Question regarding the VA 5 Year Rule For "Stable" Disability

nwlivewire

nwlivewire

PEB Forum Regular Member
PEB Forum Veteran
Someone was telling me about a VA rule for assessing a "stable" rating for VA rating purposes.

I am really foggy on this and need clarification.

When does this 5-year clock begin?

I have a "Proposed" VA rating from the IDES process.

In the VA part of this process, the VA listed each name of medical/psych issue and also listed the injury/disease on-set date.

How does the VA determine the 5 year "stable" ruling?

Is it based on the date on on-set?

Here is an example of what the VA wrote for one medical issue:

"A review of your service treatment records show you had [XXX] through your deployment in 2006.....A review of your VA predischarge exam you reported that your condition has existed since November 2006 when you injured yourself during training....There is no evidence that his condition preexisted military service, and it was diagnosed on VA predischarge examination. Your statement as to the date of onset and continuity of symptoms has been deemed credible. As such, you meet the requirements of a 40% evaluation because [VASRD rating criteria related to XXX]."

So when does this 5 year timeclock start ticking for VA stable rating purposes?

At time of on-set (NOV 2006)? The date on this Proposed Rating notice? The date I receive final, official notification for disability compensation? Five years after I begin receiving compensation for this issue?

I have four issues that have an on-set date of NOV 2006, and the VA math has a combined rating of 86% (90%) for these four issues.

I have other issues with different onset dates (newer dates), but, when all combined, the VA issued a 100% proposed rating.

Thank-you in advance for answering this stable rating question
 
nwlivewire said:
Someone was telling me about a VA rule for assessing a "stable" rating for VA rating purposes.

I am really foggy on this and need clarification.

When does this 5-year clock begin?

I have a "Proposed" VA rating from the IDES process.

In the VA part of this process, the VA listed each name of medical/psych issue and also listed the injury/disease on-set date.

How does the VA determine the 5 year "stable" ruling?

Is it based on the date on on-set?

Here is an example of what the VA wrote for one medical issue:

"A review of your service treatment records show you had [XXX] through your deployment in 2006.....A review of your VA predischarge exam you reported that your condition has existed since November 2006 when you injured yourself during training....There is no evidence that his condition preexisted military service, and it was diagnosed on VA predischarge examination. Your statement as to the date of onset and continuity of symptoms has been deemed credible. As such, you meet the requirements of a 40% evaluation because [VASRD rating criteria related to XXX]."

So when does this 5 year timeclock start ticking for VA stable rating purposes?

At time of on-set (NOV 2006)? The date on this Proposed Rating notice? The date I receive final, official notification for disability compensation? Five years after I begin receiving compensation for this issue?

I have four issues that have an on-set date of NOV 2006, and the VA math has a combined rating of 86% (90%) for these four issues.

I have other issues with different onset dates (newer dates), but, when all combined, the VA issued a 100% proposed rating.

Thank-you in advance for answering this stable rating question
Click to expand...

bump please...... Is there a VA rule in establishing a "Stable" rating for a physical OR mental health issue?
 
This question was addressed while I was in the Warrior Training Battalion at Fort Bragg in 2010. It still is a little fuzzy but the way it was explained to me is this:

The qualifying condition is deemed "stable" when it meets two criteria:
1. When the qualifying condition has reached it's maximum threshold of progress - meaning the condition will not get any better with different treatment options.
2. When the qualifying condition will not regress or worsen under the current treatment plan.

As far as the 5 year countdown, I was told that the clock starts ticking upon the approval of the condition as a "qualifying" condition which I interpreted to mean when the DoD or VA gives you the rating for it. The 5 year countdown is to ensure that the condition does not worsen over time. This issue was addressed in regards to military medical retirement rather than VA disability compensation but I imagine it is quite similar.

Clear as mud right? I hope I helped a bit.
 
jpdeters said:
This question was addressed while I was in the Warrior Training Battalion at Fort Bragg in 2010. It still is a little fuzzy but the way it was explained to me is this:

The qualifying condition is deemed "stable" when it meets two criteria:
1. When the qualifying condition has reached it's maximum threshold of progress - meaning the condition will not get any better with different treatment options.
2. When the qualifying condition will not regress or worsen under the current treatment plan.

As far as the 5 year countdown, I was told that the clock starts ticking upon the approval of the condition as a "qualifying" condition which I interpreted to mean when the DoD or VA gives you the rating for it. The 5 year countdown is to ensure that the condition does not worsen over time. This issue was addressed in regards to military medical retirement rather than VA disability compensation but I imagine it is quite similar.

Clear as mud right? I hope I helped a bit.
Click to expand...

Does anyone know how this would relate to the 55 years of age clause? Does it still apply? How are rating given after 55th birthday applied... can they be re evaluated and ratings changed? :confused:
 


5.10 VA PROCEEDINGS TO REDUCE A RATING

5.10.1 The Requirement of Sustained Improvement to Reduce a Rating Level That Has Been in Effect for Five or More Years

5.10.2 Protections against Reductions after Twenty Years of Continuous Rating at a Particular Level

5.10.3 Rules Regulating the Reduction of Total (100 Percent) Disability Evaluations

5.10.4 Rating Reduction in Unprotected Cases (Cases Involving Disabilities Where the Veteran Does Not Have Either a Total Disability or a Disability Rating That Has Been in Effect for Five Years or More)

5.10.5 Protection against Reductions Based on Revision of the Schedule for Rating Disabilities

5.10.6 The Remedy for Violation of the Rules Regulating Reductions in Disability Ratings Is Reinstatement of the Rating

5.10.7 The Process by Which Running Awards of Compensation Are Reduced

The VA reexamination process discussed in the previous Section sometimes results in a determination that the veterans disability has decreased in severity. Sometimes the VA seeks to reduce a veterans disability rating, or to terminate service-connected status entirely. 520 Unlike other administrative actions, a reduction in a veterans disability evaluation is not permitted merely because a later adjudicator has a different opinion on how the evidence or the rating schedule should be interpreted. A reduction in a veterans disability rating is permitted only where certain circumstances exist and where particular legal guidelines have been satisfied. 521 Before any existing disability evaluation can be lawfully reduced, VA is obligated to satisfy a variety of legal requirements. Moreover, the VA bears the burden of proof in establishing, by a preponderance of the evidence, that a reduction is warranted under the relevant regulations. 522

In some situations, the veterans rating, or even the service-connected status of a disability, is protected. In these situations, the VA is entirely prohibited by statute or regulation from reducing a rating unless fraud was involved. A veteran with a protected rating that was obtained without fraud is guaranteed benefits at a certain minimum level for the rest of the veterans life.

In other situations, the VA must ensure that certain requirements are met before it may lawfully reduce a disability rating level. If the requirements are not met, the improperly reduced benefits must be reinstated. For example, veterans who have been assigned 100 percent schedular evaluations or 100 percent evaluations based on individual unemployability, or veterans who have had ratings that have been in effect for five years or more, receive special protection. The various rules that protect veterans against reductions in ratings are discussed below.

Footnotes

520. For information on the severance of service connection, see Section 5.11.

521. See Dofflemyer, 2 Vet. App. at 280 (There is no question that a disability rating may be reduced; however, the circumstances under which rating reductions can occur are specifically limited and carefully circumscribed by regulations promulgated by the Secretary.).

522. See Hayes, 9 Vet. App. at 73; Kitchens v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 320, 325 (1995); Brown v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 413, 421 (1993).





5.10.1 The Requirement of Sustained Improvement to Reduce a Rating Level That Has Been in Effect for Five or More Years



Any rating evaluation that has stabilized, that is, continued for [a] long period[] at the same level (five years or more), 523 whether it is at the 10 percent or 100 percent level, may not be reduced unless all the evidence of record shows sustained improvement in the disability. 524

Because 38 C.F.R. 3.344(a) requires that all the evidence of recordsupport the conclusion that sustained improvement in the disability has occurred, the VA cannot view the single examination upon which the reduction is proposed in isolation from the rest of the record. 525 In other words, the entire medical history of the disability must always be considered in conjunction with any rating examination upon which a reduction is proposed. 526 In Schafrath v. Derwinski, the court explained the purpose of this rule as follows:

These requirements for evaluation of the complete medical history of the claimants condition operate to protect claimants against adverse decisions based on a single, incomplete or inaccurate report and to enable VA to make a more precise evaluation of the level of the disability and of any changes in the condition. These considerations are especially strong in a ratings reduction case. 527

It is precisely because a disability is stabilized that the VA must take care when proposing to reduce the rating evaluation assigned to it. Because uch disabilities are considered stabilized, . . . the regulation thus requires a high degree of accuracy in decisions reducing those ratings. 528

There are several other rules the VA must follow before reducing a rating that has been in effect for five years or more. The VA must review the entire record of examinations and the medical-industrial history . . . to ascertain whether the recent examination [upon which the VA is relying to reduce the rating] is full and complete. 529 Any examination that is less full and complete than that examination on which payments were authorized or continued may not be used as a basis of reduction. 530 If the disability is subject to temporary and episodic improvement, it will not be reduced on any one examination, except in those circumstances in which all the evidence of record clearly warrants the conclusion that sustained improvement has been demonstrated. 531 Even though material improvement in the physical or mental condition is clearly demonstrated, the VA will [consider] whether the evidence makes it reasonably certain that the improvement will be maintained under the ordinary conditions of life. 532

Footnotes

523. 38 C.F.R. 3.344(c) (2007).

524. Id. 3.344(a).

525. Schafrath, 1 Vet. App. at 594.

526. Id.; see also Brown, 5 Vet. App. at 421.

527. Id.

528. Id.

529. Brown, 5 Vet. App. at 419 (citing 38 C.F.R. 3.344(a)).

530. 38 C.F.R. 3.344(a) (2007); see also Brown, 5 Vet. App. at 419.

531. 38 C.F.R. 3.344(a) (2007); see also Brown, 5 Vet. App. at 419.

532. 38 C.F.R. 3.344(a) (2007); see also Brown, 5 Vet. App. at 419.
 
5.10.2 Protections against Reductions after Twenty Years of Continuous Rating at a Particular Level



If a disability has been continuously rated at or above a particular rating level for twenty or more years, the VA cannot reduce the rating below that level unless it discovers that the rating was based on fraud. 533 For example, if a veteran is granted compensation based upon an original rating of 30 percent and for the next twenty years the rating varies between 30 percent and 100 percent, the rating cannot thereafter be reduced below 30 percent in the absence of fraud. The twenty-year protection rule applies even to rating levels that are assigned retroactively because a previous final decision is revised based on a finding of clear and unmistakable error (CUE). That is, if a rating is retroactively increased [based on a finding of CUE] and the effective date of such increase is more than twenty years in the past, the revised disability percentage is protected by the twenty-year protection rule. 534 (The concept of clear and unmistakable error is discussed in Section 14.4 of this Manual.)

Footnotes

533. 38 U.S.C.S. 110; 38 C.F.R. 3.951(b)(2007); See Colayong, 12 Vet. App. at 531-32 (veterans 60 percent rating for Potts disease that has been in effect for at least twenty years is preserved by operation of law); Cf. Dofflemyer v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 277, 280 (1992) (a rating twenty days short of having been in effect for twenty years was not protected from reduction by 3.951(b)).

534. VA. Gen. Coun. Prec. 68-91 (Sept. 26, 1991).





5.10.3 Rules Regulating the Reduction of Total (100 Percent) Disability Evaluations



Advocates unfamiliar with veterans law might logically think that when the VA considers reducing a total (100 percent) rating, the issue to be decided is whether the veterans current symptomatology is equal to the symptomatology needed for the 100 percent evaluation. 535 However, in the absence of clear error in its previous total disability rating, the issue the VA must decide is whether there has been material improvement in the physical or mental condition evaluated as 100 percent disabling. 536 Without an examination that confirms such improvement, the VA is prohibited from reducing the veterans rating. 537

The VA must compare the evidence it relied on in its most recent decision to continue the 100 percent evaluation with the evidence it intends to rely upon to reduce the 100 percent evaluation. 538 In Karnas v. Derwinski, 539 the CAVC ruled that if there has been no improvement at all since the date of the last examination continuing the 100 percent rating, a reduction is prohibited. When deciding whether there has been improvement in the veterans condition, the CAVC has held that the VA may look at both medical and nonmedical evidence to determine whether a veterans condition has materially improved. 540

**Advocacy Tip** In some instances, the evidence reveals some improvement in the service-connected disability. If this is the case, advocates are advised to compare the most recent evidence with the earlier evidence used to continue or establish the 100 percent evaluation. If feasible, the advocate should argue that there has been no improvement. Alternatively, the advocate should argue that even though there has been some improvement in the service-connected condition, this is not significant enough to constitute material improvement because some improvement does not constitute material improvement.

The regulations also preclude a reduction unless the improvement was attained under the ordinary conditions of life, i.e., while working or actively seeking work. 541 A private medical opinion stating that the claimant has not medically improved since the 100 percent evaluation was assigned or continued can be crucial in these cases. A common tactical advocacy error is to argue that the severity of the veterans service-connected condition still meets the definition of 100 percent in the rating schedule. As stated earlier, the issue is not what percentage evaluation the current symptomatology warrants but whether the service-connected condition has materially improved. Therefore, advocates should refer to the rating schedule but not rely on it exclusively.

Even if the VA is justified in reducing a total rating after applying the rating reduction rules described above, an additional rule applies that may result in the preservation of the veterans entitlement to benefits at the total rating level. If the VA determines that a reduction in a total schedular rating (100 percent) is warranted, but the record reflects that the veteran is unable to engage in substantially gainful employment by virtue of his or her service-connected disability, the veteran must be awarded a total (100 percent) rating based on the individual unemployability (TDIU) provisions of 38 C.F.R. 4.16. 542 Moreover, once a veteran is in receipt of benefits at the total rating level based on TDIU, the VA may not reduce the benefits unless clear and convincing evidence establishes that the veteran is capable of actual employability. 543

Footnotes

535. See Dofflemyer, 2 Vet. App. at 279-80 (The BVA incorrectly phrased the issue in terms of whether appellant was entitled to an increased rating; in fact and in law, the issue presented to the BVA, and to this Court, is not whether the veteran was entitled to an increase but whether the reduction of appellants rating from 100% to 10% was proper.); Peyton, 1 Vet. App. at 286 (This is a rating reduction case, not a rating increase case).

536. 38 C.F.R. 3.343(a) (2007).

537. 38 C.F.R. 3.343(a) (2007). Temporary 100 percent ratings are not subject to the general rule established by 38 C.F.R. 3.343(a) that reductions of a total rating be based on material improvement.See 38 C.F.R. 4.28, 4.29, 4.30 (2007) (regulations governing prestabilization ratings and total ratings assigned because the veteran is hospitalized or convalescing).

538. See Ternus v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 370, 376 (1994); Dofflemyer, 2 Vet. App. at 280; Hohol v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 169, 173 (1992).

539. 1 Vet. App. 308 (1991).

540. Faust v. West, 13 Vet. App. 342, 349-50 (2000).

541. 38 C.F.R. 3.343(a) (2007); see Ternus, 6 Vet. App. at 376; Dofflemyer, 2 Vet. App. at 280; Hohol, 2 Vet. App. at 173;Karnas, 1 Vet. App. at 308.

542. Hohol, 2 Vet. App. 169, 173 (1992); Gleicher v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 26, 28 (1991); Karnas, 1 Vet. App. at 311;see also Manual M21-1MR, Part III, subpart iv, 8.D.14(b).

543. 38 C.F.R. 3.343(c) (2007). See Faust, 13 Vet. App. at 356. In that case, the CAVC held that evidence that indicates that a veteran is engaged in substantially gainful employment establishes that the veteran is capable of actual employability.Id. See Section5.5.1 for a discussion of substantially gainful employment.
 
5.10.4 Rating Reduction in Unprotected Cases (Cases Involving Disabilities Where the Veteran Does Not Have Either a Total Disability or a Disability Rating That Has Been in Effect for Five Years or More)



Although the protections discussed above are limited to total (100 percent) disabilities and disabilities where the rating has been in effect for five years or more, 544 the advocate may still wish to argue that other VA regulations and substantive rules protect a disability rating from being reduced. In Faust v. West, 545 the CAVC made clear that the VA is required to comply with several general VA regulations regardless of the rating level or the length of time that the rating has been in effect. For example:

Any proposed reduction must be based upon review of the entire history of the veterans disability;

The VA must determine whether there has been an actual change in the disability;

Any improvement must reflect an improvement in the veterans ability to function under the ordinary conditions of life and work; and

Examination reports reflecting any such change must be based on thorough examinations.

**Advocacy Tip** The following argument includes boilerplate language that an advocate may wish to use in such a case.

VA regulations impose a duty on the VA to make an explicit finding that the preponderance of evidence shows that there has been improvement in any disability rating that the VA proposes to reduce. Specifically, 38 C.F.R. 4.1 (2007) states that t is . . . essential, both in the examination and in the evaluation of the disability, that each disability be viewed in relation to its history. Similarly, 38 C.F.R. 4.2 (2007) establishes that t is the responsibility of the rating specialist to interpret reports of examination in light of the whole recorded history, reconciling the various reports into a consistent picture so that the current rating may accurately reflect the elements of disability present. These provisions impose a clear requirement that VA rating reductions, as with all VA rating decisions, be based upon review of the entire history of the veterans disability. . . . Furthermore, 38 C.F.R. 4.13 (2007) provides: When any change in evaluation is to be made, the rating agency should assure itself that there has been an actual change in the conditions, for better or worse, and not merely a difference in [the] thoroughness of the examination or in use of descriptive terms.

Pursuant to these provisions, it is obvious that in any rating-reduction case, the RO and BVA are required to ascertain, based upon review of the entire recorded history of the condition, whether the evidence reflects an actual change in the disability and whether the examination reports reflecting such change are based upon thorough examinations. 546

Thus, the VA is required to review the entire evidence of record and to determine and make an explicit finding as to whether the evidence shows that there is an actual improvement in a veterans disability since the last rating decision which either granted or continued the disability rating before the VA may reduce the disability rating.

In addition to these VA regulations, Manual M21-1MR, Part III, subpart iv, 8.D.12(b) requires the VA to make findings that the evidence demonstrates improvement before a rating reduction is made. Specifically, it states that the VA must:

outline the time period in which application of 38 C.F.R. 3.344 (stabilization of disability evaluations) is based

cite evidence of sustained improvement after one review examination, or a preponderance of evidence showing sustained improvement based on more than one examination and

explain why it is reasonably certain that improvement will be maintained under the ordinary conditions of life.

Therefore, the VA may not lawfully reduce a disability rating unless it addresses whether the condition has actually improved since the time it was either granted or continued.

Footnotes

544. See Smith (Raymond L.) v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 335, 339 (1993).

545. 13 Vet. App. 342, 349 (2000).

546. Brown v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 413, 420-21 (1993). See also Lehman v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 339, 342-43 (finding that the Board violated 38 C.F.R. 4.1, 4.2 where the Board relied upon one medical report which drastically differed from all other evidence of record without reconciling the evidence).
 
NDBravehart84 said:
Does anyone know how this would relate to the 55 years of age clause? Does it still apply? How are rating given after 55th birthday applied... can they be re evaluated and ratings changed? :confused:
Click to expand...
Sec. 3.327 Reexaminations.

(a) General. Reexaminations, including periods of hospital
observation, will be requested whenever VA determines there is a need to
verify either the continued existence or the current severity of a
disability. Generally, reexaminations will be required if it is likely
that a disability has improved, or if evidence indicates there has been
a material change in a disability or that the current rating may be
incorrect. Individuals for whom reexaminations have been authorized and
scheduled are required to report for such reexaminations. Paragraphs (b)
and (c) of this section provide general guidelines for requesting
reexaminations, but shall not be construed as limiting VA's authority to
request reexaminations, or periods of hospital observation, at any time
in order to ensure that a disability is accurately rated.


(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 501)

(b) Compensation cases--(1) Scheduling reexaminations. Assignment of
a prestabilization rating requires reexamination within the second 6
months period following separation from service. Following initial
Department of Veterans Affairs examination, or any scheduled future or
other examination, reexamination, if in order, will be scheduled within
not less than 2 years nor more than 5 years within the judgment of the
rating board, unless another time period is elsewhere specified.
(2) No periodic future examinations will be requested. In service-
connected cases, no periodic reexamination will be scheduled: (i) When
the disability is established as static;
(ii) When the findings and symptoms are shown by examinations
scheduled in paragraph (b)(2)(i) of this section or

[[Page 254]]

other examinations and hospital reports to have persisted without
material improvement for a period of 5 years or more;
(iii) Where the disability from disease is permanent in character
and of such nature that there is no likelihood of improvement;
(iv) In cases of veterans over 55 years of age, except under unusual
circumstances;
(v) When the rating is a prescribed scheduled minimum rating; or
(vi) Where a combined disability evaluation would not be affected if
the future examination should result in reduced evaluation for one or
more conditions.
(c) Pension cases. In nonservice-connected cases in which the
permanent total disability has been confirmed by reexamination or by the
history of the case, or with obviously static disabilities, further
reexaminations will not generally be requested. In other cases further
examination will not be requested routinely and will be accomplished
only if considered necessary based upon the particular facts of the
individual case. In the cases of veterans over 55 years of age,
reexamination will be requested only under unusual circumstances.
 
Gosh that clears that up... :confused: Has anyone seen the little yellow bus that picks me up.... oh and I need my helmet, has anyone seen my helmet? :confused:
Thanks pittpan, that's as clear as the sky during a hurricane... LOL ... depends when and which direction you look...... I'm so confused :confused:
 
NDBravehart84 said:
Gosh that clears that up... :confused: Has anyone seen the little yellow bus that picks me up.... oh and I need my helmet, has anyone seen my helmet? :confused:
Thanks pittpan, that's as clear as the sky during a hurricane... LOL ... depends when and which direction you look...... I'm so confused :confused:
Click to expand...


WOW!!! Pittpan 2005 - this is FANTISTIC!!! Great research. Thank-you so much for sharing all this!!!

I happen to be over the age of 55, and rec'd a "proposed" VA rating of 100% IU with Chapter 35 ed benefits. This is the "proposed" IDES VA outcome, but since I've recently discharged under 70% PDRL, I was wondering about the VA side of the house.

I've not rec'd anything or any word from the VA yet (it's been a month since discharge, and I did fax the VA REP my DD-214). But DFAS sent me a paper that says I am to begin getting my PDRL money in June. DFAS is set to pay me the 100% dollar amount of my 70% PDRL as I guess the VA and DFAS have not communicated between each other on the off-sets yet. (non-combat related, and I receive SSDI).

Not sure how to track the VA or how long it takes the VA to begin their compensation after discharge. But it looks like DFAS is picking up the entire amount until something happens with the VA side.

v/r,
nwlivewire
 
nwlivewire said:
WOW!!! Pittpan 2005 - this is FANTISTIC!!! Great research. Thank-you so much for sharing all this!!!

v/r,
nwlivewire
Click to expand...

Yes there are alot of great people here that assist many Brothers and Sisters In Arms in their pursuit of clarity..... pittpan 2005 is one of thoses great people. :D
 
NDBravehart84 said:
Gosh that clears that up... :confused: Has anyone seen the little yellow bus that picks me up.... oh and I need my helmet, has anyone seen my helmet? :confused:
Thanks pittpan, that's as clear as the sky during a hurricane... LOL ... depends when and which direction you look...... I'm so confused :confused:
Click to expand...

Ultimately, the VA can strictly adhere to all "recommended policies," or not be compelled to follow the rules. They don't try and take peoples entitlements and medical care away, but the regulations do give them an "out" or "trump card," but they don't seem to use them.

ND, copy and paste is all I have to say. Some people do some great work and I appreciate them letting me borrow it.
 
pittpan2005 said:
Ultimately, the VA can strictly adhere to all "recommended policies," or not be compelled to follow the rules. They don't try and take peoples entitlements and medical care away, but the regulations do give them an "out" or "trump card," but they don't seem to use them.

ND, copy and paste is all I have to say. Some people do some great work and I appreciate them letting me borrow it.
Click to expand...

Hey did you ever meet that guy....... GOOGLE....... or something like that? I hear he's pretty smart too.... LOL :D
 
nwlivewire said:
WOW!!! Pittpan 2005 - this is FANTISTIC!!! Great research. Thank-you so much for sharing all this!!!

I happen to be over the age of 55, and rec'd a "proposed" VA rating of 100% IU with Chapter 35 ed benefits. This is the "proposed" IDES VA outcome, but since I've recently discharged under 70% PDRL, I was wondering about the VA side of the house.

I've not rec'd anything or any word from the VA yet (it's been a month since discharge, and I did fax the VA REP my DD-214). But DFAS sent me a paper that says I am to begin getting my PDRL money in June. DFAS is set to pay me the 100% dollar amount of my 70% PDRL as I guess the VA and DFAS have not communicated between each other on the off-sets yet. (non-combat related, and I receive SSDI).

Not sure how to track the VA or how long it takes the VA to begin their compensation after discharge. But it looks like DFAS is picking up the entire amount until something happens with the VA side.

v/r,
nwlivewire
Click to expand...
Just keep checking with VA and ebenefits on your status. Once DFAS and VA communicate you will receive the higher of two, or both, and receive the notification in the mail showing the monetary breakdown.
 
Don't confuse military standards for "stability" and placement on TDRL vice PDRL with the VA standards. This can confuse a lot of folks, but the issues are different.
 
Jason said:
Don't confuse military standards for "stability" and placement on TDRL vice PDRL with the VA standards. This can confuse a lot of folks, but the issues are different.
Click to expand...
Thanks Jason. This was just VA stability for VA C&P. Nothing to do with military standards and stability(PDRL) vs instability(TDRL) and don't want anyone to confuse the two.

Thanks......
 
pittpan2005 said:
Thanks Jason. This was just VA stability for VA C&P. Nothing to do with military standards and stability(PDRL) vs instability(TDRL) and don't want anyone to confuse the two.

Thanks......
Click to expand...


Dear Jason:

I have been wondering the same thing about the differences between the VA stable ratings and the Army stable ratings criteria. Especially as it relates to mental health issues such as PTSD, MDD, GAD for a stable Army PDRL rating vice Unstable Army TDRL rating.

Is PDRL STABLE EVER given as the initial rating for a mental health issue in the Army IDES process? Reason I ask is that my PEBLO stated that any MH issue is NEVER awarded due to some NDAA clause the Army is using to never award PDRL for any MH issue - no matter how long the SM has been diagnosded and treated for it. Especially as it relates to PTSD, MDD, and/or GAD.

Is this true? And why would the military NEVER award PDRL out the gate for ANY MH issue during the IDES process - even if the SM has been dealing with a specific MH issue for years with treatment/meds?

And another question I have is this (but I might have my thoughts in error here): If a SM has STABLE on their physical issues, and even though they have only one MH issue, the Army issues TDRL; and then later, ALL their issues (physical/stable and all) are "up for grabs" during the re-eval process - even though the physical issues were considered stable at time of retirement under the IDES process? How is any of that right or fair? What's the point of giving a stable assessment, then awarding TDRL for all it, and then having the SM redo all of them during a TDRL re-eval?

v/r,
nwlivewire
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top