Content of SOARs

4. SOAR Topic Requirements

Introduction

This section contains information on topics that must be covered in the required SOARs biannually during the designated SOAR windows, including

• content of SOARs, and
• SOARs for:
• Claims Processing and Workload Management
• Local Quality
• Exams and Medical Opinions
• Specialized Processing, and
• Optional Ad-Hoc Review.

Change Date

October 1, 2025

1.C.4.a. Content of SOARs

DROCs must cover all related factors outlined in each SOAR below on a biannual basis.

Notes:

• The areas for review listed below, indicate the minimum requirements for a SOAR.
• DROC management may expand the areas of consideration to ensure a thorough analysis is conducted in each process reviewed.

Important: Each analysis must identify any areas for improvement drawn from assumptions and predictions based on the findings and analysis. The DROC must explain all assumptions and predictions and provide rationale that is clearly outlined and supported by quantitative and/or qualitative data (i.e., include sample reviews with results where applicable).

1.C.4.b. SOAR for Claims Processing and Workload Management

The DROC must include a review and analysis of the following in the Claims Processing and Workload Management SOAR:

• EP 600 processing
• ADP
• cases pending over 65 days
• attorney fee processing:
• review of fee releases pending more than 65 days
• higher-level review (HLR) difference of opinion (DoO) and duty to assist (DTA) error identification and subsequent end product creation
• HLR cancellations
• analysis and review of a sample of 10 HLR cancellations. Corrective action is required for any identified compliance errors.
• informal conferences
• effectuating Board decisions
• DROC process to ensure timely action
• under/overpayments analysis oversight and compliance of controls to minimize compensation benefit under/overpayments (use of special issue) to include elections, waivers, and recoupments, including
• review a sample of AMA and legacy appeals
• review process for adding special issue
• 2nd signature process (Admin Decisions and $40K) including character of discharge (COD) determinations, including
• review process and routing procedures
• review who is responsible for signature
• processing of work assignments:
• effectiveness of local Veterans Benefits Management System (VBMS) rules to include priority claims
• process for reviewing outliers (TIQ, TEC, ADP, etc.)
• Do Not Recall indicator usage
• process for reviewing WMP to ensure oversight and effectiveness

Note: The DROC is only required to review the WMP once annually unless the WMP is substantially updated after this section of the SOAR is completed.

References: For more information on

• Attorney fee processing, see M21-5, Chapter 8, Section A and M21-5, Chapter 8, Section B,
• HLR DTA Error processing, see M21-5, Chapter 5, Topic 5,
• Informal conferences, see M21-5, Chapter 5, Topic 3,
• Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) Decisions and Remands, see M21-5, Chapter 7,
• Controls to minimize under/overpayments, see M21-1, Part II, Subpart i, 2.D.3,
• Administrative decisions, see M21-1, Part X, Subpart v, 1.C, and
• WMP, see M21-5, Chapter 1, Section D.

1.C.4.c. SOAR for Local Quality

The DROC must include a review and analysis of the following in the local quality SOAR:

• clear and unmistakable errors (CUE) caused by DROC
• error trends, to include reasons
• mitigation process
• Stegall remands, if applicable
• error trends to include reasons
• mitigation process
• deferrals and rework of both legacy and Appeals Modernization Act (AMA) remands
• error trends to include reasons
• mitigation process
• individual quality reviews (IQR)
• process for tracking corrective action
• in-process reviews (IPR)
• process for selecting IPR categories
• process for selecting cases
• process for communicating IPR errors to employee
• process for tracking corrective action
• process for recording and communicating untimely error corrections in monthly performance meeting with employee to count towards "timeliness" element of standards

References: For more information on

• CUEs, see M21-1, Part X, Subpart ii, 5.A.3.f,
• deferral data, see Tableau
• Stegall remands, see M21-5, Chapter 7, Section G, 3.g
• legacy remands, see M21-5, Chapter 7, Section G, 3,
• AMA remands, see M21-5, Chapter 4, Topic 5,
• duty to assist errors, see M21-5, Chapter 5, Topic 5,
• difference of opinions, see M21-5, Chapter 5, Topic 1, b,
• IPRs, see M21-5, Chapter 3, Section A, 7, and
• QMS data, see Quality Management System (QMS).

1.C.4.d. SOAR for Exams and Medical Opinions

The DROC must include a review and analysis of the following in the exams and medical opinions SOAR:

• Review of a sample of claims completed by the DROC where an exam was requested by a VA employee. The DROC must review a minimum of 25 claims. The review must focus on the following criteria:
• Was all necessary development complete prior to requesting an exam/medical opinion?
• Were all referenced medical records requested appropriately?
• If applicable, were all Board directives followed and fully completed?
• Was the exam and/or medical opinion requested accurately?
• Were all relevant medical records developed (requested, reviewed, tabbed, and referenced) sufficiently?
• If applicable, did VA identify all other relevant evidence (e.g., lay statements)?
• Were all relevant theories of entitlement addressed?
• Was the exam and/or medical opinion routed correctly?
• If required, did the Veteran report to the scheduled VA examination?
• If the Veteran failed to report to the exam, is there evidence in the file that the Veteran was notified of the exam (either VHA or contractor notification)?
• If the exam and/or medical opinion was requested accurately, did the examiner sufficiently complete the DBQ?
• Did the examiner indicate that all relevant records were reviewed?
• Were all referenced records, to include lay statements, acknowledged?
• Was the requested medical opinion sufficient for rating purposes?
• Does the rationale support the opinion?
• Was the requested exam sufficient for determining an evaluation?
• If the exam and/or medical opinion was requested accurately, and the completed exam and/or medical opinion was insufficient, did VA send it back for an addendum or clarification, as appropriate?
• Corrective action is required for any identified insufficiencies
• all reviews must be logged on the " DROC SOAR Exam Reviews " SharePoint

References: For more information on

• duty to assist with providing a medical examination or opinion, see M21-1, Part IV, Subpart i, 1.A
• evidentiary standards for finding an examination or opinion necessary, see M21-1, Part IV, Subpart i, 1.B
• examination requests overview, see M21-1, Part IV, Subpart i, 2.A
• general criteria for sufficiency of examination reports, see M21-1, Part IV, Subpart i, 3.A
• examination sufficiency for specific disabilities, see M21-1, Part IV, Subpart i, 3.B
• insufficient exams, see M21-1, Part IV, Subpart i, 3.C
• Board of Veterans' Appeals decisions and remands, see M21-5, Chapter 7, Section G
• Stegall remands, see M21-5, Chapter 7, Section G, 3.g
• determining adequacy of examinations, see M21-5, Chapter 7, Section G, 4.b, and
• requesting examinations for remands, see M21-5, Chapter 7, Section G, 4.c.

1.C.4.e. SOAR for Specialized Processing

The DROC must include a review and analysis of the following in the specialized processor SOAR:

• review of specialized processors for MST, TBI, and ALS, to include:
• all training requirements and quality standards are met
• ensuring the required number of designated processors are met and accurately reflected in the Workforce Information Tool (WIT)
• ensuring WIT specialized processor designations match Talent Management System (TMS) training assignments
• review process of 2nd signatures for MST, TBI, and ALS, to include:
• maintenance of required specialized processor log
• issuance and maintenance of release memoranda for each claims processor for each specialized designation
• process to add individuals who obtained single signature authority for a specialization to OAR's " Special Mission Memos and Case Review Logs Repository "
• analysis and review of a minimum of 10 each ALS, TBI, and MST cases to ensure completion by specialized processors designated in the WIT at the time the action was completed. Corrective action for signature is required for any identified compliance errors.

Note: If less than 10 cases exist for any of these special mission categories, then all cases must be reviewed during the SOAR window.

References: For more information on

• the required specialized processor designations, see M21-5, Chapter 1, Section A, 3.f
• the training requirements for MST/TBI/ALS, see M21-5, Chapter 1, Section A.3, g - i,
• specialized processor log and memorandum requirements, see M21-5, Chapter 1, Section A, 3.j.
• WIT compliance, see M21-5, Chapter 1, Section A, 2.b, and
• TMS assignments, see M21-5, Chapter 2, Topic 4, h.

1.C.4.f. Optional Ad-Hoc Review

The Office of Administrative Review (OAR) reserves the right to provide the DROC with a designated topic for ad-hoc review or allow the DROCM or RO leadership to self-designate topic(s) as needs are identified. The DROC must include a review and analysis of the topic/sub-topics designated in the ad-hoc review. Please note, the Ad-Hoc Review SOAR is optional for the DROCs to complete unless otherwise assigned by OAR.

Suggested topics for the ad-hoc review include:

• availability rates and excluded time
• training