When VA denies a rating increase, it has found that the evidence for the period it reviewed did not meet the criteria for the next level under your diagnostic code. It has not necessarily found that your condition is unchanged. Before you send more symptom descriptions, compare three things: the dates VA reviewed, the exact criteria for your current and next level, and the records VA relied on, including whether the exam captured your flare-ups.

Also decide what you are doing. VA's Supplemental Claim page answers the question directly: if a rated condition has "gotten worse, you'll need to file a claim for increased disability compensation," not a Supplemental Claim. A review challenges the old decision; a new increase claim reports new worsening. Claim Raven's claims guide on increased ratings explains filing the claim itself. This page is about reading the denial.

Read what the percentage turned on

Copy the diagnostic code and the percentage from the decision, then open that code in the rating schedule, 38 C.F.R. Part 4, and compare the wording for your level and the next one. Criteria differ a great deal from code to code. A few examples:

  • Knee instability (DC 5257): 10% needs no prescription, but 20% requires a medical provider to prescribe a brace or assistive device.
  • Irritable bowel syndrome (DC 7319): 30% requires abdominal pain related to bowel movements at least one day a week over the previous three months.
  • Sleep apnea (DC 6847): 50% requires a breathing assistance device such as a CPAP machine.
  • Migraines (DC 8100): 30% requires characteristic prostrating attacks about once a month over the last several months.

If VA used a code you do not recognize or switched codes, record that as a question rather than guessing which code would pay more.

Four rules that shape an increase decision

  1. The period VA looks at. In Hart v. Mansfield (2007), the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims held that the "relevant temporal focus" of an increased-rating claim runs "from the time period one year before the claim was filed until VA makes a final decision on the claim." The effective date rule matches: under 38 C.F.R. § 3.400(o)(2), an increase can be paid from the earliest date it was "factually ascertainable" if your claim or intent to file arrived within one year of that date.
  2. Staged ratings. Hart also held that "staged ratings are appropriate for an increased-rating claim when the factual findings show distinct time periods" with symptoms that would warrant different ratings. A denial can be right for part of the period and wrong for another, so date every record.
  3. The benefit of the doubt. In Lynch v. McDonough (2021), the Federal Circuit held that "if the positive and negative evidence is in approximate balance (which includes but is not limited to equipoise), the claimant receives the benefit of the doubt." VA may deny only when the evidence "persuasively favors one side or the other." Look for whether the decision says which way the evidence tipped and why.
  4. Flare-ups and repeated use for joints and the spine. Under DeLuca v. Brown (1995), the examiner must address whether pain "could significantly limit functional ability during flare-ups" or with repeated use, if feasible "in terms of the degree of additional range-of-motion loss." Under Sharp v. Shulkin (2017), "neither the law nor VA practice requires that an examination be conducted during a flare"; the examiner must estimate the flare-up loss from all the evidence, including your own account.

A real remand: exams that missed the flare-ups

In Board decision A25023258, March 13, 2025, a veteran who served from 1968 to 1970 was appealing the ratings for his already service-connected back, hips and knees. The issues were already staged: for the back alone, the Board looked at whether a rating above 20% was warranted before August 27, 2020, above 10% from then until May 20, 2023, and above 20% after that.

The Board of Veterans' Appeals (the Board) found that the VA exams from 2019 through 2023 did not adequately address additional limitation during flare-ups under Sharp, left out passive range-of-motion results for the back, gave no flare-up estimates even though the veteran showed pain during the exams, and made contradicting findings about knee instability. No VA opinion had addressed his private treatment records, an August 2019 private exam, or his own statements in the records and at Board hearings. The Board remanded every rating issue, along with his claim for a total rating based on unemployability, which depended on them. It did not grant a higher rating.

The instructions show what a complete severity exam looks like. The examiner had to take a full history of flare-ups, including "frequency, duration, characteristics, severity, and functional loss," estimate the degrees of motion lost during flares, including at the times of the 2019, 2021 and 2023 exams, and address the lay statements and private records. If your denial rests on an exam that says nothing about flare-ups or never mentions your own account, that gap is the thing to check. Across all conditions in Claim Raven's Board data, where the Board found an inadequate VA exam that was tied to the outcome, 78.0% of 27,680 condition records were remanded.

A fictional denial, without a promised target rating

Fictional example: "The evaluation for your service-connected knee remains 10%. The exam recorded pain and limited walking. The evidence does not show a prescribed brace or assistive device, as required for the next evaluation." This notice accepts your symptoms but turns on one missing fact. A new paragraph saying "my knee is worse" will not answer it; a prescription record would, if one exists.

Another fictional notice might never mention a specialist report you sent. That is a missing-evidence question, not necessarily a flawed exam, and it points to a different review choice.

Copy this dated decision-to-criteria worksheet

Date or periodEvidence and pageObservable severity or functionExact criterion it bears onHow VA treated it
Previous evaluation baseline
One year before your claim or intent to file
Exam or DBQ, including flare-up estimate
Treatment or test result
First-hand account of a specific change
Decision and evidence list

Write the diagnostic code above the table. Mark "not addressed," "not in VA's evidence list" and "needs clinician interpretation" separately. A witness can describe a change they saw but should not guess a range-of-motion measurement or repeat a phrase to fit a rating level.

Condition guides for building severity evidence

Each of these guides shows how to record the evidence that one rating code measures:

The most common denial reason in Claim Raven's data

Across about 17,100 denied condition records where Claim Raven's analysis of 2024 to 2025 Board decisions classified a primary reason, "severity not met" was the most common, at 29.1%, ahead of no medical link (22.9%). The analysis of 16,800 Board denials explains the method. The denied records come from appeals of already-disputed claims, so the split describes patterns, not your odds.

Decide whether you are reviewing the old decision or reporting new worsening

If you have relevant evidence VA did not consider for the period it decided, a Supplemental Claim is the route. If VA misread evidence it already had, such as an exam that ignored flare-ups, a Higher-Level Review looks at the same record. If the condition got worse after the decision, file a new increase claim. Claim Raven's comparison of the three review options covers the trade-offs, and your letter and VA's decision review FAQ give the deadlines.

If the decision or DBQ wording is hard to follow, Claim Raven's Raven Eye tool, offered on this page, can explain a passage beside the original text. Claim Raven sells that tool; it is not a rating authority and does not replace a clinician's measurements.

Sources and scope

Checked September 23, 2026: 38 C.F.R. § 3.400(o) and the Part 4 codes linked above (eCFR, current through August 27, 2026); Hart v. Mansfield, 21 Vet. App. 505 (2007); Lynch v. McDonough, 21 F.4th 776 (Fed. Cir. 2021); DeLuca v. Brown, 8 Vet. App. 202 (1995); Sharp v. Shulkin, 29 Vet. App. 26 (2017); VA's decision review pages; and Board decision A25023258. This worksheet makes no condition-specific rating prediction.