PTSD Back Pay Has a Deadline: How Five Days Cost This Veteran Eleven Months of Retro Pay

Case Citation: A25014726 | Decision Year: 2025 | Judge: J. Kirby

Five days.

That's the margin in this case. A veteran with PTSD, generalized anxiety disorder, and major depressive disorder filed his formal claim for an increased rating five days after the appeal window on his prior decision closed. The Board, applying the rules exactly as written, locked his 70 percent effective date to the day VA received that new claim. Eleven months of back pay at the difference between 30 percent and 70 percent, gone. Not because the symptoms weren't there. Because the paperwork landed on the wrong side of a deadline.

I want to walk through this one carefully, because effective date cases are where the most preventable losses happen in the VA system. The substantive rating analysis here is almost beside the point. The veteran won the underlying argument that his PTSD was severely disabling. He just couldn't get the back pay he was entitled to, because the law says the effective date is the date VA receives your claim, not the date you started getting sicker.

The Hook

The veteran served on active duty from July 1989 to September 2000. He filed a Notice of Intent to File in January 2019 and a formal service connection claim for PTSD in February 2019. In August 2019, VA granted service connection at 10 percent, effective January 30, 2019 (the intent-to-file date). He was notified of that decision on August 15, 2019.

He did not appeal. He did not file new evidence. The decision became final one year later, on August 15, 2020.

Five days after that, on August 20, 2020, he filed a formal claim for an increased rating. VA reviewed it, sent him to a contract examination in September 2020, and granted him 70 percent effective August 20, 2020. That is the date of his new claim. Not the date of the August 2019 decision he didn't appeal. Not the date his symptoms got worse. The date VA received the August 2020 claim.

He fought for an earlier effective date. He pursued Higher-Level Review. He filed a Board appeal. In February 2025, Veterans Law Judge J. Kirby denied the earlier effective date. The Judge also denied his bid for a rating higher than 70 percent. The same decision remanded his back disability rating and his TDIU claim for a new exam under Sharp v. Shulkin.

The veteran is now 75 years old. The Board granted his motion to advance the case on the docket because of his age. He's been fighting this since 2019. The five days he missed in August 2020 are still costing him.

What Happened (The Quick Version)

• Service: Active duty July 1989 to September 2000.
• Initial PTSD claim: February 2019. Granted at 10 percent in August 2019, effective January 30, 2019.
• Critical deadline: Appeal window on the August 2019 decision closed August 15, 2020.
• Increase claim filed: August 20, 2020. Five days after the prior decision became final.
• Increase granted: October 2020 rating decision. Bumped from 30 percent to 70 percent (the 30 percent appears to reflect an intermediate adjustment) effective August 20, 2020.
• Higher-Level Review: Filed February 2021 and September 2021. Both HLR decisions affirmed the August 2020 effective date.
• Board appeal filed: April 20, 2022, on the Evidence Submission docket.
• Motion to advance on docket: Granted January 2025 based on the veteran's age (75 or older).
• Board decision (February 19, 2025):
• Earlier effective date for 70 percent PTSD: denied.
• Rating in excess of 70 percent for PTSD: denied.
• Back disability rating: remanded for a new exam compliant with Sharp v. Shulkin.
• TDIU: remanded as inextricably intertwined with the back disability claim.
• Connection theory: Not in dispute. PTSD was already service-connected. The fight was over rating severity and effective date.
• Evidence in record: VA C&P examination, treating physician records, private independent medical evaluation, DBQ, lay statements.

Why This Matters to You

If you have any service-connected condition and you are watching it get worse, the single most important thing you need to understand from this case is the effective date rule. Specifically: the year-back exception, and what it actually requires. Most veterans assume that if their condition got worse, the back pay will follow the worsening. That is not how the rule works. The rule is mechanical, the deadlines are unforgiving, and the cost of missing them is measured in thousands of dollars per month. What you'll walk away with from this breakdown is a specific understanding of when to file, what evidence you need in the record before you file, and why "I was getting sicker" is not by itself enough to get the back pay.

Why This Case Matters

• The effective date rule is mechanical, not equitable. It does not matter how sick you were, how long you had been struggling, or how unfair the timing feels. The rule is: effective date is the date of claim or the date entitlement arose, whichever is later. There is one narrow exception, and it requires factually ascertainable evidence in the record from the one-year window before the claim.
• The one-year look-back is not automatic. Veterans hear "one year retro" and assume it applies any time they file an increase. It only applies if there is documented medical evidence in the one-year window showing the increase. No documentation, no look-back.
• Final decisions are final on the calendar, not the symptoms. The August 2019 decision became final on August 15, 2020. Five days later he filed. Those five days mean the entire prior year is now governed by a finalized decision, not by the new claim. This is not a technicality. This is the structural design of the appeal system.
• A win on remand for one issue can leave another issue dead. This veteran got his back disability remanded for a fresh exam. That's a procedural win. But the PTSD effective date issue is over. Denied at the Board. The only path back is a Supplemental Claim with new and relevant evidence, and that evidence has to specifically address whether an increase was factually ascertainable before August 2020.

What the Board Said

On the controlling rule:

The effective date of an award of increased compensation is that the effective date of such award "shall not be earlier than the date of receipt of application thereof."

That is statute. It is not discretionary. The Board has no equitable power to override it.

On the narrow exception that could have saved him:

An exception to the rule applies, however, under circumstances where evidence demonstrates that a factual ascertainable increase in disability occurred within the one-year period preceding the date of receipt of a claim for increased compensation. In that regard, the law provides that the effective date of the award shall be the earliest of date of which it is ascertainable that an increase in disability had occurred, if application is received within one year from such date, otherwise the date of receipt of the claim.

Read that twice. The exception requires two things to line up: a factually ascertainable increase, and an application received within one year of that increase. Both, not either.

On why the exception did not apply here:

Based on a review of the record, the Board finds that an earlier effective is not warranted as it is not factually ascertainable that the increase occurred at any time during the one-year period prior to August 20, 2020, the date of claim. While during the one year prior to the date of claim, the Veteran received mental health treatment at a VA facility in July 2020 and August 2020, the following records reflect that the severity, frequency, and duration of the Veteran's PTSD symptoms did not more closely approximate occupational and social impairment with deficiencies in most areas.

Translation: he had mental health visits in the one-year window. The visits did not document symptoms severe enough to support 70 percent. So even if the look-back rule applied procedurally, the evidentiary content didn't get him there.

On the July and August 2020 treatment notes specifically:

In July 2020, the Veteran was called regarding a mental health consultation, the provider noted the Veteran expressed interest in mental health services to address trauma issue; he denied any acute mental health distress or crisis, including suicidal or homicidal ideation. In an August 2020 mental health treatment note, the Veteran reported having chronic pain syndrome that began about 3 years beforehand. He described that he could not sleep well, and his pain came and went. He reported symptoms of episodic feelings of depression, difficulty with sleep initiation and maintenance, anxiety, and history of manic thoughts. He directly denied having suicidal or homicidal thoughts.

These are the records that had to carry the weight of an earlier effective date. They couldn't. The symptoms described (episodic depression, sleep difficulty, anxiety, denial of suicidal ideation) read as moderate. The 70 percent criteria require near-continuous panic or depression, suicidal ideation, obsessional rituals, impaired impulse control, or inability to maintain effective relationships. The July and August 2020 records don't get there.

On the rating ceiling:

The Board concludes that the Veteran's symptoms did not cause the level of impairment required for a disability rating of 100 percent at any time during the appeal period, but rather more closely approximated the symptoms associated with a 70 percent rating, and resulted in a level of impairment that most closely approximated the level of impairment associated with a 70 percent rating.

The 70 percent stands. The 100 percent does not.

The First Precedent: Harper v. Brown (1997). The One-Year Look-Back Rule, Read Strictly

Harper v. Brown, 10 Vet. App. 125 (1997) is the case that defines how 38 CFR § 3.400(o)(2) actually operates. The rule sounds permissive: if you filed within one year of an ascertainable increase, the effective date can go back to the date of the increase. In practice, Harper reads the exception narrowly.

The Board quotes Harper directly:

The phrase "otherwise, date of receipt of the claim" applies only if a factually ascertainable increase in disability occurred within one year prior to filing the claim for an increase rating.

That word "factually" is doing all the work. The veteran has to point to specific evidence in the record from the one-year window that shows the increase. Subjective reports years later don't count. A doctor's note that says "patient has been struggling for years" doesn't count. What counts is contemporaneous documentation, dated within that one-year window, that shows the symptoms had progressed to the higher rating level.

In this case, the veteran had mental health treatment in July 2020 and August 2020 (both within the one-year window before his August 20, 2020 claim). But the content of those visits did not document 70 percent symptoms. So Harper closes the door.

The lesson: if you are watching a service-connected condition get worse, get into treatment and get the symptoms documented in writing well before you file. The documentation has to exist in the record before the filing date. You cannot fix it retroactively.

The Second Precedent: Bankhead v. Shulkin (2017). The Holistic Analysis Rule

Bankhead v. Shulkin, 29 Vet. App. 10, 22 (2017) tells the Board it has to conduct a "holistic analysis" of all symptoms a veteran exhibits, not just the ones listed in the rating criteria. If a veteran has symptoms that aren't on the list but are similar in severity, frequency, and duration to listed symptoms at a higher rating level, those unlisted symptoms count.

This is a veteran-favorable rule on paper. In practice, it cuts both ways. Bankhead means the Board is supposed to consider everything, but it also means the Board can find that the overall picture, even with unlisted symptoms factored in, doesn't reach the higher rating level.

Here, the Board acknowledged Bankhead, considered the full symptom picture, and still concluded the impairment more closely approximated 70 percent than 100 percent. The September 2020 contract examination documented suicidal ideation, near-continuous panic or depression, obsessional rituals, spatial disorientation, and intermittent inability to perform activities of daily living. Those are serious findings. They get you to 70 percent. They don't get you to 100 percent, because 100 percent requires total occupational and social impairment with the specific markers: gross impairment in thought processes, persistent delusions or hallucinations, persistent danger of hurting self or others, disorientation to time or place, memory loss for names of close relatives or own name.

The contract examiner's own conclusion was that the symptoms caused "occupational and social impairment with deficiencies in most areas," which is the 70 percent threshold. Not "total occupational and social impairment," which is the 100 percent threshold. The Board followed the examiner.

The Third Precedent: Vazquez-Claudio v. Shinseki (Fed. Cir. 2013). Symptoms Plus Impairment

Vazquez-Claudio v. Shinseki, 713 F.3d 112, 114-118 (Fed. Cir. 2013) is the case that says mental health ratings are a two-part test. First, identify the symptoms (listed and unlisted, per Bankhead). Second, determine whether those symptoms caused the level of occupational and social impairment required for the higher rating.

This is not just a symptom checklist. A veteran can have many of the symptoms listed under a higher rating without reaching the occupational and social impairment threshold for that rating. The Board has to find both.

In this case, the contract examiner ticked many of the boxes associated with the higher rating tiers. Suicidal ideation. Obsessional rituals. Spatial disorientation. Intermittent inability to perform activities of daily living. But the examiner's bottom-line opinion on functional impairment was deficiencies in most areas, not total impairment. Under Vazquez-Claudio, symptoms alone aren't enough. The impairment has to follow.

This is why the rating cap matters in this case. The veteran had documented symptoms that look like they overlap with the 100 percent criteria on paper. But the impairment finding, which is what Vazquez-Claudio requires the Board to anchor to, came in at 70 percent.

The Fourth Precedent: Sharp v. Shulkin (2017). The Flare-Up Exam Standard

Sharp v. Shulkin, 29 Vet. App 26, 34-36 (2017) is the case driving the remand on the back disability and the TDIU claim. Sharp says that when a veteran has a musculoskeletal condition with flare-ups, the C&P examiner has to do specific things: ask about severity, frequency, and duration of flare-ups, estimate functional loss during flare-ups even when the exam is not happening during a flare, and provide rationale for the estimates.

The October 2020 VA exam on the veteran's back didn't do this. The Board's remand order is explicit:

Schedule the Veteran for an in-person examination (or telehealth if not feasible) of the current severity of his service-connected back disability. The examiner must test active motion, passive motion, and pain with weight-bearing and without weight-bearing. The examiner must attempt to elicit information regarding severity, frequency, and duration of any flare-ups and degree of functional loss during flare-ups throughout the entire period on appeal. If specific measurements or opinions are not possible based on direct observation, the examiner must provide estimates based on other evidence and the Veteran's statements. The examiner must identify whether functional limitation more nearly approximates ankylosis at any point during the period on appeal.

That is a textbook Sharp remand. The examiner has to ask about flare-ups even when there isn't one during the exam. The examiner has to estimate when direct measurement isn't possible. The examiner has to provide a basis for the estimates.

The TDIU claim follows the back disability rating because TDIU eligibility depends on the combined effect of service-connected disabilities, and the back rating could change. So the TDIU has to wait.

This is the procedural piece of the case that broke favorably. The veteran lost on PTSD effective date and PTSD rating, but he gets a fresh look at his back disability with an exam that has to comply with Sharp. Whatever that exam shows, it shows. But the procedural ground is now correct.

The Procedural Failures That Mattered Here

Unlike most BVA breakdowns where I'm cataloging examiner failures or RO errors, this case is mostly about timing. There are two real procedural points worth pulling out:

• The August 2020 claim landing five days late. The Board doesn't call this a failure because it's not VA's failure. It's the deadline. But it is the central procedural fact in the case. If the formal increase claim had been filed on August 15, 2020, or earlier, the August 2019 decision would have been open and the entire effective date analysis would look different. The fight would have been about the original 10 percent rating, not about whether an increase was factually ascertainable in 2019 and 2020.
• The October 2020 back exam not complying with Sharp. This one is on VA. The exam didn't address flare-ups properly, didn't estimate functional loss during flare-ups, didn't address whether functional limitation approximated ankylosis at any point. The Board remanded for these specific defects. This is the textbook pattern for back disability remands, and it's worth understanding because if your back exam doesn't address these elements, you have grounds.

The PTSD denial is not based on a procedural failure. It's based on the calendar and the content of the records. The Board's reasoning is internally consistent and the law is being applied as written.

A grounded reset before the lessons

The hardest cases to write about are the ones where the system worked exactly as designed and the veteran still lost. This is one of those. The lessons below are about preventing this outcome in your own file, not about appealing it after the fact.

Lesson #1: The One-Year Look-Back Requires Documentation, Not Memory

The single biggest misconception I see about effective dates is the idea that VA will look back at when you "started getting worse" and assign that as the effective date. That is not how 38 CFR § 3.400(o)(2) works.

The look-back requires factually ascertainable evidence. That means dated medical records, dated treatment notes, dated lay statements, or dated examination findings within the one-year window before your claim. The increase has to be visible in the paper record. The Board cannot infer it from a doctor saying "this has been going on for years" written after the fact.

If you are sensing that a service-connected condition is getting worse, the action item is immediate: get into treatment. Talk to your doctor about specific symptoms. Make sure those symptoms are charted in the visit notes. Get a buddy statement or a family member statement that describes what they're observing, dated and contemporaneous. Build the paper record before you file.

Then file. Don't wait. The look-back is one year backward from the date of your claim. Every month you wait is a month you might lose from the look-back window.

Lesson #2: A Final Decision Closes a Door That Cannot Be Reopened on Equitable Grounds

The August 2019 decision became final on August 15, 2020. The veteran filed his increase claim five days later. Those five days are the entire case.

Once a rating decision is final, the period it covers is locked. You cannot reopen it to argue that the rating should have been higher during that period. The only way to revisit that period is through a Clear and Unmistakable Error (CUE) claim, which has a much higher standard than a normal appeal. CUE requires showing that the prior decision contained an error of fact or law that, had it not been made, would have manifestly changed the outcome. CUE is not "I disagree with the prior decision." It is "the prior decision was undebatably wrong on the record then before VA."

For most worsening-condition claims, CUE is not the right tool. The right tool is to appeal the original decision while the window is open. That means: file a Supplemental Claim, a Higher-Level Review request, or a Board appeal within one year of the decision notification date.

If you have a current service-connected rating and you've never appealed it, check the date of your last decision. If you're within one year, you still have options on the original rating. If you're past one year, you're now filing for an increase and the effective date will be tied to your new claim date.

Lesson #3: Lay Statements Count for Symptoms, Not for Rating Levels

The Board specifically addressed the veteran's lay statements:

In deciding the Veteran's claim for increase, the Board has considered his lay statements that his service-connected disability is more severe than currently evaluated. He is competent to report symptoms because this requires only personal knowledge as it comes to him through his senses.

That is the Layno v. Brown and Jandreau v. Nicholson framework. Veterans are competent to report what they personally observe and experience. They are not competent to render medical conclusions about the severity of a condition relative to a rating schedule.

So when you write a statement supporting an increased rating claim, focus on what you can describe firsthand:

• Frequency of symptoms (how many panic attacks per week, how many nights of disrupted sleep, how often you cannot get out of bed)
• Duration of episodes (how long a depressive episode lasts, how long a flare lasts)
• Functional impact in concrete terms (you stopped going to family gatherings, you lost a job, you avoid driving)
• Specific incidents with dates where possible

Don't write "my PTSD is worse than 70 percent." That's a legal conclusion the Board has to reach on its own. Write what your weeks actually look like. Let the Board do the math.

Lesson #4: A 70 Percent Mental Health Rating Has Specific Markers, and 100 Percent Has Different Ones

A common pattern in mental health rating appeals is the assumption that severe symptoms automatically translate to the highest rating. They don't. The General Rating Formula for Mental Disorders has structured levels, and the difference between 70 percent and 100 percent is not just "more severe." It's qualitatively different impairment.

The 70 percent level requires symptoms causing occupational and social impairment with deficiencies in most areas. Things like suicidal ideation, near-continuous panic or depression, obsessional rituals, impaired impulse control, inability to maintain effective relationships.

The 100 percent level requires total occupational and social impairment with symptoms like gross impairment in thought processes or communication, persistent delusions or hallucinations, grossly inappropriate behavior, persistent danger of hurting self or others, intermittent inability to perform activities of daily living, disorientation to time or place, memory loss for names of close relatives or own name.

If your symptoms map to the 70 percent column but your impairment is closer to "deficiencies in most areas" than "total impairment," the rating is going to be 70 percent. Even if you have several of the listed 70 percent symptoms. Even if you have one or two of the 100 percent symptoms. Vazquez-Claudio requires the impairment finding to match the rating.

If you believe you actually meet the 100 percent criteria, the path is to get a treating provider or an independent medical examiner to write specifically about total occupational and social impairment, with reference to the specific markers (thought processes, danger to self or others, activities of daily living, orientation, memory). General statements about severity won't move the rating from 70 to 100. Specific findings on the 100 percent markers will.

Lesson #5: Procedural Wins on One Issue Don't Save Substantive Losses on Another

This veteran got a remand on his back disability under Sharp v. Shulkin. That's a real procedural victory. He'll get a new exam, and the new exam has to address flare-ups, weight-bearing motion, and ankylosis approximation. Depending on what that exam shows, his back rating could change, which could in turn affect his TDIU eligibility.

But the PTSD effective date claim is dead at the Board. It's denied with no remand path. The only way back is a Supplemental Claim with new and relevant evidence specifically addressing whether an increase was factually ascertainable before August 20, 2020. That means evidence from the one-year look-back window that wasn't in the record at the time of the Board decision.

What would qualify? Medical records from August 2019 through August 2020 that document symptoms at the 70 percent level. Lay statements from family members or coworkers describing the veteran's functioning in that window. Employer records showing the July 2020 termination and the circumstances around it. Treatment records from any provider, VA or private, in that window that weren't previously submitted.

If those records exist and weren't part of the Board's review, a Supplemental Claim is the right tool. If they don't exist or don't support a higher rating in that window, the effective date issue is genuinely over.

Lesson #6: The "Stale Exam" Problem Is the Most Common Path to a Remand

The October 2020 back exam was almost five years old by the time the Board reviewed it. The Board found it inadequate under Sharp because it didn't address flare-ups properly. That's the substantive reason for the remand. But the staleness is also doing work here. A five-year-old exam on a worsening condition is going to struggle to support a current rating no matter how it was conducted.

The lesson for your own file: if you're appealing a rating and the underlying exam is more than two years old, expect either a new exam or a remand for one. If you can submit a more recent private examination, a recent DBQ from your treating provider, or recent VA treatment records that document current severity, you give the Board a contemporaneous record to work with. That can mean the difference between a Board decision on the merits and a remand for further development.

In this case, the remand is procedurally favorable. The new exam might support a higher rating, which would help the TDIU claim. But it also adds another six to twelve months to a case that has already been pending since 2019, and the veteran is 75 years old.

One more grounded reset

Effective date cases are the saddest cases in the BVA dataset. The veteran is almost always entitled to the higher rating. The fight is over when it should start. Here's what to do this week if you think your situation looks anything like this one.

What If This Was You

1. Find the date of your most recent rating decision on the relevant condition. Pull the decision letter. Identify the notification date. The appeal window closes one year from that date.
2. If you're still inside the one-year window, file something now. A Notice of Disagreement, a Supplemental Claim, a Higher-Level Review request. Anything that preserves the appeal preserves your effective date back to the original claim date. The specific path depends on what you're contesting, but the timing matters more than the specific form.
3. If your condition has worsened, start documenting today. Schedule a treatment visit. Describe specific symptoms with frequency and duration. Get a buddy statement from someone who has observed your functioning. Make sure the record exists before you file the increase claim.
4. File the increase claim as soon as the documentation exists. The one-year look-back runs backward from your claim date. Every week you wait, you potentially lose a week from the back of the look-back window.
5. If you have a recent exam more than two years old that's being used against you, request a new one. Cite Sharp v. Shulkin for musculoskeletal conditions with flare-ups. For mental health conditions, cite the requirement that the rating reflect current severity. Old exams on worsening conditions are vulnerable.
6. Do not wait for the perfect case. The veteran in this case waited. He had a decision in August 2019. He filed in August 2020. Whatever was happening in his life that caused the delay, those twelve months are now permanently outside his appeal options on the original decision. Time is the one resource you cannot recover in the VA system.
7. If you receive a final denial on an effective date issue, evaluate a Supplemental Claim. A Supplemental Claim with new and relevant evidence reopens the analysis. The new evidence has to be specifically about the disputed window (in this veteran's case, August 2019 to August 2020). Records that existed at the time of the Board decision and were already considered don't count as new.

What the Data Can't Tell Me

I'm working from the Board's written decision and the structured fields extracted from it. I don't have the underlying medical records, the C&P exam reports in full, or the veteran's lay statements in their original form. The Board summarizes these in ways that are accurate to its findings but may not capture every nuance in the source documents.

I don't know whether the veteran had a representative during the critical window between August 2019 and August 2020 when the appeal could have been preserved. If he was unrepresented during that period, the failure to appeal makes a different kind of sense. If he had representation, the question of why no appeal was filed is one the case file probably answers but the decision does not.

I also can't know whether the symptom progression in 2019 and 2020 was truly insufficient for 70 percent or whether better documentation in that window would have changed the outcome. The Board found the existing records did not support a factually ascertainable increase. That finding rests on the records as they exist. Different records, or the same events better documented, might have produced a different result.

Bottom Line

The central lesson of BVA A25014726 is that the VA effective date system is mechanical and unforgiving. It does not measure when you started getting sicker. It measures when VA received your claim, with one narrow exception that requires contemporaneous documentation from the one-year look-back window.

This veteran had a strong PTSD case on the merits. His symptoms supported 70 percent. The Board affirmed that rating. He just couldn't get the effective date pushed back to where his symptoms actually warranted it, because the prior decision became final five days before he filed and the records from the look-back window didn't document 70 percent severity.

If you have a service-connected condition and you're watching it worsen, the time to act is now. Get the documentation in place. File before the prior decision becomes final, or file within twelve months of when the increase started being documented in the record. The five-day cliff in this case is the kind of margin that can happen to anyone who isn't watching the calendar.

Methodology and Limitations

• Data source: Claim Raven's analysis of BVA citation A25014726, a Board of Veterans' Appeals decision dated February 19, 2025, written by Veterans Law Judge J. Kirby.
• Verbatim quotes: All blockquoted passages come from the structured key_quotes field of the decision and from the verbatim remand instructions in the Board's order. I have not paraphrased the Board's reasoning.
• Single-case limitations: This is one case. Effective date outcomes vary based on the specific evidence in the record and the timing of filings. Patterns referenced from Claim Raven's broader dataset of 101,518 condition records drawn from 49,876 Board decisions describe tendencies, not predictions for individual cases.

Disclaimer

I'm not accredited by VA, not a lawyer, not a VSO. This is data analysis, not claim advice. These are patterns from cases that made it to the BVA, they don't predict individual outcomes. If you need help with your claim, work with an accredited representative.

Where to go next

• The One-Year Look-Back Rule for Effective Dates, Explained
• How to Document a Worsening Condition Before You File
• Sharp v. Shulkin and the C&P Exam Standard for Flare-Ups
• Mental Health Ratings: 70 Percent vs 100 Percent

-Landon Founder, Claim Raven | U.S. Army Veteran