What this means
m21-4:3.A explains national compensation rating quality review checklist. In plain terms, the official guidance says the current National Compensation Rating Quality Review Checklist (NCRQR) can be found in the Compensation Service Knowledge Management portal at this link. Upon selection of the STAR program, current checklists will be available. It also addresses for each case reviewed, a National Compensation Rating Quality Review Checklist must be completed and all questions answered. A “YES” response indicates that the activity associated with the question was completed accurately.
How this may help with a claim
Use m21-4:3.A to audit how VA handled national compensation rating quality review checklist. Start with the decision date, the issue being reviewed, and the evidence VA was allowed to consider, then compare the record with this rule: The current National Compensation Rating Quality Review Checklist (NCRQR) can be found in the Compensation Service Knowledge Management portal at this link. For each case reviewed, a National Compensation Rating Quality Review Checklist must be completed and all questions answered. Cite the exact document and page when raising a factual or procedural error, and use the review rights in the actual notice for any deadline.
What to review in your file
- Check the file against this official condition: For each case reviewed, a National Compensation Rating Quality Review Checklist must be completed and all questions answered.
- Confirm that the record or notice addresses this source point: The general guideline is that an error will be recorded when an action is taken that violates current regulations or established policies.
- Document how this stated step or exception applies: Procedural deficiencies are not recorded as BE errors. These deficiencies are recorded as decision documentation/notification or administrative comments and either corrective action must be taken upon these deficiencies or a timely request request for reconsideration must be submitted.
Important limits
m21-4:3.A explains VA guidance for national compensation rating quality review checklist; it does not guarantee an award or replace the statutes, regulations, binding decisions, and review instructions that control an individual claim. Conditions and exceptions still matter, including this source point: The current National Compensation Rating Quality Review Checklist (NCRQR) can be found in the Compensation Service Knowledge Management portal at this link. Procedural deficiencies are not recorded as BE errors. These deficiencies are recorded as decision documentation/notification or administrative comments and either corrective action must be taken upon these deficiencies or a timely request request for reconsideration must be submitted.
Search terms when useful
Phrases that may help when searching your claim file or this library.
- National Compensation Rating Quality Review Checklist
- m21-4:3.A
- National Compensation Rating
- Quality Review Checklist
- Appendix STAR Rating Quality
- This appendix includes
- National Compensation Rating Quality
- instructions guidelines rating review
Original VA guidance
The official VA text of this section
Appendix A. STAR Rating Quality Review Checklist
Introduction
This appendix includes the
- National Compensation Rating Quality Review Checklist
- instructions and guidelines for rating review, and
- rating review elements.
Change Date
January 14, 2026
3.A. a. National Compensation Rating Quality Review Checklist
The current National Compensation Rating Quality Review Checklist (NCRQR) can be found in the Compensation Service Knowledge Management portal at this link. Upon selection of the STAR program, current checklists will be available. Historic checklists will also be maintained in the Archived section.
3.A. b. Instructions and Guidelines for Rating Review
These instructions and guidelines have been developed to promote consistency and uniformity in the review of cases selected for the national quality review program. Use these instructions/guidelines in conjunction with the National Compensation Rating Quality Review Checklist.
For each case reviewed, a National Compensation Rating Quality Review Checklist must be completed and all questions answered. A “YES” response indicates that the activity associated with the question was completed accurately. A “NO” response indicates that the activity associated with the question was “in error.” Indicate “N/A” if the question is not applicable to the case under review. A narrative summary is required with statutory, regulatory, judicial, or manual references for any “error” or “NO” answer recorded.
The general guideline is that an error will be recorded when an action is taken that violates current regulations or established policies. Examples of outcome-related deficiencies include, but are not limited to, errors that result in an overpayment or underpayment to a claimant and deficiencies that would result in a remand from BVA if not corrected.
Procedural deficiencies are not recorded as BE errors. These deficiencies are recorded as decision documentation/notification or administrative comments and either corrective action must be taken upon these deficiencies or a timely request request for reconsideration must be submitted. A judgment or a difference of opinion reflecting a possible better practice or solution will not be recorded as a comment under question Question 16. If an error is identified with an issue not related to the EP under review, that error is also recorded as a comment under question Question 15.
3.A. c. Rating Review Elements
The National Compensation Rating Quality Review (NCRQR) is, generally, focused on EPs associated with initial claims (including original claims, new claims, and claims for increase) and supplemental claims. Other issues such as dependency, income, net worth, withholdings/recoupments, incompetency, etc., when applicable to a case selected for national quality review, will be reviewed as part of that EP.
The following is a list of explanations of the questions on the National Compensation Rating Quality Review Checklist.
Scroll sideways to see the full table.
| Question | Explanation |
|---|---|
| 1. Were all claimed issues addressed and decided? | All issues submitted by a Veteran should be formally addressed and decided in some fashion. Entitlement to an earlier effective date would generally apply only to an appeal, unless such a claim is submitted in conjunction with a clear and unmistakable error (CUE), etc. |
| 2. Were all inferred and/or ancillary issues addressed? | All inferred issues that arise from the claim should be addressed. This would include any ancillary issues, such as entitlement to Dependents’ Educational Assistance (DEA) benefits when a permanent and total evaluation is established, and any issue that is “within scope” of a claimed condition (such as a tinnitus grant when hearing loss is claimed and service connection (SC) warranted). |
| 3. Was VCAA pre-decision "notice" provided and adequate? | 38 CFR 3.159(b)(1) states, in part, that upon receipt of a substantially complete application, VA is required to notify the claimant and the claimant's representative, if any, of any information, and any medical or lay evidence, not previously provided that is necessary to substantiate the claim. As part of that notice, VA is required to indicate which portion of that information and evidence, if any, is to be provided by the claimant and which portion, if any, VA will attempt to obtain on behalf of the claimant. |
| 4. Does the record show VCAA compliant development to obtain all indicated evidence (including a VA exam, if required) prior to deciding the claim? | 38 CFR 3.159(c) states, in part, that VA must make reasonable efforts to help a claimant in obtaining the evidence necessary to substantiate a claim. Therefore, all indicated and necessary development must be completed before deciding a claim unless a grant is warranted based on the evidence of record. If a VA examination report was the basis for a rating decision, was that report adequate and sufficient for rating purposes? Was there already sufficient medical evidence of record to rate the claim? (See 38 CFR 3.326(b) & (c)). While requesting an examination is generally a judgment area with considerable latitude, that judgment must be exercised within a reasonable range. The record must contain evidence that fully supports the disability determination and not lack any necessary development pertinent to the decision being made. |
| 5. Was the grant or denial of all issues correct? | Does the evidence of record support the decision according to applicable law regulation and policy? Any error cited in this element must be the equivalent of a CUE. An error includes failure to allow benefits based upon application of the doctrine of reasonable doubt when a case is in equipoise (38 CFR 3.102). A judgment variance such as “difference of opinion” or “better rating practice” will not be considered an error or noted in a comment as QA does not make best practice suggestions at this time. |
| 6. Was the percentage evaluation assigned correct (including combined evaluation)? | Generally, an error in this category may only be cited when supported by evaluation tools, such as the Evaluation Builder. If the Evaluation Builder was not used by the decision maker, then an error may still be cited if the evaluation is not supported by the evaluation tool or is not in compliance with the Rating Schedule. The only possible judgment variance is when the evidence of symptomatology is divided between two evaluation criteria and the disability picture is not clear enough to conclusively apply 38 CFR 4.7. |
| 7. Are all effective dates affecting payment correct? | This category encompasses intent to file (ITF), date of claim (DOC), and increases during the review period as well as various individual unemployability (IU) scenarios. Also covered here are incorrect effective dates for ancillary benefits. |
| 8. Were all payment rates correct? | If applicable to the case being reviewed, issues such as dependency, income, withholdings and recoupments, hospitalization, etc., must be considered when deciding whether the payment rates are correct. |
| 9. Was Decision Documentation correct? | Decision documentation errors involve serious deficiencies in the explanation provided to the claimant concerning the benefit decision. Deficiencies that distort the actual decision so that the claimant may be confused as to what benefit(s) were granted or denied should be recorded as decision documentation errors. Deficiencies that distort the basis for the decision by omitting or incorrectly categorizing evidence that supports a different outcome than was made will also be cited as decision documentation errors. |
| 10. Was notification correct? (Notification) | This element includes predetermination and contemporaneous notice, when applicable (38 CFR 3.103). It is essential that correspondence to claimants be viewed, to the extent possible, from the claimant’s perspective. Notification must: be factually correct, address all issues, be as direct and concise as possible, be logically laid out so thought sequences are not broken, and be free from apparent contradictory statements. Notice of procedural and appellate rights is required following every decision. This may be furnished by attachment of VA Form 20-0998, Your Right To Seek Review Of Our Decision. The POA information should be updated in VBMS to reflect the appointment of a POA to computer-generated notices are furnished to both. |
| 11. Were Appropriate Signatures (Internal Controls) correct? | The appropriate signature has been added for internal control purposes only. It is a means of checks and balances to eliminate potential fraud situations. This does not refer to ratings which require more than one signature |
| 12. Was the end product selected for review timely developed? (over-developed) | To be an overdevelopment error, the development must clearly have been erroneous (e.g. ordering an examination for a condition for which SC could not be established due to a statutory bar) and materially affect the claim (e.g. delay claim processing in and of itself). Mere differences of opinion regarding whether or not the evidence of record was sufficient to decide a claim without an examination are not valid quality errors. This question is used only for data-gathering purposes. Citations under this question are not classified as BE errors, and therefore are not reflected in the national or individual station accuracy. Details provided in this category will focus only on scenarios where development was obviously improper or unnecessary to complete the claim. |
| 13. Were Examination & Medical Opinion Requests correct? | This question captures examination and medical opinion deficiencies that do not rise to the level of a BE error for purposes of national quality review. The focus for the “H” category is for recording a gross waste of resources rather than any DTA error. It is not cascading to select “YES” for Question 12 and “NO’ for 13 (H1). The reviewer should also select “YES” if the claims folder was available in electronic format and the examiner stated that it was reviewed. |
| 14. Was there an Expedited Favorable Decision? | An intermediate rating decision is appropriate if the record contains sufficient evidence to grant any benefit, including SC at a noncompensable level, even if decisions regarding even though the issue of SC or compensation for other disabilities or the issue of a higher evaluation must be deferred. |
| 15. Were Rating Comments correct (EP not under review)? | Identified in this question are discrepancies associated with other EPs that would have otherwise been considered as errors had the EP in question been under review. |
| 16. Were Rating Comments correct (EP under review)? | Identified in this question are discrepancies in the EP under review that are not considered errors in the EP under review but that require correction. |