I never was a fan of Neil Diamond. His stuff crossed into Neil Sadaka territory-too bubblegummy. But I heard the song on a recent Landman episode and it fits. “Sweet Caroline/Good times never seemed so good/I’ve been inclined/To believe they never would.” After almost 37 years, I’ve watched a lot of legal decisions adjudicated and our rights as Veterans gradually increase. This last week, we received a long-overdue ruling from the Fed Circus doing away with the dreaded “Implicit Denial” theory. I’m fixing’ to discuss it directly but you might want to chew on it as I lay it out for you. https://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/24-1543.OPINION.2-4-2026_2642963.pdf
Frequently, when we file for claims, VA has a habit of denying them in strange ways. Sometimes they even disremember to mention they adjudicated it. If you pitch a bitch, they’ll try to convince you they actually did deny it but somehow it must of just snuck by you. I reckon you’re expected to examine the decision and deduce your denial by the fact that your paycheck didn’t grow larger. Considering Veterans never get to see their Ratings “Code Sheet”, how would they know?
So, let’s spin the wheel of fortune and see what it (implicit denial) is (or was), what it looks like and what just happened. Let’s start by pointing out that in the old world of Legacy claims pre-February 14, 2019, implicit denial was perfectly legal but hardly fair in the true, nonadversarial venue we’re supposed to inhabit. Even though they’ve forbidden it from now on, you can bet they’ll take another two years to “catch up.”
Since all I do is SMC, implicit denial has been a major thorn in my side. Let me begin with a sample of a real filing for several SMCs. VA, up to this point, had denied anything to do with SMC above an S or K for my Vet. So, to get their attention, I threw three at them at once. It had it’s desired effect. Boy howdy did it.
VA looks at this like a bull at a red blanket. One of three things usually happens. Either they state “Your current level of SMC is confirmed and continued at the current rate.” or “Aid and attendance is denied.” or this new one: “Review of your file shows you are already in receipt of aid and attendance. As it can only be awarded once, you’re plumb shit out of luck, bubba.”
When Congress decided to make VA law ten times more difficult in 2017, they invented the AMA. A big change between AMA and Legacy was that they had to tell you a few things. You know- important things you needed to win. In other words, no mo’ implicit denial. The Boys down in the trenches didn’t get that email and continue denying Vets using Legacy rules. For six years this has been going on, folks.
Here’s what they’re supposed to have been doing since February 19, 2019- §3.103(f)
(f) Notification of decisions. The claimant or beneficiary and his or her representative will be notified in writing of decisions affecting the payment of benefits or granting of relief. Written notification must include in the notice letter or enclosures or a combination thereof, all of the following elements:
(1) Identification of the issues adjudicated;
(2) A summary of the evidence considered;
(3) A summary of the laws and regulations applicable to the claim;
(4) A listing of any findings made by the adjudicator that are favorable to the claimant under § 3.104(c);
(5) For denied claims, identification of the element(s) required to grant the claim(s) that were not met;
(6) If applicable, identification of the criteria required to grant service connection or the next higher-level of compensation;
(7) An explanation of how to obtain or access evidence used in making the decision; and
(8) A summary of the applicable review options under § 3.2500 available for the claimant to seek further review of the decision.
Not one but eight things VA is required to do in a rating decision. Here’s a hoot. The RD says a&a denied but the favorable findings report avers you need a&a. Only in VA Unicornville, folks.
Implicit denial arose out of the anti-Veteran, trailer trash, Walmarket Big Six VSO mentality that Veterans are just a bunch of welfare queens. It began perhaps in Ingram v. Nicholson, then grew into Deshotel v. Nicholson, segued into Adams v. Shinseki and finally blossomed in Cogburn v. Shinseki. This came to a head in 2010 with Mr. Dennis W. Cogburn, a true, boots in red clay Veteran like me went up against the VA. Dennis got a remand and then got his ass handed to him on fine china. The BVA trotted out a new horse, a fresh rope and clarified what was needed to rebut an implicit denial (the four Cogburn rules). Turns out it was just a rehash of the old VA Three-card Monte game. Heads I win, Tails you lose.
What disturbs me was the CAVC judges. This was perhaps the first time I felt Judge Schoelen was way to hell and gone off base. She put in a separate concurral but still agreed that the legality of the concept of implicit denial was okay. This, to me, is a betrayal and repudiation of her pro-Veteran stance up to this point. In what universe would it be okay to purposefully pee on a Veteran’s leg and tell him it’s raining?
We are finding more and more inconsistencies in the AMA as we move forward. Certain regulations have had to be rewritten to comprehend the New World Order of the Bix Six VSOs due to their being found to have conflicts. Their fingerprints are all over what attorneys and Agents can and cannot do in Part 14. They (VSOs), of course, are free to make mistakes willy nilly and laugh it off as gross ineptness on their part. We Agents and Attorneys are expected to have our shit in a row. Look at the Laska “copy and paste” disaster. VA clearly made SMC T’s requirements the same as R2’s and then tried desperately to defend their error.
The only way Veterans’ advocates like me have found a way around implicit denial is to frame our requests for a&a individually and capture them in anally specific bites. Hence, “entitlement to ___________ due solely to _________.” The purpose of doing it this way becomes clear after the denial when you move up to the BVA. There, people actually read the law and act appropriately in applying it. But not always as we know or there would be no reason for the CAVC, the CAFC or the Supremes. Every legal system has to have a runaway vehicle off-ramp to fix mistakes.
So, after you analyze your denial, look for all those eight items listed in §3.103(f) above. They won’t all be stacked up in a nice row. You may have to jump back and forth from page 6 back to page 1 to page 4 to align them with the components of §3.104 numbers one through 8. If they ain’t all there, then VA just gave you an illegitimate rating. Now, sadly, if you take this implicit denial error up to the Board, all you’ll draw is a remand back down to shit-for-brains land where they’ll probably screw it up all over again. Unless… you do some simple housekeeping.
The repair order is simple. After your initial denial, file a 995 supplemental with a VAF 21-2680 which specifically states you do need a&a for _________ and collect the second denial. Take that one up to the Board and you have a chicken dinner winner. Your Fort Fumble may even get specific in this supplemental denial in saying you lose but will again step on their necktie and fail to address all the a&a contentions. Or they’ll say you need a 100%er to get in. Or you’ll get the favorable findings denial. Or the confirmed and continued at the current rate or whatever- but it almost always will be a denial.
I overcame this recently by slamming two a&as down their throat into the supplemental. VA granted the a&a four days later without any c&ps and the effective date was, yep- you guessed it- the date I filed that 995. My Vet has so many things wrong with him that his code sheet runs to 8 pages so I filed for the Barry bump trick all the way up to N 1/2 plus K which translates to O and R1. I’ll report back after the win sometime this Thanksgiving or Christmas when it’s decided. Make ’em shit or go blind trying, folks.
Remember, these chowderheads at the local Puzzle Palaces don’t even have a clue how SMC works. They type it into the M 21 and out comes what passes for the correct answer. What’s even funnier is watching all this on VBMS TV. The Quality Control Rater, usually a RVSR, runs it through her magic SMC calculator seven or eight times getting God knows what answers before she just says screw it, it is what it says it is. Imagine an old 8 ball you keep turning over and it says “Come back later” the first time. Next, it says ” It’s possible”. The third time it’s “I can’t be sure.” In Unicornville, that’s a hard ‘no’.
Fortunately, the BVA is getting far more consistent in their denouements which gives us hope. Hamill is just one more small step for Vets but a giant leap for Vetdom to start of 2026.
Happy Super Bowl Sunday. I know my Seahawks are gonna shine today.









































































































Jez, wouldn’t it be cool if we could go one step further and upload this concept into the brains of VA personnel and explain it’s terribly adversarial, Veteran un-friendly, and passive aggressive in nature? What I’m talking about is a spinoff of fellow VA Agent 










































