IMPORTANT NOTICE

 Information you should all have.
 Paul Sutton, Chair
 VVA Agent Orange/Dioxin Committee
 #######################################################################
 December 3, 2002
 Director (00/21) In Reply Refer To: 211A
 VA Regional Offices and Centers Fast Letter 00-33
 SUBJ: Review of Awards for Diseases Associated with Herbicide Exposure for
 Possible Retroactive Benefits Under Nehmer Order.
 BACKGROUND INFORMATION
 In August, we sent the enclosed notice to approximately 1,700 additional
 diabetes claimants identified by the Special Issue Rating System (SIRS).
The  notice states that VA must re-adjudicate certain previously denied claims
 under Nehmer v. United States Department of Veterans Affairs, CV-86-6160
 (TEH) (N.D. Cal). The notice also advised these claimants of their rights
 and responsibilities with respect to these re-adjudications. A copy of the
 letter was to sent each regional office for file purposes. We will be
 sending a list of these cases to each regional office, in an MS Excel
 spreadsheet format via e-mail.
 WHAT SHOULD YOU DO?
 We request that your office review the claims folder(s) for possible
 entitlement to an earlier effective date for service connection of a
 presumptive herbicide condition under the Nehmer order. We will provide
you  with a list of these cases within the next few weeks.
  If a file that is on the list no longer resides at your regional
 office, please notify Ersie Farber-Collins of the Compensation and Pension
 Service by e-mail immediately.
  If a file that is on the list is currently located at a
retirement  center, please immediately recall the folder for Nehmer review.
  Cases on the list that remain in your office must be placed under
 end product control within 5 workdays from the date you receive the list.
 Please refer to all station letter 02-03 for end product control purposes
 only.
  If any circumstances of the case (e.g., need for further
 development) will prevent you from meeting the deadline shown below,
please  let us know as soon as possible.
  If you conclude that the claimant is entitled to an earlier
 effective date, prepare the required rating decision and notify the
claimant of the decision. If you are unable to locate a claimant or, the address is
 unknown, etc, please include a statement in the rating to that effect.
  In cases where an award is reviewed under this Fast Letter and
you determine there is no entitlement to an earlier effective date, send the
 claimant a notice containing the following language:
 Pursuant to a court order in the case of Nehmer v. U.S. Veterans' Admin.,
 C.A. No. C-86-6160 (TEH) (N.D. Cal.), we have reviewed your award of
service connection for Type 2 diabetes to determine whether you may be eligible
for  an earlier effective date for benefits. Under Nehmer an earlier effective
 date may be granted if a prior claim for service connection for Type 2
 diabetes was filed or denied between September 25, 1985 and July 9, 2001.
We have concluded that you are not eligible for an earlier effective date
 because you did not have a prior claim filed or denied during this period.
 You do not need to do a rating decision in these cases. Continue to follow
 the procedures in Fast Letter 01-94 for annotating the most recent
diabetes rating decision. This notice requirement applies only to Type 2 diabetes
 cases reviewed pursuant to this letter.
 DEADLINE FOR RE-ADJUDICATION
 This review is required by order of the Nehmer court and must be completed
 by February 15, 2003. You should therefore continue to make the
 re-adjudication of these cases a high priority. To ensure we meet the
 deadline, we will require each RO to complete the last three columns
 (pending transfer from retirement center, pending development action,
rating  decision/decision notice) on the spreadsheet on a monthly basis and send
it  to Ersie Farber-Collins by e-mail according to the below schedule:
  On or before December 31, 2002.
  On or before January 31, 2003.
  On or before February 15, 2003, all of the cases must be
completed.
 Also enclosed is a memorandum prepared by the Office of General Counsel
 explaining the Nehmer standards and providing guidance for this review.
 Questions concerning these cases may be referred to David McLenachen of
the Office of General Counsel.
 Mr. McLenachen may be reached through VA's global e-mail directory.


 /S/
 Ronald J. Henke, Director
 Compensation and Pension Service
 Enclosures
 Enclosure I: Review of Awards for Diseases Associated with Herbicide
 Exposure for Possible Retroactive Benefits Under Nehmer Order
 1. Purpose: The purpose of this memorandum is to provide guidance for
review of claims for a possible earlier effective date under the court orders in
 the case of Nehmer v. United States Veterans' Administration, CV-86-6160
 (TEH) (N.D. Cal). In Attachment I to Fast Letter 01-94 we provided such
 guidance for purposes of type II diabetes claims. In a memorandum sent to
 all regional offices on July 17, 2001, we provided such guidance for
 purposes of prostate-cancer claims. The standards stated in those
memoranda also apply generally to all awards of compensation or DIC for any disease
 presumptively associated with herbicide exposure under 38 C.F.R. §
3.309(e).
 This memorandum largely restates the prior guidance in a manner intended
to make clear its application to all diseases covered by section 3.309(e).
 2. History of Nehmer Case: As the purpose of this memorandum is to provide
 guidance for review of claims affected by the December 12, 2000, order, we
 will not recite the lengthy history of the Nehmer case. Additional
 information concerning this case may be found in the district court's
 reported decisions at 712 F. Supp. 1404 (N.D. Cal. 1989) and 32 F. Supp.
2d 1175 (N.D. Cal. 1999); the district court's unreported December 12, 2000,
 order; the May 1991 Final Stipulation & Order of the parties to the Nehmer
 case; and Fast Letter 99-86. These materials were attached to the letter
on prostate cancer cases, which was sent to all VA Regional Offices by the
C&P Service on July 17, 2001.
 3. Background: Pursuant to court orders in the Nehmer case, certain cases
 must be reviewed for possible assignment of earlier effective dates for
 certain awards of service-connected disability compensation and dependency
 and indemnity compensation (DIC) based on the presumption of service
 connection for certain diseases in Vietnam veterans under 38 C.F.R. §§
 3.307(a)(6) and 3.309(e). The attorneys for the Nehmer class periodically
 provide VA with lists of cases in which they believe an earlier effective
 date is warranted under Nehmer. Upon receipt of any such list, we will
 notify the offices having jurisdiction of the claims folder of the need
for such review and of the court-imposed deadline for completing the review.
To assist in the prompt processing of these claims under Nehmer, we provide
the following guidance with respect to the legal standards governing these
 claims.
 4. General Effective-Date Rules for Presumptive Herbicide Diseases:
Pursuant
 to the Nehmer court orders, the following rules govern the effective date
of service connection for diseases presumptively associated with herbicide
 exposure under 38 C.F.R. § 3.309(e):
 A. If a Nehmer class member's claim for compensation or DIC based on a
 presumptive herbicide condition was denied on the basis that service
 connection was not established, between September 25, 1985 and the
effective date of the regulation establishing presumptive service connection for the
 disease (see Attachment II), and a later claim for the same benefit was
 granted after the effective date of such regulation, the effective date of
 benefits is the date of the earlier claim, or the date the disability
arose or death occurred, whichever is later.
 B. In all other cases, the effective date of benefits is the date on which
 VA received the claim that resulted in the grant of compensation or DIC,
or the date disability or death occurred, whichever is later. This rule
applies even if the claim was received before the effective date of the regulation
 establishing presumptive service connection for the disease. In
identifying the date of the claim, VA is not bound by prior determinations as to the
 date of claim, but may consider whether documents in the record establish
 that a valid formal or informal claim was filed at a date earlier than VA
 has previously recognized.
 In cases under either (A) or (B), above, the rules in 38 U.S.C. §
5110(b)(1) and (d)(1) will apply to permit an effective date corresponding to date of
 discharge or date of death, if supported by the facts of the case.
 It is important to note that the rule in 38 U.S.C. § 5110(g) and 38 C.F.R.
§ 3.114 that an award based on a liberalizing law may not be effective
earlier than the effective date of the new law does not apply to these Nehmer
cases.
 The district court's order precludes VA from applying that general rule.
 5. Claim Need Not Reference Herbicide Exposure: In its February 11, 1999,
 order in Nehmer, the district court held that a Nehmer class member's
 compensation or DIC claim need only have requested service connection for
 the condition in question in order to qualify as a Nehmer claim. It is not
 necessary that the claim have asserted that the condition was caused by
 herbicide exposure.
 Example: A veteran who served in the Republic of Vietnam during the
Vietnam era filed a claim in 1989, expressly alleging that his lung cancer began
 while on active duty following his service in Vietnam. VA denied the claim
 in 1990. The veteran reopened the claim in 1997, and service connection
was granted based on VA's herbicide regulations. On these facts, the effective
 date must relate back to the 1989 claim, even though the veteran alleged a
 different basis for service connection.
 6. Prior Claim Must Have Involved The Same Disease for Which Presumptive
 Service Connection Was Later Established: To support a retroactive
effective date under Nehmer, the prior claim must have been for the same disability
 that was the basis for the later award of benefits. Thus, if a prior claim
 did not involve service connection for the same condition, it generally
 would not provide a basis for an earlier effective date under Nehmer.
 However, the usual liberal rules of claim construction will apply, and a
 lack of specificity in the initial application may be clarified by later
 submissions.
 Example 1: In January 1987, a veteran claimed compensation for
 hyperglycemia. In developing that claim, VA obtained medical records
 indicating that the veteran was diagnosed with Type 2 diabetes in February
 1987. On these facts, it would be reasonable to treat the January 1987
claim as a claim for service connection of Type 2 diabetes. Under Nehmer,
benefits may be paid retroactive to the later of the date of that claim or the date
 the disability arose, as determined by the facts of the case.
 Example 2: In 1995, a veteran claimed compensation for hyperglycemia.
 Medical records obtained by VA indicate the veteran did not have Type 2
 diabetes. In 2001, the veteran claimed compensation for Type 2 diabetes,
 submitting evidence that Type 2 diabetes was diagnosed in 1996. On these
 facts, the 1995 claim was not a claim for service connection of Type 2
 diabetes, as neither the application nor the evidence of record suggested
 the presence of Type 2 diabetes.
 Because DIC claimants generally are not required to identify specific
 diseases in their applications, the absence of reference to a specific
 presumptive herbicide condition in a prior DIC application will not
preclude assignment of a retroactive effective date under Nehmer, provided the
 evidence establishes that a presumptive herbicide condition caused the
 veteran's death.
 7. Informal Claims: Generally, under 38 U.S.C. § 5101(a), "[a] specific
 claim in the form prescribed by the Secretary . . . must be filed" in
order for any benefits to be paid. However, in determining whether, and on what
 date, a prior claim for service connection of a presumptive herbicide
 condition was received, either formal claims or acceptable informal claims
 may be recognized. It is necessary to consider whether there are documents
 in the record that may be accepted as an informal claim for such benefits,
 under the standards ordinarily applied with respect to informal claims.
See 38 C.F.R. § 3.155. The following principles should be considered:
 (A) Informal Claims to Reopen: If a prior formal claim for compensation
for a presumptive herbicide condition or for DIC is of record, an informal
claim to reopen may be accepted. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.155(c).
 Example: A veteran filed a formal claim for service connection of Type 2
 diabetes in 1979. VA denied the claim in 1980. In 1986, the veteran
 submitted a letter stating "please consider service connection for Type 2
 diabetes." On these facts, the 1986 letter is an acceptable informal claim
 to reopen, and benefits may be paid retroactive to 1986 under Nehmer.
 (B) VA Failure to Forward Application Form: Upon receipt of an informal
 claim for benefits, if a formal claim is not already of record, VA is
 required to forward the claimant an application form for completion. See
38 C.F.R. § 3.155(a). The United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims
 (CAVC) has held that, if VA receives an informal claim, but fails to
forward an application form to the claimant, the one-year period for completing
and returning the application does not begin to run. Lalonde v. West, 12 Vet.
 App. 377, 381 (1999). In these circumstances, benefits may be paid
 retroactive to the date of the informal claim, due to VA's failure to
 provide an application form.
 Example: In 1994, a veteran filed a claim for non-service-connected
pension. After VA denied the claim, the veteran in 1995 filed a statement saying,
"I disagree with your decision denying pension. I also should be paid
 compensation for Hodgkin's disease." VA did not forward the claimant an
 application form and did not adjudicate any claim for service connection
of Hodgkin's disease. On these facts, the 1995 statement may be accepted as
an informal claim for Hodgkin's disease. The veteran's failure to file a
formal claim for compensation within one year is excused due to VA's failure to
 provide the application form.
 (C) Medical Records: The submission of medical records reflecting
treatment for a presumptive herbicide condition generally does not, in itself,
 constitute an informal claim for service connection of that condition. See
 Brannon v. West, 12 Vet. App. 32, 35 (1998). However, attention must be
paid to the circumstances of each case to determine whether the claimant's
 written submissions, viewed in connection with submitted medical records,
 may establish an informal claim.
 8. Death Pension Claims Must Be Treated as DIC Claims: Under 38 U.S.C. §
 5101(b)(1), "a claim by a surviving spouse or child for death pension
shall be considered to be a claim for death compensation (or dependency and
 indemnity compensation) and accrued benefits." See also 38 C.F.R. §
 3.152(b)(1). This rule applies even if the claimant's application
expressly indicates that the claimant sought pension only and did not allege that
the cause of death was service connected. The CAVC has stated that section
 5101(b)(1) "does not . . . permit the Secretary to delve into the intent
of the claimant; nor does it allow a claimant to make an election. As a
matter of law, a claim for DIC shall be considered as a claim for pension and a
 claim for a pension shall be considered a claim for DIC." Isenhart v.
 Derwinski, 3 Vet. App. 177, 179 (1992).
 Example: A veteran died of Lung Cancer. In 1988, the surviving spouse
filed a VA Form 21-534 (application for DIC/death pension), and marked "no" in
 response to the question "are you claiming that the cause of death was due
 to service?" Accordingly, VA adjudicated a claim for pension only. In
1997, the surviving spouse applied for DIC, which was granted. Under these
 circumstances, the award may be made retroactive to the 1988 application,
 because it must be treated as a DIC claim.
 9. Live Pension Claims May Be Treated as Compensation Claims: Under 38
 C.F.R. § 3.151(a), "a claim by a veteran for pension may be considered to
be a claim for compensation." VA is not required by law to treat a veteran's
 claim for pension as a claim for compensation, see Stewart v. Brown, 10
Vet.
 App. 15, 18 (1997), but may do so in appropriate circumstances.
Adjudicators
 should exercise judgment as to whether the circumstances of a case warrant
 treating a pension claim as a claim for compensation for a presumptive
 herbicide condition.
 10. Claim for Service-Connected Burial Benefits Must Be Treated as
Informal DIC Claim in Certain Circumstances: A claim for burial benefits does not
 constitute a formal claim for DIC. However, in Mitscher v. West, 13 Vet.
 App. 123, 128 (1999), the CAVC held that a claim for service-connected
 burial benefits must be treated as an informal claim for DIC in certain
 circumstances, for purposes of entitlement to retroactive benefits under
 Nehmer. That case indicates that if a claim for burial benefits (VA Form
 21-530) indicates that the surviving spouse alleges that the cause of
death was due to service, VA must forward the claimant an application for DIC
(VA Form 21-534) in accordance with 38 C.F.R. § 3.155(a). If the completed
Form 21-534 is received within one year, benefits may be paid from the date of
 the claim for service-connected burial benefits. The Mitscher decision
 implies that if VA failed to forward the application form to the claimant,
 the one-year period would not begin to run, and benefits may be paid from
 the date of the claim for service-connected burial benefits. If VA
properly forwarded the application form and the claimant failed to return it within
 one year, then the claim for burial benefits should not be considered a
 claim for DIC.
 Example 1: In 1995, a surviving spouse filed an application for burial
 benefits (VA Form 21-530) and marked "yes" in response to the question
"are you claiming that the cause of death was due to service?" VA forwarded the
 claimant an application for DIC (VA Form 21-534). The claimant returned
the completed DIC application within one year. On these facts, the date of the
 1995 application for burial benefits may be accepted as the date of the
DIC claim for purposes of Nehmer.
 Example 2: Same facts as Example 1, except that the claimant failed to
 return the completed DIC application. On these facts, the 1995 application
 for burial benefits should not be considered a claim for DIC.
 Example 3: In 1995, a surviving spouse filed an application for burial
 benefits (VA Form 21-530) and marked "yes" in response to the question
"are you claiming that the cause of death was due to service?" VA did not
forward an application for DIC. On these facts, DIC may be paid retroactive to the
 1995 application for burial benefits, if otherwise in order. The one-year
 period for filing a completed DIC application did not begin to run due to
 VA's failure to provide the application form.
 11. Prior Claim Denied for Reasons Other Than Lack of Service Connection:
If a prior claim for compensation or DIC for disability or death due to a
 presumptive herbicide condition was denied for some reason other than a
lack of service connection, there may be no basis for awarding an earlier
 effective date under Nehmer based on the prior claim. For example, if the
 prior claim was denied because there was no evidence that the veteran had
 the claimed condition, retroactive benefits generally would not be in
order.
 If the prior claim was abandoned or withdrawn, there may also be no basis
 for retroactive payments under Nehmer. Cases involving this type of issue
 should be brought to the attention of David McLenachen of the Office of
the General Counsel.
 12. Criteria governing payment of retroactive benefits in the event a
Nehmer class member has died prior to receiving payment.
 (A) Entire Amount of Retroactive Benefits May Be Paid to Survivors or
 Estate, Without Regard to Statutory Limit on Payment of Accrued Benefits:
In its December 12, 2000 order, the district court held that, if a Nehmer
class member dies prior to receiving payment of retroactive benefits he or she
 would have been entitled to under the Nehmer review, VA is required to pay
 the entire amount of such benefits to the class member's estate.
 Significantly, the court held that payment of such benefits is not
governed by 38 U.S.C. § 5121(a), which limits payment of accrued benefits to those
 payable for the two-year period immediately preceding death. Accordingly,
if a class member was entitled to retroactive benefits for any period prior
to death, VA is required to pay the entire amount to the appropriate
alternate payee. Standards governing identification of the appropriate alternate
payee are discussed below.
 (B) Identifying Appropriate Payee: As stated above, the district court
 directed VA to pay retroactive benefits to the estate of a deceased class
 member. In view of the impracticality of paying the estate in cases where
 there is a known survivor, VA will make payment to the class member's
 surviving spouse, child(ren), or parent(s), if any. If there are no such
 survivors, VA must pay the retroactive benefits to the class member's
 estate, if VA is able to identify an estate for payment. Accordingly, in
the event a class member who would be entitled to payment of retroactive
 benefits under Nehmer is deceased, payment must be made to the first
 individual or entity in existence listed below:
 · the class member's spouse;
 · the class member's child or children (if more than one child exists,
 payment of the retroactive benefits owed shall be divided into equal
shares, and accompanied by an explanation of the division; this includes all
 children, regardless of age or marital status.);
 · the class member's parents (if both parents are alive, half the
 retroactive benefits owed shall be paid to each parent, and accompanied by
 an explanation of the division);
 · the class member's estate.
 Accordingly, if there is a surviving spouse, child(ren), or parent(s), any
 retroactive payments should be paid to such individuals rather than to the
 estate.
 (C) Circumstances Where VA Cannot Identify Any Appropriate Payee: If a
class member is deceased and the claims file does not clearly identify an
eligible survivor, we would recommend making such reasonable inquiry as the
 information on file permits. For example, if the claims file identifies an
 authorized representative or a relative, it would be reasonable to contact
 such person to request information concerning the existence of a surviving
 spouse, child(ren), parent(s), or estate. If a Regional Office cannot
 identify or locate any such payee, it should annotate the rating to state
 that it was unable to locate any payee eligible for Nehmer payment.
 Additionally, the regional office should notify Mr. McLenachen by e-mail
 that no payee could be identified, including the claimant's name and file
 number in the message. Likewise, if a Regional Office encounters a
situation where the deceased class member was an incompetent veteran and payment of
 the accrued amount would be made to an estate that would escheat to the
 state, it should notify Mr. McLenachen.
 (D) Notice to Payees: Consistent with the district court's order, payments
 to survivors are intended to benefit the heirs of the class member's
estate. Accordingly, we ask that any notice concerning payment to a deceased class
 member's spouse, child, or parent include a statement along the following
 lines:
 Pursuant to an order of a United States district court, this payment is
 intended for the heirs of [decedent's name]'s estate. If you are not an
heir of [decedent's name]'s estate, you must return the payment.
 We recommend including guidance on the procedure for returning payment.
 Additionally, because VA has appealed the district court's order requiring
 payment of retroactive benefits in a manner inconsistent with 38 U.S.C. §
 5121, amounts paid to a survivor or estate will be subject to recoupment
if VA prevails on its appeal. Accordingly, we believe it is necessary to
inform the payee that the benefits are being paid to the payee pursuant to a
court order and that those amounts will be subject to recoupment if the court
 order is overturned on appeal.
 13. Additional Recoupment Notice in Cases of Certain Retroactive Awards
for Prostate Cancer and Type 2 Diabetes. VA has appealed the district court's
 December 12, 2000 order in Nehmer. If VA prevails on that appeal, it may
be necessary to seek recoupment of certain retroactive awards in cases
 involving prostate cancer and type 2 diabetes. You must notify the
claimant of the possibility of recoupment in the following circumstances:
 (A) Prostate Cancer Cases. In any case where an earlier effective date
 between January 4, 1994 and November 6, 1996 is assigned for prostate
 cancer, the award letter sent to the claimant must include the following
 language: "These retroactive benefits are being paid to you as a result of
 the United States District Court's order in Nehmer v. U.S. Veterans'
Admin. Payment for any period before November 7, 1996 may be subject to recovery
by VA in the event the United States Court of Appeals overturns the district
 court's order. Recovery of this payment may include the withholding of
 future benefit payments until the retroactive amount has been recovered in
 full."
 (B) Type 2 Diabetes Cases. In any case where an earlier effective date
 between January 4, 1994 and July 8, 2001 is assigned for type 2 diabetes,
 the award notice to the claimant must include the following language:
"These retroactive benefits are being paid to you as a result of the United
States District Court's order in Nehmer v. U.S. Veterans' Admin. Payment for any
 period before July 9, 2001 may be subject to recovery by VA in the event
the United States Court of Appeals overturns the district court's order.
 Recovery of this payment may include the withholding of future benefit
 payments until the retroactive amount has been recovered in full."
 14. Fast Letter 99-86, "The Nehmer lawsuit and the granting of retroactive
 Agent Orange benefits." Paragraph 10 of Fast Letter 99-86 states that
 retroactive benefits are appropriate only if a claim was both filed and
 denied after September 25, 1985. This is not correct. The correct rule is
 that the claim need only have been denied on or after September 25, 1985.
 (It may have been filed prior to that date.) Also, paragraph 12 of Fast
 Letter 99-86 instructed Regional Offices not to process any Nehmer cases
 where the claim was filed after June 9, 1994. Since there has been a
 subsequent court ruling on prostate cancer cases and an instruction letter
 sent out July 17, 2001, the stay directed in paragraph 12 of Fast Letter
 99-86 has been lifted.
 15. Questions. Questions regarding the foregoing, or any matters arising
in the review of individual Nehmer cases may be referred to attorney David
 McLenachen of the Office of the General Counsel. Mr. McLenachen may be
 reached by e-mail through VA's global directory.

 Enclosure II: Effective Dates of Presumptive Herbicide Regulations
 Type 2 Diabetes: July 9, 2001
 Prostate Cancer: November 7, 1996
 Acute and Subacute Peripheral Neuropathy: November 7, 1996
 Multiple Myeloma: June 9, 1994
 Repiratory Cancers: June 9, 1994
 Porphyria Cutanea Tarda: February 3, 1994
 Hodgkin's Disease: February 3, 1994
 Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma: May 19, 1993
 Soft-tissue Sarcoma: October 15, 1991


 Enclosure III: Letter Sent To Claimants
 IMPORTANT INFORMATION FOR THOSE INTERESTED IN DISABILITY COMPENSATION OR
 DEPENDENCY AND INDEMNITY COMPENSATION (DIC) FOR DISABILITY OR DEATH FROM

 EXPOSURE TO HERBICIDES
 The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) recently issued a regulation that
 presumes service connection for type 2 diabetes in veterans exposed to
Agent Orange or other herbicides during service. A court order requires VA to
 review certain prior decisions denying service connection for type 2
 diabetes based on a regulation that was in effect from September 25, 1985
to May 3, 1989. We will also review certain prior decisions denying service
 connection for type 2 diabetes between May 3, 1989 and July 9, 2001. Our
 records indicate that you may have claimed disability compensation or DIC
 for type 2 diabetes during the period September 25, 1985 to July 9, 2001.
 This letter advises you of your rights and responsibilities.
 The case of Nehmer v. United States Veterans' Administration, 712 F. Supp.
 1404 (N.D. Cal. 1989) (Nehmer), originated in 1986 as a class-action
lawsuit against the VA (formerly Veterans' Administration) by Vietnam veterans and
 their survivors who claimed that VA had improperly denied their claims for
 service-connected disability compensation for disabilities allegedly
caused by exposure to the herbicide Agent Orange in service. In May 1989, the
Court invalidated a portion of VA's regulations covering disability and death
 claims based on herbicide exposure and all benefit denials made under
those regulations. The Nehmer ruling requires VA to review certain previously
 denied claims and when appropriate, issue new decisions regarding those
 claims. This ruling may affect your entitlement to VA disability
 compensation or DIC benefits.
 WHAT CLAIMS WILL VA REVIEW?
 VA will review your previously denied claim if
  you are a member of the Nehmer class (you claimed service
 connection based on herbicide exposure or you qualify for a presumption of
 herbicide exposure
 because of your service in Vietnam between January 9, 1962 and May 7,
1975);
 and  your claim sought service connection for type 2 diabetes; and
  your claim was filed or denied between September 25, 1985 and
July 9, 2001.
 If you claimed disability compensation or DIC for type 2 diabetes based on
 herbicide exposure and VA finally denied your claim before September 25,
 1985 (including all appeals), the Nehmer ruling does not require VA to
 review your claim. However, you may now file a new claim, which VA will
 decide using its current regulations. If you have not claimed disability
 compensation or DIC for type 2 diabetes based on herbicide exposure, you
may do so now. Any claim you now file will be decided using VA's current
 regulations. If VA approves your claim, the amount of money you will
receive may depend upon the date VA receives your claim. The earlier VA receives
 your claim, the more money you may receive if your claim is approved.
Claim forms (VA Form 21-526 for service-connected disability claims and VA Form
 21-534 for DIC claims) are available at any VA Regional Office or online
at www.vba.va.gov/pubs/candpforms.htm.
 WHAT EFFECTIVE DATE WILL VA ASSIGN TO MY CLAIM?
 Under Nehmer, if your claim was filed or denied between September 25, 1985
 and July 9, 2001, VA may award benefits retroactive to
  the date that VA received your claim; or
  the date that the disability arose (compensation claims) or death
 occurred (DIC claims); whichever is later.
 In all other cases, VA may award benefits retroactive to
  July 9, 2001; or
  the date one year prior to the date VA received a claim; or
  the date that the disability arose (compensation claims) or death
 occurred (DIC claims); whichever is later.
 WHAT ARE MY RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES?
 You have the following rights and responsibilities under this Notice:
  You may be entitled to a new decision or initial decision on your
 claim.
  VA will make a new or initial decision on your claim using all of
 the procedural rights normally available during VA proceedings.
  You will be given 60 days from the date of this notice to present
 new evidence or reasons why your claim should be granted under the new
type 2 diabetes regulation.
  If you do not present new evidence or reasons supporting your
 claim, VA will decide the claim using only the evidence we already have.
  VA will notify you when it makes a final decision concerning your
 claim.
 WHO TO CALL IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS OR NEED ASSISTANCE
 You can contact the lawyers who represent the Nehmer class members at the
 following address:
 Counsel for Plaintiff Class
 National Veterans Legal Services Program
 Attention: Nehmer Class Member Information
 2001 S. Street, N.W.
 Suite 610
 Washington, D.C. 20009
 VA benefits counselors are also available at each VA Regional Office to
 answer any questions you may have concerning your rights under this
Notice,
 please call us at
 1-800-827-1000. If you use a Telecommunications Device for the Deaf (TDD),
 the number is 1-800-829-4833.
 Sincerely yours,
 Ronald J. Henke, Director
 Compensation and Pension Service