A clear and unmistakable error (CUE) is a mistake in a final VA rating decision. It’s found by reviewing a veteran’s past VA decision letters against the evidence VA had, and the law in effect, when each decision was made. To count, the error must be obvious, not a matter of opinion, and fixing it must change the outcome, for example a higher rating or an earlier effective date. If VA agrees, the decision is corrected as if it had been right from the start, which can mean back pay to the original date. Finding one is slow, careful work; VetJustice Pro does the first pass.
Say VA denied a knee claim in 1985 because “service records show no knee injury.” But the service treatment records already in VA’s file at the time show a knee injury on two or three sick-call visits. If those records would have changed the decision, that is the kind of error a CUE claim raises, and if VA agrees, the grant reaches back to the original claim date.
It has to be that clear. If the records only hint at the injury, or reasonable people could read them differently, it isn’t CUE; that is a matter for a new claim or an appeal.
Only records dated on or before the decision are considered, and a rule that took effect afterward can’t support a candidate.
Each possible error cites the records behind it, explains why the outcome would have been manifestly different, gives VA’s best counter-argument, and says what to check before filing. Candidates are graded stronger or possible, and a claim that needs facts no record shows is never graded stronger.
Duty-to-assist failures, re-weighing of evidence, new evidence and later changes in law are not CUE. They are set aside as other routes, never presented as CUE.
Rating decisions found in the C-file are listed, ready to screen, and earlier decisions are used as context. CUE screening is included at no extra charge.
Running the analysis screens every decision too, and the candidates appear in the same list as the claims, so a condition found both ways reads as one claim with two routes.
Run on the founder’s own records, the screen reproduced the argument of the CUE motion he won on his February 2009 rating decision.
A CUE screen VetJustice Pro ran on the February 11, 1997 rating decision of its fictional sample veteran, John T. Sample, shown as the app produced it. Page numbers refer to the sample veteran’s records.
Bilateral hip degenerative joint disease: denied
VA’s stated reason: “Service connection for bilateral hip degenerative joint disease is denied because the condition neither occurred in nor was caused by service. The service treatment records are silent for complaints of hip pain, and degenerative joint disease of the hips was not shown within one year of discharge.”
The separation examination of 1996-03-22 (p. 4), a VA/service-generated record, explicitly notes 'bilateral knee and hip stiffness' with 'morning stiffness > 30 min' and recommended VA follow-up. This directly contradicts the decision's finding that the service treatment records are silent for hip complaints. Additionally, the decision itself granted service connection for bilateral knee degenerative joint disease based on the same separation examination and the same service treatment records (p. 2, p. 3), yet simultaneously found the records 'silent' for hip pathology when the separation exam documented hip stiffness alongside the knee findings.
Had the adjudicator applied the separation examination finding of bilateral hip stiffness — the same record used to support the knee grants — the factual predicate for denial ('records silent for hip complaints') would have been eliminated. The decision's own internal logic granted bilateral knee DJD on the strength of the separation exam and service records; the same evidence showing hip stiffness at separation, combined with the in-service record of post-GI illness polyarthralgia affecting bilateral joints (p. 2), would have manifestly changed the outcome from denial to at least a grant of service connection for bilateral hip DJD, warranting a compensable rating.
VA will argue: (1) The separation exam notation of 'hip stiffness' is a symptom, not a diagnosis of degenerative joint disease, and the decision may have had a VA examination that found no hip pathology — that exam is not in the provided records, so its absence here is a gap. (2) The 2014 decision granted right and left hip DJD effective 2013-04-22, not retroactively to 1996-05-01, suggesting VA may have had a basis for the original denial that is not fully visible in the provided record set. However, the 2014 grant does not cover the 1997–2013 period, so the earlier period remains open. (3) VA may contend the internal inconsistency argument is a disagreement with weighing rather than CUE, though the decision's own stated rationale ('records silent') is directly refuted by a record the decision itself cited for the knee grants. (4) p. 4 is a service-generated record and constructively of record under Bell v. Derwinski for decisions after July 21, 1992, so its presence in the file should be presumed; however, VA may dispute whether the hip notation was specifically brought to the rater's attention.
Sources: Sample veteran records, pp. 2, 3, 4
The decision rated the knee manifestations as degenerative joint disease under DC 5003 (painful motion, 10% each knee) and denied hip involvement. It did not identify, name, or adjudicate reactive arthritis as a separate condition or as the underlying etiology of the joint disease.
Reactive arthritis is a systemic inflammatory arthropathy that can affect multiple joints simultaneously and may rate significantly higher than DJD under DC 5002 (rheumatoid arthritis and other inflammatory arthritides), which provides ratings of 20%, 40%, 60%, or 100% depending on severity, or under DC 5009 (other arthritis) with reference to the most analogous code. If the veteran filed a claim for knee and joint conditions in 1996 and the underlying disease is reactive arthritis, the claim for that disease was filed but never decided — the decision adjudicated only the manifestations (DJD of knees, hips) without identifying the systemic disease. A pending-claim argument would allow an effective date back to the original 1996-05-01 date rather than today's date if a new claim is filed. Additionally, the bilateral ankle involvement noted in p. 2 was never adjudicated at all. The rating under DC 5002 or an analogous code could be substantially higher than the current 10% per joint under DC 5003.
This is both a pending-claim argument (the original 1996 claim encompassed joint disease that was never adjudicated as reactive arthritis, so the claim may still be open on that theory with an effective date of 1996-05-01) and a potential new claim with a private rheumatology opinion establishing the diagnosis and nexus. The attorney should obtain a rheumatology opinion diagnosing reactive arthritis and tracing it to the 1991 Salmonella infection, then argue the original claim was never decided on this theory. File as a pending/unadjudicated claim argument before the Board or as a supplemental claim. Do not file as CUE on the 1997 decision because the decision's failure to identify the underlying diagnosis is a duty-to-assist issue (failure to develop), not a CUE — but the pending-claim route preserves the 1996 effective date without requiring CUE.
Sources: Sample veteran records, pp. 1, 2, 3, 4
The screen listed 2 candidates; the other, an effective-date question, it flagged only for the representative to confirm the claim date in the claims file, so it isn’t shown. Every result is a candidate, not a finding: the representative checks it against the claims file and decides whether to file.
A narrated tour of the working app on a fictional veteran, no sign-in needed.