M21-1 Manual / Part V, Subpart ii, Chapter 4, Section A
Effective Dates
M21-1, Part V, Subpart ii, Chapter 4, Section A
Overview
In This Section | This section contains the following topics:
|
1. General Guidance on Assignment of Effective Dates
Introduction | This topic includes information about general principles for assigning effective dates, including
|
Change Date | January 13, 2025 |
V.ii.4.A.1.a. Gathering Evidence for Effective Date Determinations | The assignment of an effective date is an integral part of the decision-making process as it establishes the date from which entitlement to benefits begins.
|
V.ii.4.A.1.b. General Effective Date Rule | The general rule is that the effective date is assigned based on the date of receipt of claim or the date entitlement arose, whichever is later. Before applying the general rule, however, all information gathered during evidence review must be considered to determine whether a more specific effective date rule applies. Note: Date of claim and effective date are not synonymous. Although the effective date is often the date of receipt of the claim, the effective date is determined by a variety of factors and is frequently not the same date as the date on which the claim is received. References: For more information on
|
V.ii.4.A.1.c. Definition: Date Entitlement Arose | There is no regulatory definition of the phrase date entitlement arose. However, in Wright v. Gober, 10 Vet.App. 343 (1997), the phrase "date entitlement arose" was found to be similar to the phrase "facts found." This case, along with the regulatory context, strongly suggest that the date entitlement arose is the date on which the facts in the case demonstrate that the entitling criteria are first met. |
V.ii.4.A.1.d. Determining the Applicable Date of Claim for Effective Date Purposes | When determining the date of claim and its relationship to the proper effective date for assignment, consider the date of receipt of a complete claim, as well as a related ITF or incomplete claim filed within a year prior to the date of receipt of the complete claim. Notes:
|
V.ii.4.A.1.e. Determining Whether Date of Claim or Date Entitlement Arose Is Later | The determination as to whether the date of claim or date entitlement arose is later, as specified in the general rule, is dependent on the date when the entitling criteria for the benefit sought are met.
|
V.ii.4.A.1.f. Effective Date of Entitlement Versus Effective Date of Payment | Under 38 CFR 3.31, VA may not pay monetary benefits based on an initial or supplemental award of compensation, pension, or Dependency and Indemnity Compensation (DIC) for any period prior to the first day of the calendar month following the month in which the beneficiary became entitled to the benefit. Reference: For more information on effective date of payment and exceptions to payment under 38 CFR 3.31, see M21-1, Part VI, Subpart i, 1.A.2.b. |
V.ii.4.A.1.g. Effective Date Associated With Sympathetic Reading or a Within Scope Determination | The effective date of a grant of SC for any disabilities arising from the sympathetic reading of a claim, or finding a disability within the scope of a different claimed disability, is governed by the date of receipt of the expressly claimed issue which resulted in sympathetic reading and/or finding a disability within scope. Sympathetic reading and/or finding one disability within scope of another claimed disability may occur in any type of claim for compensation (initial, supplemental, etc.) or pension, and potentially in other claim situations. Examples:
|
V.ii.4.A.1.h. Impact of PL 112-154, Section 506, on FDC Effective Dates | In certain situations, retroactive effective dates were warranted under Public Law (PL) 112-154, Section 506, for certain fully developed claims (FDCs), as is discussed in
|
V.ii.4.A.1.i. Maximizing Benefits With Effective Date Determinations | In some situations, different theories of entitlement allow for assignment of different effective dates. In such cases, consider each effective date rule when assigning an effective date and assign the most advantageous effective date that applies for the facts of the case. Note: 38 CFR 3.303(d) is not intended to limit the theory under which SC may be established, especially when one theory is more favorable than another. This provision clarifies that SC for disabilities identified as presumptive may also be awarded on a direct basis, but it does not restrict the ability to award SC on a presumptive basis when both direct and presumptive SC may be supported. Example: A Veteran claims SC for coronary artery disease (CAD). The evidence supports entitlement to SC on a presumptive basis for CAD associated with herbicide exposure, and 38 CFR 3.114 can be applied to grant an effective date one year prior to the date of receipt of the claim. The criteria to grant an earlier effective date under 38 CFR 3.816 in accordance with the holding in Nehmer v. United States Veterans Administration, No. CV86-6160 TEH (N.D. Cal.), have not been met. The evidence also supports a grant of SC as secondary to the Veteran’s SC diabetes mellitus. For the secondary theory of entitlement, the effective date would be the date of receipt of the claim. As the presumptive theory allows for assignment of an earlier effective date, SC should be granted on the presumptive basis to allow for maximized benefits. References: For more information on
|
2. Impact of ITF on Effective Date
Introduction | This topic includes information describing the impact of an ITF on assignment of effective dates, including
|
Change Date | March 31, 2023 |
V.ii.4.A.2.b. Effective Date of Entitlement Following Receipt of an ITF | When an ITF is active and an applicable claim is subsequently received within one year of the date of receipt of the ITF, consider the claim received as of the date of receipt of the ITF as discussed in 38 CFR 3.155 and M21-1, Part II, Subpart iii, 2.A.1.Note: A Veteran may secure a benefit effective date as early as the day following separation from service if
|
V.ii.4.A.2.c. Examples of Selecting an Effective Date Following Receipt of an ITF | The table below contains examples of the proper assignment of effective dates following receipt of an ITF.
|
3. Effective Dates for Direct and Secondary SC
Introduction | This topic includes information clarifying the principles for assigning effective dates for claims for direct and secondary SC under 38 CFR 3.400(b)(2), including
|
Change Date | June 24, 2025 |
V.ii.4.A.3.a. Procedures for Handling Claims for Direct SC | Claims for compensation based on direct SC are governed by 38 CFR 3.400(b)(2)(i). There are two main provisions of this effective date rule.
|
V.ii.4.A.3.b. Example 1: Effective Date for Direct SC | A Veteran claims SC for a knee disability. Facts:
|
V.ii.4.A.3.c. Example 2: Effective Date for Direct SC | A Veteran claims SC for a back disability. Facts:
|
V.ii.4.A.3.d. Claims for Compensation Received Within One Year of Dishonorable Service | The provision of 38 CFR 3.400(b)(2)(i) allowing assignment of an effective date of the day following discharge is not applicable to dishonorable periods of service. Thus, when multiple periods of continuous service are present but the character of service for the last period constitutes a bar to benefits as discussed in 38 CFR 3.12, the effective date will be date of receipt of claim or date entitlement arose, whichever is later. Example 1: The Veteran had two periods of service which were continuous. The Veteran filed a claim three months after discharge. The last period of service was characterized by a dishonorable discharge, so the character of service is a bar to VA benefits. COD and conditional discharge determinations have been completed per M21-1, Part X, Subpart iv, 1.A. SC benefits are warranted based on disabilities incurred during the first period of honorable service. Analysis: Although the Veteran submitted the claim within one year of the release from active duty, the provision of 38 CFR 3.400(b)(2)(i) allowing assignment of an effective date the day following discharge is not for application because the last period of service is dishonorable. The claim was not submitted within one year of the honorable period of service; the proper effective date is the date of receipt of the claim. Example 2: The Veteran had two periods of service which were continuous. The Veteran filed a claim prior to discharge from the last period of service. The last period of service was characterized by a dishonorable discharge, so the character of service is a bar to VA benefits. COD and conditional discharge determinations have been completed per M21-1, Part X, Subpart iv, 1.A. SC benefits are warranted based on disabilities incurred during the first period of honorable service. Analysis: The Veteran is not entitled to VA compensation while receiving active service pay, per 38 CFR 3.654(b). Under 38 CFR 3.400(b)(2)(i), the effective date is the date of claim or the date entitlement arose, whichever is later. In this situation, the date entitlement arose is later than the date of claim. The effective date is the day following separation date for the period of dishonorable service, which is the date entitlement arose. |
V.ii.4.A.3.e. Effective Date for a Claim Received During a Period of Hospitalization | When, during the course of a hospitalization in a VA or approved hospital for a period in excess of 21 days, SC for the disability under treatment is granted, establish entitlement to a temporary 100-percent rating from the first day of the hospitalization, if otherwise in order. Example: The Veteran was hospitalized at a VA facility for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) on June 27, 2011. On July 14, 2011, the Veteran submitted an original claim for SC for PTSD. On July 29, 2011, the Veteran was discharged from the VA facility. Award SC with a temporary 100-percent evaluation under 38 CFR 4.29 from the date of admission to the VA facility, June 27, 2011. Reference: For more information on effective dates for hospital ratings for disabilities claimed during the course of the hospitalization, see |
V.ii.4.A.3.f. Effective Dates for Secondary SC | Although 38 CFR 3.310 directs that a secondary disability shall be considered a part of the original condition, this regulation covers entitlement to secondary SC but does not direct assignment of an effective date.
|
V.ii.4.A.3.g. Correlation Between Effective Date for Primary and Secondary SC Disabilities | The effective date assigned for a secondary SC disability cannot be earlier than the effective date assigned for the causal or primary SC disability. When an unclaimed causal condition is within the scope of a claim, as provided in M21-1, Part V, Subpart ii, 3.A.2.d, the effective date of benefits for the causal disability is guided by the date of receipt of the claim for the secondary disability.Example: A Veteran files a claim for SC for right shoulder pain as the result of a fall caused by instability of the right knee which is not SC and has not otherwise been expressly claimed. The unclaimed knee disability is within scope of the claimed shoulder disability and SC is supported for both disabilities. The effective date for both issues is the date of receipt of the claim for SC for the right shoulder condition. References: For more information on
|
4. Effective Dates for Presumptive SC
Introduction | This topic includes information clarifying the principles for assigning effective dates for claims for presumptive SC, including
|
Change Date | January 13, 2025 |
V.ii.4.A.4.a. Effective Dates for Presumptive SC | The assignment of effective dates for presumptive SC is regulated by 38 CFR 3.400(b)(2)(ii). The effective date will be the day following separation from service when all of the following criteria are met:
|
V.ii.4.A.4.b. Example 1: Assigning Effective Dates for Presumptive SC | Facts: The Veteran served on active duty from June 21, 2012 to June 22, 2016, and submitted a claim for SC for hypertension on May 12, 2017. STRs show no evidence of treatment for or diagnosis of hypertension during service. Private treatment records show that the hypertension first manifested to a compensable degree on March 19, 2017. Analysis: The claim for SC was received within one year of release from active duty, but the requirements for SC were not met during service. Thus, the effective date is the date entitlement arose, which is the date hypertension was first diagnosed, March 19, 2017. |
V.ii.4.A.4.c. Example 2: Assigning Effective Dates for Presumptive SC | Facts: The Veteran was discharged March 3, 1972. Evidence showed the Veteran had confirmed service in Vietnam. On February 22, 2017, the Veteran submitted a claim for SC for type 2 diabetes mellitus associated with herbicide exposure. Private treatment records confirmed that the Veteran was diagnosed with and treated for type 2 diabetes mellitus with an oral hypoglycemic medication since 2015. Analysis: The claim for SC was received more than one year following discharge from active service. As the entitling criteria were all met as of the date of receipt of the claim, the proper effective date is the date of receipt of the claim. 38 CFR 3.114 is not applicable because the Veteran’s diabetes was first diagnosed in 2015, and no other effective date provision is appropriate based on the facts of this scenario. |
5. Effective Dates for Claims for Increased Compensation
Introduction | This topic includes information clarifying the principles for assigning effective dates for claims for increased compensation under 38 CFR 3.400(o), including
|
| Change Date | January 13, 2025 |
V.ii.4.A.5.b. Application of 38 CFR 3.400(o)(2) | Receipt of medical reports may be used to establish effective date(s) for retroactive benefits based on facts found on an increase in disability. The effective date will be the earliest date it is factually ascertainable that the increase in disability occurred if all the following criteria are satisfied:
|
V.ii.4.A.5.c. Effective Dates for IU Under 38 CFR 3.400(o)(2) | In Norris v. West, 12 Vet.App. 413, 420 (1999), the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) held that evidence of a Veteran’s unemployability arising from an already SC disability is evidence of an increase in the severity of that disability. When considering a claim for individual unemployability (IU) based on an already SC disability(ies), review the evidence to determine whether it is factually ascertainable that the criteria for entitlement to IU were first met during the one-year period prior to the date of receipt of the claim. To determine whether an earlier effective date for IU under 38 CFR 3.400(o)(2) may be assigned, one of the two criteria for entitlement for IU under 38 CFR 4.16(a) must be demonstrated during the one year prior to date of receipt of the IU claim. When the evidence shows that one or both criteria below are satisfied in the one-year period prior to the date of receipt of the IU claim, an earlier effective date for IU under 38 CFR 3.400(o)(2) is warranted based on the date one or both criteria are satisfied. Those criteria are
|
V.ii.4.A.5.d. Example of IU Effective Date Impacted by 38 CFR 3.400(o)(2) | Facts: On June 12, 2016, a Veteran submitted a claim for an increase in the 30-percent evaluation of PTSD. The combined evaluation of the Veteran’s SC disabilities was 70 percent, with a single disability evaluated as 40-percent disabling, since 2010. Development of the claim confirmed that the evaluation of the PTSD warranted an increase to 50 percent. A rating decision dated December 5, 2016, granted the increased evaluation, and the combined evaluation of the Veteran’s SC disabilities increased to 80 percent effective June 12, 2016. The Veteran was notified of the decision on December 5, 2016. The Veteran subsequently submitted VA Form 21-8940, Veterans Application for Increased Compensation Based on Unemployability, on February 17, 2017, reporting that the Veteran had stopped working in 2012 due to SC PTSD and other disabilities. Development of the claim confirmed that entitlement to IU was warranted due to the combined effects of the Veteran’s SC disabilities. Analysis: Since the Veteran last worked in 2012, which is more than one year prior to the claim, 38 CFR 3.400(o)(2) may not be applied to grant an effective date coinciding with the cessation of employment. However, since the claim for increase, received on June 12, 2016, resulted in a combined evaluation that satisfied the schedular criteria for potential IU entitlement and the claim for IU was received within one year of the December 5, 2016, decision granting that combined evaluation, 38 CFR 3.400(o)(2) applies to the effective date. Consequently, the proper effective date for the grant of IU is June 12, 2016, the date of receipt of the claim for increased evaluation since IU was an issue eventually associated with that claim for increase and it is factually ascertainable that the increase occurred within one year of the date of receipt of the IU claim. |
V.ii.4.A.5.e. Handling Effective Dates for Complications or Residuals of an SC Disability | When the evaluation criteria in 38 CFR Part 4 or other policy or procedural guidance directs that a given disability is to be rated based on residuals or that complications for a given disability are to be rated separately, the complications or residuals are considered increased manifestations of the primary disability. Consequently, the applicable effective date rule is 38 CFR 3.400(o). Example 1: The evaluation criteria for diabetes under 38 CFR 4.119, Diagnostic Code (DC) 7913, include the presence of complications of diabetes as a determinant of the proper evaluation. Note (2) under the evaluation criteria instructs the rating activity to evaluate complications of diabetes separately if doing so would result in a greater evaluation. Because of the language in 38 CFR 4.119, DC 7913, the diagnosed complications of diabetes establish a worsening of the disability, and the provisions of 38 CFR 3.400(o) are applicable in determining the effective date of increased compensation, whether the evaluation of diabetes is increased or the complications of diabetes are separately established as SC. Example 2: The evaluation criteria for diseases and injuries of the spine under 38 CFR 4.71a, DC 5235-5242, Note 1, directs that associated objective neurological abnormalities be evaluated separately under an appropriate DC. Based on this note, objective neurological abnormalities establish a worsening of the spinal disability, and the provisions of 38 CFR 3.400(o) are applicable in determining the effective date of increased compensation based on the presence of the neurological impairment without regard to whether the evaluation for the spinal disability is increased. Note: Although the disabilities are considered worsening of the primarily-diagnosed disability, procedural conventions within Veterans Benefits Management System - Rating (VBMS-R) require that the disabilities be coded as secondary to establish the connection between the primary disability and the associated complications or residuals. However, the VBMS-R convention of identifying the disability as secondary does not impact assignment of an effective date. References: For more information on
|
V.ii.4.A.5.f. Claims for Increase Received With Requests for Reinstatement | Veterans often file a claim for an increased disability rating concurrently with their request for reinstatement of disability compensation following discharge from a period of active service. Follow the procedures at M21-1, Part X, Subpart v, 2.B.1.g for control of the claim and reinstatement of compensation. The effective date for the increased evaluation, if warranted, is regulated by 38 CFR 3.400. The effective date is the earlier of the following dates:
|
V.ii.4.A.5.g. Entitlement to A&A or Housebound Benefits for Retroactive Awards | The effective date of entitlement to special monthly compensation (SMC) or special monthly pension (SMP) is generally guided by date of receipt of claim, or date entitlement arose, except as provided in 38 CFR 3.400(o)(2).However, a special provision exists to allow an earlier effective date for entitlement to SMC or SMP when an award of compensation or pension benefits is effective for a period prior to the date of receipt of the claim. This special provision, contained in 38 CFR 3.401(a), applies to
|
6. Effective Dates Based on a Change of Law or Regulation
Introduction | This topic includes information clarifying the principles for determining effective dates when a decision is impacted by new guidance, including
|
Change Date | April 2, 2026 |
V.ii.4.A.6.a. Impact of Guidance Changes | Changes to laws, regulations, or policy or procedural guidance may impact the assignment of effective dates. The outcome of an effective date determination in such situations is dependent upon the
|
V.ii.4.A.6.b. Definition: Liberalizing Law | A liberalizing law is one which brings about a substantive change in the law creating a new and different entitlement to a benefit.Reference: For more information on the definition of liberalizing law, as identified by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, see Spencer v. Brown, 17 F.3d 368 (Fed. Cir. 1994). |
V.ii.4.A.6.c. Significance of Changes of Law | Appropriately analyzing changes of law is critical to adjudication. For the purpose of the guidance contained in this block, law means statutory changes, regulatory changes, or precedential case law. Changes of law may alter the standard of entitlement, the burden of proof, the extent of the duty to assist, substantive due process requirements, the existing understanding of medical or legal concepts, or agency procedures. For new claims received after a change of law has become effective that affects the standard of entitlement to a benefit, the main consideration for decision makers is effective date. It is important to analyze whether the newly applicable law has a liberalizing effect or potentially an adverse effect requiring the reduction or discontinuance of benefits. Note: Some changes of law may necessitate a general review of potentially-impacted past claimants and current beneficiaries who do not have claims pending. This may consist of outreach or even re-adjudication of claims. However general reviews are not routinely mandated and should never be initiated by field decision makers in the absence of a specific agency directive permitting authorized review jurisdiction. With respect to claims pending when a change of law on the standard of entitlement becomes effective, the change creates a question of choice of law (applicability) and, potentially, effective date issues. Failure to properly analyze the new law (and apply the new law as applicable) may result in an error or other need for correction of the rating decision. References: For more information on
|
V.ii.4.A.6.d. Awarding Retroactive Benefits Based on a Law Change | Under 38 CFR 3.114(a), VA may award retroactive benefits if the claimant had potential entitlement at the time the liberalizing law, VA issue, such as certain precedent opinions of VA General Counsel, or regulation became effective. This regulation applies to
|
V.ii.4.A.6.e. Origin of Liberalizing Issue | A liberalizing issue originates from
|
V.ii.4.A.6.f. Origin of VA Issue | A VA issue originates from an existing regulation or a new regulation issued by VA. |
V.ii.4.A.6.g. Statutory Eligibility Requirements for Retroactive Awards | The plain language of 38 U.S.C. 5110(g) governing the effective date for a claim granted based on a favorable change in law and its implementing regulation requires two specific findings:
References: For more information on
|
V.ii.4.A.6.h. Regulatory Eligibility Requirements for Retroactive Awards | The provisions of 38 CFR 3.114(a) for retroactive benefits apply to claimants who become eligible for initial or increased benefits pursuant to liberalizing changes in law or administrative issues. In addition to the statutory eligibility standard provided in 38 U.S.C. 5110(g), 38 CFR 3.114 provides that the claimant must meet the eligibility requirements of the liberalizing law or regulations
|
V.ii.4.A.6.i. Entitlement Factors Inapplicable for Consideration Under 38 CFR 3.114 for Pension and Parents’ DIC | For pension and Parents’ DIC, the entitlement factors of income (and net worth for pension) are not considered to be eligibility factors for the purposes of qualifying for an effective date under 38 CFR 3.114. Eligibility factors for pension include factors such as wartime service, age 65 or disability for Veterans, and relationship to the Veteran for survivors. Therefore, it is not necessary for a claimant’s income or net worth to have been within acceptable limits continuously from the effective date of a liberalizing law or regulation. VA may pay pension or Parents’ DIC for all or any portion of the applicable retroactive period for which the claimant is entitled. Partial retroactive payments during the liberalized period can be paid i
|
V.ii.4.A.6.j. Example 1: Age-65 Liberalizing Legislation in a Pension Claim | Situation: A Veteran, age 85, is granted Veterans Pension based on the date of claim of October 17, 2014. The grant is based on monthly retirement income of $1,200.00 and annual medical expenses of $4,858.00 (consisting of monthly Medicare Part B premiums of $104.90 and monthly supplemental health insurance of $300.00). The Veteran submits a claim for an earlier effective date under liberalizing legislation within one year of VA’s decision notice, showing that income and net worth have not changed from the previous year. However, medical expenses are slightly different in that the health insurance of $300.00 did not start until October 1, 2014. Additionally, the claimant submitted $600.00 in eye care expenses paid in December 2014. Result: The Veteran is eligible for consideration of an earlier pension effective date because the Veteran was age 70 on September 17, 2001, the effective date of section 207 of PL 107-103. However, when entitlement is considered from October 17, 2013, based on the reported income and the corrected medical expense information, the Veteran’s IVAP exceeds the MAPR. A retroactive benefit for the liberalized period cannot be granted because there was not a change in MAPR that allowed for a partial grant of benefits within the liberalized period. |
V.ii.4.A.6.k. Example 2: Age 65 Liberalizing Legislation in a Pension Claim | Situation: A Veteran, age 85, is granted Veterans Pension based on the date of claim of October 17, 2014. The grant is based on monthly retirement income of $1,200.00 and annual medical expenses of $4,858.00 (consisting of monthly Medicare Part B premiums of $104.90 and monthly supplemental health insurance of $300.00). The Veteran submits a claim for an earlier effective date under liberalizing legislation within one year of VA’s decision notice, showing that net worth and medical expenses have not changed for the prior year. However, income is slightly different because a one-time inheritance of $5,000.00 was received on March 15, 2014. Result: The Veteran is eligible for consideration of an earlier date because the Veteran was age 70 on September 17, 2001, the effective date of section 207 of PL 107-103. When entitlement is considered from October 17, 2013, based on the reported income and medical expense information, the Veteran’s IVAP is below the applicable MAPR. Therefore, the Veteran is entitled to an earlier pension effective date. VA grants pension from October 17, 2013, payable November 1, 2013. VA must readjudicate the award and count the inheritance of $5,000 from April 1, 2014, to April 1, 2015. Pension payments are stopped from April 1, 2014, to April 1, 2015, as the Veteran’s IVAP exceeds the MAPR. VA can re-start the award effective April 1, 2015, payable May 1, 2015, if evidence is available or submitted to show that the Veteran meets the income and net worth criteria for benefits from April 1, 2015. If not, the Veteran may reapply for benefits at a later date. Note: Because the Veteran claimed an earlier effective date for pension under liberalizing legislation, VA must readjudicate the claim based on the facts found. VA has no authority to pick and choose the award effective date. The Veteran has the choice to claim an earlier effective date under liberalizing legislation. Therefore, if a claim is submitted, VA must readjudicate the claim using all of the facts and information submitted by the Veteran. This would include counting all reported income and considering all allowable medical expenses applicable during the liberalized period. References: For more information on
|
V.ii.4.A.6.l. Awarding or Increasing Benefits Under 38 CFR 3.114 | If a liberalizing law or approval of a liberalizing VA issue, such as a change in rating or dependency criteria, establishes liberalized standards of entitlement, then award or increase benefits retroactively, as outlined in the table below. Exception: This does not apply for any period prior to December 1, 1962.
|
V.ii.4.A.6.m. Determining Which Statutory or Regulatory Version Is More Favorable | When a statute or regulation changes during the pendency of a claim to which the law is applicable, a determination must be made as to whether the new law or prior law is more favorable to the disposition of the pending claim. The new law is more favorable if
|
V.ii.4.A.6.n. Provision of Due Process for Reducing or Discontinuing Awards Under 38 CFR 3.114(b) | Under 38 CFR 3.114(b), VA must provide due process if a new law, regulation, change in the interpretation of a law, or issue requires VA to reduce or discontinue benefits that were properly authorized under instructions in effect at the time the award was processed. VA must
|
V.ii.4.A.6.o. Example of Staged Rating Impacted by 38 CFR 3.114 | Facts: A Veteran with verified in-country service in Vietnam submits an original claim for SC for type 2 diabetes mellitus on January 1, 2014, along with evidence dated January 1, 1999, showing confirmed diagnosis of diet-controlled diabetes. A VA examination conducted on February 3, 2014, shows the Veteran uses insulin. Analysis: As all of the entitling criteria for a grant of SC were met as of the date of the law change to recognize type 2 diabetes mellitus as a presumptive disability associated with herbicide exposure, per 38 CFR 3.114(a)(3), a one-year retroactive effective date is warranted for the grant of SC. Thus, SC is granted January 1, 2013. A 10-percent evaluation is warranted from January 1, 2013, since the evidence shows only diet-controlled diabetes. Effective February 3, 2014, the first time the evidence showed the requirement for insulin, a 20-percent evaluation is warranted. |
V.ii.4.A.6.p. Applicability of Revised Rating Schedule Criteria | When VA issues a regulatory amendment to the rating schedule while an initial or increased rating claim is pending, and that amendment is more favorable to the claimant than the prior regulation, VA should apply the
|
7. Effective Dates Based on Judicial Precedents or General Counsel Opinions
Introduction | This topic includes information clarifying the principles for determining effective dates when a decision is impacted by a precedential judicial decision or a decision of the Office of General Counsel, including
|
Change Date | June 27, 2022 |
V.ii.4.A.7.a. Effective Dates Based on Judicial Precedents | A precedential decision by CAVC, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, or the U.S. Supreme Court that affects a statute, regulation, or other VA rule is legally binding upon VA effective the date of the issuance of the decision. The effect of such a decision may result in different effective dates for different classes of claimants with regard to the issue decided. A court’s decision is not a liberalizing issue for purposes of application of 38 CFR 3.114. However, if CAVC’s decision results in an amendment to a regulation or statute, then the claimant or appellant may be entitled to retroactive disability or death benefits under the provision of 38 CFR 3.114(a). When regulatory revision results, the claimant may receive retroactive benefits for a period of up to one year prior to the date of receipt of the claim, but no earlier than the effective date of the amended regulation or statue. Refer to the table below to determine the impact of a judicial precedent on an effective date.
|
V.ii.4.A.7.b. Example: Effective Date Based on Judicial Precedent: Pending Claim | Facts: In Esteban v. Brown, 6 Vet.App. 259 (1994), CAVC liberally interpreted VA’s rule against pyramiding in a manner favorable to the claimant. On September 1, 1993, a Veteran submitted a claim for an increased evaluation for an SC facial injury. The claim was still pending on the date of CAVC’s decision for Esteban v. Brown. Analysis: An increased evaluation was granted based solely upon the Esteban decision for the residuals of the facial injury because the Veteran’s condition met the criteria for the increased evaluation. The effective date in this case is September 1, 1993, the date of claim since the claim was pending on the date of the precedential decision. The assignment of the effective date is not limited to the date of the CAVC decision since it did not result in a liberalizing regulation. |
V.ii.4.A.7.e. Example: Effective Date Based on Judicial Precedent: No Regulatory Change | Facts: Although CAVC’s decision in Esteban v. Brown, 6 Vet.App. 259 (1994), liberally interpreted VA’s rule against pyramiding in a manner favorable to the claimant, VA determined that no regulatory changes were required as a result of that decision. On June 10, 1994, a Veteran submitted a claim for an increased evaluation for residuals of an SC facial injury. The claim was received after the date of the Esteban decision. Analysis: Based solely on CAVC’s decision, the evaluation of the facial injury was increased effective June 10, 1994, the date of receipt of claim. The provisions of 38 CFR 3.114(a) do not apply. No retroactive award is warranted because CAVC decisions are not liberalizing issues for purposes of a retroactive effective date. |
V.ii.4.A.7.f. Effective Dates Based on General Counsel Opinions | In most instances, General Counsel opinions interpret statutes and regulations and thus generally clarify existing law rather than change law. Consequently, they usually do not represent changes in law or VA issue for the purposes of application of 38 CFR 3.114. However, on occasion a General Counsel opinion may conclude that a prior VA interpretation of the law was erroneous and announce a new interpretation for future use. Such an opinion would constitute a change in law or VA issue for purposes of application of 38 CFR 3.114. Reference: For more information on applicability of 38 CFR 3.114 associated with General Counsel opinions, see VAOPGCPREC 88-1990. |
8. Claims for Earlier Effective Dates
Introduction | This topic includes information clarifying the principles for determining effective dates when a decision is impacted by new guidance, including
|
Change Date | February 19, 2019 |
V.ii.4.A.8.b. Processing Freestanding Requests for an Earlier Effective Date | Use the table below to determine how to process a freestanding request for an earlier effective date.
|
Source: VA M21-1 Adjudication Procedures Manual, M21-1, Part V, Subpart ii, Chapter 4, Section A (U.S. government work, reproduced for reference). Browse all sections →