--- title: "Part X, Subpart ii, Chapter 1, Section B Protected Ratings" document: "M-21-1" section: "Part X, Subpart ii, Chapter 1, Section B" canonical: "https://veteranai.co/va-regulations/m21-1/x.ii.1.b-protected-ratings" source: "https://www.knowva.ebenefits.va.gov/system/templates/selfservice/va_ssnew/help/customer/locale/en-US/portal/554400000001018/content/554400000177962/M21-1-Part-X-Subpart-ii-Chapter-1-Section-B-Protected-Ratings" updated: "2026-09-06T14:37:30.321381Z" --- January 13, 2021 ### X.ii.1.B.1.a. Protected Evaluations for Compensation Purposes Under 38 CFR 3.951(b) Preservation of disability evaluations (the **_protection_** of certain long-standing evaluations from reduction) derives from [38 U.S.C. 110]() and is implemented in [38 CFR 3.951(b)](). The regulation provides that a disability compensation evaluation of any level that has been continuously in effect for 20 years or more will not be reduced to a lower evaluation except upon a showing that the higher evaluation was based upon fraud. **Example:** A Veteran files a claim for increase in his service-connected (SC) sinusitis, evaluated at 30 percent for over 20 years. The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) exam on which the 30-percent evaluation was based showed that the Veteran did _not_ have incapacitating episodes, but did suffer three _non-incapacitating_ episodes per year. This warranted only a 10-percent evaluation but the VA exam was misread as involving three _incapacitating_ episodes. The current VA exam still shows symptomatology warranting a 10-percent evaluation. However, the 30 percent cannot be reduced because it is protected and there is no evidence of fraud. **References:** For more information on * preservation of evaluation for an SC disability eliminated by non-service-connected (NSC) amputation, see [M21-1, Part V, Subpart ii, 3.D.5.c](), and * the definition of fraud, see * [38 CFR 3.901](), and * [M21-1, Part X, Subpart iv, 3.A.1.a](). ### X.ii.1.B.1.b. Determining Whether 20-Year Protection Applies Under 38 CFR 3.951(b) Use the following table to determine whether 20-year protection applies under [38 CFR 3.951(b)](). | **If your purpose is to ...** | **Then calculate the period of time by considering ...** determine whether a compensation evaluation that was reduced to a lower level was protected | * the starting date as the effective date of the higher evaluation that was reduced, and * the ending date as the effective date of the lower evaluation subsequently assigned. **Example 1:** Reduction from 50 percent to 30 percent * 50 percent effective 1/1/1996 * 30 percent effective 1/1/2015 The 50-percent evaluation was in effect for 19 years on the effective date of reduction to the lower evaluation and, as such, was not protected. **Example 2:** Reduction from 50 percent to 30 percent * 50 percent effective 1/1/1994 * 30 percent effective 1/1/2015 The 50-percent evaluation was in effect for 21 years on the date of reduction to the lower evaluation. The 50-percent evaluation was protected. Reduction from 50 percent to 30 percent was not permitted. determine whether it is possible to finalize reduction before a disability evaluation becomes protected | * the starting date as the effective date of the current evaluation, and * the ending date as the earliest date that a reduction _could become effective_. **Important:** If a disability evaluation has been in effect for close to 20 years, the application of [38 CFR 3.344]() and [38 CFR 3.105]() may make it impossible to finalize a reduction before protection applies. ### X.ii.1.B.1.c. Protection at Lower Than the Current Evaluation In some cases, the current evaluation may not have been in effect for 20 years, but the evaluation has been at a lower level for the requisite 20-year period. In such cases, the current evaluation is not the protected evaluation, but the lower evaluation is protected. A reduction can be accomplished but not below the protected evaluation. **Example:** A Veteran is SC for a knee strain evaluated as 30-percent disabling. Current medical evidence supports a 10-percent evaluation. Assume compliance with [38 CFR 3.105]() and [38 CFR 3.344](). The _Codesheet_ shows the following evaluation history: * 0 percent, in place for 30 years * 10 percent, in place for 25 years * 20 percent, in place for 21 years * 30 percent, in place for 19 years and one month The 30-percent evaluation has not been in effect for the requisite 20-year period. Therefore, it is not and will not be protected for the purpose of the proposed reduction. The highest protected evaluation is the 20-percent evaluation, since it was in effect for at least 20 years. Although the facts support only a 10-percent evaluation, the maximum reduction possible is to 20 percent. ### X.ii.1.B.1.d. Evaluation Continuously in Effect Regardless of Recoupments and Deductions For purposes of determining whether an evaluation has been continuously in effect for 20 years, include periods during which recoupment or deduction applied to an award. ### X.ii.1.B.1.e. Protection in the Absence of a Monetary Award The protective provisions of [38 U.S.C. 110]() and [38 CFR 3.951 (b)]() do not require a concurrent award of monetary benefits. **Example:** Even though a beneficiary has elected not to receive compensation for an evaluation which has been in effect for more than 20 years, the evaluation is protected. **Reference:** For more information on protection in the absence of a monetary award, see [_Salgado v. Brown_](), 4.Vet.App. 316 (1993). ### X.ii.1.B.1.f. When Protection Does Not Accrue Under [38 U.S.C. 110]() and [38 CFR 3.951(b)](), protection does not accrue for * a Veteran who renounces entitlement to disability benefits, or * ratings for other than compensation purposes, such as ancillary benefits. ### X.ii.1.B.1.g. Protection of SMC Evaluations Protection under [38 U.S.C. 110]() and [38 CFR 3.951(b)]() applies to grants of special monthly compensation (SMC). Although SMC is an ancillary benefit, it is compensation and the legislative intent of _Public Law (PL) 102-86_ amendments to [38 U.S.C. 110]() was to extend the 20-year protection principle to SMC evaluations. ### X.ii.1.B.1.h. Calculation of SMC on Erroneous Protected Evaluations When a compensation disability percentage is protected but erroneous, assess entitlement to SMC as if the protected disability evaluation was correct. **Example:** When a 100-percent evaluation is granted for arteriosclerosis and a 60-percent evaluation for another SC disability has been in effect for 20 years, SMC(s) (statutory housebound SMC) must be granted even if the 60 percent evaluation was erroneous. **Reference:** For more information on SMC and erroneous, but protected, evaluations, see [VAOPGCPREC 16-1989](). ### X.ii.1.B.1.i. Protection Resulting From Retroactive Increases If a retroactive increase under [38 CFR 3.105(a)]() results in a Veteran having been rated for 20 years or longer at a certain level, the evaluation is protected under [38 CFR 3.951(b)]() and may _not_ be reduced in the absence of a showing of fraud. Measure the 20-year period * from the effective date of the assigned evaluation, _not_ the date of the rating, * to the effective date of the actual or prospective reduction. **Example:** A rating decision and award dated October 8, 2015, granted an increased evaluation of a back condition from 0 to 20 percent. The effective date of the increase is retroactive to 1994. The evaluation is now protected and cannot be reduced except in the presence of a showing of fraud. **Reference:** For more information on protection resulting from retroactive increases, see [VAOPGCPREC 68-1991](). ### X.ii.1.B.1.j. Protected Combined Evaluations Do _not_ reduce benefits when a combined evaluation has been in effect for 20 years or more _except_ in the case of fraud. Both the individual evaluations and the combined evaluation are protected under [38 CFR 3.951(b)](), even if erroneously assigned. **Example:** No rating action is warranted to reduce the erroneous 50-percent combined evaluation to the proper 40-percent combined evaluation in a case where * two compensable SC disabilities have been evaluated at 30-percent and 20-percent disabling, respectively, and * an improperly assigned combined degree of 50 percent has been in effect for 20 or more years. ### X.ii.1.B.1.k. Effect of a Change in DC When manifestations of a disability have been evaluated at a particular level for 20 years or more, exercise caution when assigning a new diagnostic code (DC) for symptoms of that disability. Decision makers should consider whether * the new DC includes the symptoms protected under the current evaluation, or * the new DC considers separate and distinct symptoms. When progression of a disability warrants a different DC than originally assigned, close out the original DC and establish a new DC representing the progression of the disability. The effective date of the new DC should be the same as the end date of the original DC. The diagnosis text of the new DC should include the disability name and DC of the original condition. Decision makers remain responsible for reviewing the entire record and applying [38 CFR 3.951]() based on the total history of the disability. If the new DC addresses different and distinct disability manifestations that would warrant a separate evaluation, then the prior DC must be retained and the new DC established as a separate disability and evaluation. **Important:** The change in DC does not affect the protected status under [38 CFR 3.951](). **Examples:** * An evaluation for an ankle disability may be changed to [38 CFR 4.71a, DC 5270](), ankylosis of the left ankle (previously rated as left ankle limitation of motion (LOM) ([38 CFR 4.71a, DC 5271]())), when progression is shown such that the LOM has worsened to the extent that the joint has become ankylosed. * A Vietnam Veteran has been SC for a through-and-through gunshot wound (GSW) to the right leg (Muscle Group (MG) XI) evaluated at 10 percent under [38 CFR 4.73, DC 5311]() effective November 21, 1968. The service treatment records specifically indicate that the nerves were not affected. Over 40 years later, the Veteran is granted service connection (SC) for type II diabetes mellitus. The GSW to the right leg has remained static; however, the medical records indicate that he has diabetic neuropathy with right foot drop. Since both the GSW and the peripheral nerve paralysis (foot drop) affect propulsion of the right lower extremity, separate ratings cannot be granted without pyramiding. However, a single 40-percent evaluation may be granted under [38 CFR 4.124a, DC 8521](), which would consider both the symptoms of the GSW as well as the new diabetic neuropathy with foot drop. * When an evaluation is assigned under [38 CFR 4.71a, DC 5260]() for limitation of flexion of the knee, painful motion and is protected under [38 CFR 3.951]() and the evidence shows the development of instability symptoms, a separate evaluation must be assigned under [38 CFR 4.71a, DC 5257]() impairment of the knee, due to instability since the new DC addresses different and distinct disability manifestations. **References:** For more information on * protection of evaluations and DC codes, see [_Murray v. Shinseki_](), 24 Vet.App. 420 (2011) * pyramiding, see * [38 CFR 4.14](), and * [_Esteban v. Brown_](), 6 Vet.App. 259 (1994), and * entering historical and current rating information in the Veterans Benefits Management System - Rating, see the _[VBMS Rating User Guide]()_. ### X.ii.1.B.1.l. Protection and Breaking Out Evaluations of Conditions Erroneously Rated Together Whem two conditions have been erroneously rated as one disability for more than 20 years, it is not a violation of protection to rerate them as separate disabilities _as long as_ : * the combination of the separate evaluations equals or exceeds the prior single evaluation, and * separate evaluations are made effective to the date of the prior single evaluation. This will ensure that the separate evaluations are properly recognized as protected. **Reference:** For more information on protection and breaking out evaluations of conditions erroneously rated together, see [VAOPGCPREC 4-1996](). ### X.ii.1.B.1.m. Effect of Return to Active Duty on Protection Under 38 CFR 3.951(b) Protection under [38 U.S.C. 110]() as implemented at [38 CFR 3.951(b)]() requires that the disability rating must have been continuously in effect. A return to active duty stops the accrual of protection. The calculation of the 20 year time period for protection under [38 CFR 3.951(b)]() begins anew after benefits are reinstated. The statute prohibits payment of compensation for a period in which an individual receives active service pay. Therefore, if compensation is discontinued following reentry into active service * continuity of the rating is interrupted for the purposes of achieving the protection offered by [38 U.S.C. 110](), and * the disability cannot be considered to have been continuously rated during the period in which compensation is discontinued. **Example:** A Veteran is granted SC with a 20-percent evaluation, and the evaluation was in place for one year. The Veteran then returned to active duty for a twelve-year period. The Veteran did not immediately submit a claim to reinstate benefits following the release from active duty. The claim to reinstate benefits was received ten years after the release from active duty, and benefits were reinstated one year prior to the date of receipt of the claim to reinstate, per [38 CFR 3.654(b)(2)](). Subsequently, the evaluation is reviewed, sustained improvement has been shown, and a reduction to a 10-percent evaluation is warranted. Because the disability rating has not been continuously in effect for 20 years or more due to the return to active duty and delay in requesting reinstatement, the disability rating is not protected under [38 CFR 3.951(b)](), since benefits were reinstated only as of October 2006. Following due process, the 20-percent evaluation may be reduced to 10 percent. **Reference:** For more information on the effects of reentry in active duty on disability evaluations, see [VAOPGCPREC 5-1995](). ## 2. Ten-Year Protected SC Under 38 CFR 3.957 This topic contains information about the protection of SC under 38 CFR 3.957, including * protection under 38 CFR 3.957 * determining the 10-year period * protection of SC for death * DC change or correction of site of disability and protection of SC * protection for benefits under 38 U.S.C. 1151, and * effect of return to active duty on protection under 38 CFR 3.957. January 13, 2021 ### X.ii.1.B.2.a. Protection Under 38 CFR 3.957 Protection from severance of SC is based on [38 U.S.C. 1159](), implemented by [38 CFR 3.957](). If SC for a disability or cause of death has been in effect 10 or more years, propose severance only if * the original grant was based on fraud, or * it is clearly shown that the person concerned did not have the requisite service or character of discharge (COD). **Important:** Protection against severance requires continuation of SC status _**and**_ payment of compensation at the appropriate evaluation for the protected condition as if SC was not erroneous, except in cases of willful misconduct or alcohol or drug abuse. **Notes:** * The evaluation of the erroneously-SC-but-protected disability can be increased when supported by the facts. * SC can be established for a condition secondary to erroneously-SC-but-protected disability when supported by the facts. **References:** For more information on * preservation of SC for a disability eliminated by NSC amputation, see [M21-1, Part V, Subpart ii, 3.D.5.c]() * severance of SC, see * [38 CFR 3.105(d)]() * [M21-1, Part X, Subpart ii, 5.B]() * [M21-1, Part X, Subpart iv, 1.F](), and * [VAOPGCPREC 6-2002]() * considering clear and unmistakable error, see [M21-1, Part X, Subpart ii, 5.A]() * the prohibition of severance for properly established SC for disabilities associated with abuse of alcohol or drugs on or before October 31, 1990, see [M21-1, Part X, Subpart iv, 1.B](), and * willful misconduct based on alcohol and drug abuse, see * [38 CFR 3.301]() * [M21-1, Part X, Subpart iv, 1.B]() * [M21-1, Part X, Subpart iv, 1.C]() * [M21-1, Part V, Subpart iii, 6.2.g](), and * [VAOPGCPREC 2-1998](). ### X.ii.1.B.2.b. Determining the 10-Year Period Measure the 10-year period * from the effective date of SC, _not_ the date of the rating, * to the effective date of the actual or prospective severance. A recent erroneous award of SC made effective 10 years in the past is the equivalent of a past rating that has been in effect 10 or more years. _**Reference**_ : For more information on determining the 10-year period, see [VAOPGCPREC 6-2002](). ### X.ii.1.B.2.c. Protection of SC for Death [38 CFR 3.957]() provides protection against severance of SC for the cause of death, dependency and indemnity compensation (DIC), and death compensation. In general, SC death will not be severed after the decision has been in effect for 10 or more years except upon a showing that the original grant was based on fraud or it is clearly shown from military records that the person concerned did not have the requisite service or COD. Protection for SC for cause of death does not apply to an erroneous grant of DIC when a rating decision determined that death was not SC. _**Reference**_ : For more information on the inapplicability of protection for an award of DIC based on an erroneous grant, see [VAOPGCPREC 8-1993](). ### X.ii.1.B.2.d. DC Change or Correction of Site of Disability and Protection of SC SC for a disability is not severed simply because the site of a disability, or DC associated with it, is corrected to more accurately describe the correct disability. **Examples:** * A disability evaluation for degenerative arthritis under [38 CFR 4.71a, DC 5003]() that has been in place for over 10 years can be recharacterized as traumatic arthritis under [38 CFR 4.71a, DC 5010](). * SC for a scar of the left iliac crest that has been in effect for more than 10 years may be redesignated as SC for scar of the right iliac crest if the scar incurred in service was, in fact, on the right iliac crest. **Reference:** For more information on DC change or correction, see * [_Read v. Shinseki_](), 651 F. 3d 1296 (2011) * [_Gifford v. Brown_](), 6 Vet.App. 269 (1994) * [VAOPGCPREC 50-1991](), and * [VAOPGCPREC 13-1992](). ### X.ii.1.B.2.e. Protection for Benefits Under 38 U.S.C. 1151 The protection of SC under [38 U.S.C. 1159]() is applicable to disabilities compensated under [38 U.S.C. 1151](). **Note:** [VAOPGCPREC 13-1996]() previously held that protection of SC under [38 U.S.C. 1159]() was not applicable to disabilities compensated under [38 U.S.C. 1151](). However, this decision has been superseded by the finding in [_Hornick v. Shinseki_](), 24 Vet.App. 50 (2010) that protection is, in fact, applicable. **Reference:** For more information on benefits under [38 U.S.C. 1151](), see [M21-1, Part VIII, Subpart iv, 6.B](). ### X.ii.1.B.2.f. Effect of Return to Active Duty on Protection Under 38 CFR 3.957 Protection under [38 CFR 3.957]() does not require continuous SC status. Consider the total time the disability has been SC when determining whether the 10 year criteria under [38 CFR 3.957]() have been met. **Example:** SC for a disability has been in effect for four years. Subsequently, the Veteran returned to active duty for six years. Benefits were reinstated the day following discharge. The claim is reviewed eight years after benefits were reinstated, and evidence now indicates severance of SC is warranted for the disability. Severance _**may not**_ be undertaken because SC has been in effect for 10 years or more. SC for the Veteran’s disability is protected under [38 CFR 3.957]() based on the four years prior to return to active duty plus an additional eight years following the release from that period of active duty, totaling more than ten years. ## 3. Twenty-Year Protected Pension Ratings Under 38 CFR 3.951(b) This topic contains information about protected pension entitlement, including * protection under 38 CFR 3.951(b), and * limits of protection. December 13, 2005 ### X.ii.1.B.3.a. Protection Under 38 CFR 3.951(b) Under [38 CFR 3.951(b)](), do not discontinue a rating of permanent and total disability for pension purposes which has been in force for 20 or more years _except_ in the case of fraud. ### X.ii.1.B.3.b. Limits of Protection The protection of pension entitlement under [38 CFR 3.951(b)]() does not extend to special monthly pension. ## 4. Protection and Rating Schedule Changes This topic includes information about protection and rating schedule changes including * protection against rating schedule changes under * 38 CFR 3.951(a) * 38 CFR 3.952, and * reviewing evaluations after a rating schedule change. April 22, 2015 ### X.ii.1.B.4.a. Protection Against Rating Schedule Changes Under 38 CFR 3.951(a) _PL 102-86_ states that a rating evaluation cannot be reduced solely because of a change to the rating schedule subsequent to August 13, 1991. [38 CFR 3.951(a)]() provides that a readjustment to the Schedule for Rating Disabilities shall not be grounds for reduction of a disability rating in effect on the date of the readjustment unless medical evidence establishes that the disability to be evaluated has actually improved. **Reference:** For more information on the preservation of disability evaluations after rating schedule changes, see * [38 CFR 3.951(a)](), and * [38 U.S.C. 1155](). ### X.ii.1.B.4.b. Protection Against Rating Schedule Changes Under 38 CFR 3.952 [38 CFR 3.952]() protects rating evaluations under the 1925 rating schedule that were the basis of compensation on April 1, 1946. **Note:** Evaluations in effect when previous changes to the 1945 rating schedule occurred are _not_ protected by _PL 102-86_. Therefore, evaluations assigned prior to August 13, 1991 could be reduced solely based on a change to the rating schedule, as provided by [38 CFR 3.952](), unless they had been in existence for 20 years or more. ### X.ii.1.B.4.c. Reviewing Evaluations After a Rating Schedule Change When reviewing a disability evaluation after a change in the rating schedule, determine whether the current evaluation would be continued or decreased under the prior schedule. **Note:** The disability evaluation cannot be reduced unless you can show the Veteran’s condition improved enough to have warranted reduction under the prior schedule. ## 5. Other Protection Issues April 22, 2015 ### X.ii.1.B.5.a. Inapplicability of Protection to Hospital Rate Reductions Under 38 CFR 3.552 Protection under the provisions of either [38 CFR 3.951]() or [38 CFR 3.952]() of a total rating disability evaluation does not preclude reduction to a hospital rate under [38 CFR 3.552]().