a simultaneously contested including an apportionment claim 60 days from the date the VA mailed the decision notice to the unsuccessful claimant, and in accordance with . References: For more information on contested claims, see M21-1, Part III, Subpart vi, 6, and apportionment claims, see M21-1, Part III, Subpart v, 3. all claims one year from the date VA mailed the decision notice to the claimant. Important: If VA requests clarification of an incomplete or unclear NOD and there are less than 60 days remaining in the appeal period, provide the appellant 60 days from the date of request for clarification to respond. Note: When a VA Form 21-0958 is required to initiate an appeal, submitting the incorrect form does not extend, toll or otherwise delay the time limit for filing the correct form. Reference: For more information on clarifying NODs, see M21-1, Part I, 5.B.4.b. b. Computing the NOD Time Limit When computing the NOD time limit exclude the day of the specified period include the last day of the specified period, and if the time expires on a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday, include the next workday in the computation. Important: If the postmark date on a paper NOD is prior to the expiration of the NOD time limit consider the NOD timely filed, and retain the postmarked envelope, or absent, presume the postmark date to be five business days prior to the date VA received the NOD.
establishing an NOD in VACOLS, see M21-1, Part III, Subpart ii, 3.E.1.c. 4 Did the appellant request the Decision Review Officer (DRO) review process on his/her NOD? If yes, send the appellant the DRO Process Explanation Letter. If no, go to Step 5. Note: The September 2015 version of VA Form 21-0958 includes an option for the appellant to choose either the DRO review process or the traditional appellate review process. Go to Step 6 if the option checkboxes are left blank on the September 2015 version of VA Form 21-0958 NOD is on an older version of VA Form 21-0958 and the appellant does not specify which appellate review process he/she prefers, or NOD is not on a prescribed form because the decision was sent prior to March 24, 2015, and the appellant does not specify which appellate review process he/she prefers. Reference: For more information on establishing requests for a hearing, see M21-1, Part III, Subpart ii, 3.D.4.a. 5 Did the appellant request the traditional appellate review process on his/her NOD? If yes, send the appellant the Traditional Process Explanation Letter. If no, go to Step 6. Note: The September 2015 version of VA Form 21-0958 includes an option for the appellant to choose either the DRO review process or the traditional appellate review process. Go to Step 6 if the option checkboxes are left on the September 2015 version of VA Form 21-0958 NOD is on an older version of VA Form 21-0958 and the appellant does not specify which appellate review process he/she prefers, or NOD is not on a prescribed form because the decision was sent prior to March 24, 2015, and the appellant does not specify which appellate review process he/she prefers. 6 When the appellant does not specify on the NOD whether he/she desires the DRO review process or the traditional appellate review process, regardless of valid NOD format or form version, then send the appellant the Appeal Process Request Letter, and
e. Receiving an NOD With Request for a Hearing If a hearing request is received with an NOD schedule and hold the hearing, and then send the statement of the case (SOC), if the appeal remains denied. Note: This policy applies to both the DRO and the traditional appellate review process. References: For more information on the filing of NODs and appeals, see the DRO review process, see M21-1, Part I, 5.C RO hearings, see M21-1, Part I, 4 sending an SOC, see M21-1, Part I, 5.D, and establishing requests for a hearing, see M21-1, Part III, Subpart ii, 3.D.4.a. f. Handling Disagreements Regarding Inadequate or Not Timely Filed NODs If the claimant disagrees with a determination that an NOD was not adequate or timely filed, send him/her an SOC because that determination may be appealed. References: For more information on disputes of NODs, see , and sending an SOC, see M21-1, Part I, 5.D, and determining if an NOD is timely, see M21-1, Part III, Subpart ii, 3.E.1.a. g. New Issues Raised on an NOD If the appellant raises issues on the NOD that have not yet been adjudicated, do not delay sending an SOC covering those issues that were previously decided unless there is outstanding evidence related to an SOC issue identified by the appellant or the Veterans Service Representative (VSR), Rating Veterans Service Representative (RVSR), or DRO. Important: Develop and decide the new issue(s) raised on the NOD received prior to March 24, 2015. Do not accept non-appeal issues raised on an NOD received on or after March 24, 2015, as a new claim. The correspondence is a request for application pertaining to the non-appeal issues except if the new issue is within the scope of the issue on appeal. Issues within the scope of the appeals issue do not require a separate claim. References: For more information on examples of action to take for issues raised on an NOD, see M21-1, Part I, 5.B.3.h-j