Revised November 15, 2023
V.ii.3.B.1.aWhen Development to Obtain Additional Evidence May Be Needed
Development to obtain additional evidence such as a medical examination or other records may be needed if
- it would provide a more complete picture of a question at issue, or
- the evidence of record is questionable or conflicting.
Note: Decision makers must maintain objectivity when assigning weight to a claimant’s evidence and may not develop with the purpose of obtaining evidence to justify a denial of the claim. Instead, decision makers must be able to support the determination that development is needed. References: For more information on
- ordering further development in cases where uncorroborated lay evidence is presented, see Douglas v. Shinseki, 23 Vet.App. 19 (2009)
- a Veteran’s submission of evidence and refusal to attend a Department of Veterans Affairs examination, see Kowalski v. Nicholson, 19 Vet.App. 171 (2005), and
- developing with the purpose of denying and explaining the need for development, see Mariano v. Principi, 17 Vet.App. 305 (2003).
V.ii.3.B.1.bDefinition: Partial Rating Decision
A partial rating decision is a rating decision that provides a decision on some issues of a claim, but defers a decision on at least one other issue, pending the outcome of additional development.
V.ii.3.B.1.cWhen to Make a Partial Rating Decision
Make a partial rating decision when one or more issues require additional development before they can be decided, but the record otherwise contains sufficient evidence to
- decide (favorably or not) at least one other issue, and/or
- make a proposed or final decision on a compensation entitlement issue, such as a reduction in service-connected disability evaluation, severance of service connection (SC), or competency.
Important:
- It is only appropriate to extend suspense or diary dates if it is necessary for a specific adjudicative action. Suspense dates must always correspond with specific actions and should not be arbitrarily extended under any circumstance.
- When employees handle a claim, they are expected to take the most full and complete action possible on a claim every time – including development, rating, and promulgation actions – to move a claim forward to accurate completion in the claims process. Every effort should be made to move the claim to the next processing cycle each time it is handled.
Exception: When issues cannot be resolved because of a Veteran’s return to active duty, follow the procedures in M21-1, Part X, Subpart v, 2.A.1.c. References: For more information on
- evaluating competency, see M21-1, Part X, Subpart ii, 6.A
- proposed rating decisions, see M21-1, Part X, Subpart ii, 3.D
- reductions in awards, see M21-1, Part X, Subpart ii, 4.B, and
- severance of SC, see M21-1, Part X, Subpart ii, 5.B.
V.ii.3.B.1.dPartial Ratings and Automation
When a claim involves a mix of automation-eligible and automation-ineligible contentions in a ready for decision status,
- defer automation-ineligible contentions that have not undergone initial development, and
- review the automation-eligible contention(s) for completion of a partial rating decision.
References: For more information on
- identifying automation-eligible contentions, see the Automated Issue Management (AIM) Quick Sheet for Claims Processors, and
- deferring automation-eligible contentions, see the Automated Decision Support Deferral Guide.
V.ii.3.B.1.eImproper Use of a Partial Rating Decision for SC for Cause of Death
Do not use a partial rating decision to deny SC for cause of death if development is pending or in progress for another condition possibly involved in the cause of death.
V.ii.3.B.1.fWhen to Defer an Issue
Defer an issue when the rating activity receives a claim that is underdeveloped or incomplete when proper disposition of that issue depends on resolution of a development action.Reference: For more information on Veterans Benefits Management System (VBMS) deferrals, see
- M21-4, Chapter 6, 8.e for Veterans Service Center guidance
- M21-4, Chapter 7, 14 for pension management center guidance, and
- VBMS Deferral Job Aids.
V.ii.3.B.1.gProcedure for Deferring Previously Denied Issues
When a decision on a previously denied issue must now be deferred, decision makers should ensure the coded conclusion of the Codesheet lists the
- previously denied issue as deferred, and
- date of the prior denial in the ORIGINAL DATE OF DENIAL field.
Example: 
Follow the steps in the table below when deferring a previously denied issue.
| Step | Action |
|---|---|
| 1 | Ensure the
Example:
|
| 2 | On the ISSUE MANAGEMENT tab, follow the steps for establishing issues outlined in the VBMS Rating User Guide. |
| 3 | Select the relevant issue in the ISSUE LIST field and click on the ENTER DECISION button. |
| 4 | From the SELECT EVALUATION BUILDER screen,
|
| 5 | On the DISABILITY DECISION INFORMATION screen, choose Deferred from the DECISION drop-down menu. |
| 6 | Complete the other required decision entries. |
References: For more information onReferences: For more information on
- completing rating decisions, see the VBMS Rating User Guide , and
- the ORIGINAL DATE OF DENIAL field, see M21-1, Part V, Subpart iv, 1.C.9.b.
V.ii.3.B.1.hAction to Take When SC for Cause of Death Is Deferred for Further Development
If the rating activity returns a case for further development with regard to the issue of SC for cause of death,
- request the indicated evidence
- award pension benefits if entitlement is established and an award was not made prior to submission of the case to the rating activity, and
- establish a 30-day control for submission of the requested evidence.
Once the 30-day evidentiary submission period has elapsed, resubmit the case to the rating activity for issuance of a formal decision on the issue of SC for cause of death.
End of Part V, Subpart ii, Chapter 3, Section B