn a "substantial" income. (The term for tdiu is "substantial gainful employment", not earning 40 bucks cutting your neighbors grass while he is away.).  Unfortunately, for me, and many other Veterans, our ability to earn SGE is long gone...and VA realizes this, and grants many of us tdiu or sometimes 100 percent schedular.  
If VA tries to reduce you (absent a convelascent, or temp rating), they have to show you have "actually improved under ordinary conditions of life".  In my reading, I have found that "ordinary conditions of life" means, in part, "while working".  So, if you were tdiu, and later got a job earning 80,000 a year, well, you could be reduced, but I see that as fair.  
Even that is difficult for VA to do.  There are 100 percent Vets working FOR VA.  Her last name escapes me, but her first, was Tammy, and she was a big shot at VA, and later became a congress woman.  She was, and is, 100 percent.  She is in a wheel chair, and, I think that is because she has no feet, them having been blown off by an IED.  But, she has been able to overcome her disability and earn a living.  Remember, the VA defines it as "the average persons" loss of income.  Not the exceptional one, who can overcome loosing both legs or the late Senator John McCain, who over came being a POW, but the average person.  Why should our government de incentivize the disabled from overcoming and earning a living in spite of their disabilities?  
     Even Social Security disabilty is rather generous to people who want to try to go back to work, after being declared disabled.  If I recall, your disability wont even end with social security, until you have been working a full year.  You can "try working" and, if you are unable to do so, then social security doesnt penalize you for trying to go back to work.  But, of course, if you ARE able to go back to work, and stay working more than a years worth of income, then your social security disability could be reduced.  More here:  https://www.ssa.gov/work/
     Social security disability and va disability have quite a few similarities.  The big distinction is with VA, you have to prove your disability is SERVICE CONNECTED, while you dont have to prove how you got disabled with social security, just that you are.  
     Back to VA, tho.  My advice on reductions:
1.  Be honest with VA, dont exaggerate your symptoms, or otherwise defraud VA.  
2.  As long as you have done number 1, above, you dont need to worry much about reductions as long as you simply did not get better.  
     I sleep well at night, I dont worry about reductions.  NO, I have not quite yet made my "20 years".  But, I have read the regulations and know VA cant reduce me, unless I have returned to work, pretty much.  And I have not, and can not return to work, so I sleep well.  I would rather worry about something more likely to happen, such as a drunk crash into my bedroom and kill me.  Both could happen, but both are very unlikely.  
      VA has tried to reduce me, TWICE.  Basically, they pretty much accused me of getting a divorce and not telling them, and tried to remove my spouse benefit.  I simply wrote them a letter, in response (timely) explaining I remain married, and live with my spouse continiously since 2006, when we got married.  I also had my wife testify, in writing, that we were and are, and have been married, living together as man and wife, since 2006.  Both reductions were defeated, and VA soon sent a letter informing me so.   I have no idea where they got the idea that I had divorced, especially since my wife has Champva and uses it, and we have shared the same address since 2006.  Oh well, I wrote 2 letters (one for each time VA tried to reduce by removing my spouse benefit), and knew it would not fly.  Somebody at VA has "too much time on their hands" to do something like trying to remove my spouse from my benefits, TWICE.  

Yea I look like the VA is up to there games..
I can say what they will try to do if you withdraw the hlr.
If it was me I would withdraw it.
You have the 100 an smc s take it an run if you still can.
These contractor exams are just something else to me.
Is the condition the one you were grant 100 for or is it another condition.
Your rating is new so they could do anything.
But good luck 
 
 
 
 
 
 

38 CFR REVISIONS
38 CFR § 3.105 - Revision of decisions.
CFR prev | next § 3.105 Revision of decisions. The provisions of this section apply except where an award was based on an act of commission or omission by the payee, or with his or her knowledge (§ 3.500(b)); there is a change in law or a Department of Veterans Affairs issue, or a change in interpretation of law or a Department of Veterans Affairs issue (§ 3.114); or the evidence establishes that service connection was clearly illegal. The provisions with respect to the date of discontinuance of benefits are applicable to running awards. Where the award has been suspended, and it is determined that no additional payments are in order, the award will be discontinued effective date of last payment.
(a)
(1) Error in final decisions. Decisions are final when the underlying claim is finally adjudicated as provided in § 3.160(d). Final decisions will be accepted by VA as correct with respect to the evidentiary record and the law that existed at the time of the decision, in the absence of clear and unmistakable error. At any time after a decision is final, the claimant may request, or VA may initiate, review of the decision to determine if there was a clear and unmistakable error in the decision. Where evidence establishes such error, the prior decision will be reversed or amended.
(i) Definition of clear and unmistakable error. A clear and unmistakable error is a very specific and rare kind of error. It is the kind of error, of fact or of law, that when called to the attention of later reviewers compels the conclusion, to which reasonable minds could not differ, that the result would have been manifestly different but for the error. If it is not absolutely clear that a different result would have ensued, the error complained of cannot be clear and unmistakable. Generally, either the correct facts, as they were known at the time, were not before VA, or the statutory and regulatory provisions extant at the time were incorrectly applied.
(ii) Effective date of reversed or revised decisions. For the purpose of authorizing benefits, the rating or other adjudicative decision which constitutes a reversal or revision of a prior decision on the grounds of clear and unmistakable error has the same effect as if the corrected decision had been made on the date of the reversed decision. Except as provided in paragraphs (d) and (e) of this section, where an award is reduced or discontinued because of administrative error or error in judgment, the provisions of § 3.500(b)(2) will apply.
(iii) Record to be reviewed. Review for clear and unmistakable error in a prior final decision of an agency of original jurisdiction must be based on the evidentiary record and the law that existed when that decision was made. The duty to assist in § 3.159 does not apply to requests for revision based on clear and unmistakable error.
(iv) Change in interpretation. Clear and unmistakable error does not include the otherwise correct application of a statute or regulation where, subsequent to the decision being challenged, there has been a change in the interpretation of the statute or regulation.
(v) Limitation on Applicability. Decisions of an agency of original jurisdiction on issues that have been decided on appeal by the Board or a court of competent jurisdiction are not subject to revision under this subsection.
(vi) Duty to assist not applicable. For examples of situations that are not clear and unmistakable error see 38 CFR 20.1403(d).
(vii) Filing Requirements -
(A) General. A request for revision of a decision based on clear and unmistakable error must be in writing, and must be signed by the requesting party or that party's authorized representative. The request must include the name of the claimant; the name of the requesting party if other than the claimant; the applicable Department of Veterans Affairs file number; and the date of the decision to which the request relates. If the applicable decision involved more than one issue, the request must identify the specific issue, or issues, to which the request pertains.
(B) Specific allegations required. The request must set forth clearly and specifically the alleged clear and unmistakable error, or errors, of fact or law in the prior decision, the legal or factual basis for such allegations, and why the result would have been manifestly different but for the alleged error. Non-specific allegations of failure to follow regulations or failure to give due process, or any other general, non-specific allegations of error, are insufficient to satisfy the requirement of the previous sentence.
(2) Error in binding decisions prior to final adjudication. Prior to the time that a claim is finally adjudicated, previous decisions which are binding will be accepted as correct by the agency of original jurisdiction, with respect to the evidentiary record and law existing at the time of the decision, unless the decision is clearly erroneous, after considering whether any favorable findings may be reversed as provided in § 3.104(c).
(b) Difference of opinion. Whenever an adjudicative agency is of the opinion that a revision or an amendment of a previous decision is warranted on the basis of the evidentiary record and law that existed at the time of the decision, a difference of opinion being involved rather than a clear and unmistakable error, the proposed revision will be recommended to Central Office. However, a decision may be revised under § 3.2600 or § 3.2601 without being recommended to Central Office.
(c) Character of discharge. A determination as to character of discharge or line of duty which would result in discontinued entitlement is subject to the provisions of paragraph (d) of this section.
(d) Severance of service connection. Subject to the limitations contained in §§ 3.114 and 3.957, service connection will be severed only where evidence establishes that it is clearly and unmistakably erroneous (the burden of proof being upon the Government). (Where service connection is severed because of a change in or interpretation of a law or Department of Veterans Affairs issue, the provisions of § 3.114 are for application.) A change in diagnosis may be accepted as a basis for severance action if the examining physician or physicians or other proper medical authority certifies that, in the light of all accumulated evidence, the diagnosis on which service connection was predicated is clearly erroneous. This certification must be accompanied by a summary of the facts, findings, and reasons supporting the conclusion. When severance of service connection is considered warranted, a rating proposing severance will be prepared setting forth all material facts and reasons. The claimant will be notified at his or her latest address of record of the contemplated action and furnished detailed reasons therefor and will be given 60 days for the presentation of additional evidence to show that service connection should be maintained. Unless otherwise provided in paragraph (i) of this section, if additional evidence is not received within that period, final rating action will be taken and the award will be reduced or discontinued, if in order, effective the last day of the month in which a 60-day period from the date of notice to the beneficiary of the final rating action expires.
(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 5112(b)(6)) (e) Reduction in evaluation - compensation. Where the reduction in evaluation of a service-connected disability or employability status is considered warranted and the lower evaluation would result in a reduction or discontinuance of compensation payments currently being made, a rating proposing the reduction or discontinuance will be prepared setting forth all material facts and reasons. The beneficiary will be notified at his or her latest address of record of the contemplated action and furnished detailed reasons therefor, and will be given 60 days for the presentation of additional evidence to show that compensation payments should be continued at their present level. Unless otherwise provided in paragraph (i) of this section, if additional evidence is not received within that period, final rating action will be taken and the award will be reduced or discontinued effective the last day of the month in which a 60-day period from the date of notice to the beneficiary of the final rating action expires.
(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 5112(b)(6)) (f) Reduction in evaluation - pension. Where a change in disability or employability warrants a reduction or discontinuance of pension payments currently being made, a rating proposing the reduction or discontinuance will be prepared setting forth all material facts and reasons. The beneficiary will be notified at his or her latest address of record of the contemplated action and furnished detailed reasons therefor, and will be given 60 days for the presentation of additional evidence to show that pension benefits should be continued at their present level. Unless otherwise provided in paragraph (i) of this section, if additional evidence is not received within that period, final rating action will be taken and the award will be reduced or discontinued effective the last day of the month in which the final rating action is approved.
(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 5112(b)(5)) (g) Reduction in evaluation - monetary allowance under 38 U.S.C. chapter 18 for certain individuals who are children of Vietnam veterans or children of veterans with covered service in Korea. Where a reduction or discontinuance of a monetary allowance currently being paid under 38 U.S.C. chapter 18 is considered warranted, VA will notify the beneficiary at his or her latest address of record of the proposed reduction, furnish detailed reasons therefor, and allow the beneficiary 60 days to present additional evidence to show that the monetary allowance should be continued at the present level. Unless otherwise provided in paragraph (i) of this section, if VA does not receive additional evidence within that period, it will take final rating action and reduce the award effective the last day of the month following 60 days from the date of notice to the beneficiary of the proposed reduction.
(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 1805, 1815, 1821, 1832, 5112(b)(6)) (h) Other reductions/discontinuances. Except as otherwise specified at § 3.103(b)(3) of this part, where a reduction or discontinuance of benefits is warranted by reason of information received concerning income, net worth, dependency, or marital or other status, a proposal for the reduction or discontinuance will be prepared setting forth all material facts and reasons. The beneficiary will be notified at his or her latest address of record of the contemplated action and furnished detailed reasons therefor, and will be given 60 days for the presentation of additional evidence to show that the benefits should be continued at their present level. Unless otherwise provided in paragraph (i) of this section, if additional evidence is not received within that period, final adverse action will be taken and the award will be reduced or discontinued effective as specified under the provisions of §§ 3.500 through 3.503 of this part.
(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 5112) (i) Predetermination hearings.
(1) In the advance written notice concerning proposed actions under paragraphs (d) through (h) of this section, the beneficiary will be informed that he or she will have an opportunity for a predetermination hearing, provided that a request for such a hearing is received by VA within 30 days from the date of the notice. If a timely request is received, VA will notify the beneficiary in writing of the time and place of the hearing at least 10 days in advance of the scheduled hearing date. The 10 day advance notice may be waived by agreement between VA and the beneficiary or representative. The hearing will be conducted by VA personnel who did not participate in the proposed adverse action and who will bear the decision-making responsibility. If a predetermination hearing is timely requested, benefit payments shall be continued at the previously established level pending a final determination concerning the proposed action.
(2) Following the predetermination procedures specified in this paragraph and paragraph (d), (e), (f), (g) or (h) of this section, whichever is applicable, final action will be taken. If a predetermination hearing was not requested or if the beneficiary failed without good cause to report for a scheduled predetermination hearing, the final action will be based solely upon the evidence of record. Examples of good cause include, but are not limited to, the illness or hospitalization of the claimant or beneficiary, death of an immediate family member, etc. If a predetermination hearing was conducted, the final action will be based on evidence and testimony adduced at the hearing as well as the other evidence of record including any additional evidence obtained following the hearing pursuant to necessary development. Whether or not a predetermination hearing was conducted, a written notice of the final action shall be issued to the beneficiary and his or her representative, setting forth the reasons therefor and the evidence upon which it is based. Where a reduction or discontinuance of benefits is found warranted following consideration of any additional evidence submitted, the effective date of such reduction or discontinuance shall be as follows:
(i) Where reduction or discontinuance was proposed under the provisions of paragraph (d) or (e) of this section, the effective date of final action shall be the last day of the month in which a 60-day period from the date of notice to the beneficiary of the final action expires.
(ii) Where reduction or discontinuance was proposed under the provisions of paragraphs (f) and (g) of this section, the effective date of final action shall be the last day of the month in which such action is approved.
(iii) Where reduction or discontinuance was proposed under the provisions of paragraph (h) of this section, the effective date of final action shall be as specified under the provisions of §§ 3.500 through 3.503 of this part.
(j) Supplemental claims and higher-level review. VA may revise an earlier decision denying benefits, if warranted, upon resolution of a supplemental claim under § 3.160(c) or higher-level review under § 3.2601.

This is not my first rodeo.
When the VA makes a decision that decision is protected even less than a years' old and especially ones that are in appeal status. I know this because I personally have been fighting the VA for well over twenty (20) years and I have been threatened by other veterans, VA employees, VSOs, and even a BVA judge that I could lose my current rating. My situation is that the VA granted me 100% P & T, but I had multiple claims on appeal and in remand status and I was told that I could lose my benefits. They all lied, or they did not know what they were talking about. After being rated 100% P & T, the BVA denied one of my appealed claims, it then went to the CAVC where they granted me a joint remand and then back to the BVA where they granted it. Now this new rating was not included in my 100% P & T rating so no big deal right. The VA low balled this rating, I filed an NOD, and the VA increased my rating but screwed up my effective date, I filed a new NOD, and the VA decreased this rating. When I filed a new NOD, this appeal went back to the BVA and they in turn called it a” Mischaracterization of Issue on appeal” and forced the VA to restore this rating percentage. So, once a decision is made the VA cannot just reduce a veterans rating or even take it away without due process. It is simply fearmonger. I posted this several years ago, pay close attention to the regulation and the rules.
Fear of Reduction Wait Read This - VA Disability Compensation Benefits Claims Research Forum - VA Disability Compensation Benefits Forums - HadIt.com Veterans
 
 

I like Pacman's answer,   That is the criteria for reduction.  
On a different point, tho, I DONT recommend "filing an. HLR" to defeat an unsatisfactory HLR.  Res Judicata suggests this wont fly.  
Instead, go to the BVA if you choose to appeal.  

Briefly,
I had the informal conference and I made the "argument" that the examiner did not put forth an opinion on whether my service connected medications caused my new maladies and that I had claimed them as secondary.  They had been denied as being claimed as direct connection.  She agreed that they were not looked at as secondary, as claimed.
At the end I did ask her if a statement from a medical journal was new evidence or could I enter it as an opinion, (argument, ^^^^^).  She said she wanted to hear it, and I gave her three seperate statements that supported my claim from two different major medical periodicals.
So, there is that and I think it helped my case,
Carl
 

This is above my pay grade, but more knowledgeable others will answer you soon.

Called the hamster wheel, since you have been rated 100% P & T with SMC-S, it is not likely that the VA would reduce your rating. Even if they did, you can file a disagreement that would have to go back to the BVA and if you disagree with their decision, you can always file your appeal to the CAVC. 

Right. It doesn't pass the smell test.

See this is my thing the VA can call a favorable exam inadequate.
An they will say every favorable exam is inadequate and shop the claim until they find the exam they want to use.
An now veterans are fight these new exams when they already had the evidence to grant the claim.
I will use my self I apply for smc benfits.
I have had over 9-10 comp exams in 2018-2019.
The Court remand my case they still try to order new exams again I refused there exams.
They would even denied the claim I had to withdraw it just to get my court remand back to the judge.
So yes I believe the rules on these comp exam are to vague and let the VA order unlimited exams.
I have a 25 year record they will not address it but choose to try to order exams to address it.
I am not about to be fighting there new exams.
Now let me state again I am a 25 year protected veteran so I can push the system a little.
Refuse there exams. I am not tell veterans to refuse comp exams.
Because they will try to reduce and play all these other games.
And will not even process your claim.
Half of the time.

So I was just thinking about all the changes to the va system.
First the comp exam system.
U can't get a copy before they use it on your claim.
The no phone contact with bva no more.
They are ordering exams for all issues now with no way to say anything. But put in a statement and hope some address it
This is my opinion other may love all this new stuff.
But to me it looks like a set up to reduce rating and not to grant many claim's.
And the veteran has no phone contact with anyone.
Now let's talk about the mail thing they put out something saying they are adding day to any notice letter.
So if they say u to late you got to appeal and hope.
It does address the 120 days to appeal to court.
So veterans now have 90 days or less. 
I don't think the va lawyer are just adding days they will say u didn't appeal in time and ask the court to dismiss.
This is all my opinion.
And I just want veterans to be aware of things
 
 

They had that new Claim Accuracy Request pilot program in 2021, which was basically an expedited HLR under the AMA. It was running until Aug 2021, so I am not sure if they still continue to offer it or not. But it was similar to the legacy error process but had a 30 day window from a decision.
https://www.benefits.va.gov/benefits/docs/claim-accuracy-request.pdf
 
 
I am not a lawyer, and nothing I have written is legal advice, it is just how things appear to me based on my limited understanding, and therefore may be incorrect.

I have used several service organizations over the years, including VFW, and DAV, and a few others I can't even remember.  I would usually contact the big organizations in Portland or Seattle, and look for a knowledgeable person at an office that I could contact easily. If the competent person left, and there weren't any other competent VSO's left there, I would shop for one at a different organization. So I have bounced around for 20 years, probably 5 times.
There used to be a few really good VSO's people at one time or another over the years, and word of mouth spreads. But then they get overloaded and burned out and leave.
I used the DAV exclusively for about 10 years. They used to have 1, or 2 different competent people I could talk to for advice, but I mostly used them as my eyes to see into the VA system and I filed all of my own claims and arguments myself. Recently I had to drop them as they were taking actions without consulting me. Plus they have gotten much more difficult to contact, and even less competent than ever. I had lots of bad advice from them, and the other poster is right in the observation that they will commonly try to discourage you from perusing a claim, or appeal.
It is hard to find someone that was both knowledgeable and competent, and that you can actually get ahold of when you need to.
And the truth in my opinion is that no service organization is going to dedicate the time to go through a Veterans medical records, and claim records with a fine toothed comb like the Veteran can. The problem is that the VA claims process is very confusing and frustrating to navigate when first starting out.
 
I am not a lawyer, and nothing I have written is legal advice, it is just how things appear to me based on my limited understanding, and therefore may be incorrect.

I have used several service organizations over the years, including VFW, and DAV, and a few others I can't even remember.  I would usually contact the big organizations in Portland or Seattle, and look for a knowledgeable person at an office that I could contact easily. If the competent person left, and there weren't any other competent VSO's left there, I would shop for one at a different organization. So I have bounced around for 20 years, probably 5 times.
There used to be a few really good VSO's people at one time or another over the years, and word of mouth spreads. But then they get overloaded and burned out and leave.
I used the DAV exclusively for about 10 years. They used to have 1, or 2 different competent people I could talk to for advice, but I mostly used them as my eyes to see into the VA system and I filed all of my own claims and arguments myself. Recently I had to drop them as they were taking actions without consulting me. Plus they have gotten much more difficult to contact, and even less competent than ever. I had lots of bad advice from them, and the other poster is right in the observation that they will commonly try to discourage you from perusing a claim, or appeal.
It is hard to find someone that was both knowledgeable and competent, and that you can actually get ahold of when you need to.
And the truth in my opinion is that no service organization is going to dedicate the time to go through a Veterans medical records, and claim records with a fine toothed comb like the Veteran can. The problem is that the VA claims process is very confusing and frustrating to navigate when first starting out.
 
I am not a lawyer, and nothing I have written is legal advice, it is just how things appear to me based on my limited understanding, and therefore may be incorrect.

My experience with DAV is that they just take what you give them and go with it.  They don't have strategy to help you win your claim.  They don't think outside the box.  They just shuffle paper.  They did not tell me to get IMO's.  This was crucial for winning my original claim.  Berta and others here can think rings around these VSO's.  The DAV is so willing to just take the crumbs on a vet's claim.  They are big on telling you not to push it if you get an award.  They try and scare vets into just settling and forget the appeals.  No nod and BVA appeals and most of the time you will lose.  I have seen a DAV VSO reduce a women vet to tears.  Just a repulsive display.  Needless to say I got up and left after seeing this gorilla shame a vet.

More pressure should be put on our so-called vet reps to catch these errors when they occur and start making the VAROs CUE themselves.

Particularly when the errors stem from inadequate VCAA letters.

I just read something here that caused me to type a reply that ended up being an angry rant - I am thinking over if I will even post it.

I had stated here many times anyhow the same thing-

Every time a vet or survivor gets lousy advise from a vet rep and doesn't complain to a higher authority in the vet org about it- that allows the rep to do it again to the next vet or survivor who walks in their door.
It is not only lousy advise, it is the fact that a well trained vet rep could catch some of these RO level errors right away.

And the recent hearings bear out how critical these errors can be- errors that reps are trained to challenge.

As you all know I made an enormous stink a few years ago when even the Director of my state vet org would not support me as to questioning my erroneous VCAA letter.


4 reps, to include their director, read the letter I got and tried to tell me it was fully legit. I even have a letter from their director on NYS letterhead trying to convince me it was correct.

It did not comply with even the basic tenets of the VCAA.

The BVA agreed with me in my decision as to the faulty VCAA letter. But I had mitigated the VCAA error's damage myself with evidence so the VCAA letter I got didn't cause a remand.

Still ,how many claimants would even know if their VCAA letter was erroneous?
It should be the first thing their rep looks at.

It is the first thing the BVA reads.

You take backlogged ROs that have a growing error rate, and then add to it incompetent vet reps, and you have vets and widows with 2 hands tied behind their back from the git go, , waiting for years for a decision that could be riddled with errors that have caused a denial.







The fact that my vet org would not support me as to getting a proper VCAA letter added years to that claim but I took actions against them.


I bet there are hundreds of exemplary vet reps out there, overworked and overwhelmed, yet working side by side with incompetent reps.

The backlog is due in great part,in my opinion, to piss poor claims representation because many if not all of these errors could be caught right away by POA reps and challenged immediately.

I find this to be a big problem that must be address.
They are even do it to cavc remand.
Ok say you started your appeal 2018.
You appeal all the way the court.
They remand it. You still have the same docket number.
Ok here is were I don't think it's legal.
Day they granted one month on the issue remand by the court.
They will make you start a new nod and appeal. An will change the docket. From 2018.
It will now be 2022.
Now you are at the end of the line waiting years for your appeal to get back to a bva judge.
Now ok this is were they really do you.
Let say once it get back to the judge he granted the issue.
They will now try to take away the 2018 date when you started the appeal.
An granted the 2022 date based on the new nod and appeal they started.
Many might not get this but if you are waiting years after a cavc remand or a bva remand.
I will bet they change your docket number.

Once a veteran is adjudicated/judged as being rated P & T, it would be very hard for the VA to turn around and try to say that the veteran’s disability(ies) has improved to the point of removing his/her P & T rating status. So, it is not likely. There are a lot of veterans fighting the VA on these issues. The BVA already granted my 1998 effective date which put my claim in a continued pursuit status and remanded back to the RO to evaluate my initial claim for excess rating, but the RO still ignored their Order, and my claim was returned back to the BVA. 
Be forewarned that everything you hear or see about the VA may not be the truth. VA’s records should speak for themselves. I know that this may rub a few the wrong way but the Appeal Metrics has been stuck on August 2019 and my remand is at least a year older than that date and I am still waiting. I am not calling anyone liars, but the truth is the truth. The Appeals Metrics is also adding days since October 2021. Look for my post, I will update it.