Decision Date: 11/03/95		Archive Date: 01/17/96
DOCKET NO.  94-02 757	)	DATE
	)
	)

On appeal from the
Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Cleveland, 
Ohio


THE ISSUE

Entitlement to an increased rating for post-traumatic stress 
disorder (PTSD), currently evaluated at 30 percent.


REPRESENTATION

Appellant represented by:	Disabled American Veterans


ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD

Laura Keohane, Associate Counsel






INTRODUCTION

The veteran served on active duty from August 1966 to June 
1969.

This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (BVA 
or Board) on appeal from a July 1992 rating decision of the 
Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office in 
Cleveland, Ohio (RO).


CONTENTIONS OF APPELLANT ON APPEAL

The veteran contends that he is entitled to an increased 
evaluation for PTSD.  According to the veteran, the evidence, 
including marital stress, emotional dysfunction, alcohol 
abuse, and employment impairment, is indicative of PTSD at a 
severe or considerable level. 


DECISION OF THE BOARD

The Board, in accordance with the provisions of 38 U.S.C.A. 
§ 7104 (West 1991), has reviewed and considered all of the 
evidence and material of record in the veteran’s claims file.  
Based on its review of the relevant evidence in this matter, 
and for the following reasons and bases, it is the decision 
of the Board that the veteran’s substantive appeal of the 
RO’s decision was untimely filed and his appeal, therefore, 
should be dismissed. 


FINDINGS OF FACT

1.  A July 1992 rating decision established service 
connection for PTSD at a 30 percent level.

2.  The RO notified the veteran of its decision in a letter 
dated September 16, 1992.

3.  The veteran’s Notice of Disagreement (NOD) was received 
August 6, 1993.

4.  The RO mailed the veteran a Statement of the Case (SOC) 
on October 5, 1993.

5.  The veteran’s substantive appeal was received by the RO 
on January 8, 1994.


CONCLUSION OF LAW

The veteran’s January 1994 substantive appeal was untimely 
filed.  38 U.S.C.A. § 7105(d)(1), (3) (West 1991); 38 C.F.R. 
§§ 20.302(b), 20.303 (1994).


REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION

Appellate review of an RO decision is initiated by an NOD and 
“completed by a substantive appeal after a statement of the 
case [SOC] is furnished . . . .”  38 U.S.C.A. § 7105(a) (West 
1991); 38 C.F.R. § 20.200 (1994).  After an appellant 
receives the SOC, he or she must file a formal appeal within 
“sixty days from the date the [SOC] is mailed,” 38 U.S.C.A. 
§ 7105(d)(3) (West 1991), or within the remainder of the one-
year period from the date the notification of the RO decision 
was mailed. whichever period ends later.  38 C.F.R. 
§ 20.302(b) (1994); see Rowell v. Principi, 4 Vet. App. 9, 17 
(1993); see also Cuevas v. Principi, 3 Vet. App. 542, 546 
(1994) (where claimant did not perfect appeal by timely 
filing substantive appeal, RO rating decision became final).  
This time barrier may be extended “for a reasonable period on 
request for good cause shown.”  38 U.S.C.A. § 7105(d)(3) 
(West 1991); see 38 C.F.R. § 20.303 (1994).  See generally 
Roy v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 554, 556 (1993) (discussing failure 
to file timely appeal).

Here, the veteran admittedly did not file a timely formal 
appeal.  In July 1992 , the RO granted the veteran’s claim 
for service connection for PTSD at a 30 percent level.  The 
RO notified the veteran of this decision in a letter dated 
September 16, 1992.  Because the veteran felt his diability 
merited an evaluation of at least 50 percent, he submitted a 
Notice of Disagreement (NOD), which was received August 6, 
1993.  The RO then mailed the veteran a Statement of the Case 
(SOC) on October 5, 1993.  Thus, under 38 U.S.C.A. 
§ 7105(d)(3) and 38 C.F.R. § 20.302(b), the veteran had until 
December 5, 1993 (sixty days from the date the SOC was 
mailed) to perfect his appeal.

The veteran’s substantive appeal (VA Form I-9), however, was 
dated December 30, 1993, and was received by the RO on 
January 8, 1994.  In a letter accompanying his Form I-9, also 
dated December 30, 1993, the veteran admits his tardiness:  
“The appeal itself, which is attached, should have been filed 
no later than December 5, 1993.”  As noted above, under 
38 U.S.C.A. § 7105(d)(3) and 38 C.F.R. § 20.303, the period 
for filing a substantive appeal may be granted This time 
barrier may be extended “for a reasonable period on request 
for good cause shown.” (1994).

When, as in this case, the veteran fails to file a timely 
appeal, he is statutorily barred from appealing the RO’s 
decision.  38 U.S.C.A. § 7105 (West 1991); Roy, 5 Vet. App. 
at 556.

ORDER

A substantive appeal not having been timely filed, the 
veteran’s claim for an increased rating for PTSD is 
dismissed.



		
	
	Member, Board of Veterans' Appeals

The Board of Veterans' Appeals Administrative Procedures 
Improvement Act, Pub. L. No. 103-271, § 6, 108 Stat. 740, ___ 
(1994), permits a proceeding instituted before the Board to 
be assigned to an individual member of the Board for a 
determination.  This proceeding has been assigned to an 
individual member of the Board.

NOTICE OF APPELLATE RIGHTS:  Under 38 U.S.C.A. § 7266 (West 
1991), a decision of the Board of Veterans' Appeals granting 
less than the complete benefit, or benefits, sought on appeal 
is appealable to the United States Court of Veterans Appeals 
within 120 days from the date of mailing of notice of the 
decision, provided that a Notice of Disagreement concerning 
an issue which was before the Board was filed with the agency 
of original jurisdiction on or after November 18, 1988.  
Veterans' Judicial Review Act, Pub. L. No. 100-687, § 402 
(1988).  The date which appears on the face of this decision 
constitutes the date of mailing and the copy of this decision 
which you have received is your notice of the action taken on 
your appeal by the Board of Veterans' Appeals.
- 2 -