Dro Vs Bva.

[screamingeagleada]

Why would the VA not hire more people for the BVA instead of creating another appeals agent(DRO)? The VA makes it seem as if you will get special attention by going to the DRO instead of the BVA. The DRO is probably a stall tactic to keep the appeals backlog numbers down for the BVA. Now the BVA can say it's handling way less claims. The VA may not count DRO appeals as being appart of claims in the appeal process?

[71M10]

All 5 of my items were granted with existing evidence. I only pointed them to the specific medical findings in that evidence and reminded them what the regulation required them to do. Bronco is correct you only get one DRO review of an issue. but if you skip the DRO that is one less complete review of your issues and contentions (the VA definition of complete). I was questioning my own choice last year since it appeared that the VA wasn't working appeals and was putting almost all of the staff on claims. At that time I was thinking that a DRO would not grant because of the retro involved and the time I was waiting was only delaying me from getting to the BVA where i percieve the retro issue isn't a big deal (I may be wrong that retro isn't a big deal at the RO level, but I just envision a DRO taking hear from the boss for large retros) . I was wrong, they did grant. I suspect that a DRO review will take longer than preparing you case for BVA which requires a SOC.

six to one - half a dozen to the other!

[broncovet]

If you ARE awarded benefits at the DRO level, its far faster than going to the BVA. But if the DRO denies, then the time you spent at DRO review is wasted. Most Vets advocates do recommend the DRO review. The idea is that the DRO is an experienced Rater, and he can catch errors made by a less experienced rater. However, at least one Vets advocate I know recommends "skipping" the DRO and head right for the BVA.

When you file a NOD, the VA has to do a SOC (or award benefits) anyway. That takes time. I really do think the DRO is an unnecessary step unless you have new evidence. However, how is a Vet supposed to know if the VA has your evidence and "forgot to read it" or if they lost it, shredded it, or never bothered to get the evidence??? You see, the Veteran mostly does not see the RBA (Record Before Agency) until after the Board decision is done and you are appealing. Yes, you can order your cfile, BUT, you still dont know if the VA lost or shredded stuff that was in your C file a year or more ago, or, if they have new stuff. The only way to know for sure what the RBA contains is to go to the Board, and then appeal it. I was shocked to know that the RBA was missing hundreds of pages of stuff.

[john999]

Yes, I think the DRO is good if you have new evidence. Myself, if I am going to file an appeal I am probably going to get some new medical evidence if I can. You don't want to wait a year of 18 months just to have them rehash what you have. However, I have won on appeal to the DRO without new evidence. You never know, but I believe in taking a second bite at the apple.

John

[71M10]

Here is another related question.

Is there a tangible benefit to geting an attorney involved after the initial denial? Can you have an attorney represent you during a DRO review and does that open up the "whats in the file" issue that Bronco brought up?

I have never used one, but it looks like I have something going to the board and might be looking for one.

I understand the lawyer route will cost you about 20% of any retro, but in some cases that may not be a bad deal!