What happens during a VA Higher-Level Review informal conference, and how should I prepare?

A Higher-Level Review (HLR), requested on VA Form 20-0996, allows a more senior rater to take a new look at an existing decision. Unlike a Supplemental Claim, you cannot submit new evidence with an HLR — the reviewer is limited to the evidence that was already in the file at the time of the prior decision, plus any error of fact or law you point out. When you request an HLR, you can also request an informal conference, which is a phone call (not a hearing) between you or your representative and the reviewing Decision Review Officer or higher-level rater.

The informal conference is not a hearing in the sense of testimony under oath, and there is no formal cross-examination. It is generally a short, conversational call where the reviewer explains what they see in the file and gives you or your representative a chance to explain why you believe the prior decision was wrong. The focus should be on identifying specific errors: for example, a misapplied regulation, an overlooked medical opinion already in the file, an incorrect effective date, or a rating criterion that was misread. Because no new evidence can be introduced, this is your opportunity to argue the existing record more clearly, not to add documents.

To prepare, review the prior rating decision or Statement/Supplemental Statement of the Case line by line and identify exactly which findings you disagree with and why, ideally tying each point to a specific CFR provision (for example, 38 CFR Part 4 rating schedule criteria for the condition at issue, or 38 CFR 3.400 for effective date rules). Have your claim number, the date of the decision under review, and a short written list of the specific errors you want to raise. If you have a Veterans Service Officer or accredited representative, it is common and often helpful to have them join or lead the call, since they deal with these conferences regularly and know how DROs typically frame their questions. Keep your comments focused and factual rather than emotional, since the reviewer is specifically looking for identifiable legal or factual errors in the prior rating.

The outcome of the conference itself is not a decision — the DRO or higher-level reviewer will still issue a written decision afterward, which can take some time and may take longer or shorter depending on the individual case and regional workload, so it is not possible to predict a specific timeframe.

As a next step, contact your VSO or accredited representative before the call to walk through the specific errors you plan to raise and confirm they can join the conference with you.