Definition: Claimant

1. Common Appeals Terminology and Definitions

Introduction

This topic contains information on common appeals terminology and definitions, including the definitions of

• claimant
• appellant
• decision review officer (DRO)
• notice of disagreement (NOD)
• de novo review
• downstream issue
• inextricably intertwined
• full grant
• partial grant
• informal conference
• statement of the case (SOC)
• supplemental statement of the case (SSOC)
• remanded appeal
• trailing docket
• administrative appeal
• legacy appeal, and
• modernized appeal.

Change Date

March 12, 2025

7.A.1.a. Definition: Claimant

A claimant is a person who has filed a claim for entitlement to a specific benefit under the laws administered by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA).

Reference: For more information on claimants, see 38 CFR 20.3(g).

7.A.1.b. Definition: Appellant

An appellant is a claimant who has initiated an appeal to the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) by filing a timely notice of disagreement (NOD) with the agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ) that completed the decision pursuant to the provisions of

• 38 CFR 19.21, and either
• 38 CFR 19.52(a), or
• 38 CFR 20.501(a), as applicable.

Note: This definition, as well as all other definitions and guidance in M21-5, Chapter 7, Legacy Appeal Procedures, pertains to legacy appeals ONLY, unless otherwise specified.

7.A.1.c. Definition: DRO

The Decision Review Officer (DRO) is a senior technical expert who is responsible for holding post-decisional hearings and processing appeals. The DRO may have jurisdiction of any legacy appeal.

Reference: For more information on DRO duties and decision processes, see M21-5, Chapter 7, Section C.

7.A.1.d. Definition: NOD

A notice of disagreement (NOD) about a decision rendered with notification sent prior to March 24, 2015, is a written communication from a claimant or representative expressing

• dissatisfaction or disagreement with a decision, and
• a desire to contest the result.

Although no specific wording is required in the NOD received prior to March 24, 2015, it must be written in terms that can be reasonably interpreted as a disagreement with a decision and a desire for appellate review.

Effective March 24, 2015, a timely and complete VA Form 21-0958, Notice of Disagreement, is required for VA to accept the NOD as a legacy appeal of a previous decision issued prior to February 19, 2019. VA will not accept as a notice of disagreement an expression of dissatisfaction or disagreement with an adjudicative determination for compensation by the AOJ and a desire to contest the result that is submitted in any other format, including on a different VA form.

Exception: There is no standard form requirement for a legacy NOD which contests a decision regarding a claimant's entitlement to pension, Dependency and Indemnity Compensation (DIC), or accrued benefits.

A benefit decision made on or after February 19, 2019, requires a properly completed VA Form 10182, Decision Review Request: Board Appeal (Notice of Disagreement), submitted directly to the Board. The claimant may choose a direct review of the record considered by the AOJ at the time of the contested decision, a Board hearing, or the opportunity to submit additional evidence to the Board.

Reference: For more information on NODs, see M21-5, Chapter 7, Section B.

7.A.1.e. Definition: De Novo Review

A de novo review is a new and complete review of the appealed issue with no deference given to the decision being appealed. This review leads to a new decision, which may be a full grant, partial grant, clear and unmistakable error, or no change.

References: For more information on de novo review, see

• M21-5, Chapter 7, Section C.4, and
• 38 CFR 3.2600.

7.A.1.f. Definition: Downstream Issue

A downstream issue is an issue which arises as a direct result of a favorable decision on an appealed issue and must be addressed by the decision maker.

Example: A Veteran files an appeal for service connection (SC) for depression. When granting SC for depression, the DRO must address the following downstream issues:

• disability evaluation
• effective date, and
• entitlement to any ancillary benefits that arise, based upon the evidence, such as
• individual unemployability
• Dependents’ Educational Assistance, and/or
• spe cial mo nthly co mpensation.

Important: A decision on a downstream issue may or may not confer new appeal rights.

References: For more information on

• jurisdiction over downstream issues, see M21-5, Chapter 7, Section D.2.g, and
• whether a decision on a downstream issue confers new appeal rights, see M21-5, Chapter 7, Section D.2.h.

7.A.1.g. Definition: Inextricably Intertwined

An issue is inextricably intertwined with a matter(s) on appeal when a decision on that issue by the regional office (RO) could have a significant impact on the matter(s) under appeal.

Notes:

• A decision has a significant impact on the matter under appeal when it tends to make it more or less likely that the benefit sought will be awarded.
• All matters that are inextricably intertwined must be adjudicated before any determination by the Board may be made.

Example: A Veteran files an appeal on the denial of SC for depression and a new claim alleging that fibromyalgia was caused by depression. The rating activity issues a denial of SC for fibromyalgia. The Veteran files an NOD with the denial of SC for fibromyalgia and, subsequently, a VA Form 9, Appeal to Board of Veterans' Appeals.

Result: The issue of SC for fibromyalgia secondary to depression is inextricably intertwined with the appeal for depression. Consequently, both appeals must be certified simultaneously to the Board.

References: For more information on

• processing inextricably intertwined issues raised on a substantive appeal, M21-5, Chapter 7, Section E.3.c and d,
• certifying inextricably intertwined appeals, see M21-5, Chapter 7, Section F.3.h, and
• controlling issues inextricably intertwined with HLRs, see M21-5, Chapter 5, Topic 1.h.

7.A.1.h. Definition: Full Grant

If the issue under appeal is initial service-connection (SC), a full grant occurs when SC for the disability is granted.

If the issue under appeal is the evaluation of an already SC disability, a full grant of an issue on appeal occurs when the maximum benefit allowed by law and regulation for the specific issue(s) under appeal is granted for the entire period under appeal.

Exception: When a Veteran submits an appeal for a specific disability evaluation other than the schedular maximum, an award of the specifically requested evaluation for the entire period under appeal is considered a full grant.

Examples:

• A Veteran files an NOD seeking SC for a left knee condition. A DRO subsequently grants SC for the left knee condition. This is a full grant of the benefit sought and the appeal has been satisfied.
• A Veteran files an NOD as to the evaluation of the SC left knee. A DRO grants an increased evaluation, but not the maximum schedular evaluation allowed for the left knee condition. This is not a full grant of the benefit sought and the original appeal remains active.

Reference: For more information on fully granting the benefit sought, see

• AB v. Brown, 6 Vet.App. 35 (1993), and
• M21-5, Chapter 7, Section D.2.

7.A.1.i. Definition: Partial Grant

A partial grant of an issue on appeal occurs when the maximum schedular benefit allowed by law and regulation for the issue(s) under appeal is not granted for the entire period under appeal.

Important: If the issue under appeal is initial SC, a partial grant cannot occur; the decision rendered must either involve a full grant or denial of the issue under appeal.

Reference: For more information on partial appeal grants, see M21-5, Chapter 7, Section D.2.

7.A.1.j. Definition: Informal Conference

In legacy appeals, an informal conference is a tool available to the DRO and other RO personnel during the DRO review process to ensure

• all parties understand the issue(s) pending review
• the issues are focused and clarified, and
• the record is fully developed.

An oath or affirmation is not used for an informal conference.

Note: While informal conferences are not part of the traditional appellate review process, direct communication with Veterans and representatives is permissible in these cases and should be initiated to facilitate resolution or clarification about matters on appeal.

In modernized appeals, an informal conference is an optional part of a higher-level review. It allows a claimant and/or representative the opportunity to identify any errors of law or fact in a prior decision.

References: For more information on

• legacy informal conferences, see M21-5, Chapter 7, Section C.5.
• modernized appeals informal conferences, see M21-5, Chapter 5, Topic 3.

7.A.1.k. Definition: SOC

A statement of the case (SOC) is an explanation of the decision made on the appellant’s case.

An SOC provides the appellant with a complete understanding of the decision so the appellant can prepare an effective substantive appeal with specific allegations of errors of fact or law.

Reference: For more information on SOCs, see M21-5, Chapter 7, Section D.3.

7.A.1.l. Definition: SSOC

A supplemental statement of the case (SSOC) presents the appellant with changes or additions to the SOC.

These changes and additions are usually based on additional evidence received

• after the issuance of the SOC
• before or after receipt of a substantive appeal, or
• after a remand.

Note: If an appellant has not yet filed a substantive appeal, the appellant will still need to respond to an SSOC by filing a substantive appeal, usually on VA Form 9, to perfect the appeal.

Reference: For more information on SSOCs, see M21-5, Chapter 7, Section D.4.

7.A.1.m. Definition: Remanded Appeal

A remanded appeal is an appeal that has been returned by the Board to VBA for

• development of additional evidence
• due process, or
• reconsideration of issues.

Important: Remanded appeals are typically among the oldest cases and must be worked on a priority basis.

Reference: For more information on remanded appeals, see M21-5, Chapter 7, Section G.3.

7.A.1.n. Definition: Trailing Docket

A trailing docket is a Travel Board docket in which hearings at the RO are scheduled in immediate succession rather than at specific, individual times.

7.A.1.o. Definition: Administrative Appeal

An administrative appeal is

• an appeal filed as the result of an adjudicated action, and
• initiated and filed by the DROC Manager (DROCM), Veterans Service Center Manager (VSCM), Pension Management Center Manager (PMCM), or Director of an RO.

Note: The authority to submit an administrative appeal ended on February 19, 2019, with the redesignation of 38 CFR 19.50.

Reference: For more information on administrative appeals, see M21-5, Chapter 7, Section J.2.

7.A.1.p. Definition: Legacy Appeal

A legacy appeal is a disagreement with a VA benefits decision made before February 19, 2019, the effective date of Public Law 115-55, the Veterans Appeals Improvement and Modernization Act of 2017 (Appeals Modernization Act, or AMA).

A legacy appeal is initiated by the filing of an NOD and is perfected to the Board with the filing of a Substantive Appeal. A claimant may have the opportunity to elect to participate in the modernized review system, as discussed in M21-5, Chapter 4, Topic 3.

References: For more information on legacy claims and appeals, see

• Public Law 115-55, Section 6
• M21-5, Chapter 7
• M21-5, Chapter 6
• 38 CFR 19.2(c), and
• 38 CFR 3.2400.

7.A.1.q. Definition: Modernized Appeal

The modernized appeal, or modern decision review, resulted from Public Law 115-55, the Veterans Appeals Improvement and Modernization Act of 2017 (Appeals Modernization Act, or AMA). The President signed the law on August 23, 2017, and it became effective on February 19, 2019. It contained numerous provisions, including:

• changes to decision notices
• new decision review processes, including higher-level reviews and supplemental claims, and
• new options available at the Board of Veterans’ Appeals.

References: For more information on modernized appeals and the AMA, see

• Appeals Modernization, and
• Public Law 115-55