VetClaims.ai Review - No, I Wouldn’t Pay $1,250 for This

My take: I would not pay $1,250 for the offer described on VetClaims.ai's public pages. My concern is the value of the preparation package: what the human sessions add, what the documents actually contain, and what work you still have to do yourself. That is my judgment about the advertised offer, not a claim that every customer has a bad experience.

I built Claim Raven, which competes for some of the same customers. Treat that as a financial conflict. I did not buy VetClaims.ai, enter its private portal, inspect a delivered customer package, or test its staff. This review separates my opinions from the source material you can check yourself.

Checked October 14, 2026: pricing, public terms, privacy disclosures, BBB pages, and the Claim Raven alternatives below. The legal-case and Reddit sections retain their own dated research limits; they are not a current court-status search.

Choose the kind of help you need first

A person who wants scheduled human help may value a service differently from me. My comparison is about the work and the price. Software, a preparation service, a clinician, and an accredited representative are different purchases.

TL;DR

• My opinion: the public offer does not establish enough additional value for me to spend $1,250. I would first compare free accredited help and less expensive software for the particular task I need.
• VetClaims.ai's pricing page lists $1,250 paid in full. Its terms describe three $500 payments, $1,500 total. The plan adds $250, or 20 percent.
• The advertised package includes two one-on-one working sessions, evidence preparation, and C&P preparation/support. Those human sessions are a real difference from self-service software. I have not tested their quality or duration.
• The company says it is not VA accredited and does not represent you or file for you. Its legal disclaimer says it does not provide or arrange a clinician's medical opinion. Confirm whether the nexus package is a draft, research material, or a signed opinion before paying.
• The guarantee changed: the September 18 terms now include eligible payment-plan customers after all $1,500 has been collected. The additional $500 is reserved for eligible paid-in-full customers. Conditions and exclusions still apply.
• The homepage now says 30 days to file-ready; the contractual refund trigger is 30 business days, conditional on providing required information within two business days of enrollment. Those are still different measures.
• BBB correction: on October 14, BBB lists the business as accredited with an A rating. BBB accreditation is separate from VA accreditation. Current customer scores and complaint counts are linked below.
• The public lawsuit section describes dated filings and a jurisdictional dismissal, not proven customer misconduct or a current litigation tally.

VetClaims.ai at a glance

Read the pricing page, terms, and legal disclaimer together. Your checkout and signed agreement may add conditions.

What changed since the first version of this review

October 14, 2026 corrections: I refreshed the review against the sources available that day:

• Timeline: the homepage now says 30 days, replacing the 14-day statement described in the previous review. The contract still uses 30 business days and a two-business-day information requirement.
• Performance guarantee: the terms now carry a September 18 update and include eligible payment-plan customers once the full $1,500 has been paid. The extra $500 remains specific to eligible paid-in-full customers. The previous article's blanket payment-plan exclusion is outdated.
• Eligibility details: the current terms no longer contain the earlier 48-hour and 24-hour C&P notice deadlines or the 24-hour/72-hour meeting-rescheduling rules quoted in the previous review. I removed those requirements from the current checklist.
• BBB: the current profile shows BBB accreditation and an A rating. This corrects the previous article's Not Rated / not-accredited description. I do not know why the displayed status differed. Neither status is VA accreditation.
• Privacy: the newer terms use qualified language about restricting AI-provider training, while the September 14 privacy policy describes contractual restrictions. The article now flags that difference instead of presenting an absolute assurance.

The September 20 edition added the public federal litigation section. Those linked docket snapshots remain dated and limited. Earlier editions followed the July 22, July 27, August 12, and September 14 source versions; those dates do not establish today's terms.

The marketing page and the contract describe the offer differently

VetClaims.ai's homepage presents a flat-fee preparation service with a 30-day file-ready message. Its pricing page describes two one-on-one sessions followed by evidence preparation and C&P support. I understand why a veteran could read that as a hands-on service.

The contract describes educational resources and AI tools. It says users review, finalize, and submit their own documents; the company does not provide legal representation, act as a VA-accredited representative, or provide or arrange medical opinions. Its fee is described as payment for platform access rather than representation or the preparation, presentation, or prosecution of a VA claim.

That difference is a reason to ask specific questions, not a basis for declaring the company unlawful. Ask for a sample deliverable and a written explanation of what staff do, what AI does, what you must verify, and what is excluded. I cannot determine the actual private workflow from public pages.

What the $1,250 package is marketed to include

The current pricing page organizes the package into three parts:

• Working sessions: a strategy interview and a review of service and medical history.
• Evidence package: condition mapping, nexus documentation, and buddy-statement preparation.
• Preparation and support: C&P exam preparation and a dedicated point of contact.

The page says the fee covers the file without a surcharge for additional conditions. These are the company's descriptions, not deliverables I independently tested.

That is a broad list, but it does not define the depth or professional status of every deliverable. Before paying, ask what each item physically looks like and who produces it.

For example, “nexus-letter package” could mean an AI-generated draft, a research packet, a template for a clinician, or a signed medical opinion. Those are completely different products. VetClaims.ai's legal disclaimer says it does not provide medical services or arrange access to a healthcare professional for a medical opinion. Its terms also say AI-generated output should be independently reviewed.

Do not assume a clinician will examine you, review your complete record, or sign an opinion unless the company confirms that exact service in writing. Also ask whether the signer is licensed, whether the specialty fits the condition, which records are reviewed, and what factual corrections or revisions are included.

Buddy statements require the same discipline. A useful draft must be reviewed and adopted by the actual witness. The person signing it should describe only what they personally observed and should correct any automated language that overstates the facts.

Why I question the value of the package

I worked through the advertised deliverables one at a time. My point is that a long list of document names does not tell me whether a $1,250 purchase is worthwhile. I want to know what each deliverable adds to the evidence I already have.

I am not saying that AI makes good human assistance worthless or that every product with similar feature names is equivalent. I do not know VetClaims.ai's staffing costs, prompts, model usage, quality-control process, or the time spent on each customer.

The two working sessions

The two one-on-one sessions are the human part of the price. The public page does not say how long they last or what the strategy interview asks. For $1,250, I would want to know how many hours of a person's time I am buying, and I would expect more than two sessions.

If you want a claim-strategy interview without paying anyone, you can ask a general AI assistant such as ChatGPT or Claude to interview you about your service history, your conditions, and what your records show. It will raise questions you may not have considered. Pathfinder includes a guided version of that interview.

The records review

The pricing page says the team reads your records the way a rater reads them. Which records? VetClaims.ai's public terms say it is not VA-accredited and does not act as your representative before VA, so ask whether it works only from the records you bring, whether it helps you request others, and what happens when something is missing.

Condition mapping and nexus drafts

The pricing page says most of the fee goes to the evidence package. That surprised me. In Claim Raven, suggesting secondary conditions tied to a primary condition is a built-in feature that works from your own records, and a nexus-letter draft for your doctor to review is included in the Standard and Plus plans. Those AI tasks cost me very little to run, often cents each. That is my cost, not theirs: I do not know VetClaims.ai's costs or how much human work goes into each package. It is why those items alone do not justify $1,250 to me.

A nexus draft is not a medical opinion until a qualified clinician reviews the evidence, agrees with the reasoning, and signs it. That is true of Claim Raven's drafts and of any other company's.

Buddy statements

A buddy statement should come from the buddy: the person who saw what happened describes it in their own words and signs it. Ask who prepares VetClaims.ai's buddy statements and how each witness reviews and adopts them. Claim Raven's Statement Builder lets a witness start a buddy letter with guided questions and no account; a free account is needed to export, and creating and managing invitations requires Standard or Plus.

C&P exam preparation

In Claim Raven, C&P preparation is a guided walkthrough inside Ask Raven: choose the condition and your exam date, and it walks you through what the examiner looks for. VetClaims.ai lists live support through the C&P phase. That could mean a chat window or a phone call with a person. Ask which before paying.

My preference is to pay for the particular gap: representation when I need someone to act for me, clinical expertise when I need a medical opinion, or software when I want to do the work myself. That is why I compare lower-cost tools and free help before a larger preparation package.

The lower-cost option I compare

Claim Raven's introductory offer is $0.99 for seven days on Standard or Plus for eligible new monthly subscribers. After that, Standard renews at $24.99/month or Plus at $39.99/month unless you cancel. It cannot be combined with discount codes. Check the current plans and checkout terms before subscribing.

The public buddy builder is free; creating and managing invitations requires Standard or Plus. Claim Raven provides educational tools to help you understand your records and VA benefits. It does not prepare or file claims for veterans. Clinician services and signatures are not included, and you should verify AI output against your records and its cited sources.

The full price: $1,250 or $1,500

The advertised Complete Care price is $1,250 paid at enrollment. The terms add a payment plan:

1. $500 at enrollment;
2. $500 automatically charged about 30 days later; and
3. $500 automatically charged about 60 days after enrollment.

The installment total is $1,500. That is $250 more than paying in full, a 20 percent increase. The company says it is not a subscription and does not automatically renew after those installments unless a separate recurring purchase is disclosed at checkout.

The payment section contains several other details worth knowing:

• taxes can be added;
• an installment more than seven days late can lead to suspension or acceleration of the remaining balance;
• delinquent balances may accrue 1.5 percent interest per month;
• collection costs and reasonable attorney fees may be pursued; and
• a chargeback can suspend access and may affect guarantee eligibility.

The terms say the amount shown at checkout and in the order confirmation controls the purchase. Save both. The public pricing page showed the $1,250 option but did not display the full $1,500 installment structure during this review.

The guarantees, line by line

The September 18 terms describe different refund routes. None should be shortened to an unconditional promise of a rating or a refund.

The section labeled Standard Money-Back Guarantee explains the amount when a refund is otherwise available. I would not read it as a separate no-questions-asked promise after work begins. Ask which provision applies to your enrollment and get the response in writing.

The performance-guarantee checklist

The current terms list requirements including accurate and complete information, attendance at the Complete Care Meeting, use of C&P preparation resources, timely cooperation with reasonable requests, and a reasonable opportunity for the Appeals Department to provide support after an initial denial. Missing required steps, records or witness statements, nonpayment, and chargebacks can affect eligibility. Separate written eligibility decisions, elections, or waivers may also apply.

The previous review quoted specific C&P notice and meeting-rescheduling deadlines. Those exact deadlines are absent from the current version; I have removed them from this checklist rather than implying they still govern a new purchase.

My pre-purchase question is: Am I enrolled in this guarantee, which payment option applies, and can I see every condition before I pay?

A 10 percent increase is not the same as winning every issue

The contract refers to the combined total rating. VA's combined-rating calculation can produce a new individual award without changing the rounded combined number. Ask how partial grants, deferred issues, staged or temporary ratings, and reductions affect eligibility. Ask which decision ends the measurement period and when a request is due. A favorable decision on one issue is not necessarily the contract's promised rating change.

30 days in the marketing, 30 business days in the guarantee

The homepage now says file-ready in 30 days. The terms set the conditional refund trigger at 30 business days, with all required information due within two business days of enrollment.

This is an update to the previous review's 14-day marketing comparison. The older graphics have been removed because they would describe an outdated offer.

Thirty calendar days and 30 business days are different. Ask whether the homepage number is a target, average, or promise; what starts the clock; what counts as file-ready; what pauses progress; and what happens if a private record is not available within two business days. Do not assume the headline and refund trigger use the same clock.

Accreditation: what VetClaims.ai can and cannot do

VetClaims.ai's terms plainly say it is not VA accredited. That is not a minor credential distinction.

VA's Office of General Counsel guidance says accreditation is the authority to assist claimants in the preparation, presentation, and prosecution of claims. VA also says unaccredited people may provide other services as long as they do not cross into that claim-specific assistance. A separate VA guide explains that accredited VSO representatives can help file claims and request decision reviews for free.

VetClaims.ai says its platform remains on the educational and technological side of that line. Its marketing, however, repeatedly uses claim-preparation language and describes prepared documents. Public pages alone do not show exactly how a particular customer's private workflow operates. That is why this review does not make a legal finding about the company.

For a veteran, the practical limits are clearer:

If you need someone to communicate with VA, review the full VA claims file as your representative, submit evidence on your behalf, or argue an appeal, verify an individual through VA's accreditation search.

What happens after a denial

The original version of this article said appeals were simply on the customer. The newer terms show a more nuanced arrangement: VetClaims.ai has an Appeals Department and may provide appeal support, guidance, educational resources, and recommended next steps. In fact, a customer may need to give that department a reasonable opportunity to help before qualifying under a guarantee.

But the company still does not represent the veteran. You remain responsible for selecting a review lane, checking deadlines, signing forms, submitting documents, and prosecuting the matter. Educational appeal support is not the same as an accredited attorney, claims agent, or VSO accepting a power of attorney.

Before enrollment, ask whether appeal support is included for every denied issue, how long it lasts, what documents the Appeals Department produces, and whether any new service fee can arise.

AI output, medical evidence, and the nexus-letter question

The terms say user output is generated by artificial intelligence and should be independently evaluated by the customer or a qualified professional. They also disclaim accuracy, completeness, reliability, and any guaranteed VA result.

That disclosure matters most when a generated document looks authoritative. A polished citation or medical explanation is not automatically accurate. Before submitting anything:

• compare names, dates, diagnoses, service events, and treatment history with the underlying records;
• open and read every cited case, regulation, or medical source;
• remove claims the witness or veteran cannot personally support;
• have a qualified clinician review any medical conclusion; and
• keep a clean copy of the final version actually sent to VA.

Not every claim requires a privately purchased nexus letter. When a medical opinion is needed, the identity and reasoning of the clinician matter far more than the label on a package. Ask whether VetClaims.ai provides only a draft or research packet, because its public disclaimer says it does not supply or arrange the healthcare professional.

For a broader price and provider comparison, see Nexus Letter Companies and Costs.

Privacy and medical-record questions to ask

VetClaims.ai's privacy policy says user content may include medical records, diagnoses, treatment history, service records, personal statements, VA decisions, financial information, and other sensitive material. That is the same category of information a veteran should handle carefully anywhere online.

The September 14 privacy policy identifies Anthropic, OpenAI, and Google and describes contractual limits on training with user content. The September 18 terms use more qualified language: measures designed to restrict training, with exceptions tied to the privacy policy, subprocessor terms, and law. Those documents should not be reduced to an absolute no-training assurance. Ask for the current subprocessor list and the restrictions that apply to your records. I have not audited those providers' agreements or the company's implementation.

The retention language is broader than “deleted immediately.” User content may be retained as long as necessary to provide services, improve the platform, or as directed by the user. The policy says users can request deletion, subject to legal retention obligations. The terms separately say the company may delete or disable access to account content after termination.

Before uploading a full file, ask:

1. Which documents are required, and which identifiers can be removed?
2. Which human staff and outside providers can access the material?
3. How long are original files, extracted text, prompts, and generated outputs retained?
4. Can you download the complete package before closing the account?
5. How do you request deletion, and what records must the company retain?
6. Which workflow is approved for medical records and other sensitive health information?
7. Does any business-associate agreement apply to your situation, or is the service operating only under its consumer privacy policy?

Do not upload an SSN, VA file number, financial record, or unrelated medical material merely because a form allows it. Share the minimum needed for the task and keep your own copies.

BBB's business status and customer reviews tell different stories

On October 14, 2026, the BBB business profile lists VetClaims.ai as BBB accredited with an A rating. This corrects the previous article's status description. BBB accreditation and VA accreditation are different.

The customer-review page shows 4.69 out of 5 across 739 customer reviews. Recent positive reviewers describe helpful guidance and increased ratings. These are individual reports, not independently verified outcomes.

The complaint page lists 51 total complaints over three years and 48 filed in the last 12 months, with 37 answered and 14 resolved across the displayed total. Complaint text raises questions about documents, communication, and refunds; the business provides responses. Read both. An allegation is not a proven fact, and an answered complaint is not necessarily a customer-confirmed resolution.

VetClaims.ai's homepage separately reports 4.72 across 719 combined reviews and more than 43,000 veterans guided. These are company-reported marketing figures with a different review base, not an audited success rate.

Do not divide complaints by reviews to calculate a failure rate. Neither count tells us the total paying customers or the share who received a particular result.

What the public lawsuits do, and do not, establish

Dated research retained from September 20, 2026; not a complete current case list. A Justia search for Patriot Claims LLC surfaces federal case pages naming Patriot Claims or VetClaims.ai as a defendant. I describe two below. A case count by itself says nothing about whether the company harmed a customer or violated the law.

The TurboVets intellectual-property dispute

TurboVets alleged trademark and copyright infringement, trade-secret misappropriation, and related claims involving a browser extension called “TurboVets by VetClaims.AI.” Those are the plaintiff's allegations, not established facts.

In the Arizona TurboVets-Patriot Claims case, No. 2:25-cv-04733, the court denied preliminary relief and dismissed the case without prejudice on April 21, 2026. The reason was lack of personal jurisdiction in Arizona. The order did not decide who was right on the underlying intellectual-property claims.

The order noted that TurboVets had filed a substantially similar case in Texas. The Eastern District of Texas docket, No. 4:26-cv-00401, lists Patriot Claims LLC doing business as VetClaims AI as the defendant. Justia says that docket page was last retrieved June 12, 2026, so it is not current enough to support a claim about the case's present status or final outcome.

The employee wage-and-hour case

Seven named plaintiffs filed McCormick et al. v. Patriot Claims LLC d/b/a VetClaims.AI et al., No. 1:26-cv-01580, in the Western District of Texas on June 11, 2026. The public docket page classifies it as a Fair Labor Standards Act case and shows the complaint and consent-to-join filings. Justia says that page was last retrieved June 12, 2026. The public entry establishes that the case was filed. It does not establish that the wage-and-hour allegations were proved.

These cases belong in a complete company review, but their relevance to a buyer is limited. The intellectual-property case concerns a product name and alleged ownership of technology. The wage-and-hour case concerns the company's relationship with workers. Neither docket answers whether a particular veteran received accurate documents, useful support, or a refund. Read later filings or a final order before treating any allegation as a conclusion.

Public feedback: positive experiences, concerns, and limits

Feedback checked September 10, 2026. This update covers outside feedback; it does not redate every price or legal source elsewhere in the article.

What reviewers liked

Self-described users in this VetClaims.ai discussion describe help assembling documents and making corrections. The favorable reports concern organization and assistance with drafting. They do not establish that an AI-generated document is an independently signed medical opinion.

What reviewers disliked or what remains unverified

In a June 2026 frustration thread, the poster describes needing substantial document changes, while another participant reports a better experience. The first poster's phrase, “Every document needs changed,” is a useful warning to review the output carefully. A separate denial discussion contains both disappointment and favorable replies; a denial alone does not establish why a claim failed.

What I would check before paying

Ask who checks factual accuracy, what corrections are included, and whether each document is a draft or a clinician-signed opinion. The difference between helpful organization and reliable final evidence matters more than a reviewer's final rating.

How I checked: Exact-brand Reddit and open-web review searches; selected linked material, not an exhaustive platform export. Purchases and claim outcomes were not independently verified. These accounts cannot establish a success rate or predict your result.

Who may be a good fit

VetClaims.ai may be worth interviewing if you:

• prefer a fixed known price to a fee tied to back pay;
• want a structured workflow, document drafts, and ongoing educational support;
• understand that you remain the filer and decision-maker;
• are willing to verify every AI-generated statement and citation;
• can meet the current cooperation and documentation requirements;
• are comfortable with the contract's refund, liability, and dispute terms; and
• have confirmed the exact deliverables and professional credentials you expect.

Who should probably choose another route

Look elsewhere first if you:

• want an accredited representative who can act for you before VA;
• expect the company to file, prosecute, or argue the claim;
• need a clinician to examine you and sign a case-specific medical opinion;
• need an unconditional money-back promise;
• cannot risk paying $1,250 or $1,500 before knowing the result;
• are uncomfortable submitting medical and service records to an AI-supported platform; or
• want a law firm to manage a complex appeal through the Board or CAVC.

Why I can charge less

Claim Raven is a one-person company. I build, run, and support it myself, with no employees and no office, and I use AI for work that would otherwise need a staff. That is how I can offer Pathfinder at $59 a month or $499 for 12 months. It also means there is no human coach. My answer to a person on the phone is an AI you can talk to by phone or chat, at any hour. Try it and decide whether that works for you.

A personal note

I will be upfront about one more thing. I have read the founder's public LinkedIn posts, and I do not like the way he presents himself online. That is a personal reaction, and it is part of why I would not give the company my money. It says nothing about the quality of the service, and I respect the philanthropic work he promotes.

Alternatives and how Claim Raven compares

Claim Raven plan update, October 24, 2026: Plus is $39.99 a month or $359.99 a year and includes one Raven Cipher C-file read per member, including current subscribers. There is no per-page charge; upload-size limits still apply. The included read does not reset each month or year. Standard is $24.99 a month or $229.99 a year; Standard reads and extra Plus reads are $19 each. Pathfinder rereads are free while membership is active. Cipher lists leads with the record pages behind them for you to check.

If you want educational tools to help you understand your records and the VA claims process, Pathfinder costs $59 a month, $139 every three months, or $499 for 12 months. Its AI reads your records and creates a claim-by-claim Strategy Brief for you to review, alongside step-by-step explanations of the VA claims process. Claim Raven does not prepare or file your claim. You keep 100% of your back pay, and the current Pathfinder membership has a full refund window of 60 days after your first payment, even if you've used it. I built Claim Raven, so weigh that conflict and compare the two side by side.

Your Pathfinder membership includes the guided steps, your Strategy Brief, Claim Raven Plus while your Pathfinder access is active, one Raven Cipher read of your VA claim file and free rereads during active access, and the 24/7 AI help line. Pathfinder provides educational tools you use yourself. Claim Raven does not prepare or file your claim, represent you or promise a rating.

Two other routes are worth knowing. Accredited VSO representatives help with claims at no charge, and they can do things no software company can, like represent you before VA. Availability and workload vary. Accredited attorneys and claims agents can charge only after VA's initial decision, under 38 CFR § 14.636, and many work on contingency, paid a percentage of past-due benefits if you win. Read the fee agreement first. I respect accredited representatives. If your claim is complicated or headed to the Board, giving up part of your back pay for someone to handle it can be worth it. I did my own claims, which shaped how I built Claim Raven, but that is not the right path for everyone.

Fifteen questions to ask before paying

1. What exact files or documents will I receive?
2. Which deliverables are created by staff, which are AI generated, and which are templates?
3. Does the nexus-letter package include a signed medical opinion? If yes, who signs it and what records are reviewed?
4. Who is my day-to-day contact, and what does 24/7 support mean in response-time terms?
5. Does the advertised 30 days mean calendar days, and how does it relate to the 30-business-day refund trigger?
6. What does “file-ready” mean for my specific claim?
7. Am I enrolled in the performance guarantee, and can I see all eligibility conditions before paying?
8. How is a 10 percent increase measured under VA combined-rating math?
9. What happens to the guarantee if one issue is granted, another is denied, and the displayed combined rating does not change?
10. What appeal work is included, for how long, and who files it?
11. What happens if I cannot attend a meeting or obtain a requested private record promptly?
12. What amount is refundable if I cancel today, after the Complete Care Call, or during the payment plan?
13. Can payment-processing fees be deducted from my refund?
14. How long are my source records and AI outputs retained, and how do I delete them?
15. Can I take the contract and deliverable list home before deciding, without paying on the sales call?

Bottom line: Is VetClaims.ai legit?

VetClaims.ai is a real commercial platform with published prices and terms, positive customer accounts, and complaints worth reading. BBB currently lists it as accredited with an A rating. Its own disclosures say it is not VA accredited and does not represent you or file for you. The dated litigation sources below do not establish that it harmed customers.

I still would not spend $1,250 on the public offer as described. From the public page, I cannot find enough to justify that price. I want to see exactly what the human sessions and finished documents add before paying that price. A veteran who values scheduled personal attention may reach a different conclusion. I have not tested that service, and my cost preference cannot establish its quality or its actual cost to deliver.

Get the deliverables and signers, your specific guarantee eligibility, and the support after a denial in writing. Compare the answer with a free accredited VSO, the particular software tool you need, and an accredited attorney or agent when representation is appropriate. Then decide which kind of help you actually want.

Sources and limitations

• VetClaims.ai homepage, checked October 14, 2026.
• VetClaims.ai pricing, checked October 14, 2026.
• VetClaims.ai Terms of Service, last updated September 18, 2026 and checked October 14, 2026.
• VetClaims.ai Legal Disclaimer, last updated March 12, 2026 and checked October 14, 2026.
• VetClaims.ai Privacy Policy, last updated September 14, 2026 and checked October 14, 2026.
• BBB business profile, customer reviews, and complaints, checked October 14, 2026.
• Arizona order in the TurboVets-Patriot Claims dispute, decided April 21, 2026.
• Texas TurboVets docket and McCormick wage-and-hour docket, each last retrieved by Justia June 12, 2026.
• VA accredited-representative guide, VA OGC accreditation FAQ, and VA accreditation search.
• 38 CFR § 14.636, fee rules for accredited attorneys and agents.
• Public pages can change. No private checkout disclosure, customer contract, delivered claim package, internal refund data, or audited outcome dataset was reviewed.

Where to go next

• VA Claims Help Companies Compared
• Nexus Letter Companies and Costs
• Why Claim Raven
• Explore Pathfinder

---

Claim Raven is self-service educational software, not legal, medical, or VA-accredited advice.

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