DRO Task Based Quality Checklist

What this means

m21-4:6.E explains DRO task based quality checklist. In plain terms, the official guidance says the current Decision Review Officer IQR (DROIQR) 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. It also addresses use these instructions/guidelines in conjunction with the DRO Task Based Quality Review Checklist.

How this may help with a claim

Use m21-4:6.E to audit how VA handled DRO task based quality 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 Decision Review Officer IQR (DROIQR) checklist can be found in the Compensation Service Knowledge Management portal at this link. Use these instructions/guidelines in conjunction with the DRO Task Based Quality Review Checklist. 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: The DRO Task Based Quality Review Checklist is a task-based checklist. The task-based checklist reviews different tasks taken during the rating and appeals process.
Confirm that the record or notice addresses this source point: Quality is 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.
Document how this stated step or exception applies: An error will be recorded when an employee takes an action that violates current regulations, policies, and procedures.

Important limits

m21-4:6.E explains VA guidance for DRO task based quality 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 Decision Review Officer IQR (DROIQR) checklist can be found in the Compensation Service Knowledge Management portal at this link. An error will be recorded when an employee takes an action that violates current regulations, policies, and procedures.

Search terms when useful

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

DRO Task Based Quality Checklist
m21-4:6.E
DRO Task Based
Quality Checklist
Appendix Task Based Quality
This appendix contains Task
Task Based Quality Review
instructions guidelines review

Original VA guidance

The official VA text of this section

Appendix E. DRO Task Based Quality Review Checklist

Introduction

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

DRO Task Based Quality Review Checklist
instructions and guidelines for DRO review
DRO review elements

Change Date

August 20, 2026

6.E.a. DRO Task Based Quality Checklist

The current Decision Review Officer IQR (DROIQR) 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 checklist will also be maintained in the Archived section.

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

6.E.b. Instructions and Guidelines for DRO Review

These instructions and guidelines have been developed to promote consistency and uniformity in the review of cases selected for local DRO IQRs.

Use these instructions/guidelines in conjunction with the DRO Task Based Quality Review Checklist.

The DRO Task Based Quality Review Checklist is a task-based checklist. The task-based checklist reviews different tasks taken during the rating and appeals process. The QRS will review the employee for each task completed in the case selected. At the time of the review, the reviewer will determine which tasks are applicable. An applicable task is one that is associated with the work performed by the employee and is thus reviewable for quality. There are three possible answers for each of the tasks. A task is considered “accurate” when “Yes” is selected for that task indicating the employee completed activity associated with the question accurately. A task is considered “in error” when “No” is selected for that task indicating the employee completed activity associated with that question “in error.” A task is considered not applicable to the review when “NA” is selected for that task indicating the question is not applicable to the case under review.

Quality is 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 decision maker assigns an incorrect evaluation for a condition which warranted a total evaluation (100%). There are other, separate SC disabilities that combine to be more than 60% disabling. If the proper evaluation had been assigned, the Veteran would have met the evaluation requirements for statutory housebound benefits. The decision maker would be cited for one error for the incorrect evaluation. The subsequent error (failure to take up and grant statutory housebound) would not be cited because it was caused by and the direct result of the original evaluation error. It would, however, be captured in the comments for training purposes.

An error will be recorded when an employee takes an action 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 difference in judgment or opinion reflecting a possible better practice or solution is not captured on the DRO Task Based Quality Review Checklist.

Overdevelopment, as it relates to the task-based checklist, is taking an incorrect development action that prevents the claim from progressing to completion (materially delays the claim). This would encompass unnecessary exam/opinion requests, requesting information that is not needed to decide, or requesting information already of record, etc. For example, a medical opinion regarding the onset of a condition during service was requested, when service connection is otherwise warranted for that condition on a presumptive basis. The opinion would have no material effect on the outcome of the claim and is considered overdevelopment (provided no other development was requested or required, and the opinion request itself resulted in a delay to processing the claim). Unless the effective date would be affected, the opinion is irrelevant.

Note: To reach the level of an error, the development directed must clearly be unnecessary and/or erroneous in nature and must also materially affect (for example delay) the claim. Errors are not to be cited based upon a simple difference of opinion between the decision maker and the quality reviewer regarding evidence sufficient to decide the claim.

6.E.c. DRO Review Elements

The following is a list of explanations of the elements of the DRO Task Based Qaulity Review Checklist.

Scroll sideways to see the full table.

Rating Specific Questions
1. Were all claimed issues addressed and decided?	All issues filed by a Veteran or properly filed by the Veteran's accredited representative should be formally addressed and decided in some fashion. This task question applies to issues under the case selected for review that were properly addressed or should have been addressed. This task question also applies to any issue that needs to be addressed and decided based on a review initiatied by VA, such as routine future examinations under EP 310, corrections under EP 930, etc. Entitlement to an earlier effective date would generally apply only to an appeal, unless such a claim is filed in conjunction with a CUE, etc.
2. Were all inferred and/or ancillary issues addressed?	All inferred issues which 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, or inferred issues, such as IU that is reasonably raised but not specifically claimed. This would also include any unclaimed issue that is "within scope" of a claimed condition and for which SC is warranted, such as a tinnitus grant when only hearing loss is claimed, a neaurological abnormality grant when only a cervical or lumbar spine condition is claimed, a diabetic complication grant when only diabetes is claimed, unclaimed scar grants, etc.
3. Was all necessary development to obtain all indicated evidence (excluding VA Examination) completed prior to deciding the claim?	This task question includes all development items outside of any required VA examination to include advisory opinions from Compensation or Pension. Please note this does not include items that are purely administrative in origin, so long as all actual development is completed. For example, the absence of the posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) stressor memorandum from the eFolder is not a critical rating error, so long as all necessary development has been completed in the attempt to verify the stressor. If the necessary development has not been completed, note such as a critical error in the appropriate task question.
4. Were all necessary examinations and medical opinions requested and sufficient?	This task question pertains solely to errors that arise in relation to a VA examination/medical opinion that was requested or that should have been requested. It does not apply to a deferral that directs a VA examination/medical opinion as errors on deferrals are recorded under Task 10. Please note this encompasses overdevelopment in the form of ordering examinations that are not necessary to decide the claim. To be an overdevelopment error, the examination requested must have clearly 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 in regard to whether or not the evidence of record was sufficient to decide a claim without an examination are not valid quality errors.
5. Was the grant of all issues correct?	This task question includes items such as establishing dual service connection and an evaluation for a condition already shown on the Codesheet as service-connected, but for which an additional evaluation cannot be established.
6. Was the denial of all issues correct?	This task question includes improper denial of service connection for issues previously established as service-connected on the Codesheet. In addition, it encompasses issues taken up on a SOC or SSOC for which no appeal was filed (please note this is not for consideration when a separate rating is done by the Appeals team).
7. Were the evaluations assigned correct to include SMC coding and the combined evaluation?	This task question includes erroneously establishing separate evaluations for a condition that must be evaluated as a single entity (e.g., bilateral flatfoot). In addition, various forms of pyramiding, improper reductions and failure to grant maximum benefit when DTA error is present, if warranted are accounted for under this question.
8. Are all effective dates assigned correct?	This task question encompasses intent to file (ITF), DOC, and increases during the appeal period as well as various IU scenarios. Also covered here are incorrect effective dates for ancillary benefits.
9. Was the decision free of other deficiencies?	Items such as incompetency improperly proposed or established, rating issues without a formal claim or addressed in the incorrect jurisdiction or lane, failure to properly utilize routine future examinations, failure to document applicable favorable findings, and failure to provide notice of received evidence after record closed that was not reviewed fall under this category.
Deferral/HLR Returns Specific Questions
10. Were all deferrals/HLR returns completed necessary and properly recorded?	Items cited under this task question must be clearly erroneous and not based upon a difference of opinion over evidence needed to properly decide a claim. Completing a deferral for evidence already of record is one example. Also, failing to finalize or improperly finalizing or uploading the deferral/HLR return is cited here as this will have a negative effect upon the claim work flow (as will failure to follow the proper order of operations).
Systems Compliance Specific Questions
11. Were all systems updates completed when needed?	This task question applies only to the rating decision Codesheet, and it was developed to account for items that slow or misdirect the claims process and require correction. Proper POA, appropriate service period verification, updating the Codesheet for final CUE action, and having the proper EP associated with the decision are included here. Of note, the lack of appropriate third digit modifier does not cause an EP association error under this question; rather, only the lack of an overall appropriate EP will (e.g., an EP 020 and 310 for the same issue). The terminology of “additional signature” denotes those ratings which always require an additional signature (such as CUEs cited on the rating boards/lanes, etc.).
Correctable Comments
12. Is the eFolder free from other defects requiring correction which are not considered “critical” to the item(s)/transaction currently under review?	This task questions 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 the Task 12 response from "Yes" to "NA" to "Yes" does not constitute a QRT Performance Error, as only Tasks 1-11 are factored into the quality calculation for DROs.