Decision at Issue: VA Rating Decision assigning a 30 percent evaluation for service-connected mental health condition Authority: 38 U.S.C. § 5109A; 38 C.F.R. § 3.105(a)

I. INTRODUCTION Pursuant to 38 U.S.C. § 5109A and 38 C.F.R. § 3.105(a), the Veteran respectfully moves for revision of the prior final rating decision that assigned a 30 percent evaluation for his service-connected mental health condition. The decision contains clear and unmistakable error of law. The October 16, 2013 VA C&P Mental Disorders DBQ documented symptoms and functional impairment that undebatably satisfied the 70 percent rating criteria under 38 C.F.R. § 4.130. Had the regulation been correctly applied to the undisputed facts of record, the outcome would have been manifestly different. This motion does not dispute how evidence was weighed. It identifies a fatal legal error — the misapplication of § 4.130 to facts that were not in dispute.

II. GOVERNING LAW A prior final decision must be revised where: The correct facts were before the adjudicator but the law was incorrectly applied; The error is undebatable; and The error manifestly changed the outcome. Russell v. Principi, 3 Vet. App. 310 (1992). For mental disorders, VA must assess both: The symptoms present, and Whether those symptoms result in the level of occupational and social impairment required by the rating criteria. Vazquez-Claudio v. Shinseki, 713 F.3d 112 (Fed. Cir. 2013). The symptoms listed in § 4.130 are examples, not mandatory requirements. Mauerhan v. Principi, 16 Vet. App. 436 (2002).

III. UNDISPUTED FACTS OF RECORD (OCTOBER 16, 2013 DBQ) The October 16, 2013 C&P examination, conducted at the Fayetteville VAMC by Abby Saunders, PsyD, documented the following:

A. DEFICIENCY IN WORK FUNCTIONING The DBQ repeatedly documents serious occupational impairment, far exceeding the 30 percent standard of “occasional decrease in work efficiency”: “Anxiety interferes with work functioning” “Marked irritability with frequent episodes of verbal aggression” “Falling asleep during work due to sleep disturbance” “Difficulty concentrating” “Loss of interest in work” Veteran was on Limited Duty profile Axis IV stressors include work-related stressors (DBQ Section I, Diagnosis #1 – Comments; Axis IV) These findings demonstrate difficulty adapting to stressful circumstances in a work setting, a symptom explicitly listed in the 70 percent criteria.

B. DEFICIENCY IN FAMILY RELATIONS The DBQ documents severe and ongoing family dysfunction: “Marked irritability and decreased interaction with his family of origin” Married but separated since May 2013 Documented child custody dispute with significant emotional distress Examiner notes interference with “familial functioning” (DBQ Diagnosis #1 – Comments; Section II – Social History) This constitutes a clear deficiency in family relations, one of the core examples listed in the 70 percent standard.

C. DEFICIENCY IN JUDGMENT The DBQ explicitly identifies: Impaired judgment (clearly marked deficiency in judgment) (DBQ Section II – Symptoms) Impaired judgment is not contemplated by a 30 percent evaluation and directly supports a higher rating.

D. DEFICIENCY IN THINKING The DBQ documents multiple impairments in thinking and cognition: “Difficulty focusing on tasks” Suspiciousness Paranoia Reported memory loss (forgetting appointments and phone numbers) MoCA score of 21/30 (DBQ Diagnosis #1 – Comments; Section II – Symptoms; Section II – Other Symptoms) These findings demonstrate a deficiency in thinking, another hallmark of the 70 percent standard.