DROC Role With Remands

3. Remands

Introduction

This topic contains information on remands, including

• DROC role with remands
• DROC jurisdiction
• requirements for expeditious processing of remands
• who is responsible for timely processing
• processing the remand
• Manlincon remands, and
• Stegall remands.

Change Date

September 16, 2025

7.G.3.a. DROC Role With Remands

The Decision Review Operations Centers have complete authority to develop remands, reach decisions based on additional evidence gathered, and authorize the payment of benefits. If the DROC is unable to grant an appeal in full, it returns the appeal to the Board for continuation of the appellate process.

7.G.3.b. DROC Jurisdiction

If the Board determines a remand is in order, they will send the remand directly to a DROC for additional processing. However, in some cases, the remand must be sent to the RO for processing. The DROC will not process a remand if it involves any of the following issues:

• remands requiring formal, in-person DRO hearings where remote DROC resources are unavailable near the regional office of jurisdiction and Veteran has opted to not have a virtual hearing
• Committee on Waivers and Compromises (upon completion of the validity of debt determination by the DROC)
• spina bifida claims requiring specialized development by the Denver RO
• Mustard gas claims requiring specialized development by the Muskogee RO
• Service connection based on C-123 aircraft claims requiring specialized development at St. Paul RO
• Forfeiture cases requiring specialized development at the St. Paul RACC
• Filipino Veterans Equity Compensation (FVEC) by the Manila RO
• incompetency issues (the DROC will complete all decisions pertinent to the issues on appeal and the final rating of incompetency, at which point, the file will be returned to the RO or the Salt Lake Fiduciary Hub, as appropriate, to process VA Form 21-592, Request for Appointment of a Fiduciary, Custodian or Guardian.
• issues involving VBA business lines other than Compensation Service and Pension and Fiduciary Service (such as Veterans' Readiness and Employment, Education, Insurance, and Loan Guaranty)

Upon identification by the DROC, remands that involve one of these types of appeals will be returned to the appropriate RO for processing. DROC personnel should ensure all proper claim attributes are added to the claim to indicate it is a special mission claim, add a claim note in VBMS indicating the reason for the transfer and the RO it should be transferred to (example: Mustard Gas Claim, transfer to Muskogee RO).

Notes:

• Dependent on workload capacity and considerations, the Office of Administrative Review (OAR) may broker certain remands in accordance with timeliness and agency goals.
• Board remands regarding claims involving exposure to radiation, Camp Lejeune Contaminated Water (CLCW), and claimants with a foreign residence, to include Philippine claims, will be routed to the Seattle DROC for action.
• For remands involving Philippine claims, all eligible service categories (Old Philippine Scouts, Commonwealth Army, Recognized Guerillas, New Philippine Scouts) must be evaluated and processed according to remand instructions and applicable requirements. This processing is entirely separate from FVEC claims, though service verification is still necessary to determine FVEC eligibility.

Reference: For more information on

• when a radiation claim falls under the jurisdiction of the Jackson RO, see M21-1, Part II, Subpart ii, 3.1.b
• when a CLCW claim falls under the jurisdiction of the Louisville RO, see M21-1, Part II, Subpart ii, 3.1.b
• substitution in the case of the death of the claimant, see M21-1, Part XI, Subpart ii, 3.B.2.d, and
• jurisdiction of foreign claims and cases involving Philippine service, see M21-1, Part II, Subpart ii, 3.1.b.

7.G.3.c. Requirements for Expeditious Processing of Remands

Remands are among the oldest cases and must be worked on a priority basis. PL 103-446, Veterans Benefits Improvement Act of 1994, mandates that remands be given special attention and expeditious processing.

Important: CAVC may impose sanctions if it is determined that VA did not make a reasonable effort to expeditiously comply with the remands.

References: For more information on

• the definition of a remand, see M21-5 Chapter 7, Section A, 1.m, and
• expediting remands, see Harvey v. Shinseki, 24 Vet.App 284 (2011).

7.G.3.d. Who Is Responsible for Timely Processing

RO and DROC management are responsible for timely processing of Board remands.

7.G.3.e. Processing the Remand

Upon receipt of a Board remand the

• claims folder is assigned to the Decision Review Officer (DRO), RO management staff member, or designee, and
• the designee ensures that
• development of the remand is initiated within 15 days from the date of receipt, and
• VACOLS is updated within seven days, and
• VBMS 070 series end product (EP) is established with an appropriate claim label as discussed in M21-4, Appendix B.

Upon receipt of the requested evidence or after a reasonable effort to obtain evidence, the designee

• prepares a new decision or SSOC, and
• returns the case to the Board after expiration of the 30-day response period.

Note: The EP 070 must not be cleared until the legacy remand has been recertified to the Board or the full benefit sought on appeal is granted by VBA.

Reference: For more information on the use of EP 070s, see M21-4, Appendix B.

7.G.3.f. Manlincon Remands

If, during the review of an appeal, the Board discovers a timely notice of disagreement (NOD) filed on another issue, but an SOC is not issued by the RO, the Board must remand, not refer, the NOD issue to the RO or DROC for issuance of an SOC.

ROs and DROCs must handle Manlincon remands in the same expeditious manner as all other remands.

Important: Once the RO or DROC issues an SOC on the Manlincon remand, the appellant must submit a timely VA Form 9, Appeal to Board of Veterans' Appeals, to continue the appeal process.

References: For more information on

• Manlincon remands, see Manlincon v. West, 12 Vet. App. 238 (1999), and
• preparing and issuing an SOC, see M21-5, Chapter 7, Section D.

7.G.3.g. Stegall Remands

VA must ensure compliance with the terms and conditions set forth in remand orders from both the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims and the Board of Veterans’ Appeals. See Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268 (1998). When the RO or DROC fails to comply with multiple remand orders before an appeal is recertified to the Board, the appeal is remanded back to VBA for action and such cases are designated in VACOLS as Stegall.

To prevent further delays in processing, when a Stegall remand is ready for recertification to the Board, a DRO must review the appeal, certify compliance with all remand directives and complete all required actions to issue a new decision and if applicable, recertify the appeal to the Board.

DROs must follow the steps in the table below once development is complete on a Stegall remand.

Scroll sideways to see the full table.

Reference: For more information on preparing memoranda to explain deviations from Board remands, see M21-5, Chapter 7, Section G, 4.a.