If Your NAVLE Didn't Match the Blueprint — Here's What You Need to Know About Your Rights
This is one of the most important pieces we have published for the NAVLE Warriors community. Please read it carefully and share it with anyone who is preparing for or has recently taken the NAVLE.
There has never been an independent audit of the fairness of the NAVLE Exam and exam distribution. There are legal processes in motion.. And there are students, many of them Black and Hispanic, who sat down for what should have been a standardized, fair licensing examination and received something that, by multiple accounts, did not match the exam they were promised.
If that was you, you are not alone. And you have options.
What Has Been Reported
In a pre-litigation notice filed in October 2025 by the San Francisco law firm Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein, attorney Kelly Dermody alleged that the NAVLE is "potentially anticompetitive, fraudulent, and discriminatory," citing "pronounced, persistent, and unexplained disparities in NAVLE outcomes related to race and ethnicity."
The letter states that the firm represents a group of Black and Hispanic U.S. citizens with stellar academic records at accredited veterinary schools who failed the NAVLE despite robust preparation and predictive pre-exam performance.
The pre-litigation notice was leaked and circulated publicly. Among the "multiple corroborated accounts" documented by the firm, candidates reported:
• Nonsensical or poorly constructed test questions
• Multiple-choice questions with more than one correct answer
• Questions with content significantly outside the NAVLE blueprint, including an unusually high number of questions about camels, questions about sharks and seahorses, and exams weighted almost entirely toward pet birds and exotic species
To be clear about what the blueprint requires: per the official ICVA blueprint, camelids and cervidae account for 1.7% of the exam. Reptiles account for 1.5%. Aquatics account for 1%. Pet birds account for 2.3%. An exam with 30+ questions about camels, or one focused almost entirely on exotics, is not consistent with the published blueprint for a standard NAVLE administration.
These are not minor deviations. If what candidates reported is accurate, these exams do not reflect the test that the ICVA's own documentation says every candidate should receive.
Who Has Spoken Out
The Pre-Litigation Letter — Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein
Filed in October 2025, the pre-litigation notice was sent to the AVMA, ICVA, and NBME. It specifically named candidates with Hispanic surnames and Tuskegee University graduates as the most disproportionately impacted. Demands included: safeguards to ensure consistent and fair exam questions, raw grade reporting, and an external audit of exam construction and scoring. The letter warned that damages in potential future legal action could include lost earnings, sunk educational costs, exam and preparation expenses, and substantial emotional distress.
The Latinx Veterinary Medical Association
Also in November 2025, Dr. Mitsie Vargas, President of the Latinx Veterinary Medical Association, sent a formal letter to the AVMA Board of Directors, published on Vet Candy and cc'd to veterinary state boards across the country, requesting support for an independent third-party audit.
“Members of our community, along with colleagues across the profession, have raised ongoing concerns about fairness, item construction, and potential bias within the NAVLE. Whether these perceptions reflect actual structural issues or a gap in communication, an objective evaluation by an independent auditing body is the most reliable way to address them.” — Dr. Mitsie Vargas, DVM — President, Latinx Veterinary Medical Association
The Latinx VMA has more than 200 members and clubs at 25 veterinary colleges. The letter noted that comparable professions — including law and medicine — routinely commission independent psychometric reviews of their licensing exams. The NAVLE, by contrast, had no record of such a review until now.
What ICVA Has Said and Done
The ICVA rejects the claims in the pre-litigation letter. In a statement, ICVA Chief Executive Dr. Heather Case said: "We responded, through legal counsel, to make it clear that the accusations in the pre-litigation letter had no basis in fact. We expect the independent third-party audit to affirm the integrity of the NAVLE."
In December 2025, ICVA announced it would initiate an independent audit, stating it was acting in response to questions from the veterinary community "around how the NAVLE is developed, administered, and scored." The AVMA publicly supported the decision.
ICVA also announced a one-time retake policy reset: beginning with the March 2026 testing window, all candidates were granted five new NAVLE attempts regardless of their prior testing history, essentially clearing the slate.
⚠️ As of the date of this article, ICVA has not provided a public update on the status, timeline, or findings of the independent audit that was announced in December 2025. The specifics, including the identity of the auditor and the scope of the review, had not been finalized as of mid-December 2025. No further updates have been released.
The veterinary community and particularly the candidates most directly affected are waiting. Five months have passed since the audit was announced. The silence is not reassuring.
If Your Exam Did Not Match the Blueprint
If you sat for the NAVLE and received an exam that felt significantly inconsistent with the published blueprint, whether that means an unusual concentration of exotic species, aquatic animals, camelids, or any other content area that felt wildly disproportionate, you have a right to report it and a right to understand your options.
Here is what we recommend:
1. Document everything you can. Write down as specifically as possible what you observed: the approximate number of questions about each species or content area, anything that felt inconsistent with what you had studied from the ICVA blueprint. Do this as soon as possible while details are fresh. Do not share specific exam questions — that violates the Candidate Agreement — but documenting your general experience is appropriate.
2. File a grievance with ICVA. Use the File a Grievance online form at icva.net. Include your exam date, location, and as detailed a description as possible of what you experienced. Also file a report directly with Prometric within 10 business days.
3. Notify your school, notify your state veterinary board, plus, notify your state civil rights division, if you feel like you may have been discriminated against. Your dean or advisor should know that you experienced an exam that appeared inconsistent with the ICVA blueprint. Schools have standing to engage with ICVA on behalf of their students, and your report may join a pattern that gives your institution grounds to act. Civil rights division in your state have programs that investigate claims of discrimination, you can also consider speaking to your state chapter of the ACLU.
4. Consider speaking with an attorney. If you believe you were discriminated against or received an exam that was not consistent with the published standard, you have the right to understand your legal options. The law firm that filed the pre-litigation notice — Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein in San Francisco — specifically sought out impacted candidates and may be a resource for a consultation. Their work on this matter is public. You can find them at lieffcabraser.com.
5. You are not required to stay silent. You agreed not to share specific exam questions or content — and you should honor that. But your experience, your observations, and your concerns about fairness are yours to share with your school, your licensing board, and an attorney.
If You Believe You Are Being Discriminated Against
The pre-litigation letter specifically identified candidates with Hispanic surnames and Tuskegee University graduates as the most disproportionately impacted groups. If you are in one of these groups — or any underrepresented group — and you believe your exam results do not reflect your preparation, knowledge, or clinical ability:
• Your experience is valid. Stellar academic records, strong preparation, and consistent performance on practice exams do not guarantee a fair licensing exam if the exam itself is not standardized.
• You have the right to ask questions. Contact ICVA, contact your state licensing board, and contact your school.
• The petition, the letters, and the pre-litigation notice exist because of people like you. This movement was built by candidates who refused to accept that their failure was simply their own.
• Consult an attorney before your options expire. Legal rights have deadlines. If you believe you have been harmed, get advice sooner rather than later.
“Your organization, and your sister organizations, are now on notice that the NAVLE, as currently designed and administered, fails to meet the minimum standards of transparency, validity, and fairness required for a high-stakes licensure examination, and that its use is inflicting foreseeable harm.”
— Kelly Dermody, Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein — Pre-Litigation Notice to AVMA, October 2025
What We Are Asking ICVA to Do
Vet Candy has been part of this conversation since the beginning. We published the LatinxVMA letter. Our CEO filed the Change.org petition that helped catalyze this movement. We confirmed the new exam structure directly with ICVA. And we are asking — publicly, on behalf of the 50,000+ veterinary professionals in our community — for the following:
• Release an update on the audit. Who is conducting it? What is the scope? When will findings be released? Five months of silence after a December 2025 announcement is not acceptable transparency.
• Confirm whether psychometric analysis of differential item functioning by race and ethnicity has been conducted — and if so, release those findings.
• Provide a mechanism for candidates who received anomalous exams to have their cases reviewed.The retake policy reset was a step. It is not sufficient if the underlying exam integrity issues are not addressed.
• Publish the methodology and scope of the independent audit so the veterinary community can evaluate whether the review meets the standards of other medical licensing examinations.
───────────────────────────────
Resources
File a grievance with ICVA:
The LatinxVMA letter to the AVMA Board (published on Vet Candy):
myvetcandy.com/news/2025/11/19/letter-to-the-members-of-the-avma-board-from-latinx
Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein (pre-litigation counsel):
ICVA audit announcement:
icva.net/news-and-updates/icva-statement-on-navle-audit
Vet Candy Change.org petition:
change.org — Call for a Fair, Transparent, and Accountable NAVLE
───────────────────────────────
Note: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. If you believe you have been harmed by a discriminatory or non-standard exam administration, please consult a licensed attorney to understand your rights and options.
Vet Candy is a free resource for the next generation of veterinary professionals. NAVLE Warriors is our free 12-week exam prep program built around the official ICVA blueprint. Visit myvetcandy.com.