C.F.R. » Title 38 » CHAPTER I—DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS › PART 3—ADJUDICATION › Subpart D—Universal Adjudication Rules That Apply to Benefit Claims Governed by Part 3 of This Title

38 C.F.R. § 3.2600

Legacy review of benefit claims decisions

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

This section applies only to legacy claims as defined in § 3.2400 in which a Notice of Disagreement is timely filed on or after June 1, 2001, under regulations applicable at the time of filing.

(a) A claimant who has filed a Notice of Disagreement submitted in accordance with the provisions of § 20.201 of this chapter, and either § 20.302(a) or § 20.501(a) of this chapter, as applicable, with a decision of an agency of original jurisdiction on a benefit claim has a right to a review of that decision under this section. The review will be conducted by a Veterans Service Center Manager, Pension Management Center Manager, or Decision Review Officer, at VA's discretion. An individual who did not participate in the decision being reviewed will conduct this review. Only a decision that has not yet become final (by appellate decision or failure to timely appeal) may be reviewed. Review under this section will encompass only decisions with which the claimant has expressed disagreement in the Notice of Disagreement. The reviewer will consider all evidence of record and applicable law, and will give no deference to the decision being reviewed.

(b) Unless the claimant has requested review under this section with his or her Notice of Disagreement, VA will, upon receipt of the Notice of Disagreement, notify the claimant in writing of his or her right to a review under this section. To obtain such a review, the claimant must request it not later than 60 days after the date VA mails the notice. This 60-day time limit may not be extended. If the claimant fails to request review under this section not later than 60 days after the date VA mails the notice, VA will proceed with the traditional appellate process by issuing a Statement of the Case. A claimant may not have more than one review under this section of the same decision.

(c) The reviewer may conduct whatever development he or she considers necessary to resolve any disagreements in the Notice of Disagreement, consistent with applicable law. This may include an attempt to obtain additional evidence or the holding of an informal conference with the claimant. Upon the request of the claimant, the reviewer will conduct a hearing under the version of § 3.103(c) of this chapter predating Public Law 115-55.

(d) The reviewer may grant a benefit sought in the claim notwithstanding § 3.105(b), but, except as provided in paragraph (e) of this section, may not revise the decision in a manner that is less advantageous to the claimant than the decision under review. A review decision made under this section will include a summary of the evidence, a citation to pertinent laws, a discussion of how those laws affect the decision, and a summary of the reasons for the decision.

(e) Notwithstanding any other provisions of this section, the reviewer may reverse or revise (even if disadvantageous to the claimant) prior decisions of an agency of original jurisdiction (including the decision being reviewed or any prior decision that has become final due to failure to timely appeal) on the grounds of clear and unmistakable error (see § 3.105(a)).

(f) Review under this section does not limit the appeal rights of a claimant. Unless a claimant withdraws his or her Notice of Disagreement as a result of this review process, VA will proceed with the traditional appellate process by issuing a Statement of the Case.

(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 5109A and 7105(d)) [66 FR 21874, May 2, 2001, as amended at 67 FR 46868, July 17, 2002; 74 FR 26959, June 5, 2009; 79 FR 57697, Sept. 25, 2014; 84 FR 172, Jan. 18, 2019; 84 FR 4336, Feb. 15, 2019]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 12 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 2002–2025 · leading case: Dingess - Hartman v. Nicholson, 19 Vet. App. 473 (Vet. App. 2006).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Dingess - Hartman v. Nicholson, 19 Vet. App. 473 (Vet. App. 2006). · cites it 2× “They point out that after an NOD is filed, (1) VA may undertake, pursuant to section 7105(d)(1), additional development of the claim, and (2) the claimant has the option, pursuant to 38 C.F.R. § 3.2600 (2005), to have his claim reviewed de novo by a DRO.”
Pauline Prickett v. R. James Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 370 (Vet. App. 2006). · cites it 2× “See generally 38 C.F.R. § 3.2600 (2005) (authorizing de novo review by DROs and VSCMs).”
George D. Murphy v. Eric K. Shinseki, 26 Vet. App. 510 (Vet. App. 2014). “, 38 C.F.R. § 3.2600 (d) (2013) (except in cases of clear and unmistakable error (CUE), a decision review officer “may not revise [an AOJ] decision in a manner that is less advantageous to the claimant than the decision under review”).”
Majeed v. Principi, 16 Vet. App. 421 (Vet. App. 2002). · cites it 2× “104(a), is only one of three options for revision of an RO decision, the other two being revision by appellate authorities or revision pursuant to 38 C.F.R. § 3.2600 (which, except as discussed in part II.”
Prickett v. Mansfield, 257 F. App'x 288 (Fed. Cir. 2007). · cites it 4× “She argues that the SOC must come before the VA Decision Review Officer review decision according to 38 C.F.R. § 3.2600 and the decision cannot be issued within an SOC.”
Robert D. Watts v. Douglas A. Collins (Vet. App. 2025). · cites it 23× “2 It is undisputed that the document at issue here was prepared by a DRO after undertaking the review process outlined in 38 C.F.R. § 3.2600 , which is "an additional, optional procedure to be conducted, if at all, between a claimant's filing a[n NOD] and VA's issuance of a[n…”
Sharon L. Youngman v. James B. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 152 (Vet. App. 2008). “§ 7105 (d)(1); 38 C.F.R. § 3.2600 (2007). The petitioner, without seeking leave of the Court, filed a reply to the Secretary’s response to her petition.”
Johnson v. Shinseki, 549 F. App'x 994 (Fed. Cir. 2013). “These contentions address the merits of the second NOD, which is currently under review by the decision review officer. In the event of an adverse decision, Mr.”
Edward T. Westervelt v. Douglas A. Collins (Vet. App. 2025). · cites it 4× “A regulation, 38 C.F.R. § 3.2600 , provides a specific process for Agency review of benefit claims decisions in the legacy system.”
11-24 658 (Board of Vet. App. 2016). “See 38 C.F.R. § 3.2600 (d) (a DRO ". . . may not revise the decision in a manner that is less advantageous to the claimant than the decision under review .”
Ellis v. Peake, 263 F. App'x 872 (Fed. Cir. 2008). “Ellis electing DRO review within the sixty-day period required by 38 C.F.R. § 3.2600 (b), and therefore, on May 23, 2005, the RO issued a statement of the case.”
Brown v. Shineski, 430 Fed. Appx. 886 (Fed. Cir. 2011). “38 C.F.R. § 3.2600 (2010). This is a de novo review.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.