M21-1 Manual / Part V, Subpart iv, Chapter 1, Section E

Reviewing the Rating Decision

M21-1, Part V, Subpart iv, Chapter 1, Section E

Overview

In This Section

This section contains the following topics:

Topic	Topic Name
1	Rating Decision Review
2	Handling Dissent and Differences of Opinion in Rating Decisions
3	Correcting Deficiencies in Rating Decisions

1. Rating Decision Review

Change Date

July 22, 2024

V.iv.1.E.1.a. Review of Rating Decisions

When the rating decision is completed, it may be reviewed prior to promulgation by individuals including

a designated second signer, including the Veterans Service Center Manager or Pension Management Center Manager
a supervisor
local quality review team members, and/or
the authorization activity.

Individuals who may review promulgated and issued rating decisions include

the Compensation Service staff, to include Quality Assurance
a decision maker in connection with a legacy appeal or request for decision review under 38 CFR 3.2500, and/or
Veterans Service Center (VSC) and pension management center (PMC) management and/or quality review personnel.

References: For more information on
correction of errors found in rating decisions, see M21-1, Part V, Subpart iv, 1.E.3
processing rating decisions, see M21-1, Part VI, Subpart i, 1.A.2
quality reviews, see M21-4, Chapter 3, and
the legacy appellate process, see M21-5, Chapter 7.

2. Handling Dissent and Differences of Opinion in Rating Decisions

Introduction

This topic contains information about handling dissenting opinions on two-signature ratings, including

dissenting opinion versus difference of opinion, and
who is responsible for resolving dissenting opinions.

Change Date

July 22, 2024

V.iv.1.E.2.a. Dissenting Opinion vs. Difference of Opinion

For the purpose of this section:

a dissenting opinion scenario occurs when multiple decision makers whose signatures are required on a rating decision do not concur on some aspect of an unpromulgated decision, and
a difference of opinion scenario occurs when a decision maker is of the opinion that revision or amendment is needed (for reasons that do not qualify as clear and unmistakable error (CUE)) of a promulgated rating decision completed by another decision maker.

Reference: For more information on handling differences of opinion , see M21-1, Part X, Subpart v, 1.A.1 and 4.

V.iv.1.E.2.b. Who Is Responsible for Resolving Dissenting Opinions

A designated reviewer will resolve case of a dissenting opinion by providing the required second signature in place of one of the decision makers.Reference: For more information on second signature procedures, see M21-1, Part V, Subpart iv, 1.B.7.

3. Correcting Deficiencies in Rating Decisions

Introduction

This topic contains information about correcting deficiencies in rating decisions whether found prior to promulgation or after promulgation and issuance, including

correcting
- narrative deficiencies before or after authorization, and
- the Codesheet before or after authorization
procedure for correction of rating decisions, and
revising erroneous anatomical qualifiers.

Change Date

June 9, 2025

V.iv.1.E.3.a. Correcting Narrative Deficiencies Before or After Authorization

The rating activity must correct all Narrative section deficiencies when those are noted prior to promulgation and/or authorization. The rating activity must also correct the Narrative section of a rating decision if after the claimant has been notified of the decision it is discovered that the decision provided
inaccurate information regarding factors such as service dates or entitlements, and/or
incomplete information regarding factors such as criteria for the next higher evaluation, or a change of law applicable to the pending claim.
References: For more information on
the procedure applicable when errors must be corrected before or after issuance of a rating, see M21-1, Part V, Subpart iv, 1.E.3.c
revising erroneous anatomical qualifiers, see M21-1, Part V, Subpart iv, 1.E.3.d, and
effect of statutory or regulatory changes, or new court precedents, while a claim is pending, see M21-1, Part V, Subpart ii, 4.A.

V.iv.1.E.3.b. Correcting the Codesheet Before or After Authorization

It is critical to correct errors on the Codesheet, whether identified before or after promulgation or authorization, that

affect payment or eligibility to a benefit, or
could affect payment in the future.

Such errors include, but are not limited to

determinations on entitlement (service connection (SC), special monthly compensation (SMC), etc.)
disability evaluations
effective dates
combined evaluations
diagnostic codes (DCs)
SMC codes, and
bilateral factors.

Important: In addition to the above, as provided in M21-1, Part II, Subpart iii, 3.B.3.a, periods of active military service must be updated and verified in the system prior to rating. Such errors may not affect payment, but if the Codesheet does not reflect the correct service dates, return the rating decision for correction.

V.iv.1.E.3.c. Procedure for Correction of Rating Decisions

Use the table below when correcting a rating decision for the reasons discussed in M21-1, Part V, Subpart iv, 1.E.3.a or b.

If the rating decision has...

Then refer the rating decision to...

not been issued

the decision maker who made the decision, or
to VSC or PMC management for assignment of the rating correction.

Notes:

If the erroneous rating decision has not been promulgated, pulling the record back into the Veterans Benefits Management System - Rating (VBMS-R) anew will overwrite the former, errant decision.
If the underlying end product is improperly cleared before the non-promulgated rating decision can be corrected, follow the guidance in M21-1, Part II, Subpart ii, 2.A.2.b, to request VBMS document deletion of the erroneous rating decision.

been issued

VSC or PMC management for assignment to a decision maker to issue a new decision.

Note: VSC or PMC management may assign rating corrections to another decision maker if the decision’s original author is not available.Important:

When a correction of an entitlement outcome is required for an issued decision that is binding, there must be
- CUE under the provisions of 38 CFR 3.105(a) and M21-1, Part X, Subpart ii, 5.A, or
- approval of difference of opinion under 38 CFR 3.105(b) and M21-1, Part X, Subpart v, 1.A.1 and 4.
Due process procedures under 38 CFR 3.103 may apply where correction of an error in a rating decision would constitute an adverse action.

References: For more information on

obtaining rating decision signatures via Draft Rating Approval (DRA) functionality, see
- M21-1, Part V, Subpart iv, 1.B.7, and
- the DRA Job Aid
updating the master record and DC in VBMS-R, see the VBMS Rating User Guide
impact of a change in DC, see M21-1, Part V, Subpart ii, 3.D.1.d
adverse action resulting from a CUE, see M21-1, Part X, Subpart ii, 5, and
correcting erroneous payment of benefits to a beneficiary, see M21-1, Part VI, Subpart i, 2.B.

V.iv.1.E.3.d. Revising Erroneous Anatomical Qualifiers

Revise an erroneous qualifying description of one part of the body for another that has been previously compensated. This situation is usually the result of an unwarranted substitution of left for right, or right for left.Exception: If an original award of SC contains an erroneous qualifying description of one part of the body for another, revise the rating decision under the CUE provisions of 38 CFR 3.105(a) and M21-1, Part X, Subpart ii, 5.A. Example: An original award of SC of gunshot wound to the left thigh, when the records clearly showed the wound was to the right thigh, is a CUE subject to correction under 38 CFR 3.105(a). Notes:
A notice of proposed adverse action is not required simply due to a change in anatomical site, unless it results in a reduction in compensation.
This change will not violate the protection of SC under 38 CFR 3.957, or protection of a service-connected evaluation under 38 CFR 3.951.
A CUE decision, under 38 CFR 3.105(a), is for application when previous determinations are binding.
Reference: For more information on revisions to anatomical qualifiers, see
Read v. Shinseki, 651 F. 3d 1296 (2011), and
Gifford v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 269 (1994).

Source: VA M21-1 Adjudication Procedures Manual, M21-1, Part V, Subpart iv, Chapter 1, Section E (U.S. government work, reproduced for reference). Browse all sections →