General Overview

9. Task-Based Applicable Quality

Introduction

This topic contains information on Task-Based Applicable Quality, including

• general overview
• how quality is calculated
• effect of reconsideration decisions
• AQRS Frequently Asked Questions, and
• RQRS Frequently Asked Questions

Change Date

August 20, 2026

6.9.a. General Overview

The following VBA positions have quality calculated using the Task-Based Applicable (TBA) methodology:

• CAs
• VSRs
• RVSRs, and
• DROs

VSRs, RVSRs, and DROs were moved to this quality calculation method with the Quality Redesign that was implemented with the standards change starting in Fiscal Year 2021. CAs had previously been on a TBA quality metric with the performance standards dating from July 2018.

The term “Task” refers to the individual questions that comprise the checklist for each position.

The CA checklist contains five (5) critical tasks. The checklist for VSRs, RVSRs, and DROs contain total of 13 tasks, but only tasks 1 through 11 are considered critical when calculating quality scores for employees.

6.9.b. How Task-Based Quality is Calculated

TBA quality is calculated as the percentage of tasks considered correct based out of the total number of applicable tasks reviewed for the performance period. Tasks, or questions, that receive a “NA” response are not included as part of the quality totals under this calculation model. Only questions that receive a “Yes” or “No” reply are counted for accuracy totals.

As mathematical formula, this is represented as:

The VSR and RVSR checklists contain 11 critical questions. Tasks, or questions, 12 and 13 are considered to a be non-critical tasks and are not included in any quality calculations.

Employees receive credit or errors based on the tasks determined to be applicable to the work performed, or should have performed, on the day of the selected transaction identified in QMS. Each review completed in QMS will have a unique number of tasks that have been identified as applicable to the transaction under review based on the facts of the claim(s).

While each transaction reviewed in QMS will have an individual quality for the singular transaction, employee quality is cumulative throughout the performance period.

Example 1: Below is a summary of responses to Tasks 1 through 11 on the RVSR checklist for one month of reviews:

Task

Review 1 Responses

Review 2 Responses

Review 3 Responses

1

NA

Yes

NA

2

Yes

NA

3

Yes

NA

4

NA

Yes

NA

5

Yes

NA

6

NA

Yes

NA

7

Yes

NA

8

Yes

NA

9

Yes

NA

10

NA

No

11

Yes

No

NA

Analysis:

For Review 1, the employee has earned an accuracy of 100% with seven (7) correct tasks out of a total of seven (7) applicable tasks.

For Review 2, the employee has earned an accuracy of 83.3% with five (5) correct tasks out of a total of six (6) applicable tasks.

For Review 3, the employee has earned an accuracy of 0.0% with zero (0) correct tasks out of a total of one (1) applicable task.

As a cumulative total for the month, the employee has earned an accuracy rate of 85.7% with twelve (12) correct tasks out of a total of fourteen (14) applicable tasks.

Example 2: Below is a summary of responses to Tasks 1 through 11 on the VSR checklist for one month of reviews

Task

Review 1 Responses

Review 2 Responses

Review 3 Responses

1

Yes

NA

2

Yes

NA

3

Yes

No

NA

4

Yes

NA

5

NA

6

NA

Yes

7

NA

Yes

8

NA

9

NA

10

NA

Yes

11

Yes

No

Analysis:

For Review 1, the employee has earned an accuracy of 100% with five (5) correct tasks out of a total of five (5) applicable tasks.

For Review 2, the employee has earned an accuracy of 60.0% with three (3) correct tasks out of a total of five (5) applicable tasks.

For Review 3, the employee has earned an accuracy of 75.0% with three (3) correct tasks out of a total of four (4) applicable tasks.

As a cumulative total for the month, the employee has earned an accuracy rate of 78.6% with eleven (11) correct tasks out of a total of fourteen (14) applicable tasks.

6.9.c. Effect of Reconsideration Decisions

The outcome of a reconsideration does have the potential to impact an employee’s quality. Any reconsideration decision that results in an overturned or mitigated error will result in the error that was previously cited no longer counting against the employee.

An overturned error is indicative that the employee articulated a rebuttal that invalidated the original error as it was cited. An overturned error does not require corrective action to be completed.

A mitigated error is indicative that the initial and peer reviewing QRS failed to account for an established grace period. The error is otherwise valid and the employee is required to take corrective action. Additional reasons for mitigating an error are discussed at M21-4, 6.5.l.

Example 1: Using the RVSR reviews contained at M21-4, 6.9.b, the error cited in Review 2 is overturned.

Analysis: The accuracy for Review 2 will be updated to reflect the employee has earned an accuracy of 100% with six (6) correct tasks out of a total of six (6) applicable tasks. The employee’s cumulative total for the month will also be updated to reflect an accuracy rate of 92.9% with thirteen (13) correct tasks out of a total of fourteen (14) applicable tasks.

Example 2: Using the VSR reviews contained at M21-4, 6.9.b, the error cited in Review 3 is mitigated due to a misapplied grace period.

Analysis: The accuracy for Review 3 will be updated to reflect that the error is non-critical and that the employee has earned a 100% accuracy rate as if all tasks are considered to be correct. The employee’s cumulative total for the month will also be updated to reflect an accuracy rate of 85.7% with twelve (12) correct tasks out of a total of fourteen (14) applicable tasks.

6.9.d. AQRS Frequently Asked Questions

Q1: Rating decision is complete. Transaction pulled is for the award or authorization activity from that rating decision. No due process is involved. What tasks are applicable to the review?

A1: Generally, on a post transaction when due process in not involved, task 1 would be marked as N/A. Although Task 1 is usually a development task, there are instances when task 1 would apply on a promulgation or authorization transaction.

Due process is part of VA’s duty to assist, which is addressed under task 1 on the VSR Quality Review Checklist. If the due process letter is incorrect or is not sent, even on a post transaction, task 1 would apply.

Q2: If there are no errors on a case, does it matter whether something is marked Yes or NA?

A2: Yes, it most certainly does matter. To help quantify the importance of correctly selecting Yes or NA on all reviews, including transactions that do not contain a critical error, please note the following three review examples of IQRs completed for a VSR. Please see M21-4, 6.9.b for examples of how checklist changes impact an employee’s quality.

Q3: When cascading applies, should NA or Yes be selected for the error that is not being cited because it would be cascading?

A3: In a situation where additional error(s) that resulted from the “root cause” error are not cited because it would be cascading, the answer to the task question(s) that relate to those additional errors could be either Yes or NA. It depends on the specifics of the case and the actions that were taken (or not taken) by the employee under review. Once the “root cause” error has been identified, the QRS should review the claim “as if” the decision in error were correct when reviewing the remainder of the claim. This will lead the QRS in determining whether the task(s) related to the additional errors should be answered Yes or NA. Examples are provided below.

Please note that the concept of cascading does not apply when selecting Yes.

Example 1: A substantially complete claim is received on a VAF 21-526EZ that lists two new contentions for lower back and left knee. The Veteran also attaches a signed VAF 21-4138 to the VAF 21-526EZ and states “My service connected headaches are getting worse, I would like to file for an increase for this issue.” The transaction under review is for initial development in which the VSR correctly ordered an exam and medical opinion for the lower back and left knee. A review of the contentions tab in VBMS shows that the only two contentions listed for the claim are “lower back” and “left knee,” the claim for increase for the headache issue was missed.

The AQRS would cite an error under Task 11 under the descriptor “Contentions for all claimed issues were not entered and/or correct.” The AQRS would also select Yes under Task 5, since the exams for the lower back and left knee were correct.

Example 2: A substantially complete claim is received on a VA Form 21P-527EZ that reports Social Security (SSA) income as the sole source of income. The Veteran attaches VA Form 21P-8416 claiming Medicare Part B premiums as a continuing medical expense. The transaction under review is the award transaction in which the VSR correctly counted SSA income but failed to consider the Part B premiums which were confirmed via an SSA inquiry in VBMS. The corresponding decision letter notified the Veteran of the accurate SSA income, omitted medical expenses, and correctly solicited for medical expenses.

The AQRS would cite an error under Task 7 with the descriptor “Expenses and/or deductions not calculated correctly.” The AQRS would select Yes under Task 10 if there are no separate and distinct notification errors unrelated to the root cause. Each of the remaining tasks are evaluated to determine applicability to the action that was taken or should have been taken by the VSR under review.

Example 3: A substantially complete claim is received on a VAF 21-526EZ that lists two new contentions for lower back and left knee. The Veteran also attaches a signed VAF 21-4138 to the VAF 21-526EZ and states “My service connected headaches are getting worse, I would like to file for an increase for this issue.” The transaction under review is a post transaction for authorization. The rating decision only provided a decision on the lower back and left knee. A review of the contentions tab in VBMS shows that the only two contentions listed for the claim are “lower back” and “left knee,” the claim for increase for the headache issue was missed.

The AQRS would cite an error under Task 11 under the descriptor “Contentions for all claimed issues were not entered and/or correct.” The AQRS would also select Yes under Task 6, since the other claimed issues were addressed in the rating.

Q4: Do Tasks 1-5 apply to every Pre-transaction reviewed, and do Tasks 6-10 apply to every Post-transaction reviewed?

A4: If a task is relevant to the transaction being reviewed, it should be answered Yes or No, but if the task is not relevant, it should be NA. Generally speaking, pre (development) work is usually captured under Tasks 1-5, and post work is usually captured under Tasks 6-10. Task 11 is applicable to every review completed. However, because each claim is unique, the QRS should evaluate the transaction to determine which tasks are applicable to the action that was taken or should have been taken by the individual under review.

Q5: For Pre reviews, do Tasks 1-5 all have to be answered Yes or No or can some be NA?

A5: Generally speaking, pre (development) work is usually captured under Tasks 1-5, and post work is usually captured under Tasks 6-10. Task 11 is applicable to every review completed. However, because each claim is unique, the QRS should evaluate the transaction to determine which tasks are applicable to the action that was taken or should have been taken by the individual under review.

Q6: When conducting a Peer Review, is this now a complete new IQR instead of focusing on the error cited?

A6: The existing standard practice remains in effect. The IQR Peer Review is still intended as a review to ensure that all cited errors are appropriate using the applicable error standard, are properly documented on the checklist, and have accurate supporting reference(s). However, if an incorrect selection of Yes vs NA or vice versa is identified by the peer reviewer on another task question, the peer reviewer will select “Disagree” and will correct the checklist to reflect what the correct task question answer should have been. This is similar to the way obvious errors that were not cited by the initial QRS are to be added to the checklist on Peer Review. A QRTIQR, on the other hand, does represent a second complete and thorough quality review of the selected transaction. This has not changed, either.

Q7: If there is a peer reviewer who does not agree with the original AQRS selection of NA, would that result in a disagreement?

A7: Yes. If a peer reviewer determines that a task should have received a Yes response instead of an NA, this results in a disagreement and the peer reviewer should follow the steps outlined in M21-4, 6.5.f to make all efforts to resolve any inconsistencies to avoid the need for a third QRS review. If the initial reviewer is unable to be reached, the peer reviewer must annotate the attempt(s) in the comment box in QMS, to include date(s) and time of the attempt(s).

Q8: M21-4, 6.4.b states “Errors will not be removed on reconsideration merely because the error was misclassified on the appropriate checklist or due to insufficient supporting reference.” Often times a peer reviewer will agree the error and citation as valid, but disagree with the task or sub-task the error is being cited within. Should AQRS be citing errors during a QRTIQR for misclassified errors and/or insufficient supporting reference?

A8: If both reviewers agree that an error is present, but there is a disagreement in how the error is classified or in the error narrative, then this is considered a noncritical change to the checklist. A noncritical change is not an error on the initial AQRS since both reviewers agree that an error is warranted. In the instance that an individual conducting a QRTIQR must make a non-critical change to the checklist to correct how the error was captured, the reviewer should “Disagree” and state in the comment box (for example): “Disagreeing to make a noncritical change to the checklist. This is not an error on the QRS. The error narrative must be corrected to remove an inaccurate manual reference.”

Q9: An initial development transaction is under review in which the VAF 21-526EZ, signed by the Veteran, is received. Would the correct checklist response be Yes because its been determined the 5103 notice was correctly issued and no additional action is required? Or would it be NA because issuance of the 5103 notice is now moot?

A9: The answer to Task 1should be Yes since the VSR taking initial development action confirmed 5103 notice was properly issued. Even if a claim is received on a VAF 21- 526EZ that is signed by the Veteran, all VSRs that develop the claim are responsible for ensuring that 5103 notice has been properly provided to the Veteran, so a Yes response is warranted for Task 1. This is especially true since the reverse concept is also true. A No response would be warranted under Task 1 if 5103 notice was not properly provided and the VSR under review failed to send it to the Veteran, regardless of the development transaction under review.

Q10: 5103 notice was properly issued on initial development by a VSR. A follow-up development transaction performed by a different VSR is under review. Would the correct checklist response be Yes because its been determined that 5103 notice was properly issued and no additional action is required? Or would it be NA because issuance of 5103 is now moot?

A10: All VSRs that develop the claim are responsible for ensuring that 5103 notice has been properly provided to the Veteran. The answer to Task 1 should be Yes since the VSR taking supplemental development action confirmed 5103 notice was properly issued. This is especially true since the reverse concept is also true. A No response would be warranted under Task 1 if 5103 notice was not properly provided and the VSR under review failed to send it to the Veteran, regardless of the development transaction under review. As a reminder, per M21-1, III.i.2.A.1.g when an employee handles a claim, it is expected that any employee will take the most full and complete action possible on a claim every time, to move a claim forward to accurate completion.

Q11: When reviewing a Pre task, if no VAF 21-4142 is submitted, should Task 4 still be answered Yes or No or can it be NA?

A11: If the Veteran gives us any indication that non-federal records must be obtained in order to substantiate the claim, or there is an obligation to develop for non-federal records based on the claim type, a Yes or No response would be appropriate under Task 4. If there is no indication that development is required, then an NA response would be appropriate.

A Yes reply is warranted when there was action required by the VSR to ensure the evidence was of record. Examples include when the Veteran provided the evidence to VA, the VA Form 21-4142 was properly acted upon including referral to the Private Medical Records Contractor for action, or the Veteran was otherwise notified that the submission was inadequate, etc..

Q12: When reviewing a Post task, if no withholding is needed, should Task 9 be answered Yes or No or can it be NA?

A12: If the award requires a calculation or analysis to determine that no withholding is needed, then a Yes response would be appropriate under Task 9. For example, if the Veteran was in receipt of military retired pay and the transaction under review involved an increase in VA benefits, then the VSR was required to analyze the award and/or complete a calculation to verify if an adjustment based on military retired pay was required. Even if the end result was no withholding required, the VSR was responsible for evaluating the award to determine if a withholding was needed so a Yes response is appropriate under Task 9. The specific error descriptors under Task 9 provide a common list of the types of withholdings on an award. If there is no indication that a withholding is applicable to the claim or that no calculation or analysis was required to determine withholding, then NA would be appropriate.

If an analysis of an attorney fee withholding was needed, a Yes is warranted regardless if a fee is paid or not. If an attorney fee is incorrectly calculated, then a No would be appropriate.

Q13: If we are reviewing a development transaction in which the VSR updated the claim level suspense on a pending exam request, how should we be answering development tasks that were previously developed for by a previous VSR? The VSR under review didn’t develop for them in the transaction under review, but the VSR did ensure that the actions were correct and of record. So for example, if the previous VSR obtained the VAMC records and correctly sent a Final Notification letter for the records that were not available, would the QRS mark Task 3 as Yes or NA?

A13: VSRs are responsible for reviewing the development previously done for that claim. Because VSRs are responsible for reviewing all prior development to ensure accuracy, and taking corrective action if required, a Yes response would be warranted under all appropriate tasks depending on the type of development that was previously conducted. This is especially true since the reverse concept is also true. A No response would be warranted if the VSR under review failed to correct development errors that occurred earlier in the claims development process.

Simply stated, if the VSR can earn a No under a task for development errors, regardless of who makes the mistake, then the VSR also should receive a Yes since the VSR verified all prior development was correct. As a reminder, per M21-1III.i.2.A.1.g, any time an employee handles a claim, it is expected to take the most full and complete action possible on a claim every time, to move a claim forward to accurate completion.

Q14: What tasks are under review for an EP such as 310 Routine Future Exam? Are Tasks 5 & 11 the only tasks under review and all others will likely be NA on initial development? 5103 is not required, STRs should be of record, service should be verified, non-federal records wouldn’t be at play, and VA medical records have been obtained.

A14: Generally speaking, typical VSR actions required on a routine future exam is to order an exam, which is captured under Task 5, and to ensure proper systems compliance, which is captured under Task 11. So, generally speaking, Task 5 and Task 11 will most often be used for development actions taken for a routine future exam.

However, because each claim is unique, the QRS should evaluate the transaction to determine which tasks are applicable to the action that was taken or should have been taken by the individual under review. For example, if no exam is needed, then a Yes under Task 5 is not appropriate. However, if the VSR uploads VHA treatment records and determines there is sufficient evidence to rate off of, then a Yes for Task 3 would be appropriate. If the VSR uploads VHA treatment records and determines that an exam is still needed, then both Tasks 3 and 5 would be applicable to the review.

Q15: In a claim for increase or a routine future examination for a back condition, would Yes or NA be the correct answer for STRs since STRs are not applicable to these types of claims?

A15: Generally speaking, the typical VSR actions required for a claim for increase is to order an exam, which is captured under Task 5, ensure proper systems compliance, which is captured under Task 11, and to ensure 5103 compliance, which is captured under Task 1. So, generally speaking, Task 1, Task 5, and Task 11 will most often be used for development actions taken for a claim for increase. If no action was taken to obtain any STRS for additional periods of service not previously obtained, then Task 2 would not be applicable to the claim.

However, because each claim is unique, the QRS should evaluate the transaction to determine which tasks are applicable to the action that was taken or should have been taken by the individual under review. Question 14 contains guidance on RFEs, but the same logic would apply as to if the VSR did any development to obtain additional STRS that were not previously of contained in the eFolder.

Q16: If an exam request was submitted via CAPRI and the tracked item was not autogenerated, would the manual creation of a tracked item still be considered cascading?

A16: Submission of an appropriate exam through CAPRI would warrant a Yes under Task 5. Tracked items, however, fall under systems compliance (Task 11). If proper guidance regarding tracked items is not followed, the VSR would be subject to a No under Task 11 and this is not considered cascading as the tracked item and exam input are considered to be two separate actions.

Conversely, if the exam was entered incorrectly and the AQRS marks No to Task 5, then Task 11 must be independently reviewed for other systems compliance errors unrelated to the root cause cited under Task 5. Each of the remaining tasks are evaluated to determine the applicability to the action that was taken, or should have been taken, by the VSR under review.

For example, if the VSR should have requested a Foot DBQ and did not, this would warrant a No under Task 5. As there is no tracked item for this DBQ, it would be considered cascading to cite a Task 11 error for lack of tracked item specific to the Foot DBQ.

Q17: When working an non-rating authorization transaction review that involves due process, is Task 1 applicable to the review?

A17: While Task 1 is generally considered to be a development question, it asks if proper pre-decisional notification was provided to the Veteran. While 5103 notice is the most common form of pre-decisional notification, due process is also considered to be a pre-decisional notification.

For due process claims that do not involve a rating, such as a dependency reduction or incarceration, Task 1 is applicable to the review. If the pre-decisional notice is deficient, a No is warranted.

6.9.e. RQRS Frequently Asked Questions

Q1: Is there a proper way to address the use of Yes, N o or NA for Task 12? Is the quality reviewer always expected to complete a full, de Novo review of the entire claims folder in order to identify all past errors that need correction? In other words, in most instances should NA never be selected under Task 12? (An exception potentially being an original claim – EP 110/010.) Or, in the context of IQR reviews being completed on a specific, selected transaction, is Task 12 an additional, “optional” task review to the degree that there may be (more) frequent selection of NA?

A1: The QRS is not expected to complete a full, de Novo review of the entire claims folder to identify past errors. Task 12 is intended to capture errors on past actions that are noticed by the QRS while conducting the review, as well as documentation and favorable finding errors that do not rise to the level of a “critical” error on the transaction under review.

As with all the task questions, the selection of Yes, No, or NA for Task 12 would depend on the specific scenario of the case being reviewed. Task 12 is different from the other task questions in that it can apply to actions that are not directly related to the specific transaction under review. However, there is no hard-and-fast rule about when to select Yes or NA.

An answer of No, of course, is appropriate under Task 12 any time an error is found that requires correction but is not directly related to the transaction under review or is not considered “critical” to the transaction under review. Note that only Tasks 1-11 are factored into the quality calculation for RVSRs. Accordingly, changing the Task 12 response from Yes to NA or NA to Yes during a QRTIQR does not constitute a QRT Performance Error.

Q2: When cascading applies, should NA or Yes be selected for the error that is not being cited because it would be cascading?

A2: In a situation where additional error(s) that resulted from the “root cause” error are not cited because it would be cascading, the answer to the task question(s) that relate to those additional errors could be either Yes or NA. It depends on the specifics of the case and the actions that were taken (or not taken) by the employee under review. Once the “root cause” error has been identified, the QRS should review the claim “as if” the decision in error was correct when reviewing the remainder of the claim. This will lead the QRS in determining whether the task(s) related to the additional errors should be answered Yes or NA. The first set of poll questions in the September 2020 Quality District Meeting slides were developed to demonstrate this, with examples where the RQRS would select NA for the task(s) related to the additional (cascading) error as well as an example where the RQRS would select Yes for the task(s) related to the additional error. Additional examples are provided below.

Please note that the concept of cascading does not apply when selecting Yes.

Example 1: The RVSR granted service connection for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and assigned an evaluation of 60% based on FEV-1/FVC of 47 percent. However, the evidence shows the Veteran is on outpatient oxygen therapy, which warrants a 100% evaluation. This was the only issue addressed by the RVSR as it was the only issue claimed. The Veteran has additional, separate service-connected disabilities that combine to 60% disabling.

An error would be cited under Task 7 for the incorrect evaluation, as this is the “root cause” error. Task 2 would be marked as NA because if the 60% evaluation for COPD had been correct, the RVSR would have then been correct to not address and grant Special Monthly Compensation (SMC) based on statutory housebound entitlement. The same goes for the ancillary issue of Dependents’ Educational Assistance (DEA), if the evidence showed the need for oxygen was permanent or future examination was otherwise not warranted. Because the RVSR did not take any action related to the issues of SMC or DEA, and this would have been correct if the assigned evaluation was correct, Task 2 is not applicable.

Example 2: The RVSR granted service connection for asbestosis and assigned an evaluation of 100% based on FVC of 45-percent predicted. The RVSR also granted DEA based on this 100% evaluation and the fact the Veteran is over age 55 and there was no likelihood of improvement shown. However, the pulmonary function test (PFT) findings show that this FVC value was the pre-bronchodilator result and the post-bronchodilator result was FVC of 54-percent predicted, which warrants a 60% evaluation. Per 38 CFR 4.96(d)(5), post- bronchodilator results are to be used for evaluation purposes unless the post- bronchodilator results are poorer than the pre-bronchodilator results. There were no other findings supporting a 100% evaluation.

The RQRS would cite an error under Task 7 for the incorrect evaluation, as this is the “root cause” error. Because the grant of DEA would have been correct if the 100% evaluation for asbestosis was correct, then Tasks 2 and 5 would be marked Yes. Because the RVSR did take action to grant DEA, and this would have been correct if the assigned evaluation was correct, Tasks 2 and 5 are applicable.

Q3: Does Task 9 apply to deferrals since the NWQ playbook requires references to be provided with deferrals?

A3: While references should be included in any deferral, no error should be cited under Task 9 for failure to include references in a complete deferral.

Q4: When reviewing a total deferral, is the only applicable question Task 10, “Were all deferrals completed necessary and properly recorded?”

A4: Generally, Task 10 is the main task applicable when reviewing a complete deferral. However, there are instances in which another task may be relevant, such as Task 1 when an interim rating decision was not completed for an issue that could be decided.

Q5: Would Task 11, “The proper EP was not reflected on the rating decision to include the proper DOC for EP” apply to a deferral only?

A5: M21-4, 6.B.c states that Task 11 applies only to the rating decision codesheet and should account for “proper POA, appropriate service period verification, updating codesheet for final CUE action, and having the proper EP associated with the decision.” All of these are found on a codesheet. Since a codesheet is not a part of a complete deferral, Task 11 is not applicable to a deferral only.

Q6: Would Task 12 be applicable to a deferral only?

A6: Whether or not Task 12 is applicable in an IQR on a deferral only would depend on the specifics of the case. If the QRS conducting such a review notices an error on a previous action that was unrelated to the deferral transaction under review, then Task 12 would be marked No. If no error under Task 12 is found, then the specifics of the case determine whether Task 12 is answered Yes or NA. Remember that Task 12 is not factored into the quality calculation for RVSRs; therefore, a QRT Performance Error will not be cited on a QRS in a QRTIQR based on the selection of Yes vs NA on Task 12.

Q7: Regarding an EP 930 for an IQR correction, the following scenario has arisen: A rating was completed to cite a CUE and propose severance of a disability that was properly claimed but improperly granted in the prior rating decision. What do we input for Task 1 and Task 2? Would we select Yes for Task 6 in that the “denial” was correct even though it’s not technically a denial? If the only issue is a proposal to sever service connection (SC) and it is done correctly, we may just have a Yes for Tasks 3, 9, 11, and 12 if not. Does this seem correct?

A7: When conducting an IQR on the EP 930 rating that proposes severance, Task 1 would be marked Yes if the issue that was supposed to be corrected under the EP 930 is the issue that was addressed. Task 1 applies to issues that are part of the basis on which the EP was established. This includes issues specifically claimed by the Veteran or duly appointed representative under an EP established based on receipt of a claim, as well as issues that need to be addressed and decided based on a review initiated by VA, such as an EP 310 for routine future examination or an EP 930 for corrective action.

Task 2 applies only to issues that were not part of the original basis on which the EP was established, but that need to be addressed based on the evidence and/or as a result of the decision made on the issues that fall under Task 1. Thus, in this scenario, Task 2 would be NA if the proposal to sever SC is the only issue addressed (and no inferred or ancillary issues needed to be addressed).

Selecting Yes for Task 6 would be correct in this scenario, as the proposal to sever SC is equivalent to denying SC. The answers to Tasks 3 and 4 would depend on whether any development or exam/opinion was conducted under the EP 930. If the EP 930 rating is to correct the error in the prior rating, but no additional development or exam/opinion was done after the erroneous rating, then Tasks 3 and 4 would both be NA. The determination of whether a particular task is applicable is based on what was done or what should have been done in connection with the specific transaction under review. So, in the scenario presented, the QRS would select Yes for Tasks 1, 6, 9, and 11 if everything was correct. Whether or not any other task questions would be applicable would depend on what actions were taken or should have been taken in connection with the specific transaction under review.

Q8: An error is cited under Task 12 for not including favorable findings (FFs) in a denial of SC for hearing loss. That was the only error, and the only reason for the EP 930 and rating decision the QRS is reviewing. The EP 930 rating was correct. So as pertains to Tasks 3 and 4, the development and examination actions for the hearing loss denial had been correct. No new development or exam actions were required based on the Task 12 error. This raises the question, would Tasks 3 and 4 be marked Yes because the development that had been associated with that issue in the underlying claim had been correct, OR, would Tasks 3 and 4 be “not applicable,” since no additional development or exam action was performed as part of the quality error correction? I guess the underlying question is whether correct tasks that pertained only to the original underlying EP get a Yes or an NA in an IQR performed on the correction process.

A8: Tasks 3 and 4 would usually be NA if the sole reason for the correction is to include favorable findings since that is the transaction under review. Completion of the checklist questions on an IQR is based on the actions that were taken or that should have been taken in connection with the specific transaction under review.

Q9: When conducting a Peer Review, is this now a complete new IQR instead of focusing on the error cited?

A9: The existing standard practice remains in effect. The IQR Peer Review is still intended as a quick touch review to ensure that all cited errors are appropriate using the applicable error standard, are properly documented on the checklist, and have accurate supporting reference(s).

However, if an incorrect selection of Yes vs NA or vice versa is identified by the peer reviewer on another task question, the peer reviewer will select “Disagree” and will correct the checklist to reflect what the correct task question answer should have been. This is similar to the way obvious errors that were not cited by the initial QRS are to be added to the checklist on Peer Review. A QRTIQR, on the other hand, does represent a second complete and thorough quality review of the selected transaction. This has not changed, either.

Q10: When QRSs reach out to initial reviewers, the other QRS does not respond to the request for a discussion. Are there any recommendations on how to address this issue?

A10: M21-4, 6.5.f has been updated to reflect that discussion with the initial reviewer on a Peer Review must be done if the peer reviewer does not agree with the initial review. This discussion should be expedited to ensure timely resolution of the pending quality review. The initial reviewer and peer reviewer should make all efforts to resolve any inconsistencies to avoid the need for a third QRS review. If the initial reviewer is unable to be reached, the peer reviewer must annotate the attempt(s) in the comment box in QMS, to include date(s) and time of the attempt(s).

Q11: If an RVSR grants a claim for increase and it is correct, would the Task “Is the grant of benefits correct” be Yes or NA?

A11: If the only issue is the proper grant of an increased evaluation, Yes should be selected under the evaluation Task (7) and NA under the grant of benefits Task (5). NA should also be selected under the denial of benefits Task (6) since the sole issue is the evaluation of the disability rather than the grant or denial of service connection in this case.

Q12: For EP 310s, do we consider the contentions a claimed issue (Task 1), an inferred issue (Task 2), or do we mark NA for both tasks? These EPs are generated for routine future examinations (RFEs) and are not truly claims from the Veteran; however, it would seem we should be marking somewhere if the correct issues were addressed or not.

A12: Although the question for Task 1 specifically refers to “claimed issues,” Task 1 applies to all issues that are part of the basis on which the EP was established (i.e., issues that form the basis for the “claim” under review, whether initiated by the Veteran/representative or by VA). Thus, this includes issues specifically claimed by the Veteran or duly appointed representative under an EP established based on receipt of a claim, as well as issues that need to be addressed and decided based on a review initiated by VA, such as an EP 310 for RFE or an EP 930 for corrective action. Essentially, if an issue was required to be addressed because it was part of the reason the EP was established, it would fall under Task 1.

Task 2 applies only to issues that were not part of the original basis on which the EP was established, but that need to be addressed based on the evidence and/or as a result of the decision made on the issues that fall under Task 1. Therefore, on an EP 310, the issues for which the RFE is requested fall under Task 1, but any inferred, ancillary, or “within scope” issues that arise based on the RFE would fall under Task 2.

For example, on an EP 310 for a prostate cancer RFE where the exam now shows erectile dysfunction that was not previously granted, the prostate cancer issue would fall under Task 1 and the erectile dysfunction and special monthly compensation issues would fall under Task 2.

Q13: If a Veteran submits a claim for increase in PTSD, and the evaluation is properly increased to 100% with DEA properly inferred and granted, should a Yes be selected only for Task 2 or should both Tasks 2 and 5 be answered as Yes?

A13: In this case, a selection of Yes is warranted for both Task 2 (Were all inferred and/or ancillary issues addressed?) and Task 5 (Was the grant of all issues correct?) since both decisions to infer entitlement to DEA and the decision to grant DEA were correct. Cascading only applies to reviews in which errors are cited. Of course, Yes would also be selected under Task 7 (Were the evaluations assigned correct?).

Please note that the concept of cascading does not apply when selecting Yes.

Appendix A. VSR Task Based Quality Review Checklist

Introduction

This appendix includes the

• VSR Task Based Quality Review Checklist
• instructions and guidelines for VSR review
• VSR review elements
• systems compliance errors - corporate flashes, and
• systems compliance errors - special issues.

Change Date

August 20, 2026

6.A.a. VSR Task Based Quality Review Checklist

The current Veterans Service Representative IQR (VSRIQR) checklist can be found in the Compensation Service Knowledge Management portal at this link. Upon selection of the IQR program link, the current checklist will be available. Historic checklists will also be maintained in the Archived section.

For the VSR checklist, Tasks 1 through 11 are considered to be critical for the purposes of calculating employee quality totals.

6.A.b. Instructions and Guidelines for VSR Review

These instructions and guidelines have been developed to promote consistency and uniformity in the review of cases selected for local VSR IQRs. Use these instructions/guidelines in conjunction with the VSR Task Based Quality Review Checklist.

The VSR Task Based Quality Review Checklist is a task based checklist. The task based checklist reviews different tasks taken during the VSR claim process. For each case reviewed, a VSR Task Based Quality Review Checklist must be completed and all questions answered. The employee will be reviewed for each task they completed on the date of the transaction selected. At the time of the review, the reviewer will determine which tasks are applicable. There are three possible answers for each of the tasks. A task is considered “accurate” when “Yes” is selected for that task indicating that the activity associated with the question was completed accurately. A task is considered “in error” when “No” is selected for that task indicating that the activity associated with the question was “in error.” A task is considered not applicable to the review when “NA” is selected for that task indicating that the question is not applicable to the case under review.

A VSR’s quality will be calculated based on “root cause” errors, in order to evaluate the actual cause of the error(s) rather than also calculating all of the subsequent consequences resulting from the initial error. For example, a VSR generates the incorrect effective date for a dependent which results in an incorrect notification letter. The VSR would be cited for one error for the incorrect effective date. The subsequent error (incorrect notification letter) would not be cited because it was caused by and the direct result of the original effective date error. The notification error, however, would be captured in the comments for training purposes.

Each task on the checklist is associated with multiple error descriptors. The error descriptors are meant to provide an additional level of information on the error cited to better identify error trends. The main task question (ex: Were all issues addressed and decided?) is what is used to determine if there is an error for that task. The error descriptors are only there to further identify error trends; they are not meant to determine whether there is an error. The only exception is Task 11 systems compliance errors. Only those errors that fit under the specific error descriptors are errors under Task 11.

While any one particular development request cannot be counted under more than one task, even if the records technically fall into more than one task, separate requests to more than one source for the same records could be counted under more than one task. For example, if a VSR simultaneously requests employment information (VAF 21-4192) from both the employer and the Veteran this could constitute errors under Task 1 and Task 4.

The guideline is that an error will be recorded when an action is taken that violates current regulations, policies, and procedures. A narrative summary is required with statutory, regulatory, judicial, or manual references for any “error” or “No” answer recorded. A judgment or a difference of opinion reflecting a possible better practice or solution is not captured on the VSR Task Based Qulaity Review Checklist. If an error is identified that is not related to the individual’s scope that error is recorded as a correctable comment under Task 12. For example, the promulgation action is randomly selected for review. The reviewer finds that the dependency effective date is incorrect due to an incorrect effective date on the rating Codesheet. The reviewer would not cite an error on the VSR for the incorrect dependency effective date since it is due to the incorrect effective date on the rating Codesheet. Rating decisions are outside the scope of the VSR. The reviewer would instead capture the finding as a correctable comment under Task 12.

QRS are responsible for reviewing any pertinent data sources such as the Special Issue Claims Tableau Dashboard, Corporate Flash Tableau Dashboard or military service history information, prior to citing any critical errors under Task 11.

All specific error descriptors under Task 11 are applicable to every VSRIQR, regardless of it's a PRE or POST transaction. The only exception is tracked item errors will not be cited on POST tranactions resulting in the EP being closed (manually cleared or authorized). This includes a VSR transaction for generating an award that is later authorized. If the EP remains open because because it was continued at authorization, then errors related to tracked items are appropriate on a POST transaction.

A new Special Issue (SI) or Corporate Flash (CF) will not be added to the listing of those resulting in critical errors unless the SI or CF:

• Impacts routing for Centralized Processing and Special Missions claims.
• Affects priority processing (e.g., terminally ill, homeless) to ensure expeditious conclusion of claims.
• Permits the reporting and/or monitoring of relevant data.
• Allows VBA systems to input letter text, VBMS-R glossary use, and other features.
• Can be added or removed by end users in VBMS.
• Has clearly published instructions to claims processors on when to add or remove the CF or SI (e.g., M21-1, M21-4, Appendix E).
• Indicates there are specific claims processing procedures (e.g., fugitive felon CF indicates that a Veteran's compensation should be stopped until the warrant is cleared).

Overdevelopment can be just as harmful as underdevelopment. Overdevelopment, as it relates to the task based checklist, is taking an incorrect development action that prevents the claim from progressing to the next step in the claims process (materially delays the claim). Examples of this would be requesting information that is not needed or requesting information already of record that prevents the claim from moving to the decision stage (this includes both rating decisions and administrative decisions). The development action must prevent a claim from moving to the next stage to be an overdevelopment error. Incorrect development actions taken concurrently with necessary development actions are not considered overdevelopment errors because the incorrect development action is not materially delaying the claim. For example, a VSR requests STRs that are already in the eFolder when requesting the necessary exams. Reviewers should capture overdevelopment that does not materially delay the claim as a correctable comment under Task 12.

Exception: Overdevelopment is always captured for unnecessary exam/opinion requests even if it does not materially delay the claim. An error will be cited under Task 5 for unnecessary exam/opinion requests.

Notes:

• An error should not be cited on a VSR for overdevelopment if the overdevelopment is the result of a written deferral or directed development by an RVSR, a DRO, or the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (BVA).
• The lack of a required note in VBMS should be captured as a correctable comment under Task 12.
• An error should not be cited if a VSR does not conduct telephone development prior to issuing a required development letter.

6.A.c. VSR Review Elements

The following is a list of explanations of the elements of the VSR Individual Quality Review Checklist.

Scroll sideways to see the full table.

6.A.d. Systems Compliance Errors - Corporate Flashes

Use the table below to identify which corporate flashes are considered systems compliance errors. Failure to add or remove the relevant corporate flash as required rises to the level of critical error. Corporate flashes that are not covered by the list below but still need to be input or removed on the claim are indicated as remarks and returned for correction.

Exception: Failure to properly apply corporate flashes required by interim guidance will be cited as critical errors. See M21-4, Chapter 6.4.j. for additional information.

Scroll sideways to see the full table.

6.A.e. Systems Compliance Errors - Special Issues

Use the table below to identify which special issues are considered systems compliance errors. Failure to add or remove the relevant special issue as required rises to the level of critical error. Special issues that are not covered by the list below but still need to be input on the claim are indicated as remarks and returned for correction.

Exception: Failure to properly apply special issues required by interim guidance will be cited as critical errors. See M21-4, Chapter 6.4.j. for additional information.

Scroll sideways to see the full table.