A Longstanding Eye Rating Was Reduced. A Later 100% Rating Was Still Granted.

The Board upheld a reduction of a longstanding 100% eye rating, then granted a 100% rating for a later period in the same decision.

Those results are not interchangeable. In A25058354, issued July 8, 2025, the Board found intentional misrepresentation in the historical evidence. It separately found that later evidence supported the requirements for a 100% evaluation and special monthly compensation.

This is an unusual record. I would not use it to suggest that ordinary differences between eye examinations establish fraud, or that longstanding ratings have no protection.

The Board answered a historical question and a later-rating question

The challenged reduction lowered the bilateral macular-degeneration rating from 100% to 30%, effective January 17, 1984. The Board denied restoration of the historical 100% rating.

It also evaluated the disability over later periods. Its order left the following stages in place or granted them:

The later 100% award did not restore the disputed historical award. It recognized a later level of disability based on the evidence the Board found reliable for that period.

The order also granted February 21, 2020 as the effective date for SMC at the L rate based on blindness in both eyes and for Dependents' Educational Assistance. It denied TDIU. The evidence and requirements for those issues were discussed separately.

What the Board said about fraud

The decision compared visual-acuity reports, clinical findings and other evidence about functioning. It concluded that the veteran had knowingly misrepresented the severity of vision loss to obtain or retain benefits.

That is the Board's administrative finding in this decision. This article is not an independent finding about the veteran's conduct and does not report a criminal conviction.

The distinction matters because measurements can differ for many reasons. A person may have different corrected and uncorrected acuity, different results over time or other medical explanations. A contradiction needs investigation; it is not automatically proof of intent.

The Board explained why it found the particular historical reports unreliable and why it accepted other evidence. Readers assessing their own records should concentrate on the actual findings and the medical explanation, not treat a single number as conclusive.

Longstanding ratings have protections with specific exceptions

38 C.F.R. § 3.951 addresses preservation of ratings. Its 20-year protection contains an exception for a showing that the rating was based on fraud. That exception was central to this case.

Other protections and procedures may also matter, depending on the action VA proposes. A reduction in evaluation, severance of service connection and a change in a dependent benefit are not the same action.

When section 3.105(e) applies to a proposed reduction that would lower compensation payments, it provides a period to submit evidence. Section 3.105(i) addresses the opportunity for a predetermination hearing. The commonly relevant periods are 60 days for additional evidence and 30 days to request that hearing, but read the actual notice and applicable provision.

This case involved the Board's finding of fraud and its discussion of the relevant procedural rules. It should not be used as a template for an ordinary medical-improvement reduction. If you receive a proposed adverse action, have an accredited representative review the notice promptly.

SMC-L is not the entire L amount added to ordinary 100% pay

Special monthly compensation provides higher compensation for qualifying circumstances. The basic L rate replaces the ordinary basic disability rate; it is not the full L amount stacked on top of ordinary 100% compensation.

For a historical comparison using the 2026 veteran-alone tables, ordinary 100% compensation is $3,938.58 monthly and SMC-L is $4,900.83. The difference is $962.25, before any other applicable adjustments. Those rates took effect December 1, 2025 and are not a calculation of this veteran's award.

Use VA's disability rates and SMC tables for the correct year and dependent status. A decision covering decades cannot be calculated by applying one current rate to every month.

What to check in a proposed reduction

Keep the notice, rating history and the evidence VA identifies. Separate the dispute into concrete questions: which period is being changed, what factual basis VA gives, which protection applies and what response deadline is listed.

If you believe examinations conflict, identify exactly what was measured, when, and under what conditions. Ask a qualified clinician to explain a medical inconsistency rather than inventing an explanation or assuming the worst.

For help reading the structure of a decision, see our rating-decision letter example. The order, reasons and effective dates need to be read together.

Source and scope

This article describes A25058354 and its distinct historical and later-period rulings. It does not establish a general rule about any other veteran's vision, credibility or rating protection. Board decisions are nonprecedential. Sources and illustrative 2026 rates reviewed September 16, 2026.