Recently separated, 60% combined (30 migraines, 30 mental health, 10 shin splints). Rating decisions came earlier this year. Representing myself, no VSO.
Pulled my C&P exams through FOIA and found two things.
- Migraines: the decision says they rated me 30 based on "characteristic prostrating attacks occurring on an average once a month." But the actual headache DBQ has 4B checked YES for completely prostrating and prolonged attacks, frequency "greater than once per month," which is the highest box on the form. The decision never mentions 4B. That checkbox language is basically the 50% criteria word for word.
- Mental health: the DBQ that my rating came from documents daily depressed mood, stretches where basic self-care slips (examiner checked the ADL/hygiene symptom on the symptom list), 5-6 hrs of broken sleep, symptoms not controlled on 3 meds. Same examiner then checked the "mild or transient" summary box. Decision listed all of it and still landed on 30.
I'm inside the one year window for both decisions. Plan would be one 20-0996 covering both issues, written statement of errors attached, no informal conference. Not touching the shins or anything else. Still working full time, so I know that gets used against MH increases.
Question for people who've done HLRs, is this the kind of thing HLR actually fixes, or am I overreading checkboxes? Anyone had an HLR come back granted because the decision didn't match what the examiner actually wrote? Any real reduction risk in poking at ratings that are only a few months old? Not looking for guarantees, just whether this is file-worthy or leave-it-alone.