MSC Task Based Quality Checklist

Appendix D. MSC Task Based Quality Review Checklist

Introduction

This appendix contains information on the MSC Task Based Quality Review Checklist, including

• MSC Task Based Quality Review Checklist
• instructions and guidelines for MSC review
• MSC review elements

Change Date

August 20, 2026

6.D.a. MSC Task Based Quality Checklist

The current Military Services Coordinator IQR (MSCIQR) 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 MSC checklist, Tasks 1 through 11 are considered to be critical for the purposes of calculating employee quality totals

6.D.b. Instructions and Guidelines for MSC Review

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

The MSC Quality Review Checklist is a task based checklist. The task

based checklist reviews different tasks taken during the MSC claim

process. For each case reviewed, a MSC Task Based Quality Review

Checklist must be completed, and all questions answered. The employee

will be reviewed for each task 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 MSCs quality will be calculated based on “root cause” errors, to evaluate

the actual cause of the error(s) rather than also calculating all the

subsequent consequences resulting from the initial error. For example, a

MSC lists a contention in VBMS as right knee pain, when the left knee was

claimed. The exam request included the right knee contention. The MSC

would be cited for one error for the incorrect contention being entered in

VBMS. The subsequent error (incorrect contention listed on the contention exam request) would not be cited because it was a direct result of the original contention error. The exam request 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 systems accurately updated?) 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; descriptors are not meant to determine whether there is an

error. The only exception is Task 2 systems compliance errors. Only those

errors that fit under the specific error descriptors under Task 2 are considered to be an error.

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 MSC Task Based Quality 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.

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 take concurrently with necessary development actions are not considered overdevelopment errors because the incorrect development action is not materially delaying the claim. For example, a MSC 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 9 for unnecessary exam/opinion requests.

Notes:

• An error should not be cited on a MSC for overdevelopment if the overdevelopment is the result of a written deferral or directed development by an RVSR or a DRO.
• 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 MSC does not conduct telephone development prior to issuing a required development letter.

6.D.c. MSC Review Elements

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

1. Was claims establishment accurate?

An incorrectly established DOC or EP results as an error under Task 1 regardless of whether the EP/DOC can be corrected or not. Errors would include not utilizing the correct EP code, DOC or claim label (this includes companion EPs). DOC/EP errors can only be corrected prior to the claim being closed/cancelled.

2. Were all systems accurately updated?

Systems compliance is required for all MSC IQRs. ROs are required to use the error descriptors in this question to determine systems compliance errors. Local guidance will not be used to call systems compliance errors. Only “Yes” or “No” are acceptable answers for Task 2. “NA” is not an acceptable answer for Task 2 because every MSC IQR requires a systems compliance review.

Only errors that fall under the specific error descriptors on the checklist are considered systems compliance errors. Errors would include 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 for a MSC but capitalization of contentions is not an error. Furthermore, incorrectly granting POA access or failure to update VBMS (or VACOLS, if applicable) to remove the revoked POA in VBMS is an error. This includes accepting an invalid form. POA updates must be completed in VBMS and VACOLS, when appropriate. Failure to notify the revoked POA, and/or failure to annotate the VAF 21-22/21-22a, does not rise to the level of a critical error. Incorrectly inputting and updating tracked items for all requested evidence is an error under this task.

Corporate flashes and special issues listed in 6.A.d. and 6.A.e. are considered systems compliance errors. Corporate flashes and special issues required as part of interim guidance or other special guidance issued are also considered system compliance errors. All other corporate flashes and special issues are considered as remarks and returned for correction.

Any required systems updates that do not fall under the specific error descriptors 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.

3. Did the MSC verify appropriate date stamps on VA forms and do the systems accurately reflect status/evidence?

Paper documents to include applications and other evidence submitted to the MSC must capture the date of receipt via date stamp. Documentation confirming the date of receipt for electronically received documents outside of approved VA claims submission service website, such as VA.gov, etc should be of record in the eFolder (i.e. e-mail showing date received associated with documents not uploaded to claims folder). Documents transferred via HAIMS transfer are considered an approved VA submission portal. When mail is received via e-mail through an authorized mailbox, accept the “sent” date electronically recorded on the email as an acceptable date stamp and upload the email. If documents are signed via signature pad (e - signature) or digitally and uploaded into VBMS, a note must be entered as an indication of receipt. Errors would not include electronically received documents with computer generated date stamps indicating date of receipt.

4. Was proper pre-decisional notice provided?

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 governments’.

An example of an error under this category would be the claimant files a claim on the incorrect claim form for an issue that was previously denied. The Request for Application (RFA) letter was not provided as required.

5. 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/claimant. 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/claimant 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 /claimant identifies records and the MSC does not obtain those records, this would be an error on the MSC under this task. If the MSC does not conduct a n enterprise search and associate relevant unidentified VAMC records, this would be an error under this Task. However, MSCs will not be held accountable for identifying and uploading non-VAMC records that the Veteran/Service member did not identify.

An error would be cited if a final notification letter or equivalent is not completed. This may be cited at any point of time in claims processing once it has been determined that the records are unavailable. This error citation is not limited to RFD status claims only.

An example of overdevelopment in this task is when DPRIS records have been requested when already contained in the evidentiary record. Another example could be trying to verify active duty for training (ADT) or inactive duty for training (IADT) service when the claimed disability was during a period of verified AD, therefore hindering the claim from moving to the next step (ready for decision rating board, etc.).

6. 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.

An error would be cited if a MSC failed to upload completed VA Form 21-4142 and 21-4142a to the PMR Vault for processing or failed to involve the PMR Super User to complete this step when required. This action is required when forms are received through VA claim submission service websites.

Note: Prior to requesting PMRs for active duty Service members, MSCs should review the STRs to determine if indicated PMRs are already of record.

Examples of overdevelopment in this task would consist of trying to obtain private medical records (PMRs) that are already of record, the required number of requests for PMRs were completed, or asking for a new release for records when a valid release was already of record.

7. Were all pertinent service treatment records (STRs) obtained/requested or determined to be of record?

An error would be cited when a MSC failed to obtain the STRs or National Guard or Reserve records when required. This would also include when only partial records were requested or records were improperly requested (e.g., STRs not obtained or annotated as missing on VA Form 21-0819 from the Physical Evaluation Board Liaison Officer (PEBLO) for IDES or failure to follow-up twice with the SM for BDD). A failure to have the final notification letter of record would also constitute an error in this task.

8. Are all pertinent documents in VBMS and identified in accordance with the manual?

An error will be cited if applications submitted by the claimant to the MSC are not uploaded and identified in eFolder or shipped properly for scanning. An error would also be cited if the IDES checklist is missing or incomplete at the time the case is made Ready for Decision (IDES cases only).

9. 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, not all disabilities were identified in the request, incorrect disabilities are identified, or critical information is not identified in the request such as omitting information found in the supplemental language matrix or not including pertinent evidence for the examiner’s review as required.

An error will also be cited if unnecessary examinations/opinions are requested, regardless if it prevented the claim from moving to the next step. An example of an unnecessary examination/opinion would be MSC orders an aggravation medical opinion citing a pre-existing condition. Upon review of the entrance exam and other records, there is no indication of the pre-existing condition, and the record shows the disability was first indicated in service

10. Were all examinations complete?

An error will be cited if it is determined that examinations provided to the PEBLO and/or the claim transferred to the DRAS without the proper review or determination of completeness. Completeness is defined as having all the appropriate and necessary parts to include physicians signature and credentials. The MSC will not be held responsible for the sufficiency of the DBQ as that is outside the MSC scope. Sufficiency will be determined by the DRAS. Furthermore, an error will be cited if all requested examination results are not uploaded in the eFolder.

11. Was the claimant properly notified and end product disposed of correctly (if applicable)?

An error will be cited if claimant notification letters were not sent, not documented in the file and a courtesy copy was not provided to claimants appointed representative (if applicable). An error will also be cited if the end product (EP) was not disposed of correctly (cleared or cancelled). For example, IDES claimant is disenrolled from the IDES program. The MSC sends the disenrollment letter but cancels the EP 689. The error would be cited as the EP should have been cleared, not cancelled.

nbsp Correctable Comments

12. Is the c-file free from other defects requiring correction which are not considered “critical” to the item(s)/transaction currently under review?

This task houses and routes correctable comments found during the IQR process. Correctable comments are those items which are not considered to be a “critical” error on the transaction under review, but which require additional processing to ensure the correctness and/or completeness of the claim in general.

Note: Changing any element of the Task 12 response does not constitute a QRT Performance Error, as only Tasks 1-11 are factored into the quality calculation for MSC s.

Overdevelopment actions that do not materially delay the claim, but must be corrected, should be captured as a correctable comment.

Reminder: Examinations that are requested but not warranted are captured for unnecessary exam as a critical error under Task 9 even if it does not materially delay the claim.