New appeal rules: Feb.19

[broncovet]

"Disability service officials" Michael Busby posted:

Quote

As of Tuesday, 02/19/2018 any conditions or benefits that have previously been adjudicated and denied cannot be reopened, reconsidered or readjudicated on a VAF 21-526EZ and must be done on a VAF 20-0995 which is the VA's new "Decision Review Request." Any supplemental claim filed within one year of a determination must have "New and Relevant" evidence, this is like "new and Material" however, it has relaxed the standard. If the evidence used to support the claim is not deemed "New and Relevant" an admin decision will be made, a letter sent to the veteran stating that the VA received an incomplete claim, and the EP closed for that claim. If a veteran responds within 60 days of the notification with the appropriate materials, the EP code will be re-established with the original date of the VA-0995.

If a veteran wants to file a claim for a previously denied claim, as well as a claim for increase (regardless of timeframe from prior decision," a VAF 21-526EZ must be done for the increase, as well as a VAF 20-0995 for the previously denied claim. These two claims cannot accompany each other! Separate submittals will need to be done. If both claims are submitted together they will both go to one of the DROC's. They will then be separated and adjudicated individually. This will only cause delay to the process. Intent to file (VAF 21-0966) will have no bearing on supplemental claims, only in new and increased evaluations

Effective Date Protection

As long as the veteran continuously pursues a new option within one year of the last decision, they would be able to preserve their earliest effective date, if the facts so warrant. Thus, a claimant who is not fully satisfied with any decision has one year to seek further review while preserving their effective date.

Supplemental Claim Lane

VA will re-adjudicate a claim if "new and relevant" evidence is presented or identified with a supplemental claim (open record)

VA will assist in gathering new and relevant evidence (duty to assist).

Effective date for benefits protected if claim is submitted within I year of decision

Replaces "reopening" claims with "new and material" evidence
Any decision to award benefits must be based on new and relevant evidence or a clear and unmistakable error in the prior decision.

Definition of New and Relevant

New evidence means evidence not previously submitted to agency adjudicators, and relevant evidence means evidence that tends to prove or disprove a matter in issue in a claim.

Note: An initial election for supplemental claim will be presumed to have new and relevant evidence warranting a decision on the merits.
Definition of New and Relevant

New evidence means evidence not previously submitted to agency adjudicators, and relevant evidence means evidence that tends to prove or disprove a matter in issue in a claim.

Note: An initial election for supplemental claim will be presumed to have new and relevant evidence warranting a decision on the merits.

This post "appears" credible.  I will update if I find out otherwise.  It would appear to be good advice.  Its my opinion that this will answer many Vets questions, and may even correct some possible future mistakes.  I suggest following this "to the letter", at least until we hear otherwise.  

Edited February 17, 2019 by broncovet

[broncovet]

While this post is from 2019, this still applies and Im bumping it up, as it may help.  

[pacmanx1]

This post does not address the third category where a veteran can file a Direct Decision Review of a decision to the BVA. A veteran can skip the Supplemental Claim and the HLR and file his/her disagreement directly to the BVA. A veteran must file a VA form 10-10182.

https://www.va.gov/vaforms/va/pdf/VA10182.pdf

https://www.va.gov/decision-reviews/board-appeal/

 

[broncovet]

Correct, pacman.  It may not have been included because there were not many, if any changes (on Feb. 19, 2019) relative to 

the BVA.  You could appeal to the board (directly) before Ramp, and this did not change.  Mr. Busby was discussing the changes from Ramp. 

Its good to point out, tho, and I (mostly) dont use HLR or SCL, I appeal to the board.  (This was formerly called DRO.  Since with DRO  review, you could either submit new evidence or not submit it.  With RAMP, (now called AMA) you have 3 choices:  HLR, SCL, BVA.  previously it was DRO or BVA.  

The DRO was "divided" by new evidence (SCL) or "no new evidence" (HLR).