###  Section C. Decision Review Officer (DRO) Review Process

#### Overview

+------------+---------------------------------------------------------+
| ##         | > This section contains the following topics:           |
| ### In thi |                                                         |
| s Section  |                                                         |
| {#in-this- |                                                         |
| section .u |                                                         |
| nnumbered} |                                                         |
+------------+---------------------------------------------------------+

  ------------ ---------------------------------------------- ------------
  Topic        Topic Name                                     See Page

  10           Overview of the DRO Review Process             5-C-2

  11           DRO Duties and Responsibilities                5-C-3

  12           DRO Jurisdiction and Authority                 5-C-7

  13           *De Novo* Review                               5-C-11

  14           Informal Conferences                           5-C-15

  15           Making the Decision                            5-C-18

  16           Exhibit 1: Informal Conference Report          5-C-22

  17           Exhibit 2: Appeal Response Form                5-C-23
  ------------ ---------------------------------------------- ------------

#### 10. Overview of the DRO Review Process {#overview-of-the-dro-review-process .unnumbered}

+------------+---------------------------------------------------------+
| #####      | > This topic contains an overview of the DRO review     |
| Introducti | > process.                                              |
| on {#intro |                                                         |
| duction .u |                                                         |
| nnumbered} |                                                         |
+------------+---------------------------------------------------------+

+------------+---------------------------------------------------------+
| ##### C    | > December 9, 2004                                      |
| hange Date |                                                         |
+------------+---------------------------------------------------------+

+------------+---------------------------------------------------------+
| ####       | > The table below describes the stages of the Decision  |
| # a. DRO R | > Review Officer (DRO) review process.                  |
| eview Proc |                                                         |
| ess {#a.-d |                                                         |
| ro-review- |                                                         |
| process .u |                                                         |
| nnumbered} |                                                         |
+------------+---------------------------------------------------------+

+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| Stage | Description                                                  |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| 1     | The appellant elects the DRO review process.                 |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| 2     | The DRO conducts a *de novo* review of the prior decision.   |
|       |                                                              |
|       | ***Reference:*** For more information on *de novo* review,   |
|       | see M21-1MR, Part I, 5.C.13.                                 |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| 3     | Based on a review of the evidence of record, is there enough |
|       | evidence to make a new decision?                             |
|       |                                                              |
|       | -   If yes, the DRO makes a new decision.                    |
|       |                                                              |
|       | -   If no, the DRO                                           |
|       |                                                              |
|       | ```{=html}                                                   |
|       | <!-- -->                                                     |
|       | ```                                                          |
|       | -   pursues additional evidence considered necessary to      |
|       |     resolve the claim, and/or                                |
|       |                                                              |
|       | -   conducts an informal conference to obtain additional     |
|       |     evidence from the appellant and his/her representative.  |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| 4     | Based on evidence gathered, the DRO                          |
|       |                                                              |
|       | -   upholds or overturns the original decision               |
|       |                                                              |
|       | -   works with the appellant and his/her representative to   |
|       |                                                              |
|       | ```{=html}                                                   |
|       | <!-- -->                                                     |
|       | ```                                                          |
|       | -   focus the issue, and                                     |
|       |                                                              |
|       | -   fully explain the decision in an effort to resolve the   |
|       |     appellant's disagreement, and                            |
|       |                                                              |
|       | ```{=html}                                                   |
|       | <!-- -->                                                     |
|       | ```                                                          |
|       | -   begins to prepare the appeal for BVA review by sending   |
|       |     an SOC, unless there is a full grant of benefits.        |
|       |                                                              |
|       |     ***Reference***: For more information on sending an SOC, |
|       |     see M21-1MR, Part I, 5.D.                                |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+

#### 11. DRO Duties and Responsibilities {#dro-duties-and-responsibilities .unnumbered}

+------------+---------------------------------------------------------+
| ##### In   | > The DRO performs an array of duties with the purpose  |
| troduction | > of resolving issues raised by the appellant and       |
|  {#introdu | > his/her representative. This topic contains a         |
| ction-1 .u | > definition of ***DRO*** and information on            |
| nnumbered} |                                                         |
|            | -   the DRO duties                                      |
|            |                                                         |
|            | -   the Veterans Service Center Manager (VSCM) duties   |
|            |                                                         |
|            | -   the DRO work measurement responsibilities           |
|            |                                                         |
|            | -   which work measurement codes to take, and           |
|            |                                                         |
|            | -   the acting DRO.                                     |
+------------+---------------------------------------------------------+

+------------+---------------------------------------------------------+
| ##### C    | > August 19, 2005                                       |
| hange Date |                                                         |
+------------+---------------------------------------------------------+

+------------+---------------------------------------------------------+
| ##### a    | > The ***Decision Review Officer (DRO)*** is a senior   |
| . Definiti | > technical expert who is responsible for holding       |
| on: Decisi | > post-decisional hearings and processing appeals. The  |
| on Review  | > DRO may have jurisdiction of any appeal.              |
| Officer {# |                                                         |
| a.-definit |                                                         |
| ion-decisi |                                                         |
| on-review- |                                                         |
| officer .u |                                                         |
| nnumbered} |                                                         |
+------------+---------------------------------------------------------+

+------------+---------------------------------------------------------+
| ##### b.   | > The table below lists the duties of a DRO.            |
|  DRO Dutie |                                                         |
| s {#b.-dro | > ***Notes***:                                          |
| -duties .u |                                                         |
| nnumbered} | -   The DRO is a member of the Appeals Team but is      |
|            |     under the direct supervision of the Veterans        |
|            |     Service Center Manager (VSCM) or assistant VSCM.    |
|            |     The Appeals Team Coach may assign work to the DRO.  |
|            |                                                         |
|            | -   The composition of the local appeals team may vary. |
|            |     At some ROs, the team may consist of only DROs,     |
|            |     while at others, it may include                     |
|            |                                                         |
|            | ```{=html}                                              |
|            | <!-- -->                                                |
|            | ```                                                     |
|            | -   DROs                                                |
|            |                                                         |
|            | -   RVSRs                                               |
|            |                                                         |
|            | -   VSRs, and                                           |
|            |                                                         |
|            | -   Claims Assistants.                                  |
+------------+---------------------------------------------------------+

  -------- --------------------------------------------------------------
  Duty     Description

  1        Hold informal conferences and formal hearings.

  2        Evaluate the evidence of record including the need for
           additional evidence as a result of information obtained during
           the hearing.

  3        Make a decision.

  4        Make direct contact with appellants and their representatives.
  -------- --------------------------------------------------------------

Continued on next page

11\. DRO Duties and Responsibilities, Continued

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  b\. DRO Duties (continued)

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| Duty  | Description                                                  |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| 5     | Provide feedback to each Rating Veterans Service             |
|       | Representative (RVSR) as to the cases handled and appealed   |
|       | without regard to whether the decision was                   |
|       |                                                              |
|       | -   upheld                                                   |
|       |                                                              |
|       | -   reversed, or                                             |
|       |                                                              |
|       | -   modified.                                                |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| 6     | Provide feedback to local management about                   |
|       |                                                              |
|       | -   trends                                                   |
|       |                                                              |
|       | -   general quality, and                                     |
|       |                                                              |
|       | -   areas in need of training.                               |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| 7     | Work together with station and service center management and |
|       | staff to develop consistency and accuracy in first-line      |
|       | decision making.                                             |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| 8     | Perform Master Rating Specialist duties, including           |
|       |                                                              |
|       | -   acting as a resource for other employees, and            |
|       |                                                              |
|       | -   directing management of the appellate workload.          |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| 9     | Play a central role in employee development, including       |
|       |                                                              |
|       | -   mentoring new rating specialists                         |
|       |                                                              |
|       | -   participating in the training of RVSRs                   |
|       |                                                              |
|       | -   coordinating training opportunities with BVA and local   |
|       |     medical centers, and                                     |
|       |                                                              |
|       | -   providing feedback to Compensation and Pension (C&P)     |
|       |     managers at all levels.                                  |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| 10    | -   Certify appeals prior to transfer to BVA, and            |
|       |                                                              |
|       | -   coordinate the transfer of appeals to BVA.               |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+

Continued on next page

11\. DRO Duties and Responsibilities, Continued

+------------+---------------------------------------------------------+
| ##### c. V | > The VSCM (or assistant VSCM)                          |
| SCM Duties |                                                         |
|  {#c.-vscm | -   supervises the DRO                                  |
| -duties .u |                                                         |
| nnumbered} | -   may exercise all duties and authorities of the DRO  |
|            |                                                         |
|            | -   assigns duties that are appropriate to the DRO's    |
|            |     grade level and position, as time allows, provided  |
|            |     such duties do not conflict with the DRO's status   |
|            |     as an impartial and independent decision-maker      |
|            |                                                         |
|            | -   appoints acting DROs during the temporary absence   |
|            |     or disqualification of the DRO, and                 |
|            |                                                         |
|            | -   assigns a rating or authorization panel, whose      |
|            |     members did not participate in the decision, to     |
|            |     hold a personal hearing in                          |
|            |                                                         |
|            | ```{=html}                                              |
|            | <!-- -->                                                |
|            | ```                                                     |
|            | -   cases where the traditional appellate review        |
|            |     process has been elected by the appellant, and      |
|            |                                                         |
|            | -   unusual or emergency circumstances.                 |
+------------+---------------------------------------------------------+

+------------+---------------------------------------------------------+
| ##         | > The DRO                                               |
| ### d. DRO |                                                         |
|  Work Meas | -   maintains an accurate record of the actual hours    |
| urement Re |     spent performing DRO duties at different regional   |
| sponsibili |     offices (ROs), should the need arise, and           |
| ties {#d.- |                                                         |
| dro-work-m | -   prepares a report for the VSCM or Appeals Team      |
| easurement |     coach at the RO where the service was performed.    |
| -responsib |                                                         |
| ilities .u | > ***Note***: ROs borrow or loan the corresponding      |
| nnumbered} | > amount of time. Charge the DRO's time against the     |
|            | > cost center for the rating activity.                  |
+------------+---------------------------------------------------------+

Continued on next page

11\. DRO Duties and Responsibilities, Continued

+------------+---------------------------------------------------------+
| #####      | > Use the table below to determine which work           |
|  e. Which  | > measurement codes to take.                            |
| Work Measu | >                                                       |
| rement Cod | > ***Note***: Complete EP credit continues to be        |
| es to Take | > recorded by the RO having jurisdiction of the claim.  |
|            | > Maintain these reports under RCS VB-1, Part 1, Item   |
|            | > 13-005.000.                                           |
|            | >                                                       |
|            | > ***Reference***: For more information on which EP     |
|            | > credit to take, see [M21-4, Appendix                  |
|            | >                                                       |
|            | C](http://www.warms.vba.va.gov/admin21/m21_4/appC.doc). |
+------------+---------------------------------------------------------+

+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| If the DRO or VSR ...             | Then he/she takes EP code ...     |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| prepares an SOC only              | 172\.                             |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| holds an informal conference      | 173\.                             |
| which results in the withdrawal   |                                   |
| of the appeal                     | ***Note***: Annotate the informal |
|                                   | conference report when taking the |
|                                   | EP.                               |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| -   conducts a *de novo* review   | 174\.                             |
|     and issues a decision         |                                   |
|                                   |                                   |
| -   prepares a clear and          |                                   |
|     unmistakable error (CUE)      |                                   |
|     decision, and/or              |                                   |
|                                   |                                   |
| -   holds a traditional hearing   |                                   |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+

+------------+---------------------------------------------------------+
| ##### f.   | > When the DRO is temporarily absent or disqualified    |
|  Acting DR | > because he/she participated in the decision under     |
| O {#f.-act | > review, the VSCM of the RO where the hearing is       |
| ing-dro .u | > scheduled appoints an acting DRO.                     |
| nnumbered} |                                                         |
|            | > The acting DRO                                        |
|            |                                                         |
|            | -   shall have considerable understanding of the issue  |
|            |     that is the subject of the hearing                  |
|            |                                                         |
|            | -   shall not be less than a GS-12, except in           |
|            |     extraordinary circumstances, and                    |
|            |                                                         |
|            | -   cannot have participated in the decision being      |
|            |     reviewed.                                           |
+------------+---------------------------------------------------------+

#### 12. DRO Jurisdiction and Authority {#dro-jurisdiction-and-authority .unnumbered}

+------------+---------------------------------------------------------+
| ##### In   | > The DRO has jurisdiction over several appellant       |
| troduction | > issues. This topic contains information on            |
|  {#introdu |                                                         |
| ction-2 .u | -   the DRO's jurisdiction over                         |
| nnumbered} |                                                         |
|            | ```{=html}                                              |
|            | <!-- -->                                                |
|            | ```                                                     |
|            | -   appellant issues, and                               |
|            |                                                         |
|            | -   subordinate issues                                  |
|            |                                                         |
|            | ```{=html}                                              |
|            | <!-- -->                                                |
|            | ```                                                     |
|            | -   issues not under the jurisdiction of the DRO        |
|            |                                                         |
|            | -   the jurisdiction of the visiting DRO                |
|            |                                                         |
|            | -   the DRO's decisional authority                      |
|            |                                                         |
|            | -   the DRO's lack of authority in subsequent hearing   |
|            |     requests                                            |
|            |                                                         |
|            | -   how the DRO is bound by a BVA decision, and         |
|            |                                                         |
|            | -   how DRO bargaining is prohibited.                   |
+------------+---------------------------------------------------------+

+------------+---------------------------------------------------------+
| ##### C    | > June 19, 2006                                         |
| hange Date |                                                         |
+------------+---------------------------------------------------------+

+------------+---------------------------------------------------------+
| ####       | > Once the DRO assumes jurisdiction of a case, he/she   |
| # a. DRO J | > works in partnership with the appellant and           |
| urisdictio | > representative to resolve all issues covered by the   |
| n over App | > NOD in accordance with the laws and facts in that     |
| ellant Iss | > particular case. The appeal remains with the DRO      |
| ues {#a.-d | > until it is forwarded to BVA.                         |
| ro-jurisdi |                                                         |
| ction-over | > The DRO has jurisdiction over a rating issue that the |
| -appellant | > appellant raises during the hearing provided the      |
| -issues .u | > issue was part of the rating decision being appealed  |
| nnumbered} | > that is the subject of the formal hearing or informal |
|            | > conference.                                           |
|            |                                                         |
|            | > ***Notes***: The DRO has                              |
|            |                                                         |
|            | -   *de novo* review jurisdiction only over appeals for |
|            |     benefits governed by                                |
|            |                                                         |
|            | ```{=html}                                              |
|            | <!-- -->                                                |
|            | ```                                                     |
|            | -   [38 CFR 3,](http://www.warms.vba.va.gov/bookb.html) |
|            |     and                                                 |
|            |                                                         |
|            | -   [38 CFR 4](http://www.warms.vba.va.gov/bookc.html)  |
|            |                                                         |
|            | ```{=html}                                              |
|            | <!-- -->                                                |
|            | ```                                                     |
|            | -   [limited jurisdiction over a rating issue raised    |
|            |     during an informal conference or formal hearing,    |
|            |     provided the issue was part of the rating decision  |
|            |     that is the subject of the hearing,                 |
|            |     and](http://www.warms.vba.va.gov/bookc.html)        |
|            |                                                         |
|            | -   no jurisdiction over an appeal on a rating decision |
|            |     made by the DRO him/herself.                        |
+------------+---------------------------------------------------------+

Continued on next page

12\. DRO Jurisdiction and Authority, Continued

+------------+---------------------------------------------------------+
| ##### b.   | > When an issue is favorably decided, the DRO assumes   |
|  DRO Juris | > jurisdiction over any subordinate issues, including   |
| diction Ov |                                                         |
| er Subordi | -   evaluation and effective date, and                  |
| nate Issue |                                                         |
| s {#b.-dro | -   any inferred or ancillary issues that are           |
| -jurisdict |     encompassed by that favorable decision.             |
| ion-over-s |                                                         |
| ubordinate |     > ***Reference***: For more information on inferred |
| -issues .u |     > or ancillary issues, see                          |
| nnumbered} |                                                         |
|            | -   M21-1MR, Part III, Subpart iv, 6.B.3, and           |
|            |                                                         |
|            | -   M21-1MR, Part IX, Subpart i.                        |
+------------+---------------------------------------------------------+

+------------+---------------------------------------------------------+
| #####      | > The DRO does *not* have jurisdiction over             |
| c. Issues  |                                                         |
| Not Under  | -   Committee on Waivers and Compromises (COWC) issues  |
| the Jurisd |                                                         |
| iction of  | -   loan guaranty                                       |
| the DRO {# |                                                         |
| c.-issues- | -   insurance, and                                      |
| not-under- |                                                         |
| the-jurisd | -   hearing requests concerning a denial of benefits    |
| iction-of- |     from a medical determination rendered by a          |
| the-dro .u |     Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) medical         |
| nnumbered} |     activity for                                        |
|            |                                                         |
|            | ```{=html}                                              |
|            | <!-- -->                                                |
|            | ```                                                     |
|            | -   clothing allowance                                  |
|            |                                                         |
|            | -   automobile and adaptive equipment, and              |
|            |                                                         |
|            | -   specially adapted housing.                          |
+------------+---------------------------------------------------------+

+------------+---------------------------------------------------------+
| ###        | > If the DRO at the host office participated in the     |
| ## d. Juri | > decision being reviewed, a visiting DRO may be        |
| sdiction o | > requested to hold hearings or conduct *de novo*       |
| f the Visi | > review. The visiting DRO will render a decision in    |
| ting DRO   | > such claims, but not maintain jurisdiction of the     |
| {#d.-juris | > appeal.                                               |
| diction-of |                                                         |
| -the-visit | > However, the VSCM at each RO has the authority to     |
| ing-dro .u | > grant the issue on appeal based on a *de novo* review |
| nnumbered} | > or CUE without referral to the visiting DRO. The VSCM |
|            | > is not permitted to delegate this authority to anyone |
|            | > else.                                                 |
|            |                                                         |
|            | > ***Note***: Submit a written request to C&P Service   |
|            | > when a specific delegation of this authority is       |
|            | > necessary.                                            |
+------------+---------------------------------------------------------+

Continued on next page

12\. DRO Jurisdiction and Authority, Continued

+------------+---------------------------------------------------------+
| #####      | > The DRO may                                           |
| e. DRO Dec |                                                         |
| isional Au | -   amend, reverse, or modify a decision based on *de   |
| thority {# |     novo* review                                        |
| e.-dro-dec |                                                         |
| isional-au | -   amend, reverse, or modify a decision based upon new |
| thority .u |     evidence, or                                        |
| nnumbered} |                                                         |
|            | -   exercise single signature CUE authority.            |
|            |                                                         |
|            | > ***Exceptions***:                                     |
|            |                                                         |
|            | -   Unless a CUE exists, the DRO cannot revise the      |
|            |     decision in a manner that is less advantageous to   |
|            |     the appellant than the decision under review.       |
|            |                                                         |
|            | -   A decision in which CUE is cited requires the       |
|            |     signature of the VSCM if the decision would         |
|            |                                                         |
|            | ```{=html}                                              |
|            | <!-- -->                                                |
|            | ```                                                     |
|            | -   reduce a service-connected evaluation(s), or        |
|            |                                                         |
|            | -   sever service connection for a disability(ies).     |
|            |                                                         |
|            |     > ***Note***: The VSCM's signature is required on   |
|            |     > the rating even if the reduction or severance     |
|            |     > based on a CUE would not cause a reduction or     |
|            |     > termination of total benefits paid.               |
|            |                                                         |
|            |     > ***Reference***: For more information on DRO      |
|            |     > decisional authority, see [38 CFR                 |
|            |     > 3.2600](http://ww                                 |
|            | w.warms.vba.va.gov/regs/38CFR/BOOKB/PART3/S3_2600.DOC). |
+------------+---------------------------------------------------------+

+------------+---------------------------------------------------------+
| ##### f. N | > The DRO has *no* authority to participate in a formal |
| o DRO Auth | > hearing if he/she participated in the decision under  |
| ority in S | > appeal.                                               |
| ubsequent  |                                                         |
| Hearing Re | > ***Example***: If the DRO makes a new decision based  |
| quest {#f. | > on *de novo* review and the appellant subsequently    |
| -no-dro-au | > requests a formal hearing, the DRO does not have      |
| thority-in | > authority to conduct the formal hearing.              |
| -subsequen |                                                         |
| t-hearing- | > ***Reference***: For more information on the DRO not  |
| request .u | > having authority in subsequent hearing requests, see  |
| nnumbered} | > [38 CFR                                               |
|            | > 3.103(c)(1).](http://                                 |
|            | www.warms.vba.va.gov/regs/38CFR/BOOKB/PART3/S3_103.DOC) |
+------------+---------------------------------------------------------+

+------------+---------------------------------------------------------+
| ##### g.   | > In the absence of new and material evidence, the DRO  |
|  DRO Bound | > is bound to follow a decision of BVA in an individual |
|  by BVA De | > claim and *cannot* recommend a change based on *de    |
| cision {#g | > novo* review authority.                               |
| .-dro-boun |                                                         |
| d-by-bva-d |                                                         |
| ecision .u |                                                         |
| nnumbered} |                                                         |
+------------+---------------------------------------------------------+

Continued on next page

12\. DRO Jurisdiction and Authority, Continued

+------------+---------------------------------------------------------+
| ##### h.   | > A DRO cannot make a bargain with an appellant or      |
|  DRO Barga | > his/her representative by requesting or requiring     |
| ining Proh | > him/her to withdraw a claim or take any action in     |
| ibited {#h | > exchange for the granting of any benefit.             |
| .-dro-barg |                                                         |
| aining-pro | > ***Example***: A DRO tells an appellant's             |
| hibited .u | > representative that she will grant a 50 percent       |
| nnumbered} | > evaluation for PTSD if the appellant withdraws the    |
|            | > claim for secondary service connection for            |
|            | > hypertension.                                         |
|            |                                                         |
|            | > A DRO is *not* prohibited, however, from discussing   |
|            | > the lack of merit in any particular case or from      |
|            | > encouraging the claimant or his/her representative to |
|            | > withdraw a meritless appeal.                          |
+------------+---------------------------------------------------------+

#### 13. *De Novo* Review

+------------+---------------------------------------------------------+
| ##### In   | > This topic contains a definition of ***de novo*       |
| troduction | > review** and information on                           |
|  {#introdu |                                                         |
| ction-3 .u | -   who may receive a *de novo* review                  |
| nnumbered} |                                                         |
|            | -   who conducts a *de novo* review                     |
|            |                                                         |
|            | -   what may be reviewed                                |
|            |                                                         |
|            | -   *de novo* review of contested claims, and           |
|            |                                                         |
|            | -   responding to a CUE.                                |
+------------+---------------------------------------------------------+

+------------+---------------------------------------------------------+
| ##### C    | > June 19, 2006                                         |
| hange Date |                                                         |
+------------+---------------------------------------------------------+

+------------+---------------------------------------------------------+
| #          | > A ***de novo* review** is a new and complete review   |
| #### a. De | > of the appealed issue with no deference given to the  |
| finition:  | > decision being appealed. This review leads to a new   |
| *De Novo*  | > decision, which may be a full grant, partial grant,   |
| Review {#a | > CUE, or no change.                                    |
| .-definiti |                                                         |
| on-de-novo | > ***Reference***: For more information on *de novo*    |
| -review .u | > review, see [38 CFR                                   |
| nnumbered} | > 3.2600.](http://w                                     |
|            | ww.warms.vba.va.gov/regs/38CFR/BOOKB/PART3/S3_2600.DOC) |
+------------+---------------------------------------------------------+

+------------+---------------------------------------------------------+
| ####       | > An appellant has a right to *de novo* review of       |
| # b. Who M | > his/her claim if he/she                               |
| ay Receive |                                                         |
|  a *De Nov | -   files a timely notice of disagreement (NOD) with    |
| o* Review  |     the decision of an agency of original jurisdiction  |
| {#b.-who-m |     on a benefit claim, and                             |
| ay-receive |                                                         |
| -a-de-novo | -   requests the DRO review process/*de novo* review no |
| -review .u |     later than 60 days after the date of the notice     |
| nnumbered} |     sent informing the appellant of his/her right to    |
|            |     *de novo* review.                                   |
|            |                                                         |
|            |     > ***Notes***:                                      |
|            |                                                         |
|            | -   The 60-day time limit *cannot* be extended.         |
|            |                                                         |
|            | -   An appellant *cannot* have more than one *de novo*  |
|            |     review of his/her claim.                            |
+------------+---------------------------------------------------------+

Continued on next page

13\. De Novo Review, Continued

+------------+---------------------------------------------------------+
| ##### c.   | > At VA discretion, the *de novo* review is conducted   |
|  Who Condu | > by the                                                |
| cts a *De  |                                                         |
| Novo* Revi | -   VSCM, or                                            |
| ew {#c.-wh |                                                         |
| o-conducts | -   DRO.                                                |
| -a-de-novo |                                                         |
| -review .u |     > The DRO has *de novo* review authority over       |
| nnumbered} |     > post-decisional claims.                           |
|            |                                                         |
|            |     > Only an individual who did *not* participate in   |
|            |     > the original decision being appealed conducts     |
|            |     > this review.                                      |
|            |                                                         |
|            |     > ***References***: For more information on         |
|            |                                                         |
|            | -   who conducts a *de novo* review, see [38 CFR        |
|            |     3.2600](http://w                                    |
|            | ww.warms.vba.va.gov/regs/38CFR/BOOKB/PART3/S3_2600.DOC) |
|            |                                                         |
|            | -   DRO jurisdiction, see M21-1MR, Part I, 5.C.12       |
|            |                                                         |
|            | -   acting DROs, see M21-1MR, Part I, 5.C.11.f, and     |
|            |                                                         |
|            | -   visiting DROs, see M21-1MR, Part I, 5.C.12.d        |
+------------+---------------------------------------------------------+

+------------+---------------------------------------------------------+
| ##### d.   | > Review only those decisions that have not become      |
|  What May  | > final by                                              |
| Be Reviewe |                                                         |
| d {#d.-wha | -   appellate decision, or                              |
| t-may-be-r |                                                         |
| eviewed .u | -   failure to timely appeal.                           |
| nnumbered} |                                                         |
|            | > The review will encompass only the decision with      |
|            | > which the appellant has expressed disagreement in the |
|            | > NOD.                                                  |
+------------+---------------------------------------------------------+

Continued on next page

13\. De Novo Review, Continued

+------------+---------------------------------------------------------+
| #####      | > The DRO or VSCM designee conducts one hearing or *de  |
|  e. *De No | > novo* review for each of the different appellants in  |
| vo* Review | > contested claims.                                     |
|  of Contes | >                                                       |
| ted Claims | > In some cases, the appellant requests a hearing or    |
|            | > *de novo* review but does not live in the same        |
|            | > jurisdiction as the office having custody of the      |
|            | > claims folder.                                        |
|            | >                                                       |
|            | > The table below describes the process for reviewing   |
|            | > contested claims when the appellant does not live in  |
|            | > the same jurisdiction as the office having custody of |
|            | > the claims folder.                                    |
+------------+---------------------------------------------------------+

+--------+-----------------------+-------------------------------------+
| Stage  | Who Is Responsible    | Description                         |
+--------+-----------------------+-------------------------------------+
| 1      | DRO/VSCM at RO        | -   Holds a hearing                 |
|        | closest to the        |                                     |
|        | appellant's residence | -   prepares a transcript, and      |
|        |                       |                                     |
|        |                       | -   sends a transcript to the       |
|        |                       |     DRO/VSCM at the RO with         |
|        |                       |     jurisdiction over the claims    |
|        |                       |     folder.                         |
+--------+-----------------------+-------------------------------------+
| 2      | DRO/VSCM with         | -   Reviews the transcript, and     |
|        | jurisdiction over the |                                     |
|        | claims folder         | -   makes a decision.               |
+--------+-----------------------+-------------------------------------+

+------------+---------------------------------------------------------+
| ##### f.   | > Use the table below to respond to a CUE.              |
|  Respondin |                                                         |
| g to a CUE | > ***Important***: If the CUE involves a rating issue,  |
|            | > it is necessary for the DRO or RVSR to annotate the   |
|            | > rating with a certificate of error.                   |
|            |                                                         |
|            | > ***Reference***: For more information on CUE, see     |
|            | > M21-1MR, Part III, Subpart iv. 2.B.7.                 |
+------------+---------------------------------------------------------+

+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| If ...                            | Then ...                          |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| > a DRO                           | -   the DRO and VSCM (or          |
|                                   |     Assistant VSCM) sign the      |
| -   finds a CUE on a prior        |     decision, and                 |
|     decision                      |                                   |
|                                   | -   the person who prepared the   |
| -   prepares a decision that      |     original decision gets a copy |
|     proposes to                   |     of the decision.              |
|                                   |                                   |
| ```{=html}                        |                                   |
| <!-- -->                          |                                   |
| ```                               |                                   |
| -   reduce a service-connected    |                                   |
|     evaluation, or                |                                   |
|                                   |                                   |
| -   sever service connection for  |                                   |
|     a disability, and             |                                   |
|                                   |                                   |
| ```{=html}                        |                                   |
| <!-- -->                          |                                   |
| ```                               |                                   |
| -   the VSCM agrees               |                                   |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+

Continued on next page

13\. De Novo Review, Continued

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  f\. Responding to a CUE (continued)

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| If ...                            | Then ...                          |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| > a DRO                           | -   the VSCM states his/her       |
|                                   |     disagreement on the decision  |
| -   finds a CUE on a prior        |                                   |
|     decision                      | -   the DRO prepares another      |
|                                   |     decision affirming the issue  |
| -   prepares a decision that      |     in question, and              |
|     would                         |                                   |
|                                   | -   both documents are filed in   |
| ```{=html}                        |     the claims folder.            |
| <!-- -->                          |                                   |
| ```                               |                                   |
| -   reduce a service-connected    |                                   |
|     evaluation, or                |                                   |
|                                   |                                   |
| -   sever service connection for  |                                   |
|     a disability, and             |                                   |
|                                   |                                   |
| ```{=html}                        |                                   |
| <!-- -->                          |                                   |
| ```                               |                                   |
| -   the VSCM does *not* agree     |                                   |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| > a DRO                           | -   the DRO signs the decision,   |
|                                   |     and                           |
| -   finds a CUE on a prior        |                                   |
|     decision, and                 | -   the person who prepared the   |
|                                   |     original decision gets a copy |
| -   prepares a decision that      |     of the decision.              |
|     would *not*                   |                                   |
|                                   |                                   |
| ```{=html}                        |                                   |
| <!-- -->                          |                                   |
| ```                               |                                   |
| -   reduce a service-connected    |                                   |
|     evaluation, or                |                                   |
|                                   |                                   |
| -   sever service connection for  |                                   |
|     a disability                  |                                   |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| -   an RVSR                       | -   the RVSR and VSCM sign the    |
|                                   |     decision, and                 |
| ```{=html}                        |                                   |
| <!-- -->                          | -   the person who prepared the   |
| ```                               |     original decision gets a copy |
| -   believes there is a CUE, and  |     of the *revised* decision.    |
|                                   |                                   |
| -   prepares a decision, and      |                                   |
|                                   |                                   |
| ```{=html}                        |                                   |
| <!-- -->                          |                                   |
| ```                               |                                   |
| -   the VSCM agrees               |                                   |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| -   an RVSR                       | -   the VSCM states his/her       |
|                                   |     disagreement on the decision  |
| ```{=html}                        |                                   |
| <!-- -->                          | -   the RVSR prepares another     |
| ```                               |     decision affirming the issue  |
| -   believes there is a CUE, and  |     in questions, and             |
|                                   |                                   |
| -   prepares a decision, and      | -   both documents are filed in   |
|                                   |     the claims folder.            |
| ```{=html}                        |                                   |
| <!-- -->                          |                                   |
| ```                               |                                   |
| -   the VSCM disagrees            |                                   |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| > ***Note***: The final decision reducing the evaluation or severing  |
| > service connection does not require the signature and approval of   |
| > the VSCM or Assistant VSCM *unless* new evidence has been received  |
| > since the proposed decision was approved.                           |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

#### 14. Informal Conferences {#informal-conferences .unnumbered}

+------------+---------------------------------------------------------+
| ##### In   | > An informal conference is provided as part of the DRO |
| troduction | > appellate review process. This topic contains a       |
|  {#introdu | > definition of ***informal conference*** and           |
| ction-4 .u | > information on                                        |
| nnumbered} |                                                         |
|            | -   the purpose of an informal conference               |
|            |                                                         |
|            | -   when to schedule and conduct an informal conference |
|            |                                                         |
|            | -   where and how to conduct an informal conference     |
|            |                                                         |
|            | -   requesting, canceling, or rescheduling an informal  |
|            |     conference                                          |
|            |                                                         |
|            | -   who may attend an informal conference               |
|            |                                                         |
|            | -   presenting evidence during an informal conference   |
|            |                                                         |
|            | -   the Informal Conference Report, and                 |
|            |                                                         |
|            | -   handling                                            |
|            |                                                         |
|            | ```{=html}                                              |
|            | <!-- -->                                                |
|            | ```                                                     |
|            | -   additional evidence submitted during an informal    |
|            |     conference, and                                     |
|            |                                                         |
|            | -   new issues raised during an informal conference.    |
+------------+---------------------------------------------------------+

+------------+---------------------------------------------------------+
| ##### C    | > December 9, 2004                                      |
| hange Date |                                                         |
+------------+---------------------------------------------------------+

+------------+---------------------------------------------------------+
| ##### a.   | > An ***informal conference*** is a tool available to   |
| Definition | > the DRO and other Veterans Service Center (VSC)       |
| : Informal | > personnel during the DRO review process to ensure     |
|  Conferenc | > that                                                  |
| e {#a.-def |                                                         |
| inition-in | -   all parties understand the issue(s) pending review  |
| formal-con |                                                         |
| ference .u | -   the issues are focused and clarified, and           |
| nnumbered} |                                                         |
|            | -   the record is fully developed.                      |
|            |                                                         |
|            |     > An oath or affirmation is *not* used for an       |
|            |     > informal conference.                              |
|            |                                                         |
|            |     > ***Note***: While informal conferences are *not*  |
|            |     > part the traditional appellate review process,    |
|            |     > direct communication with the veteran and his/her |
|            |     > representative is not precluded in these cases    |
|            |     > and should be initiated in order to facilitate    |
|            |     > resolution or clarification about matters on      |
|            |     > appeal.                                           |
+------------+---------------------------------------------------------+

Continued on next page

14\. Informal Conferences, Continued

+------------+---------------------------------------------------------+
| ####       | > The purpose of an informal conference is to           |
| # b. Purpo |                                                         |
| se of an I | -   clarify the issues the appellant wishes to appeal   |
| nformal Co |                                                         |
| nference { | -   provide explanations, and                           |
| #b.-purpos |                                                         |
| e-of-an-in | -   identify additional sources of pertinent            |
| formal-con |     information.                                        |
| ference .u |                                                         |
| nnumbered} |                                                         |
+------------+---------------------------------------------------------+

+------------+---------------------------------------------------------+
| ##### c. W | > Informal conferences are scheduled and conducted at   |
| hen to Sch | > the discretion of the DRO.                            |
| edule and  |                                                         |
| Conduct an |                                                         |
|  Informal  |                                                         |
| Conference |                                                         |
|  {#c.-when |                                                         |
| -to-schedu |                                                         |
| le-and-con |                                                         |
| duct-an-in |                                                         |
| formal-con |                                                         |
| ference .u |                                                         |
| nnumbered} |                                                         |
+------------+---------------------------------------------------------+

+------------+---------------------------------------------------------+
| ##### d.   | > A claimant may request, cancel or reschedule an       |
| Requesting | > informal conference in writing, by e-mail, by fax, by |
| , Cancelin | > telephone, or in person. If this is done by telephone |
| g or Resch | > or in person, the DRO or employee receiving the       |
| eduling an | > request should promptly complete a *VA Form 119,      |
|  Informal  | > Report of Contact,* to document the request.          |
| Conference |                                                         |
+------------+---------------------------------------------------------+

+------------+---------------------------------------------------------+
| ###        | > Conduct an informal conference                        |
| ## e. Wher |                                                         |
| e/How to C | -   in person at the RO                                 |
| onduct an  |                                                         |
| Informal C | ```{=html}                                              |
| onference  | <!-- -->                                                |
| {#e.-where | ```                                                     |
| how-to-con | -   of jurisdiction, or                                 |
| duct-an-in |                                                         |
| formal-con | -   nearest to the appellant's residence                |
| ference .u |                                                         |
| nnumbered} | ```{=html}                                              |
|            | <!-- -->                                                |
|            | ```                                                     |
|            | -   by telephone, or                                    |
|            |                                                         |
|            | -   by videoconference.                                 |
|            |                                                         |
|            | > Informal conferences may be conducted in work areas   |
|            | > as long as all participants agree on the location.    |
+------------+---------------------------------------------------------+

Continued on next page

14\. Informal Conferences, Continued

+------------+---------------------------------------------------------+
| #####      | > The appellant and his/her representative may attend   |
| f. Who May | > an informal conference at their discretion.           |
|  Attend an | >                                                       |
|  Informal  | > ***Note***: If the appellant's representative is an   |
| Conference | > attorney, emphasize                                   |
|            |                                                         |
|            | -   the informality of the conference                   |
|            |                                                         |
|            | -   that rules of evidence do *not* apply, and          |
|            |                                                         |
|            | -   that leading questions are permissible.             |
+------------+---------------------------------------------------------+

+------------+---------------------------------------------------------+
| #####      | > During an informal conference, the appellant or       |
| g. Present | > his/her representative may                            |
| ing Eviden |                                                         |
| ce During  | -   introduce evidence into the record, and             |
| an Informa |                                                         |
| l Conferen | -   make arguments and contentions with respect to the  |
| ce {#g.-pr |     facts and applicable law.                           |
| esenting-e |                                                         |
| vidence-du |                                                         |
| ring-an-in |                                                         |
| formal-con |                                                         |
| ference .u |                                                         |
| nnumbered} |                                                         |
+------------+---------------------------------------------------------+

+------------+---------------------------------------------------------+
| ##### h. I | > Use the *Informal Conference Report* to               |
| nformal Co |                                                         |
| nference R | -   document the informal conference, and               |
| eport {#h. |                                                         |
| -informal- | -   describe                                            |
| conference |                                                         |
| -report .u | ```{=html}                                              |
| nnumbered} | <!-- -->                                                |
|            | ```                                                     |
|            | -   all the issues in detail (***Example***: The        |
|            |     veteran seeks a rating increase from 50 percent to  |
|            |     70 percent for post-traumatic stress disorder.)     |
|            |                                                         |
|            | -   specific additional evidence required               |
|            |                                                         |
|            | -   a summary of the discussion during the informal     |
|            |     conference, and                                     |
|            |                                                         |
|            | -   the course of action agreed upon by the parties.    |
|            |                                                         |
|            |     > ***Note***: The *Informal Conference Report*      |
|            |     > should be placed in the claims folder.            |
|            |                                                         |
|            |     > ***Reference***: For a sample of the *Informal    |
|            |     > Conference Report*, see M21-1MR, Part I, 5.C.16.  |
+------------+---------------------------------------------------------+

+------------+---------------------------------------------------------+
| ##### i. H | > If a new issue is raised during the informal          |
| andling Ne | > conference and a decision on that issue has not been  |
| w Issues R | > made, refer it to the appropriate activity for        |
| aised Duri | > development and a decision.                           |
| ng an Info |                                                         |
| rmal Confe |                                                         |
| rence {#i. |                                                         |
| -handling- |                                                         |
| new-issues |                                                         |
| -raised-du |                                                         |
| ring-an-in |                                                         |
| formal-con |                                                         |
| ference .u |                                                         |
| nnumbered} |                                                         |
+------------+---------------------------------------------------------+

#### 15. Making the Decision {#making-the-decision .unnumbered}

+------------+---------------------------------------------------------+
| ##### In   | > After *de novo* review and/or an informal conference, |
| troduction | > the DRO makes a decision on the claim. This topic     |
|  {#introdu | > contains information on                               |
| ction-5 .u |                                                         |
| nnumbered} | -   the decision format requirements                    |
|            |                                                         |
|            | -   the VSCM's responsibility for quality of the DRO's  |
|            |     decision                                            |
|            |                                                         |
|            | -   the decision to                                     |
|            |                                                         |
|            | ```{=html}                                              |
|            | <!-- -->                                                |
|            | ```                                                     |
|            | -   award full benefits                                 |
|            |                                                         |
|            | -   award partial benefits, and                         |
|            |                                                         |
|            | -   uphold the previous decision                        |
|            |                                                         |
|            | ```{=html}                                              |
|            | <!-- -->                                                |
|            | ```                                                     |
|            | -   implementing the decision, and                      |
|            |                                                         |
|            | -   the appellant withdrawing the NOD.                  |
+------------+---------------------------------------------------------+

+------------+---------------------------------------------------------+
| ##### C    | > August 19, 2005                                       |
| hange Date |                                                         |
+------------+---------------------------------------------------------+

+------------+---------------------------------------------------------+
| ####       | > Consider the *Informal Conference Report* when making |
| # a. Decis | > a new decision. DRO decisions, which are either a new |
| ion Format | > rating decision, SOC, or supplemental statement of    |
|  Requireme | > the case (SSOC), must identify all the issues and     |
| nts {#a.-d | > include a                                             |
| ecision-fo |                                                         |
| rmat-requi | -   summary of the evidence                             |
| rements .u |                                                         |
| nnumbered} | -   citation of pertinent laws                          |
|            |                                                         |
|            | -   discussion of how those laws affect the decision,   |
|            |     and                                                 |
|            |                                                         |
|            | -   summary of the reasons for the decision.            |
|            |                                                         |
|            |     > ***Reference***: For a sample of the *Informal    |
|            |     > Conference Report*, see M21-1MR, Part I, 5.C.16.  |
+------------+---------------------------------------------------------+

Continued on next page

15\. Making the Decision, Continued

+------------+---------------------------------------------------------+
| #          | > The VSCM is responsible for the quality of decisions  |
| #### b. VS | > in the VSC. This responsibility extends to ensuring   |
| CM Respons | > that DROs properly apply all laws, regulations, and   |
| ibility fo | > instructions to decisions rendered.                   |
| r the Qual |                                                         |
| ity of the | > In some cases, where the VSCM disagrees with the      |
|  DRO's Dec | > substantive decision of a DRO, the VSCM may           |
| ision {#b. |                                                         |
| -vscm-resp | -   request reconsideration but *not* direct a change   |
| onsibility |     in the decision, or                                 |
| -for-the-q |                                                         |
| uality-of- | -   seek an advisory opinion, administrative review, or |
| the-dros-d |     administrative appeal.                              |
| ecision .u |                                                         |
| nnumbered} | > ***Exception***: The VSCM has the authority to direct |
|            | > a change in the decision of a DRO when CUE is cited   |
|            | > and the decision would                                |
|            |                                                         |
|            | -   reduce a service-connected evaluation(s), or        |
|            |                                                         |
|            | -   sever service connection for a disability(ies).     |
|            |                                                         |
|            | > ***References***: For more information on             |
|            |                                                         |
|            | -   advisory opinions, see M21-1MR, Part III, Subpart   |
|            |     vi, 1.A.2 (TBD) or [M21-1, Part IV, 7.03 and        |
|            |     7.04](ht                                            |
|            | tp://www.warms.vba.va.gov/admin21/m21_1/part4/ch07.doc) |
|            |                                                         |
|            | -   administrative reviews, see M21-1, Part III,        |
|            |     Subpart vi, A.3 (TBD) or [M21-1, Part IV, 7.03 and  |
|            |     7.05](ht                                            |
|            | tp://www.warms.vba.va.gov/admin21/m21_1/part4/ch07.doc) |
|            |                                                         |
|            | -   administrative appeals, see M21-1MR, Part I,        |
|            |     5.J.50, and                                         |
|            |                                                         |
|            | -   responding to a CUE, see M21-1MR, Part I, 5.C.13.f. |
+------------+---------------------------------------------------------+

+------------+---------------------------------------------------------+
| ##### c. D | > If all benefits sought are awarded for the entire     |
| ecision to | > period covered by the appeal                          |
|  Award Ful |                                                         |
| l Benefits | -   consider the appeal resolved                        |
|  {#c.-deci |                                                         |
| sion-to-aw | -   advise the appellant, and                           |
| ard-full-b |                                                         |
| enefits .u | -   update Veterans Appeals Control and Locator System  |
| nnumbered} |     (VACOLS).                                           |
|            |                                                         |
|            |     > Because the DRO has jurisdiction over all aspects |
|            |     > of the issue, the reasons and bases section of    |
|            |     > the new rating decision must be comprehensive and |
|            |     > include a discussion of evaluations and effective |
|            |     > dates as necessary.                               |
|            |                                                         |
|            |     > The decision must include a statement that this   |
|            |     > is an award of all benefits sought on appeal and  |
|            |     > that the appeal is therefore considered satisfied |
|            |     > in full.                                          |
+------------+---------------------------------------------------------+

Continued on next page

15\. Making the Decision, Continued

+------------+---------------------------------------------------------+
| #####      | > The DRO may make a decision that awards the benefit   |
| d. Decisio | > in part but which *may* still require an SOC/SSOC.    |
| n to Award |                                                         |
|  Partial B | > In this case, the DRO                                 |
| enefits {# |                                                         |
| d.-decisio | -   sends the appellant the                             |
| n-to-award |                                                         |
| -partial-b | ```{=html}                                              |
| enefits .u | <!-- -->                                                |
| nnumbered} | ```                                                     |
|            | -   new rating decision                                 |
|            |                                                         |
|            | -   an SOC/SSOC, and                                    |
|            |                                                         |
|            | -   the Appeal Response form, and                       |
|            |                                                         |
|            | ```{=html}                                              |
|            | <!-- -->                                                |
|            | ```                                                     |
|            | -   makes every attempt to contact the appellant and    |
|            |     the representative directly to explain his/her      |
|            |     decision and the options available.                 |
|            |                                                         |
|            |     > ***Note***: If the appellant withdraws the        |
|            |     > appeal, for example during an informal            |
|            |     > conference, the DRO does not have to send the     |
|            |     > appellant an SOC. In cases where the conference   |
|            |     > is conducted by telephone, written confirmation   |
|            |     > of the withdrawal must be made.                   |
|            |                                                         |
|            |     > ***Example 1***: A veteran files an NOD with a    |
|            |     > decision denying increased rating for a knee      |
|            |     > condition. After a review of the record, the DRO  |
|            |     > decides to award a partial rating increase. The   |
|            |     > DRO prepares a                                    |
|            |                                                         |
|            | -   decision that will implement the rating increase,   |
|            |     and                                                 |
|            |                                                         |
|            | -   SOC.                                                |
|            |                                                         |
|            |     > ***Note***: The SOC is required unless the        |
|            |     > appellant has withdrawn the appeal.               |
|            |                                                         |
|            |     > ***Example 2***: A veteran files NODs with two    |
|            |     > decisions. The DRO decides to grant one of the    |
|            |     > claims, but deny the other. The DRO prepares a    |
|            |                                                         |
|            | -   decision that will implement the award, and         |
|            |                                                         |
|            | -   SOC for the claim that was denied.                  |
|            |                                                         |
|            |     > ***References***:                                 |
|            |                                                         |
|            | -   For a sample of the *Appeal Response* form, see     |
|            |     M21-1MR, Part I, 5.C.17, and                        |
|            |                                                         |
|            | -   For more information on sending an SOC, see         |
|            |     M21-1MR, Part I, 5.D.                               |
+------------+---------------------------------------------------------+

Continued on next page

15\. Making the Decision, Continued

+------------+---------------------------------------------------------+
| ##### e. D | > If the DRO confirms the previous decision, he/she     |
| ecision to | > sends                                                 |
|  Uphold Pr |                                                         |
| evious Dec | -   an SOC confirming the decision on appeal and        |
| ision {#e. |     explaining the reasons and bases for the VA         |
| -decision- |     decision, and                                       |
| to-uphold- |                                                         |
| previous-d | -   *VA Form 9, Appeal to Board of Veterans' Appeals,*  |
| ecision .u |     to the appellant.                                   |
| nnumbered} |                                                         |
|            |     > ***Reference***: For more information on sending  |
|            |     > an SOC, see M21-1MR, Part I, 5.D.20.              |
+------------+---------------------------------------------------------+

+------------+---------------------------------------------------------+
| ##### f.   | > The DRO routes the decision to the appropriate        |
|  Implement | > activity.                                             |
| ing the De |                                                         |
| cision {#f | > A DRO's decision is final and binding on all ROs and  |
| .-implemen | > is not subject to revision on the same factual basis, |
| ting-the-d | > except by BVA or as provided under [38 CFR            |
| ecision .u | > 3.105(a).](http://                                    |
| nnumbered} | www.warms.vba.va.gov/regs/38CFR/BOOKB/PART3/S3_105.DOC) |
+------------+---------------------------------------------------------+

+------------+---------------------------------------------------------+
| ##### g.   | > When an appellant calls the DRO to indicate           |
|  Appellant | > satisfaction with the decision and a desire to        |
|  Withdrawi | > withdraw his/her NOD, the DRO                         |
| ng NOD {#g |                                                         |
| .-appellan | -   explains VA's need to obtain written confirmation   |
| t-withdraw |     of the withdrawal, and                              |
| ing-nod .u |                                                         |
| nnumbered} | -   informs the appellant that an SOC/SSOC will be sent |
|            |     if written confirmation is not received in ten      |
|            |     business days.                                      |
|            |                                                         |
|            |     > If the DRO does not receive written confirmation  |
|            |     > within a reasonable period of time, such as ten   |
|            |     > business days, he/she issues an SOC, if he/she    |
|            |     > has not already done so.                          |
|            |                                                         |
|            |     > ***Note***: An appellant and/or his/her           |
|            |     > representative may withdraw an appeal at any      |
|            |     > time, subject to the restrictions of [38 CFR      |
|            |     > 20.204.](http://ww                                |
|            | w.warms.vba.va.gov/regs/38CFR/BOOKA/PART20/S20_204.DOC) |
|            |                                                         |
|            |     > ***Reference***: For more information on          |
|            |     > withdrawing an NOD, see M21-1MR, Part I, 5.A.2.   |
+------------+---------------------------------------------------------+

#### 16. Exhibit 1: Informal Conference Report {#exhibit-1-informal-conference-report .unnumbered}

+------------+---------------------------------------------------------+
| ##### C    | > December 9, 2004                                      |
| hange Date |                                                         |
+------------+---------------------------------------------------------+

+------------+---------------------------------------------------------+
| #####      | > An example of an *Informal Conference Report* is      |
|  a. Inform | > below.                                                |
| al Confere |                                                         |
| nce Report |                                                         |
+------------+---------------------------------------------------------+

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  ![](media/image1.jpeg){width="6.281944444444444in"
  height="4.704166666666667in"}

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

#### 17. Exhibit 2: Appeal Response Form {#exhibit-2-appeal-response-form .unnumbered}

+------------+---------------------------------------------------------+
| ##### C    | > August 19, 2005                                       |
| hange Date |                                                         |
+------------+---------------------------------------------------------+

+------------+---------------------------------------------------------+
| ##### a.   | > A sample of the *Appeal Response* form is below.      |
| Appeal Res |                                                         |
| ponse Form |                                                         |
+------------+---------------------------------------------------------+

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  ![](media/image2.jpeg){width="6.278472222222222in"
  height="4.973611111111111in"}

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------