jurisdiction over eFolders) to SOJs for a reasonable amount of time after making a decision. a DRO at the DRAS of the DRO must prepare a new rating jurisdiction determines a decision, and change in the rating the DRAS must decision is necessary forward a copy of the revised decision to the member’s PEB, and promulgate the revised decision according to the instructions in M21-1, Part III, Subpart i, 2.D.11.d. the member the DRO must prepare submits new evidence a memorandum stating that no change in the with his/her request for rating decision is warranted, and reconsideration, and a new rating decision that confirms and a DRO at the continues the prior decision, and DRAS of jurisdiction the DRAS must determines change forward the memorandum to the PEB, and no in the rating decision is promulgate the decision according to the warranted instructions in M21-1, Part III, Subpart i, 2.D.11.d, and M21-1, Part III, Subpart v, 2.A.2. the member does the DRO must prepare a memorandum submit new stating that no change in the rating decision is not evidence with his/her warranted, and request for the DRAS must forward the reconsideration, and memorandum to the member’s PEB. a DRO at the DRAS of jurisdiction determines change no in the rating decision is warranted a DRO at the DRAS of the DRAS must forward the NOD to the SOJ jurisdiction determines for processing it processes the request for after the request for reconsideration. reconsideration also constitutes an NOD For more information about handling requests for Reference: reconsideration, see M21-1, Part III, Subpart i, 2.D.10.o-q. 17. Handling Cases Involving Pregnant IDES Participants Introduction This contains instructions unique to cases involving pregnant IDES participants, including
jurisdiction over eFolders) to SOJs for a reasonable amount of time after making a decision. a DRO at the DRAS of jurisdiction determines a change in the rating decision is necessary the DRO must prepare a new rating decision, and the DRAS must forward a copy of the revised decision to the member’s PEB, and promulgate the revised decision according to the instructions in M21-1, Part III, Subpart i, 2.D.11.d. the member submits new evidence with his/her request for reconsideration, and a DRO at the DRAS of jurisdiction determines no change in the rating decision is warranted the DRO must prepare a memorandum stating that no change in the rating decision is warranted, and a new rating decision that confirms and continues the prior decision, and the DRAS must forward the memorandum to the PEB, and promulgate the decision according to the instructions in M21-1, Part III, Subpart i, 2.D.11.d, and M21-1, Part III, Subpart v, 2.A.2. the member does not submit new evidence with his/her request for reconsideration, and a DRO at the DRAS of jurisdiction determines no change in the rating decision is warranted the DRO must prepare a memorandum stating that no change in the rating decision is warranted, and the DRAS must forward the memorandum to the member’s PEB. a DRO at the DRAS of jurisdiction determines the request for reconsideration also constitutes an NOD the DRAS must forward the NOD to the SOJ for processing after it processes the request for reconsideration. Reference: For more information about handling requests for reconsideration, see M21-1, Part III, Subpart i, 2.D.10.o-q. 17. Handling Cases Involving Pregnant IDES Participants Introduction This contains instructions unique to cases involving pregnant IDES participants, including
10-2-15_Key%20Changes_M21-1III_i_2_SecD.docx