National Compensation Non-Rating Quality Review

What this means

m21-4:3.B explains national compensation non-rating quality review checklist. In plain terms, the official guidance says the current National Compensation Authorization Quality Review Checklist (NCAQR) can be found in the Compensation Service Knowledge Management portal at this link. Upon selection of the STAR program, current checklist will be available. It also addresses for the purpose of measuring technical accuracy under the national quality review program, a case is considered either “accurate” or “in error.” A case will be considered “in error” only if a BE error is identified on the case.

How this may help with a claim

Use m21-4:3.B when organizing evidence or checking VA's handling of national compensation non-rating quality review checklist. Compare your application, supporting records, and notice with this source-specific point: The current National Compensation Authorization Quality Review Checklist (NCAQR) can be found in the Compensation Service Knowledge Management portal at this link. For the purpose of measuring technical accuracy under the national quality review program, a case is considered either “accurate” or “in error.” A case will be considered “in error” only if a BE error is identified on the case. Save proof of submission and identify the exact condition, exception, or missing development step before requesting correction or choosing a review option.

What to review in your file

Check the file against this official condition: For the purpose of measuring technical accuracy under the national quality review program, a case is considered either “accurate” or “in error.” A case will be considered “in error” only if a BE error is identified on the case.
Confirm that the record or notice addresses this source point: For each case reviewed, a National Compensation Non-Rating Quality Review checklist must be completed and all questions answered.
Document how this stated step or exception applies: The general guideline is that an error will be recorded when an action is taken that violates current regulations or established policies.

Important limits

m21-4:3.B explains VA guidance for national compensation non-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 Authorization Quality Review Checklist (NCAQR) can be found in the Compensation Service Knowledge Management portal at this link. The general guideline is that an error will be recorded when an action is taken that violates current regulations or established policies.

Search terms when useful

Phrases that may help when searching your claim file or this library.

National Compensation Non-Rating Quality Review Checklist
m21-4:3.B
National Compensation Non-Rating
Quality Review Checklist
Appendix STAR Non-Rating Quality
This appendix includes
National Compensation Non-Rating Quality
instructions guidelines non-rating review

Original VA guidance

The official VA text of this section

Appendix B. STAR Non-Rating Quality Review Checklist

Introduction

This appendix includes the

National Compensation Non-Rating Quality Review Checklist
instructions and guidelines for non-rating review, and
non-rating review elements.

Change Date

January 14, 2026

3.B.a. National Compensation Non-Rating Quality Review Checklist

The current National Compensation Authorization Quality Review Checklist (NCAQR) can be found in the Compensation Service Knowledge Management portal at this link. Upon selection of the STAR program, current checklist will be available. Historic checklist will also be maintained in the Archived section.

3.B. b. Instructions and Guidelines for Non-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 Non-Rating Quality Review (NCAQR) checklist.

For the purpose of measuring technical accuracy under the national quality review program, a case is considered either “accurate” or “in error.” A case will be considered “in error” only if a BE error is identified on the case. When a BE error is noted, the error narrative summary will begin with “Benefit Entitlement” and Question 13 (Does this Review contain a traditional BE?) will have a “YES” response. The error narrative summary for a non-BE error will begin with “Comment” and does not impact the BE accuracy of the case.

For each case reviewed, a National Compensation Non-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 contained a discrepancy resulting in either a comment or BE 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 “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.

Procedural deficiencies are not recorded as errors. These deficiencies are recorded as comments under Question 12. However, if the procedural deficiency is severe in nature, it will be recorded as an error. A judgment or a difference of opinion reflecting a possible better practice or solution is recorded as a comment rather than an error. 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 12.

3.B. c. Non-Rating Review Elements

The following is a list of explanations of the questions on the National Compensation Non-Rating Quality Review Checklist.

Scroll sideways to see the full table.

Question	Explanation
1. Was proper pre-decisional notification provided and/or was proper development to the Veteran/claimant completed as required by regulations and/or the manual?	38 CFR 3.159 states 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. The basic rule concerning notice is contained in 38 CFR 3.103. Within that regulation, at 3.103(b)(2), are provisions for due process associated with adverse actions. Additional instructions for implementation are found in M21-1, Part I, Subpart i, Chapter 1, Section B. Strict adherence to these procedures is necessary both from the customer’s perspective and the government’s. This also includes initial or supplemental development letters to the Veteran/claimant to establish dependency entitlement prior to the decision phase of the claim. Examples of overdevelopment in this task may consist of an additional 5103 Notice Letter being sent when not needed and requiring 30 days before being able to move the claim forward to the next stage (e.g., ready for decision), or requesting dependency information when it is already of record preventing the dependent being added at that time.
2. Were all pertinent service treatment records (STRs) obtained / requested or determined to be of record?	An error would be cited when station failed to obtain the STRs or National Guard/Reserve records when required. This would also include when only partial records were requested or records were improperly requested. A failure to have the final notification letter of record would also constitute an error in this task. STRs requested directly from the Veteran would be assessed in Task 1. STRs from the National Personnel Records Center (NPRC) or other agency would fall under Question 2. An example of overdevelopment in this task would be trying to obtain National Guard or Reserve records when the event was identified during a period of active duty (AD) and shown in the AD STRs. Further development would not aid in the claim for service connection. Another example of overdevelopment would be when STRs are of record but a PIES O50 is requested to obtain STRs.
3. Were all pertinent Federal records (other than STRs) obtained / requested or determined to be of record?	All Federal records need to be obtained when identified by the Veteran. This would include Social Security Administration (SSA) records, Veterans Affairs Medical Center (VAMC) records, Vet Center records etc. Failure to obtain records at the time of identification by the Veteran or at initial development would be an error. This could delay the claim or cause other deficiencies such as missed examinations and/or medical opinions. If a Veteran identifies records and the station does not obtain those records, this would be an error under this task. If the station did not conduct a search and associate relevant unidentified VAMC records, this would be an error under this task. However, the station will not be held accountable for identifying and uploading non-VAMC records that the Veteran did not identify. An error would be cited if a final notification letter or equivalent is not completed. An example of overdevelopment in this task is requesting and waiting for personnel records (DPRIS or PIES O50) when the records are already included in the evidentiary record. Another example could be trying to verify active duty training (ADT) or inactive duty training (IADT) service when the claimed disability began during a period of verified AD, thereby preventing the claim from moving to the next step (examination, rating board, etc.).
4. Were all pertinent private / non-Federal records obtained / requested or determined to be of record?	An error would be cited if private treatment records were not requested. This would include the required follow-up request. This could include medical records or non-medical records such as employment records for the Veteran or claimant. Examples of overdevelopment in this task would include attempting to obtain private medical records (PMRs) when already of record or the required number of requests were completed, as well as asking for a new release for records when a valid release was already of record.
5. Were all necessary examinations / medical opinions requested and correct?	An error will be cited when all necessary examinations and/or medical opinions are not requested. An error would also be cited if the incorrect exam/Disability Benefits Questionnaire (DBQ) is requested, and not all disabilities are identified in the request, or critical information is not identified in the request such as private treatment records, VAMC records, Veteran’s statements, or STRs (event in service). An error will also be cited if unnecessary examinations are requested regardless of whether this prevented the claim from moving to the next step. An example of an unnecessary examination would be one requested when the Veteran claimed service connection for high cholesterol, which is considered to an abnormal laboratory finding and not subject to SC.
6. Were all issues addressed and decided?	A “claimed issue” is any benefit specifically mentioned by the applicant or authorized representative. Errors would include not conveying all the issues decided by a rating decision if the portion of the rating decision provided to the Veteran/claimant did not include those decisions, and hence, the Veteran is not receiving any notification on the outcome of that issue. The VSR is also responsible for ensuring the rating decision addressed all issues. Furthermore, the VSR is evaluated on if all issues were appropriately addressed and all administrative issues decided (issues not requiring a rating). Dependency errors are cited under this task only when a claimed dependent is not addressed. All other dependency errors should be captured under the appropriate task. Failing to address pension administratively when appropriate would fall under this task. An example of premature award of benefits prior to determining eligibility would be administratively granting pension without verifying the qualifying service first.
7. Was necessary award or administrative decision generated/completed and correct?	This question encompasses all situations where an award was generated, or should have been. This includes erroneously cleared claims. Errors would include: failing to implement payment changes based on a rating decision or incorrectly implementing such a decision and failing to correctly pay based on benefits awarded, discontinued, or adjusted administratively. Payment errors resulting from withholdings of administrative reductions or dependency adjustments would not be indicated under this task.
8. Were all dependency adjustments and/or decisions correct?	This question includes all awards/decisions involving the addition, denial, removal, and change in status of dependents based on the promulgation/authorization activity. Examples of errors in this task would include adding ineligible dependents to an award, removing or denying eligible dependents from an award, adding or removing dependents or changing a dependent's status from an incorrect date, and erroneously changing or failing to change the status of a dependent. Establishing an incorrect future date for the removal or change in status of a dependent is also an error. This question also includes errors involving premature dependency adjustments. Error examples include a VSR establishing a dependent prior to obtaining the Social Security Number (SSN) or removing a stepchild when the Veteran divorces the parent without determining whether the Veteran still supports the child. For error trend purposes, if multiple dependency adjustments/decisions are involved, only select the error descriptions that are in error. For example, a Veteran submits a claim to establish a spouse, a biological child, and a stepchild. The VSR correctly added the spouse to the award; however, the biological child was added from an incorrect effective date and the stepchild was added without the Veteran furnishing requested necessary evidence to establish entitlement. The reviewer would select the error descriptions for effective dates and stepchildren.
9. Were all required withholdings / reductions correctly implemented?	This question encompasses all such payment adjustments requiring VSR input/decision. This includes retired pay withholdings, severance pay withholdings, drill pay waivers, hospitalization adjustments, incarceration adjustments, return to active duty adjustments, etc. Rating reductions are addressed under Question 7. As with all questions, this encompasses not just whether the adjustments the VSR made were correct, but whether the VSR failed to implement any and all adjustments covered by this question.
10. Was the claimant properly notified?	38 CFR 3.103 contains the basic rule. Claimants and authorized representatives are entitled to timely notice of any decision made by VA. This rule applies to both awards and disallowances. Notification letter(s) must be placed in the claims folder or in the electronic record(s). The decision notice must not be in a “Draft” status in the Package Manager. The decision review period does not begin until the claimant and representative are notified of the decision. Information must be complete and accurate. Evidence used to decide the claim must be included in every notification letter. Notice of procedural and review rights is required following every decision. POA must be properly copied on the notification letter (e.g., private attorney addresses). Errors under this task also include notifications to the claimant regarding POA appointments. For example, errors regarding notification to the claimant of an incomplete appointment or notification when the appointment form lacks 38 U.S.C.7332 election.
11. Were all systems accurately updated?	Systems compliance is required. Utilize the error descriptions in this question to determine systems compliance errors. Only “Yes” or “No” are acceptable answers for Question 11. “NA” is not an acceptable answer for Question 11. Only errors that fall under the specific error descriptions on the checklist are considered systems compliance errors. Errors would include: not utilizing the correct EP and DOC (this includes companion EPs), not updating VBMS with the necessary service information, and not updating mailing and payment addresses. Not inputting all claimed issues as contentions and verifying the contention is an error. Furthermore, incorrectly granting POA access or failure to update appropriate systems to remove a revoked POA is an error. This includes accepting an invalid form. Incorrectly inputting and updating tracked items for all requested evidence is an error under this task. This includes correctly utilizing dispositions. Any required systems updates that do not fall under the specific error descriptions of this section are not errors and should be indicated as remarks and returned for correction. For example, VBMS indexing and inputting VBMS notes are not errors under this task. Contention classifications and contention types are also not considered errors under systems compliance. Please note: An incorrect DOC or EP is still a systems compliance error even if the EP is closed and the DOC/EP cannot be corrected. DOC/EP errors can only be corrected prior to the claim being closed. If a DOC/EP error is identified on a closed EP, the error should be cited under Question 11; however, corrective action may not be required. It is not appropriate to establish an EP 930 when the only error was for an incorrect DOC or EP and the EP is now closed.
12. Were all other issues that required correction completed correctly?	Identified in this question are discrepancies associated with other EPs that would have otherwise been considered errors had the EP in question been under review. Comments do not count as errors under the EP under review.
13. Does this Review contain a traditional BE?	Answer Yes if a benefit entitlement error is identified during the review.