Department of Veterans Affairs M21-1, Part I, Chapter 1Veterans Benefits Administration March 23, 2018Washington, DC 20420

Key Changes

Changes Included in This Revision

The table below describes the changes included in this revision of Veterans Benefits Manual M21-1, Part I, “Claimant Rights and Responsibilities.”

Notes: The term “regional office” (RO) also includes pension management center

(PMC) and Appeals Resource Center (ARC), where appropriate. Unless otherwise noted, the term “claims folder” refers to the official,

numbered, Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) repository – whether paper or electronic – for all documentation relating to claims that a Veteran and/or his/her survivors file with VA.

Minor editorial changes have also been made to- improve clarity and readability- update or remove incorrect or obsolete references- add or clarify references, and- bring the document into conformance with M21-1 standards.

Reason(s) for Notable Change Citation To provide an exception on the timing of examinations for foreign

examinations. To delete certain prescriptive job titles, such as “Veterans Service

Representative (VSR),” when necessary as outlining position descriptions falls under the direction and purview of the Office of Field Operations (OFO). Per Compensation Service leadership, such titles have been removed from M21-1 where their inclusion does not meaningfully impact the guidance described.

To remove verbiage that implied the existence of a timeliness standard for taking a required action.

M21-1, Part I, Chapter 1, Section C, Topic 3, Block k (I.1.C.3.k)

To delete certain prescriptive job titles, such as “VSR,” “Rating Veterans Service Representative (RVSR),” and “Decision Review Officer,” where necessary, as outlining position descriptions falls under the direction and purview of OFO. Per Compensation Service leadership, such titles have been removed from M21-1 where their inclusion does not meaningfully impact the procedures described.

I.1.C.4.f

To delete certain prescriptive job titles, such as “VSR,” where necessary, as outlining position descriptions falls under the direction and purview of OFO. Per Compensation Service leadership, such titles have been removed from M21-1 where their inclusion does not meaningfully impact the procedures described.

I.1.C.5.a

Reason(s) for Change CitationTo delete certain prescriptive job titles, such as “RVSR,” where necessary, as I.1.C.3.l

outlining position descriptions falls under the direction and purview of OFO. Per Compensation Service leadership, such titles have been removed from M21-1 where their inclusion does not meaningfully impact the procedures described.To edit the examples for clarity and consistency. The use of a job title and the word “immediately” are not prescriptive in the context of factual background for examples, but they are not strictly necessary to communication of principles of relevancy.

I.1.C.4.d

Rescissions None

Authority By Direction of the Under Secretary for Benefits

Signature

Beth Murphy, DirectorCompensation Service

Distribution LOCAL REPRODUCTION AUTHORIZED

Section C. Records and Examination Requests

Overview

In This Section This section contains the following topics:

Topic Topic Name1 Assisting With Federal Records Requests2 Assisting With Non-Federal or Private Records Requests3 Assisting With Medical Opinion or Examination Requests4 Determining Relevance of Records5 Providing Notification of Inability to Obtain Records

1. Assisting With Federal Records Requests

Introduction This topic contains information about assisting in requesting Federal records, including

VA’s duty to obtain Federal records definition of Federal records definition of reasonable efforts to obtain Federal records concluding Federal records do not exist or further efforts would be futile,

and claimant cooperation with the duty to assist in obtaining Federal records.

Change Date August 26, 2015

a. VA’s Duty to Obtain Federal Records

The submission of a substantially completed application triggers the Department of Veterans Affairs’ (VA’s) duty to assist procedures which include a duty to make reasonable efforts to obtain relevant records in the custody of a Federal department or agency.

Reference: For information on circumstances when VA may refrain from providing assistance, see M21-1, Part I, 1.A.3.b.

b. Definition: Federal Records

Federal records are any documents in the custody of a Federal department or agency. Federal records include but are not limited to

service treatment records (STRs) other service department records (such as personnel records, line-of-duty

determinations, inpatient treatment records or behavioral health records) that are not included with the STRs

VA medical and other records (including Vet Center records and authorized VA medical treatment or examinations at a non-VA facility)

Social Security Administration (SSA) records Public Health Service records, and Department of Labor records.

References: For more information on development procedures for service department records, see M21-1, Part III, Subpart iii, 2 Federal records in connection with a fully developed claim (FDC), see M21-

1, Part III, Subpart i, 3.B.3.a and b SSA records, see M21-1, Part III, Subpart iii, 3.A, and records of other Federal departments or agencies, see

- M21-1, Part III, Subpart iii, 4, and- M21-1, Part III, Subpart iii, 1.C.

c. Definition: Reasonable Efforts to Obtain Federal Records

Reasonable efforts to obtain relevant Federal records means VA must continue attempts to obtain the records until

records are obtained, or it is reasonably certain that- the records do not exist, or- further efforts by VA to obtain the records would be futile.

References: For more information on the regulatory requirements for requesting Federal records as part of the

duty to assist, see 38 CFR 3.159(c)(2) and (3), and developing for service records, see M21-1, Part III, Subpart iii, 2.

d. Concluding Federal Records Do Not Exist or Further Efforts Would be Futile

Determine on a case-by-case basis whether the requested Federal records do not exist or further attempts to obtain records would be futile based on

completion of at least the minimum efforts specified in M21-1, Part III, Subpart iii, 1.C.12.b, and/or

any response received from the records custodian.

Important: DD Form 2963, Service Treatment Record (STR) Transfer or Certification is a certification of the completeness of all available STRs at discharge from service. Treat this, or a predecessor certification letter, as a statement from the records custodian that it is reasonably certain that additional STRs do not exist and further attempts to obtain additional records would be futile except as provided in M21-1, Part III, Subpart iii, 2.B.2.c.

References: For more information on migration of STRs and the procedures for obtaining them, see M21-1, Part

III, Subpart iii, 2.B, and refraining from or discontinuing assistance, see M21-1, Part I, 1.A.3.b.

e. Claimant Cooperation with the Duty to Assist in Obtaining Federal Records

The claimant must cooperate with VA’s attempts to obtain Federal records by providing

information, when requested by VA, to identify and locate existing records including- the department or agency that is the custodian of the records- the approximate time frame covered by the records, and- for treatment records, a general description of the condition for which the

treatment was provided information sufficient for the records custodian to conduct a search of

records when records are requested to corroborate a stressor-event in service, and

authorization to release existing records when requested by the department

or agency custodian in the form acceptable to the custodian.

References: For more information on specific requirements to request stressor corroboration from the Joint

Services Records Research Center (JSRRC), see M21-1, Part IV, Subpart ii, 1.D.3, and

specific requirements to authorize release of Vet Center records, see M21-1, Part III, Subpart iii, 1.C.42.m.

2. Assisting with Non-Federal or Private Records Requests

Introduction This topic contains information on providing assistance in obtaining non-Federal or private records, including

VA’s duty to obtain relevant non-Federal or private records definition of reasonable efforts to obtain relevant non-Federal or private

records definition of adequate identification of private records, and assisting in obtaining third party records.

Change Date March 31, 2017

a. VA’s Duty to Obtain Relevant Non-Federal or Private Records

VA must make reasonable efforts to assist a claimant in obtaining relevant non-Federal or private records from all sources that the claimant adequately identifies.

When a claimant or the claimant’s representative adequately identifies the existence of relevant records, VA has a duty to obtain those records by requesting them or by sending the claimant the appropriate VA forms to allow VA to request the relevant records at any point during the claims process.

When VA Form 21-4142, General Release for Medical Provider Information to the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) and/or VA Form 21-4142a, General Release from Medical Provider Information to the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) is not of record but is necessary to make a proper request for the records identified by the claimant, follow the procedures in M21-1, Part III, Subpart iii, 1.D.1.dC.3 to request the necessary release forms.

Note: VA has a duty to return for clarification unclear or insufficient private or VA medical records if it appears that a request for clarification could provide relevant information necessary to properly decide a claim. If VA does not obtain clarification, then it must explain why such clarification is not necessary.

References: For more information on developing for VA Form 21-4142 or VA Form 21-4142a while processing a

fully developed claim (FDC), see M21-1, Part III, Subpart iii, 1.C3.B.3.a and d

circumstances when VA may refrain from providing assistance, see M21-1, Part I, 1.A.3.b

returning unclear or insufficient private or VA medical records for clarification, see Savage v. Shinseki, 24 Vet.App. 259 (2011), and

the definition of reasonable efforts, see M21-1, Part I, 1.C.2.b.

b. Definition: Reasonable Efforts to Obtain Relevant Private Records

Reasonable efforts to obtain relevant private records that are not in the custody of a Federal department or agency include making

an initial request for such evidence, and at least one follow-up request if no response is received from the custodian

of the records unless a response to the initial request indicates that- the records do not exist, or- a follow-up request would be futile.

If VA receives information showing that subsequent requests to a different custodian of the records could result in obtaining the records sought, then reasonable efforts include making

an initial request to the new source, and at least one follow-up request to the new source if the records are not

received.

References: For more information on what constitutes reasonable efforts, see 38 CFR 3.159(c)(1), and requesting evidence from private healthcare providers sources other than the

claimant, see M21-1, Part III, Subpart iii, 1.DC.

c. Definition: Adequate Identification of Private Records

Adequate identification of private records entails a claimant and/or the claimant’s representative identifying at least the following information to VA:

the existence of relevant records, and the provider or source of the medical treatment for which the records exist.

The records must be identified in claims-related evidence or correspondence originating from the claimant or the claimant’s representative. Examples of acceptable means of identifying records include but are not limited to

VA Form 21-4142 and/or VA Form 21-4142a a claims form statements made in support of a claim, or a Compensation and Pension examination report that transcribes a Veteran’s

report of the existence of private records.

d. Assisting in Obtaining Third Party Records

VA is obligated to make reasonable efforts to obtain records pertaining to another individual if

those records are- adequately identified by the claimant- relevant to the claim, and- potentially helpful in substantiating the claim, and

VA would be authorized to disclose the relevant portions of such records to the Veteran under the Privacy Act and 38 U.S.C. 5701 and 38 U.S.C. 7332.

However, in certain circumstances, VA may conclude that reasonable efforts do not include requesting third party records even when adequately identified by a claimant. A case-by-case determination should be undertaken to decide whether an attempt to obtain such records is within the scope of VA’s duty to exert reasonable efforts to obtain the records of another individual.

An adjudicator may determine that reasonable efforts do not include a request of third party records when the following factors weigh unfavorably:

the third party’s interest in his or her records the likelihood that the request would result in consent to disclose the records

to the claimant the potential for such a request to generate conflict or otherwise adversely

affect the safety, health, or rights of either the claimant or the third party, and

whether there is a basis for believing that records of the type referenced by the claimant exist, as distinguished from mere speculation that such records may exist.

Example 1: A determination that reasonable efforts do not require seeking a third party’s consent to disclose his or her records to the claimant would be most strongly justified in a case where the interests of the third party are adverse to the claimant’s interest, such as where the claimant alleges that the third party assaulted the claimant or engaged in other improper or unlawful behavior. In such cases, the third-party’s interest in maintaining the confidentiality of his or her records would be high, and the likelihood that the third party would consent to disclosure of his or her records would be quite low. Further, asking the third party to allow disclosure to the claimant may create some risk of conflict or other adverse effects.

Example 2: Where the interests of the claimant and the third party are not adverse, there ordinarily would be a stronger basis for a finding that VA’s reasonable efforts may including asking the third party to consent to disclosure of his or her records to the claimant. For example, if a claimant who is claiming service connection (SC) for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) alleges that the records of another Veteran will verify his exposure to a particular stressor experienced by both service members, then reasonable efforts should be made to obtain the records given that the third party does not have an adverse interest, it is plausible that the third party would consent, resulting conflict is unlikely, and there is a basis for believing that the records exist.

Important: VA adjudicators generally may not consider documents that cannot be disclosed to the claimant.

Note: VA’s duty to assist generally would not require VA to obtain a court order to secure authority for third-party disclosure. Obtaining a court order related to a pending benefits claim would typically be beyond the scope of the“reasonable efforts” VA must undertake to assist a claimant in obtaining evidence necessary to substantiate a claim as contemplated by 38 U.S.C. 5103A(a).

Reference: For more information on seeking records pertaining to an individual other than the claimant, see VAOPGCPREC 5-2014, and M21-1, Part IV, Subpart ii, 1.D.54.n and o.

3. Assisting With Medical Opinion or Examination Requests

Introduction This topic contains information on obtaining a medical opinion or examination, if necessary under the duty to assist, including

purpose of obtaining medical examinations and opinions determining when an examination or medical opinion is necessary reviewing evidence of record prior to requesting examination direct service connection (SC): reviewing for evidence of current disability

or symptoms direct SC: reviewing for evidence of in-service event, injury or disease direct SC: reviewing for indication of association secondary SC and aggravation: reviewing for examination preservice aggravation: reviewing for examination presumptive SC: reviewing for examination increase claims: reviewing for examination timing of the duty to obtain an examination or opinion documentation of the status of examination review effect of non-cooperation on the duty to provide an examination or opinion definition of good cause review of returned mail notifying the Veteran of a scheduled examination action taken after attempting to locate a better address allegations of non-receipt of scheduling notice timing of offer of good cause or willingness to report and rescheduling.

Change Date September 28, 2017March 23, 2018

a. Purpose of Obtaining Medical Examinations and Opinions

The purpose of the statutory duty to assist in ordering an examination and/or medical opinion is to obtain medical evidence relevant to establishing entitlement to benefits such as information about

diagnosis onset, or etiology.

Important: 38 CFR 3.159(c) provides that an examination or opinion is not part of the duty to assist in a request to reopen a finally adjudicated claim unless new and material evidence is presented or secured.

References: For more information on duty to assist, see- 38 U.S.C. 5103A(d) , and- 38 CFR 3.159(c)(4)

requesting a medical opinion or examination, see M21-1, Part III, Subpart iv, 3.A

scheduling a medical opinion or examination, see M21-1, Part III, Subpart

iv, 3.B, and circumstances when VA may refrain from providing assistance, see M21-1,

Part I, 1.A.3.b.

b. Determining When an Examination or Medical Opinion Is Necessary

The test for when an examination is necessary under the duty to assist is in 38 CFR 3.159(c)(4) , and each element for this determination is described in more detail separately in M21-1, Part I, 1.C.3.c-f.

A medical opinion or examination is necessary when there is not sufficient medical evidence of record to make a decision on the claim, and

there is competent lay or medical evidence of a current diagnosed disability or persistent or recurrent symptoms of disability

the evidence establishes that the Veteran suffered an event, injury, or disease in service, or has a disease or symptoms of a disease listed in 38 CFR 3.309, 38 CFR

3.313, 38 CFR 3.316, or 38 CFR 3.317 manifesting during an applicable presumptive period, and

the evidence indicates that the claimed disability or symptoms may be associated with the established event, injury, or disease in service or with another service-connected (SC) disability.

Important: An examination and/or opinion is not warranted until all three elements described above are present in the evidence.

Notes: The bulleted criteria above primarily contemplate claims for direct SC and

are covered in more detail in M21-1, Part I, 1.C.3.d-f. The requirements for when an examination is necessary providing examinations for other types of claims are addressed in M21-1, Part I, 1.C.3.g-j.

For pension claims that require a permanent and total (P&T) disability determination , a medical examination is necessary for all claims when there is insufficient medical evidence available to decide the claim.

References: For more information on when examination is authorized, see

- 38 CFR 3.326 - McLendon v. Nicholson, 20 Vet.App. 79, 81 (2006), and- Waters v. Shinseki, 601 F.3d 1274 (Fed. Cir. 2010)

when reexamination is authorized, see 38 CFR 3.327 the competency of lay evidence to establish a diagnosis, see Jandreau v.

Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2007). when a rating determination of P&T disability for pension purposes is

required, see M21-1, Part V, sSubpart i, 2.2.e acceptable medical evidence for pension rating purposes, see M21-1, Part

V, Subpart i, 2.2.f, and when a VA examination is authorized for pension cases, see M21-1, Part V,

Subpart i, 2.2.g.

c. Reviewing Evidence of Record Prior to Requesting Examination

An examination or opinion is only necessary when there is not sufficient medical evidence of record to make a decision on the claim.

Prior to requesting an examination or opinion, review the available medical evidence to determine if such evidence is sufficient to rate the claim.

If evidence, such as a Ddisability Bbenefits Qquestionnaire (DBQ), a private physician’s report, or private medical opinion, is received and such records are fully sufficient to rate the claim then do not order an examination.

References: For more information on evaluating claims based on the evidence of record, see 38 CFR 3.326(b) requesting examinations, see M21-1, Part III, Subpart iv, 3.A principles of evaluating reviewing evidence and decision making, see M21-

1, Part III, Subpart iv, 5.A assertions by the claimant that an examination is not permitted, see

Kowalski v. Nicholson,19 Vet.App.171 (2005) when an examination is not necessary, see McLendon v. Nicholson, 20

Vet.App. 79, 81 (2006) when a rating determination of P&T disability for pension purposes is

required, see M21-1, Part V, sSubpart i, 2.2.e acceptable medical evidence for pension rating purposes, see M21-1, Part

V, Subpart i, 2.2.f, and when a VA examination is authorized for pension cases, see M21-1, Part V,

Subpart i, 2.2.g.

d. Direct SC: Reviewing for Evidence of Current Disability or Symptoms

Element 1: The first element, found in 38 CFR 3.159(c)(4)(i)(A), that must be met before an examination is warranted is the presence of competent evidence of

a current disability, or persistent or recurrent symptoms of disability.

Consider the points below when reviewing the evidence to determine whether Element 1 has been satisfied.

Competent lay or medical evidence of current symptoms may be sufficient to raise a medically answerable question that warrants the ordering of a VA examination.- The evidence must be credible.- There is no presumption of credibility for the purposes of determining

whether Element 1 has been satisfied. Do not weigh evidence. If there is contradictory evidence as to whether a

disability or symptom of a disability is or is not present, consider that the evidentiary standard for Element 1 has been met.

The evidentiary standard for requesting examination does not require that a

disability be diagnosed. A new examination may be required if, before an appeal for SC hearing loss

is transferred to the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (BVA),- the Veteran submits competent lay or medical evidence indicating a

worsening of the hearing loss during the appeal period, and- SC is denied solely based upon the hearing loss not meeting the disability

thresholds of 38 CFR 3.385.

Example: A statement from the claimant in support of his claim for SC for low back condition reveals he experiences severe low back pain, spasms, and shooting pain down his buttocks. Although there is no medical documentation of a low back condition, there is no evidence of record that otherwise contradicts the Veteran’s statement.

Analysis: The Veteran is competent to describe his low back symptoms, and his statement appears credible when reviewing it and all other evidence. Thus, the Veteran meets the first element for determining whether an examination is warranted.

Exception: Although lay or medical evidence documenting symptoms is generally sufficient to satisfy the Element 1 standard for requesting examinations, there are certain conditions, such as cancer, which require evidence of a diagnosis. In this type of claim, a claimant lacks the expertise to be able to provide sufficient lay evidence that symptoms or findings are indicative of a cancer diagnosis.

References: For more information on examinations in SC hearing loss claims, see Palczewski v. Nicholson, 21

Vet.App. 174 (2007) considering conflicting evidence of current disability, see McLendon v.

Nicholson, 20 Vet.App. 79, 81 (2006) competent evidence, see M21-1, Part III, Subpart iv, 5.A.2.c, and credible evidence, see M21-1, Part III, Subpart iv, 5.A.2.b.

e. Direct SC: Reviewing for Evidence of In-service Event, Injury, or Disease

Element 2: The second element, found in 38 CFR 3.159(c)(4)(i)(B), for determining whether an examination is necessary is establishment of one of the following in service

an event an injury, or a disease.

Consider the points below when reviewing the evidence to determine whether Element 2 has been satisfied.

Reviewing the evidence involves a factual assessment and may warrant weighing the evidence if contradictory evidence is of record.

In many cases, an entry in the STRs of a specific treatment or injury

satisfies this element. The absence of STR findings does not automatically preclude this element

from being met. The element may also be met with lay evidence when- a Veteran provides credible lay statement(s) that his or her disability

occurred from an in-service event, injury, or disease, and- the statement(s) is consistent with the places, types, and circumstances of

his or her military service. VA cannot determine that lay evidence lacks credibility merely because it is

unaccompanied by contemporaneous medical evidence. When direct SC has been claimed but evidence shows that the claimed

disability clearly and unmistakably existed prior to service, follow the procedures at M21-1, Part I, 1.C.3.h to determine whether examination and/or medical opinion for aggravation of a preservice disability is warranted.

Example 1: Veteran claims SC for right shoulder injury and asserts that the condition originated from loading heavy cargo onto an airplane during an exercise in Korea in June 2009. He provides a statement from his spouse indicating she remembers him complaining of it when he returned home from the exercise. Although the STRs are silent for treatment for a right shoulder injury, the personnel records verify the Veteran was a loadmaster and did participate in an exercise in Korea in June 2009.

Analysis: Because the Veteran’s and spouse’s statements are credible and consistent with the circumstances of his service, the second element for an in-service injury, disease, or event is established for purposes of ordering an examination. Assuming that the Veteran has submitted evidence of a current disability or symptoms as well as indication of an association between the current condition and the in-service event, an examination is warranted.

Example 2: Veteran claims eyesight deterioration due to exposure to gas and chemical tests during his two months of active duty in the U.S. Navy. Service records do not reveal any treatment for the condition nor do they document any exposure to gas or chemicals during service. The Veteran does provide sufficient evidence of a current disability and association to service.

Analysis: The Veteran’s statement of an in-service event is rejected because the statement is found incredible and not consistent with circumstances of his service. The Veteran’s statement regarding an in-service event is weighed along with other facts of the case, (i.e., no documentation of tests in service and short period of active duty time). The preponderance of evidence weighs against the Veteran, and his statement is rejected. Thus, the standard for evidence of an in-service event, injury, or disease is not met and examination is not warranted.

References: For more information on the factual assessment necessary in determining if the evidentiary standard

is met for evidence of an in-service event, see McLendon v. Nicholson, 20 Vet.App. 79, 81 (2006), and

considering lay evidence, see- 38 U.S.C. 1154(a) - Buchanan v. Nicholson, 451 F.3d 1331, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006), for

information concerning the credibility of lay evidence without associated contemporaneous medical evidence, and

- Bardwell v. Shinseki, 24 Vet.App.36 (2010), for information concerning weighing lay evidence.

f. Direct SC: Reviewing for Indication of Association

Element 3: The third element that must be met to warrant an examination under 38 CFR 3.159(c)(4)(i)(C) is an indication that the diagnosis or symptoms may be associated with the established event, injury or disease in service.

Consider the points below when reviewing the evidence to determine whether Element 3 has been satisfied.

The threshold for determining whether an association may be present is low. Medical assessments that do not support a decision on the merits can still be sufficient to establish an indication of an association for the purposes of requesting an examination.

Medically competent evidence is not required to serve as an indication of an association for purposes of determining whether an examination is necessary.- Lay evidence only has to indicate a possible connection to the in-service

event, injury, or disease to warrant an examination.- Examples of adequate lay evidence include

an assertion that the condition has existed since service, or a statement indicating continuous symptoms since service.

- A generalized statement merely asserting a conclusion that a condition is related to an in-service event, injury, or disease is not sufficient to establish an indication of an association.

- Consider and assign weight to lay evidence in determining whether there is sufficient indication of an association to warrant requesting an examination.

Example: The Veteran claimed SC for knee disability. He had one complaint of knee pain in service with a negative separation examination. No other lay or medical evidence was submitted in support of the claim.

Analysis: The Veteran’s current claim provided no medical evidence indicating an association and no statement alleging continuous symptoms since service or that the current disability persisted since military service. Therefore, Element 3 has not been satisfied. Further, there is no medical or lay evidence of a current disability, so Element 1 is also not satisfied. Element 2 is satisfied based on the single indication of knee pain in service. As all three elements must be satisfied before examination is warranted, the claim can be denied without an examination/opinion.

Example: STRs show a single complaint of knee strain in service with a negative separation examination. The Veteran’s claim states, “I hurt my knee when I fell off of a truck in Vietnam, and it has hurt ever since that time.” The Veteran claims SC for knee pain.

Analysis: An examination with a nexus opinion is warranted as all three elements have been satisfied. Element 1 is satisfied based on the Veteran’s lay complaint of current knee pain. The Veteran is competent to attest to symptoms of pain. Element 2 is satisfied by the single indication of treatment for in-service knee strain. Element 3 is satisfied by the Veteran’s lay description of persistent symptoms since service.

References: For more information on the low threshold for requesting examinations, see McLendon v. Nicholson,

20 Vet.App. 79, 81 (2006) considering lay evidence to establish indication of an association for the

purposes of requesting examination, see Colantonio v. Shinseki, 606 F.3d 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2010), and

why the competency standard does not apply when establishing indication of an association for the purposes of requesting examinations, see Waters v. Shinseki, 601 F.3d 1274 (Fed. Cir. 2010).

g. Secondary SC and Aggravation: Reviewing for Examination

Determinations as to the need for examination or medical opinions in claims for secondary SC are governed by 38 CFR 3.159(c)(4)(i). Therefore, the three evidentiary elements, as discussed in M21-1, Part I, 1.C.3.d-f, must be satisfied prior to requesting an examination on a secondary claim. The three elements are

lay or medical evidence of a current disability or symptoms evidence of an SC primary disability (which substitutes for the in-service

event, injury, or disease), and indication that the claimed secondary condition may be associated with the

primary disability.

SC on the basis of aggravation of a non-service-connected disability (NSC) may be specifically claimed or may be considered as a part of the claim for secondary SC as directed at M21-1, Part III, Subpart iv, 6.B.5.a. Pursuant to 38 CFR 3.310(b) and M21-1, Part IV, Subpart ii, 2.B.5.c, the following additional factors apply when determining whether examination is warranted:

a baseline level of disability, as shown by medical evidence, must be present for an examiner to opine whether aggravation has occurred, and

the Veteran’s statement alone, without medical evidence of record showing the baseline level of the claimed disability, is not sufficient to order an examination.

Medical expertise is ultimately required to establish entitlement to SC on secondary basis, but the threshold for ordering an examination is low.

However, there is still a threshold that must be met before an examination is provided.

Medical examinations are not to be automatically provided in all cases. Some degree of judgement must be used in determining whether the threshold has been met to schedule an examination.

Consider whether satisfactory evidence exists that shows the presence of the claimed disability and its association with the existing SC disability.

A medical diagnosis up front is not always required to show- the presence of the claimed disability, or- its link to an SC disability.

A generalized statement merely asserting a conclusion that a condition is secondary to an SC disability is not sufficient to satisfy the Element 3 standard for requesting an examination.

To determine whether the evidence shows that the claimed condition may be associated with the primary SC disability, review the specificity of the claimant’s statement and other evidence of record.- Assess the credibility and merit of the claim prior to ordering an

examination.- The following types of evidence may give credibility to the claim:

medical evidence showing a relationship between the primary SC disability and the claimed secondary disability

the Veteran’s lay statement describing the symptoms present and how they are related to the claimed primary disability

medical treatise establishing a known relationship between the primary SC disability and the claimed secondary disability, or

a VA regulation or procedure exists that defines a relationship between the primary SC disability and the claimed secondary disability.

Example: Veteran claims stomach problems secondary to his SC heart condition. He indicates that since he began taking prescribed medications two years ago for his heart condition, he has experienced stomach problems to include constipation, pain, and indigestion. There are no specific diagnoses relating to his stomach symptoms noted in the evidence of record.

Analysis: While the Veteran’s lay statement is not sufficient to ultimately prove the claim, it is sufficient in this instance to warrant an examination. The Veteran is competent to describe his symptoms and the possible association of symptoms to his SC condition. Furthermore, his statement appears credible when considering the evidence at hand.

Example: A Veteran submits a statement indicating that he has hypertension secondary to his SC low back condition. Medical evidence of record shows no treatment for hypertension and normal blood pressure readings over the last three years.

Analysis: Although the claimant is competent to describe symptoms of a disability, his statement that he has hypertension secondary to low back condition is not credible as competent medical evidence in this case is required

to show elevated blood pressure readings or establish a diagnosis of hypertension. Although Veterans are competent to attest to their symptoms, they are not generally competent to make their own medical diagnoses. The Veteran could attest to symptoms he experiences associated with hypertension, such as dizziness or headaches, but he is not competent to make medical diagnoses. The reason the medical evidence would be required in this case is because the medical evidence of record shows normal blood pressure readings over the last three years and no diagnosis of hypertension. Consequently, the Element 1 standard requiring medical or lay evidence of a current disability has not been met. The substitute evidence from the Element 2 standard is met on the basis that there is an SC disability, a low back condition, present and the claim is being made on a secondary basis. However, the Element 3 standard is not met because the Veteran has submitted a generalized statement suggesting the conclusion that the hypertension is secondary to the back condition, but there is no specific discussion or evidence correlating the hypertension to the back condition. Additionally, there is no VA regulation or procedure or medical treatise establishing an association. Because the three evidentiary elements are not satisfied, no examination is warranted.

References: For more information on considering claims for SC based on aggravation of an NSC condition by an

SC condition, see M21-1, Part IV, Subpart ii, 2.B.5 the threshold that must be met before examinations are provided in secondary

claims, see Waters v. Shinseki, 601 F.3d 1274 (Fed. Cir. 2010), and claims that are inherently incredible or lack merit, see

- 38 CFR 3.159(d) - M21-1, Part I, 1.A.3.c, and- M21-1, Part 1, 1.B.1.gj.

h. Preservice Aggravation: Reviewing for Examination

Determinations as to the need for examination or medical opinions in claims for SC under 38 CFR 3.306 for a disability that existed prior to service and permanently increased in severity beyond natural progression are governed by 38 CFR 3.159(c)(4)(i). Therefore, the three evidentiary elements, as discussed in M21-1, Part I, 1.C.3.d-f, must be satisfied prior to requesting an examination for a claim based on aggravation of a preservice disability.

Element 1 requires lay or medical evidence of a current disability or symptoms.

Element 2 requires evidence showing that a disability which clearly existed prior to service required treatment or otherwise worsened in service.- In Davis v. Principi, 276 F.3d 1341, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2002), the United

States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that recurrence and/or temporary flare-ups of symptoms do not constitute an increase in severity of the preservice condition.

- In Maxson v. Gober, 230 F.3d 1330 (Fed. Cir 2000), the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that evidence of a prolonged period without medical complaint, along with other factors concerning the Veteran’s health and medical treatment during and after military service,

may be considered in determining whether a disability increased during service.

- In Verdon v. Brown, 8 Vet.App 529 (1996), the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) held that if medical or surgical treatment in service worsened an aspect of the preexisting condition, this would constitute evidence of an increase in severity.

- In Jensen v. Brown, 19 F.3.d 1413 (Fed. Cir. 1994) the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit found that the evidentiary presumption created by 38 CFR 3.304(d) in favor of combat Veterans applies in preservice aggravation claims. Aggravation will be established if a Veteran produces satisfactory lay or other evidence of symptomatic manifestations of a preexisting disability during or proximate to combat. Once a combat Veteran provides lay testimony or other informal evidence of symptomatic manifestations, whether temporary or otherwise, of incurrence or aggravation, the government has the burden to rebut by clear and convincing proof that there has been no increase in the severity of the preexisting condition or that any increase was the result of natural progression.

- In Paulson v. Brown, 7 Vet.App. 466 (1995), CAVC held that independent medical evidence is needed to support a finding that the preexisting disorder increased in severity in service.

Element 3 is satisfied, so long as the evidence for Element 2 is present, by the presumption of aggravation in claims associated with active service unless the evidence clearly and unmistakably shows the worsening of the condition was due to natural progression.

Use the table below to determine proper actions to take when reviewing for examinations pertaining to preservice aggravation.

When SC on the basis of preservice aggravation is ...

Then conduct an examination review to determine whether the evidentiary elements have been satisfied for examination on ...

claimed, and

no preservice disability is shown in the records, and/or

the presumption of soundness is applicable

the basis of direct SC, and request examination and/or opinion

on a direct basis if the elements are satisfied.

not claimed, but

a preservice disability is clearly shown to have existed, and

the presumption of soundness is rebutted

the basis of preservice aggravation, and

request examination and/or opinion on the basis of preservice aggravation if the elements are satisfied.

Example: A Veteran claims SC for a right knee condition with chronic knee pain on a direct basis. Enlistment examination revealed history of slight right knee pain with excessive running due to meniscal injury and repair from a high school football injury but indicated the condition was asymptomatic.

The STRs show recurrent treatment for knee pain and, later in service, the development of arthritis. STRs do show an orthopedic specialist suspected the arthritis was likely due to the meniscal injury.

Analysis: Although the Veteran claimed SC on a direct basis, the evidence shows that a knee condition clearly and unmistakably existed prior to service, although it was asymptomatic on enlistment. The presumption of soundness is overcome by clear evidence of the preservice injury. Since the Veteran was treated for the right knee during service, the presumption of aggravation applies and can only be rebutted by medical evidence showing that the increase in severity was due to natural progression An examination and opinion is warranted on the basis that Element 1 is satisfied by the Veteran’s lay reports of chronic knee pain Element 2 is satisfied by the evidence of in-service treatment for the knee

condition, and Element 3 is satisfied on the basis that

- the evidence is present for Element 2- the presumption of aggravation applies, and- there is no clear evidence that the worsening was due to natural

progression.

Important: When considering claims based on aggravation of a preservice disability, the presumption of soundness applies when deciding whether a claimed condition clearly and unmistakably existed prior to service.

References: For more information on considering claims for SC on the basis of aggravation of a preservice

condition, see- 38 CFR 3.306 - 38 CFR 4.22 , and- M21-1, Part IV, Subpart ii, 2.B.4

preservice disabilities noted in service, see 38 CFR 3.303(c) general principles for the application of presumption of soundness, see

- 38 CFR 3.304(b) , and- M21-1, Part IV, Subpart ii, 2.B.1.h

the presumption of soundness associated with- active service, see M21-1, Part IV, Subpart ii, 2.B.4.a-e, and- active duty for training (ADT), see M21-1, Part IV, Subpart ii, 2.B.1.l

the presumption of aggravation associated with- active service, see M21-1, Part IV, Subpart ii, 2.B.4.f, and- ADT and inactive duty for training, see

M21-1, Part III, Subpart ii, 6.A.2.j, and M21-1, Part IV, Subpart ii, 2.B.4.g

considering the aggravation of a hereditary disease in service, see- M21-1, Part IV, Subpart ii, 2.B.6.f, and- VAOPGCPREC 82-1990, and

who may request a medical opinion in claims based on pre-service aggravation, see M21-1, Part III, Subpart iv, 3.A.7.a.

i. Presumptive SC: Reviewing for Examination

Determining whether examinations are warranted in claims for presumptive SC still warrants application of the regular three element standard, although Elements 2 and 3 are satisfied differently in presumptive claims than in direct claims for SC. 38 CFR 3.159(c)(4)(ii) provides that in claims for presumptive SC, part of the standard for determining whether an examination or opinion is necessary is the establishment of

required service or triggering event qualifying for the presumption (which substitutes for the in-service injury, event, or disease), and

manifestation during the presumptive period (which substitutes for the indication of an association) of either- a disease listed in a regulatory presumptive provision, or- symptoms of a disease listed in a regulatory presumptive period.

However, the evidence in support of the claim must still include lay or medical evidence of a current disability or symptoms to warrant an examination.

Example: A Veteran claims SC for hypertension on a presumptive basis. STRs show no evidence of a diagnosis of hypertension or evidence of elevated blood pressure readings. VA treatment records do show that 11 months following discharge, the Veteran underwent a five-day blood pressure screening that did confirm a diagnosis of hypertension. Medication was prescribed.

Analysis: VA treatment records showing a diagnosis of hypertension satisfy the Element 1 standard for evidence of a current disability. The Element 2 standard is satisfied on the basis of the Veteran’s active duty service which meets the qualifying criteria for chronic diseases subject to presumptive SC as defined in 38 CFR 3.307 and 38 CFR 3.309(a). The Element 3 standard is satisfied on the basis of the legally established presumption of SC as defined in 38 CFR 3.309(a). As all three elements have been satisfied, an examination is warranted. Note that no nexus opinion is necessary because the presumptive relationship establishes the nexus.

j. Increase Claims: Reviewing for Examination

In a claim for increase in the evaluation of an SC condition, do not apply the 38 CFR 3.159(c)(4) standard. There is no prescribed standard for evidence that must be present prior to requesting an examination in a typical claim for increase. If a claim for increase is received, regardless of whether a statement of worsening is received or whether an examination for the claimed condition was completed within the last year, request an examination for the claimed condition except in the following circumstances.

Do not routinely request an examination if a DBQ, completed by a private or VA physician, was submitted.

Do not routinely request examinations when a surgical report was submitted or identified by the Veteran. The surgical report may be considered in

connection with a possible claim for entitlement to increased benefits- under

38 CFR 4.29 , or 38 CFR 4.30 , or

- due to joint replacement. Do not routinely request an examination for active cancer. Do not routinely request examinations for disabilities currently evaluated at

the schedular maximum evaluation. An examination for potential extraschedular evaluation is warranted only when medical or other evidence demonstrates symptoms that render the schedular criteria insufficient to evaluate the disability.

For issues under appeal, VA is not required under its duty to assist obligation to order an examination solely because of the passage of time since an otherwise adequate examination was performed. However, when the appellant asserts that the disability in question has undergone an increase in severity since the time of the prior examination, additional examination may be warranted.

Note: A decision to not order an examination shall be supported with adequate reasons and bases.

Example: The Veteran submits a claim for increased evaluation of an SC back disability. The back disability has been evaluated as 10-percent disabling with no recent examination. There is no medical evidence submitted showing any recent treatment for the back.

Analysis: There is no evidentiary standard that must be met prior to requesting the claim for increase. As there has been no examination within the last year and there is no evidence of record that is adequate to evaluate the claim, request an examination.

Example: The Veteran submits a claim for increased evaluation of an SC knee condition, noting that he recently had surgery and has submitted the surgical report showing a total knee replacement that occurred five months prior.

Analysis: Although the Veteran is claiming an increased evaluation, since he submitted the surgical report showing that a surgery has occured, no examination is warranted.

Example: The Veteran submits a claim for increased evaluation of SC hypothyroidism. The Veteran did recently have an examination within the past year for his prior claim for increased evaluation. Review of the treatment records shows no indication that symptoms have increased or that the hypothyroidism has required treatment other than the continued prescription of Synthroid. The Veteran has submitted no other evidence in support of the claim.

Analysis: An examination must be requested in spite of the fact that one was

performed within the last year, there is no medical evidence showing worsening or increased symptoms, and the Veteran has not submitted a lay statement describing increased symptoms.

Example: The Veteran submits a claim for increased evaluation of SC hypothyroidism. The Veteran did recently have an examination within the past year for his prior claim for increased evaluation of hypothyroidism. Review of the treatment records shows that the Veteran’s dosage of Synthroid required adjustment due to abnormal laboratory test values. Additionally, after the date of the prior examination the Veteran presented to his primary care appointment with complaints of fatigue of unclear etiology. The Veteran has submitted no other evidence in support of the claim.

Analysis: Although the prior examination occurred within the past year, the medical evidence does show possible increased symptoms. The Veteran claimed an increase, and there was no DBQ submitted with the claim. Therefore, an examination should be requested.

References: For more information on requesting examinations in claims for increase, see

- Proscelle v. Derwinski, 2 Vet.App. 629 (1992), and- VAOPGCPREC 11-1995, and

considering extra-schedular entitlement in claims for increase, see- M21-1, Part III, Subpart iv, 5.B.2.gh, and- VAOPGCPREC 6-1996.

k. Timing of the Duty to Obtain an Examination or Opinion

The timing for examinations is determined on an issue-by-issue basis with the intent of delivering benefits timely to claimants. For each disability claimed, request the examination at the earliest point during the development process that evidentiary requirements for Elements 1-3 have been satisfied.

Assess whether an examination or opinion is necessary pursuant to the duty to assist, to the extent practicable, after the development of all other relevant evidence.

Do not wait for receipt of requested evidence if the current evidence is sufficient to warrant the scheduling of an examination.

Exceptions: STRs must be of record prior to requesting audiological examination for

hearing loss because the results of in-service audiological testing must be reviewed before an audiologist can give an opinion on the etiology of hearing loss.

In rare situations, the evidence to satisfy Elements 1-3 may be present but pending development may be clearly relevant to the outcome of the examination and/or opinion. In such situations, delay it is appropriate to the examination requestwait until the evidence is received to request the examination.

In rare situations, an examination review may indicate that examination for

some claimed conditions is warranted necessary. However, development may be pending relevant to the examination review for other claimed conditions. When it is clear that the pending development will be imminently completed (within a week’s time or less), and in upon the judgment of the Veterans Service Representative (VSR) individual developing the claim it would be to the Veteran’s advantage to delay requesting examinations wait foruntil the imminent development is to be completed (such as for example, to avoid multiple scheduled examination appointments), it is appropriate to wait to enter the examination request may be delayed.

For foreign examinations, schedule all necessary exams at one time after needed development has been completed.

Situation: A Vietnam Veteran with combat service claims SC for hearing loss, PTSD with symptoms of sleep impairment, back pain due to a back injury in service, and gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) with reflux and stomach upset due to medication taken for his back condition. STRs are not yet of record but development has been initiated. Combat service as an infantryman is shown on the DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty. Development has been initiated for private treatment records pertaining to PTSD and the back condition.

Result: The evidentiary standards for requesting the PTSD and hearing loss

examinations have been satisfied on the basis of the currently reported lay symptoms, combat service, and a plausible nexus. Request the PTSD examination immediately., but Delay requesting the audio examination wait until the STRs are received before requesting the audio examination. Although the private treatment records pertain to PTSD, the examination should be requested at the earliest point possible.

Update the permanent claim-level notes, as directed at M21-1, Part I, 1.C.3.l, to reflect that the examination review is partially complete and reviews for back pain and GERD with reflux and stomach upset need to be conducted after receipt of STRs, and that STRs are required before the audiological examination may be requested. Although private treatment records pertain to the back claim, they are not expected to be specifically relevant to the determination as to whether examination is needed since the Veteran’s lay symptoms satisfy the Element 1 standard for evidence of a current disability. Although the private records are relevant to the claimed issue and the development must be completed, the determination as to whether examination is necessary is not contingent on receipt of the private records unless there is an indication that they may include evidence of service incurrence or development of a chronic disability listed in 38 CFR 3.309(a) during the appropriate presumptive period, which is generally not the case.

l. Documentation

Fully document the status of examination review and associated development in the claims folder.

of the Status of Examination Review

Follow the steps in the table below to accomplish documentation of the status of examination review during the development process.

Step Action1 At the time of initial development, insert a permanent claim-level note in the

Veterans Benefits Management System (VBMS), entering Exam Review at the beginning of the note. Annotate the status of examination review either

in the note, preferably, or on a separate document filed in the claims folder in the situation

where a large number of contentions are claimed or the examination review is extensive or complicated- using Worksheet: Compensation Worksheet in the VBMS

CATEGORY TYPE field, and- noting the precise location of the examination review

document in the permanent claim-level note.

Include the information below when annotating the status of the examination review.

Indicate whether it is- not yet performed- partially complete, or- complete for all issues.

If the review is complete for an issue and an examination is not warranted, include a brief explanation to reflect which evidentiary element required in 38 CFR 3.159(c)(4) was absent. Do so for each contention not warranting examination. For example, for a lack of evidence of- a current condition, state no current condition- an in-service-event, state STRs negative, and- an indication of an association, state no nexus.

If the exam review is

not yet performed or partially complete, go to Step 2, or complete for all issues, no further action is required.

Important: All notes pertaining to the status of examination review should begin with Exam Review. This text can then be entered into the search function to locate all notes pertaining to examination review.

2 When an exam review is not yet performed or partially complete

indicate in the permanent claim level note what outstanding development is required before examination review may be conducted for the remaining issues, and

establish a tracked item using the SECONDARY ACTION REQUIRED from the COMPMGT menu with a suspense date corresponding with the pending development.

Proceed to Step 3.

3 During subsequent stages of the development process

add a permanent claim-level note to accurately reflect the status of any outstanding contentions requiring examination review when the status of the development and/or examination review changes, and

maintain the SECONDARY ACTION REQUIRED tracked item until examination review has been completed for all contentions to prevent the claim from reverting to ready for decision status before examination review is complete.

When all examination reviews are complete, proceed to Step 4.4 Close the SECONDARY ACTION REQUIRED tracked item.

Update the permanent claim-level note to reflect that examination review is complete.

Note: Ensure that if the examination review reveals an examination is required, the appropriate tracked items for requested examinations are added to prevent the claim from being automatically routed as ready for decision upon closing the SECONDARY ACTION REQUIRED tracked item.

Example of Exam Review Note:Exam Review partially complete. Exams requested for PTSD and hearing loss. Exam review incomplete for back and knee pending receipt of PMRs from Dr. Jones, but STRs negative. Exam not needed for GERD—STRs negative.

References: For more information on personnel responsible for conducting who may request an examination

reviews, see M21-1, Part III, Subpart iv, 3.A.1.a, and who may request a medical opinion, see M21-1, Part III, Subpart iv, 3.A.7.a referring claims for complex medical opinion review, see M21-1, Part III,

Subpart iv, 3.A.7.b, and routing procedures for complex medical opinions that must be requested by

a Rating Veterans Service Representative (RVSR), see the National Work Queue Phase 1 Playbook.

m. Effect of Non-Cooperation on the Duty to Provide an Examination or Opinion

While VA is obligated under 38 CFR 3.159(c) to provide medical examinations or obtain medical opinions to assist in substantiating claims, the claimant must cooperate by reporting for such examination.

38 CFR 3.655 provides that when entitlement or continued entitlement to a benefit cannot be established or confirmed without a current VA examination and the claimant fails to report without good cause, action will be taken as provided in 38 CFR 3.655(b) and (c). See the table below for a summary of the actions to take.

Note: If the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) attempted to schedule the exam under their RSVP program, follow the procedures in M21-1, Part IV, Subpart ii, 3.B.2.

If the failure to report for exam without good cause is in connection with ...

Then ...

an original compensation claim, or a new claim

decide the claim based on the evidence of record.

an increased evaluation claim a claim to reopen a previously

denied benefit, or an original claim for a benefit other

than compensation

deny the claim.

an examination ordered to assess continuing entitlement when there is a running award

discontinue payment for the benefit, or

reduce payment for the disability for which examination was scheduled to a- minimum evaluation established

under 38 CFR Part 4, or- lower protected evaluation under

38 CFR 3.951(b).

Notes: Discontinuance or termination is

only finalized after due process, as provided in M21-1, Part III, Subpart iv, 8.E.

Reduction or discontinuance will not be finalized when the claimant submits evidence during the proposed reduction period justifying continuation of the benefit or indicates a willingness to report for examination.

n. Definition: Good Cause

Good cause means a reason that justifies failure to report for VA examination. VA will accept as good cause any reason other than failure to receive notice of the examination. Examples of good cause include, but are not limited to, illness or hospitalization of the claimant or death of an immediate family member.

The claimant shall provide a reason with the request to reschedule the examination.

Documentation is generally not required to demonstrate good cause. In cases where there have been two repeated failures to complete an

examination, proceed with a decision on the claim. Clear rationale for rejecting an offer of good cause must be included in the rating narrative.

Exception: Do not reschedule the examination if the claimant fails to provide any reason for failing to report

indicates he/she did not receive notice of the examination, or has previously been rescheduled for the same examination and did not

report.

Reference: For more information on allegations of non-receipt of examination notice, see M21-1, Part I, 1.C.3.q.

o. Review of Returned Mail Notifying the Veteran of a Scheduled Examination

Regional offices (ROs) have the duty to ensure that examination notices are sent to the proper address in all situations, including during the traditional claims process as well as when associated with the scheduling of routine future examinations. If a VA medical facility advises that mail notifying a Veteran of a scheduled VA examination has been returned because the Postal Service reported the letter was undeliverable at the address provided, review the claims folder to determine whether

the mail was erroneously addressed a more recent address is of record, or a valid address is available from non-VA sources, such as the Internet or

telephone directory assistance.

Notes: VA is authorized to use the Internet address locator service CLEAR

(https://clear.thomsonreuters.com/clear_home/index.jsp) to obtain current address information for claimants.

If the Veteran receives VA benefits via direct deposit/electronic funds transfer (DD/EFT), send a letter to the Veteran’s financial institution (FI) asking for a current mailing address.

References: For more information on sample language for the letter to the FI, see M21-1, Part X, 8.5, andusing the CLEAR service, see the CLEAR User’s Guide.

p. Action Taken After Attempting to Locate a Better Address

When notification is received from a VA medical facility that an examination could not be scheduled due to notice that was undeliverable at the address provided, use the table below to determine the action to take after attempting to locate a better address.

If a better address is … Then ...identified provide the new address to the VA medical

facility request that the VA medical facility- reschedule the examination, and- notify the Veteran at the new address of

the pending examination, and update the corporate record.

not identified proceed with failure to report analysis under 38 CFR 3.655.

q. Allegations of Non-Receipt of Scheduling Notice

A Veteran’s allegation of non-receipt of a notice of scheduled examination and failure to report for a scheduled VA examination is not considered good cause for failure to report.

An assertion that a notice of a scheduled examination was not received does not rebut the presumption of administrative regularity that VA discharged its duty to schedule an examination and notified the Veteran of the scheduled examination.

A copy of an examination scheduling notice from the examining facility does not need to appear in the claims folder for the presumption of regularity to apply.

If evidence is available that rebuts the presumption of regularity, such as the failure of VA to timely update the claimant’s address or an assertion that the exam notice was received after the date of the examination, then that evidence must be considered.

r. Timing of Offer of Good Cause or Willingness to Report and Rescheduling

Known impediments to scheduling will generally be resolved by the examination provider and claimant in advance of the scheduled examination.

However, if an examinee offers good cause on or after the examination and before a decision is issued, communicate with the examination provider to reschedule the examination prior to issuing the decision.

38 CFR 3.655(c)(3) provides that in cases of failure to report in connection with examination on continuing entitlement, if notice of willingness to report is received before payment has been discontinued or reduced, action to adjust payment should be deferred.

Important: Although not explicitly stated in the regulation, this guidance also applies to failure to report for examination in other scenarios such as claims for increased evaluation or original SC.

4. Determining Relevance of Records

Introduction This topic contains information on determining whether identified evidence is relevant for purposes of providing assistance under 38 U.S.C. 5103A, including

definition of relevant records relevance determined on case-by-case basis importance of Golz decision in determining relevance of evidence other examples when records are considered not relevant clinical mental health records considered relevant, and documenting the claims folder when identified evidence is not considered

relevant.

Change Date August 26, 2015March 23, 2018

a. Definition: Relevant Records

Relevant records for the purpose of VA’s statutory and regulatory duty to assist are those records that

relate to the disability or injury for which the claimant is seeking benefits, and

have a reasonable possibility of helping to substantiate the claim.

For the purpose of 38 U.S.C. 5103A, the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC), in Golz v. Shinseki, 590 F.3d 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2010) held that not all medical records have a reasonable possibility of helping substantiate a pending claim and that VA’s duty to assist applies only to relevant records.

Important: For purposes of determining relevance, the same principles apply to both private and Federal records.

The CAVC, in Raugust v. Shinseki, 23 Vet.App. 475 (Vet.App. 2010), further held that the VA has no duty to obtain records without a specific reason to believe that the records identified by the Veteran would contain necessary information to substantiate the claim.

Example: A Veteran files a claim for an increased evaluation for residuals of an SC left ankle fracture. He reports treatment at the Mayo Clinic for headaches.

Analysis: The information available on its face shows that the identified private records would not be relevant as they do not relate to the Veteran’s SC disability nor do they have a reasonable possibility of substantiating the claim.

b. Relevance Determined on Case-By-Case Basis

Because each case presents unique circumstances, relevance of records shall be determined on a case-by-case basis. It is not possible to offer “one-size fits all” guidance on the issue of determining whether an identified piece of evidence is relevant to the issue being adjudicated.

Exercising common sense and sound judgment is critical in determining relevance. In addition to the two broad questions in M21-1, Part I, 1.C.4.a, consider these additional questions when making such determinations:

Can I determine relevance without review of the actual records?- In nearly all cases, based on information supplied by the claimant,

decision makers can determine relevance without reviewing the actual records.

Can an earlier effective date be established by obtaining the identified records?- This is a critical question that must be answered when evaluating the

evidence. If there is a chance of an earlier effective date, (for example, based on provisions of 38 CFR 3.114 regarding liberalizing changes), then records must be obtained.

Can a higher evaluation be assigned?- Based on effective date rules, this question can generally be answered

without obtaining the identified records. However, if there is a doubt, then obtain the records if it means the claimant can potentially receive an earlier effective date.

Reference: For more information on relevant records, see M21-1, Part I, 1.A.3.a.

c. Importance of Golz Decision in Determining Relevance of Evidence

See the following example of a situation in which records would not be considered relevant. This example is modeled after Golz v. Shinseki, 590 F.3d 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2010).

Example: A Veteran files a claim for SC for PTSD. He reports that he is in receipt of SSA disability benefits and attaches a copy of an SSA decision that found him to be disabled due to back and leg pain from a 2001 injury. There is no mention of mental health symptoms or treatment in the SSA decision.

Analysis: The Federal Circuit, in Golz v. Shinseki, 590 F.3d 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2010), held that if an SSA decision pertains to a completely unrelated medical condition and the Veteran makes no specific allegations that would give rise to a reasonable belief that the medical records may nonetheless pertain to the injury for which the Veteran seeks benefits, relevance is not established.

d. Other Examples When Records Are Considered Not Relevant

Example 1: A Veteran is SC for hypothyroidism evaluated at 30 percent since 1982. She, and submits a claim for increase in 2014. She indicates she was treated twice by a private physician for fatigue and constipation in 1984 but no treatment since then. No other rating decisions have been completed since the original award of SC in 1982. An examination is immediately ordered without development for the 1984 records.

Analysis: Although the records from 1984 relate to the claimed issue, they do not present a reasonable possibility of substantiating the claim 30 years later for an increased evaluation. In other words, there is no reasonable possibility that an earlier effective date or higher evaluation will be assigned if these records are obtained. Therefore, the records are not relevant.

Example 2: A Veteran claims SC for low back disability. A review of the claims folder indicates the military dental treatment records are missing.

Analysis: Since those STRs are not likely to relate to the back claim, it is reasonable to

conclude that the dental records are not relevant to the claim for low back.

Example 3: Presumptive SC for Type 2 diabetes is awarded based on an original claim for SC. A current VA examination and private medical evidence showing treatment for diabetes over the last three years was considered. While the rating decision awaits promulgation, a signed release is received from the Veteran indicating diabetes treatment for a short period of time nine years ago. The RVSRindividual who issued the decision determines that the evidence identified by the Veteran is not relevant.

Analysis: The records from nine years ago do in fact relate to the claimed condition. However, since the claim has already been substantiated and there is no reasonable possibility of establishing an earlier effective date or higher evaluation for diabetes, the records are considered not relevant and therefore do not need to be obtained.

Example 4: In Example 3, the Veteran passes away in June 2014 (no claim pending at death). The surviving spouse submits a VA Form 21P-530, Application for Burial Benefits as well as a death certificate documenting diabetes was a contributing factor for the cause of death. She claims on the application that the Veteran’s death was related to his military service. The spouse also submits a medical release form with the attached VA Form 21-4142a and a statement asking VA to obtain records related to the Veteran’s diabetic treatment prior to death.

Analysis: Although the records relate to the claimed issue, the Veteran’s death certificate is sufficient to link the cause of death to the Veteran’s SC disability, therefore, the medical release form submitted with the claim is not relevant and records do not need to be obtained.

Example 5: A Veteran submits an original claim for pension. The Veteran served in the Navy from 1971-1974. The Veteran submits a report from his family physician for his back condition that is sufficient to grant pension. The Veteran also submits a separate VA Form 21-4142a and statement specifying treatment for the back, and they reveal treatment for the low back by a different physician two weeks after the date of treatment by his family physician.

Analysis: Because the current evidence is sufficient to substantiate the claim and grant pension, the records from the second physician are not considered relevant since obtaining such records would not likely result in a greater benefit or earlier effective date.

Example 6: A surviving spouse claims the Veteran’s death (shown as liver failure) is related to his service. The Veteran was SC for bilateral hearing loss evaluated at 30 percent at the time of death. Review of the STRs is silent for any treatment or complaint of a liver condition in service. The surviving spouse submits a medical release form with the attached VA Form 21-4142a and a statement with her claim requesting we retrieve records surrounding the Veteran’s liver failure in the year preceding his death.

Analysis: Since it is highly unlikely that retrieval of the records for liver failure would provide a nexus between the Veteran’s hearing loss and his cause of death, nor likely to aid in substantiating the SC death claim, these records are not relevant unless the surviving spouse provides a specific reason why they are relevant.

e. Clinical Mental Health Records Considered Relevant

For the purposes of adjudicating claims for SC for mental disorders, all clinical records from military service are considered relevant and shall be obtained. See Moore v. Shinseki, 555 F.3d 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2009).

Reference: For information on clinical records and guidance for requesting such records, see M21-1, Part III, Subpart iii, 2.B.43.d, and M21-1, Part III, Subpart iii, 2.A.12.c.

f. Documenting the Claims Folder When Identified Evidence is Not Considered Relevant

When it is determined that records identified by the claimant are not relevant, a formal documentation of this determination must be completed and made part of the claims folder.

VSRs, RVSRs, and Decision Review Officers (DROs) Claims processors shall document the claimant’s record when evidence identified by the claimant is not considered relevant and VA’s duty to assist under 38 U.S.C. 5103A does not require VA to obtain those records.

Follow the steps below when documenting the claimant’s record.

If ... Then ...during development, the VSR claims processor determines evidence is considered not relevant

the VSR that claims processor shall

add the following note in VBMS using the note feature:- Records from [name of facility or

physician] not requested because they are not relevant, and

associate the note to the corresponding claim.

when rating the claim, the RVSR/DRO decision maker sees a note in VBMS indicating that certain identified records are not relevant

if RVSR/DRO that decision maker agrees, the RVSR/DRO he/she shall insert the above statement into the INTRO/EVIDENCE tab under UPDATE EVIDENCE in FREE TEXT EVIDENCE, or

if RVSR/DRO that decision maker does not agree, the RVSR/DRO he/she shall develop or direct development for the records.

Notes: If the claim has been excluded from VBMS, then the proper documentation

shall be made in Modern Award Processing-Development (MAP-D) by placing the same note in the above table under the Veteran’s profile screen.

It is imperative that RVSRs/DROs decision makers, in addition to reviewing items under the DOCUMENTS tab in VBMS, also review all electronic notes found in either VBMS or MAP-D, prior to rating the case.

When deciding appeals, RVSRs/DROs decision makers shall annotate the Evidence section of the Statement of the Case (SOC) or Supplemental Statement of the Case (SSOC) with the same note from the above table when evidence is not considered relevant.

5. Notification of Inability to Obtain Records

Introduction This topic contains general information on VA’s obligation to notify the claimant of the inability to obtain records, including notification requirements of inability to obtain

private records, and Federal records.

Change Date January 15, 2016March 23, 2018

a. Notification Requirements of Inability to Obtain Private Records

VA has a duty under 38 U.S.C. 5103A(b) and 38 CFR 3.159(e) to notify claimants of the inability to obtain any relevant private records that are identified by the claimant and necessary to substantiate a claim.

If VA has made reasonable efforts to obtain relevant private records identified by the claimant, and such records are not obtained, decision makers must ensure that claimants receive the appropriate notification. The notification must

identify the records that were not obtained briefly explain the efforts made to obtain the records describe any further action that will be taken with respect to the claim

including follow-up requests and that VA is processing the claim based on the evidence of record, and

indicate that the claimant is ultimately responsible for providing the evidence.

Note: The required notification of inability to obtain private records may also be sent by the VSR at the same time VA when makinges its a final attempt to obtain the records.

References: For more information on sending notice of private medical record unavailability, see M21-1, Part III,

Subpart iii, 1.C.3D.1.g, and evidence requested from the claimant, see M21-1, Part III, Subpart iii, 1.B.

b. Notification Requirements of Inability to Obtain Federal Records

VA has the duty under 38 CFR 3.159(e) to notify claimants of the inability to obtain relevant Federal records that are necessary to substantiate a claim.

If, after continued efforts to obtain Federal records, it is reasonably certain that such records do not exist or further efforts to obtain them would be futile, VA must provide the claimant with a final attempt notification letter as discussed in M21-1, Part III, Subpart iii, 1.C.2.d1.e.

The notification must contain the following information:

the identity of the Federal records that were not obtained an explanation of the efforts made to obtain the records a description of any further action that will be taken with respect to the

claim including a notice that VA will process the claim based on the

evidence of record unless the claimant furnishes such records, and an indication that the claimant is ultimately responsible for providing the

evidence.

References: For more information on documenting attempts to obtain VA records when records do not exist or

further attempts to obtain them would be futile, see M21-1, Part III, Subpart iii, 1.C.2.l4.i

control and follow up on requests for service records, see M21-1, Part III, Subpart iii, 2.I

requesting records from SSA, see M21-1, Part III, Subpart iii, 3.A, and requesting evidence from Federal record custodians sources other than the

claimant, see M21-1, Part III, Subpart iii, 1.C.