Citation Nr: 0118256 Decision Date: 07/12/01 Archive Date: 07/17/01 DOCKET NO. 00-24 175A ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Detroit, Michigan THE ISSUE Entitlement to an effective date earlier than June 4, 1996 for an evaluation of 100 percent for service-connected post- traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: Kenneth Carpenter, Attorney at Law ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD Michael J. Skaltsounis, Counsel INTRODUCTION The veteran had active service from August 1964 to June 1967. The Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) initially notes that in a decision in July 1999, the Board granted a 100 percent rating for PTSD, and left it to the regional office (RO) to assign the appropriate effective date for the 100 percent rating. Thereafter, in a rating decision in September 1999, the RO assigned the 100 percent rating effective from June 4, 1996, the earliest date on which the RO determined that the veteran's symptoms of PTSD warranted a 100 percent evaluation. Since the July 1999 Board decision also assigned an earlier effective date for the assignment of a 30 percent evaluation for PTSD of June 3, 1992, the September 1999 rating decision assigned a 30 percent evaluation for this disorder, effective from that date. The veteran has appealed the effective date for the assignment of the 100 percent rating for PTSD, asserting that the effective date for a 100 percent evaluation should be as early as the date of the original claim for service connection for a psychiatric disorder in March 1990. Initially, the Board notes that a claim for an earlier effective date based on the rating assigned by the August 1990 rating decision would require evidence of a timely appeal with respect to such rating decision, and the veteran and his representative concede that no appeal was timely filed. Similarly, without the filing of an appeal of the initial rating assigned for this disability, the veteran is not entitled to consideration of any "staged" ratings under Fenderson v. West, 12 Vet. App. 119 (1999). An alternative theory for recognition of an earlier effective date based on this rating decision is proffered by the veteran's representative and is addressed more fully below. However, the Board does find that although the issue on appeal has been identified as entitlement to an effective date earlier than June 4, 1996 for a 100 percent evaluation for PTSD, it is clear that this would include consideration of entitlement to any rating in excess of that which is already assigned during the relevant time period. As will be shown more fully below, since the earliest possible effective date could not be earlier than July 31, 1992, and the record currently reflects the assignment of a 30 percent evaluation for the period of July 31, 1992 to June 3, 1996, the issue on appeal includes entitlement to an earlier effective date for a rating in excess of 30 percent for the period of July 31, 1992 to June 3, 1996. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. A reopened claim for an increased rating for PTSD was received on July 31, 1992; by a rating decision in September 1999, a disability evaluation of 100 percent was granted effective from June 4, 1996, and an earlier effective date of June 3, 1992 was also granted for the assignment of a 30 percent evaluation. 2. The September 1999 rating decision assigned the June 4, 1996 effective date for a 100 percent rating for PTSD because this was the earliest date on which the RO determined that symptoms of PTSD warranted a 100 percent evaluation; an earlier effective date of June 3, 1992 was assigned for a 30 percent evaluation for PTSD as this was the date a July 1999 Board decision had determined that a VA medical report constituted an informal claim. 3. The veteran did not appeal the July 1999 Board decision which assigned an earlier effective date for a 30 percent evaluation for PTSD from July 31, 1992 to June 3, 1992. 4. An earlier effective date for a 100 percent evaluation for PTSD is warranted back to the veteran's July 31, 1992 reopened claim for an increased rating for PTSD; an evaluation in excess of 30 percent for the period of July 31, 1991 to July 30, 1992 is precluded by the unappealed Board decision of July 1999. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for an effective date for an evaluation of 100 percent for PTSD from July 31, 1992, but not earlier, have been met. 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 1155, 5110 (West 1991 & Supp. 2000); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.157, 3.400 (2000). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION I. Background The Board first finds that the issue of entitlement to an earlier effective date for the assignment of a 100 percent evaluation for PTSD has already been developed within the guidelines established by the recently enacted Veterans Claims Assistance Act of 2000, Pub. L. No. 106-475, § 3(a), 114 Stat. 2096 (2000) (to be codified at 38 U.S.C.A. § 5103A) (VCAA). There is no indication in the record that there are any outstanding pertinent documents or records from any source that are not currently of record, and the Board is satisfied that the veteran has been placed on notice of the applicable regulations governing the assignment of effective dates and that remand for further notice of these provisions would be an unnecessary waste of appellate time and resources. It is maintained that a 100 percent evaluation for PTSD should be assigned from an earlier date, and as noted above, the Board finds that this includes consideration of entitlement to any evaluation in excess of 30 percent for PTSD during the period of July 31, 1992 to June 3, 1996. In general, except as provided in 38 C.F.R. § 3.400(o)(2) of this section and 38 C.F.R. § 3.401(b), the effective date of a claim for increased rating is the date of receipt of claim or date entitlement arose, whichever is later. 38 C.F.R. § 3.400(o)(1). Under 38 U.S.C.A. § 5110(b)(2), the effective date of an award of increased compensation shall be the earliest date as of which it is ascertainable that an increase in disability had occurred, if application is received within one year from such date. See also 38 C.F.R. § 3.400(o)(2) (to the same effect). The applicable statutory and regulatory provisions require that the Board examine all the evidence of record to determine the "earliest date of which," within the year prior to the claim, the increase in disability was ascertainable. 38 U.S.C.A. § 5110(b)(2) (West 1991); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.400(o)(2), 3.155(a) (1999); Quarles v. Derwinski, 3 Vet. App. 129 (1992); Servello v. Derwinski, 3 Vet. App. 196 (1992). 38 C.F.R. § 3.155 (2000) provides the following: (a) Any communication or action, indicating an intent to apply for one or more benefits under the laws administered by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), from a claimant, his or her duly authorized representative, a Member of Congress, or some person acting as next friend of a claimant who is not sui juris may be considered an informal claim. Such informal claim must identify the benefit sought. Upon receipt of an informal claim, if a formal claim has not been filed, an application form will be forwarded to the claimant for execution. If received within 1 year from the date it was sent to the claimant, it will be considered filed as of the date of receipt of the informal claim. (b) A communication received from a service organization, an attorney, or agent may not be accepted as an informal claim if a power of attorney was not executed at the time the communication was written. (c) When a claim has been filed which meets the requirements of § 3.151 or § 3.152, an informal request for increase or reopening will be accepted as a claim. Under the provisions of 38 C.F.R. § 3.157 (2000), the effective date of pension or compensation benefits, if otherwise in order, will be the date of receipt of a claim or the date when entitlement arose, whichever is the later. A report of examination or hospitalization which meets the requirements of this section will be accepted as an informal claim for benefits under an existing law or for benefits under a liberalizing law or VA issue, if the report relates to a disability which may establish entitlement. (38 C.F.R. § 3.155). Once a formal claim for pension or compensation has been allowed or a formal claim for compensation disallowed for the reason that the service-connected disability is not compensable in degree, receipt of one of the following will be accepted as an informal claim for increased benefits or an informal claim to reopen. 38 C.F.R. § 3.157(b). (1) The date of outpatient or hospital examination or date of admission to a VA or uniformed services hospital will be accepted as the date of receipt of a claim. The provisions of this paragraph apply only when such reports relate to examination or treatment of a disability for which service- connection has previously been established or when a claim specifying the benefit sought is received within one year from the date of such examination, treatment or hospital admission. 38 C.F.R. § 3.157(b)(1). (2) The date of receipt of evidence from a private physician or lay person will be accepted when the evidence furnished by or in behalf of the claimant is within the competence of the physician or lay person and shows the reasonable probability of entitlement to benefits. 38 C.F.R. § 3.157(b)(2). The record shows that following establishment of service connection for the veteran's psychiatric disability and the RO's assignment of a 10 percent rating in August 1990, although the veteran filed a notice of disagreement with this decision in November 1990 and the RO subsequently issued a statement of the case in December 1990, the veteran did not thereafter file a timely substantive appeal. Consequently, the August 1990 decision with respect to the assignment of a 10 percent evaluation became final and was not subject to revision on the same factual basis. 38 U.S.C.A. § 7105 (West 1991); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.104(a), 20.200, 20.302, 20.303 (2000). Clinical entries dated in July 1992 noted that the veteran had a brighter affect, good eye contact, and was verbally spontaneous. Improvement continued to be noted in August 1992, however, mood was still noted to be labile, and at the end of this month, the veteran reported frequent headaches, social withdrawal and fatigue. The veteran was afforded a VA psychiatric examination in October 1992. During the examination, the veteran discussed his service in Vietnam, and reported seeing body parts and mutilations, having a friend die in his arms, observing people in his own platoon shoot at each other, placing body parts into bags, people yelling and screaming after they had been shot, and knowing that he could do nothing to help them. He reported a history of having intense anger and self- medication with alcohol. He reported difficulty in being in crowds or groups and liked to be alone. He reported that he had nightmares in which he dreamt about being in Vietnam. He awoke frightened, confused, hypervigilant, and had palpitations. He reported that he had flashbacks that occurred more than the nightmares on a daily basis, which were caused by sounds like helicopters or songs. He denied having hallucinations. Mental status examination revealed that the veteran was not responding to any internal stimuli. He did report having feelings of helplessness and hopelessness. He was alert and oriented. His mood was tearful and his affect was depressed. The diagnosis was PTSD. VA outpatient treatment records dated from October 1992 to April 1993 indicate that in October 1992, the veteran agreed that he needed therapeutic intervention in order to better express his combat readjustment problems, such as sleep and daytime intrusions with recollections of combat, inability to sleep, difficulty with relationships, anxiety, and recurring depression. In November 1992, it was noted that the veteran had been assessed to be experiencing numerous symptoms of PTSD. In December 1992, it was noted that the veteran had gained from his participation in a PTSD program over the previous two months, but still needed to improve on certain issues. The veteran perfected an appeal as to the April 1993 decision regarding certain issues including the denial of entitlement to an increased rating for PTSD and an earlier effective date for a 30 percent evaluation for PTSD, and following the Board's consideration of this appeal in October 1995, these issues were remanded for further evidentiary development. VA outpatient records for the period of June 1993 to November 1995 reflect that in June 1993, the veteran reported good relief of depression with medication and he was observed to be cheerful, energetic, and to verbalize spontaneously. The assessment was major depression /PTSD, and he was continued on Wellbutrin. The following month, he continued to report relief from depression and insomnia with current medications. In September 1993, the veteran expressed mixed feelings about his impending divorce, and he noted that he had not been able to support himself from his occupation as an electrician. In October 1993, he reported being in fair condition and he was continued on his medications. The assessment was PTSD/major depression. Approximately two weeks later, it was noted that the veteran had been making Indian handicrafts and participating in hunting and festivals. In early November 1993, it was noted that the veteran reported improvement in his depression but not with sleep, and the veteran was observed to be active, energetic and euthymic. Later in the month, it was noted that the veteran was dealing with his recent divorce through hobby crafts and outdoor activities. In December 1993, the veteran still reported middle stage insomnia and occasional nightmares. He denied depression and affect was euthymic. In February 1994, the veteran was found to be in good spirits, and was joined by a new girlfriend who accompanied the veteran for this appointment. It was also noted that the veteran had been cutting wood and that business was better. Later in February, his depression was noted to be in remission, and this was also noted in April 1994. In April, it was also noted that the veteran had reviewed several electrical contracts and was pleased to have a friend working with him. He was also enjoying outdoor activities. In May 1994, it was noted that the veteran continued to adjust to his divorce situation, and that he had a girlfriend. Business also continued to improve and the examiner observed no evidence of anxiety or depression and only occasional nightmares. In June 1994, there continued to be no evidence of depression and the veteran's sleep was reportedly better. The veteran also indicated that he was busy with electrical contracts and had plenty of work in this regard. In August 1994, he continued to be busy gathering electrical contracts, and in November 1994, he did not report any PTSD symptoms. In April 1995, the veteran expressed grief over the death of a close associate but there was otherwise no evidence of depression and he was not found to exhibit any PTSD symptoms. In July 1995, while the veteran reported a slow down in his electrical contracts, leisure activities were reportedly maintained, including fishing and camping. Social life was noted to be restricted to outdoor activities such as fishing and hunting with friends. In August 1995, he again reported limited electrical contracts, and the veteran was given some ideas on marketing through church and service clubs. In October 1995, he reported participating in a musician exposition of people of Indian ancestry. When he was seen in November 1995, he reported that his status was stable and he denied sleeping problems. He had no depression or intrusive thoughts. His affect was appropriate. He was taking Wellbutrin. He was hopeful of getting an electrical contract. There are no additional VA treatment records during the period of November 1995 to June 1996. On VA psychiatric examination in June 1996, the veteran reported that after service he worked as an electrician's helper for a period of time, and when eligible became licensed as a master electrician. He stated that he worked for a number of companies through the auspices of his brother-in-law. He also stated that he was too shy, bashful and inhibited to seek employment on his own, but that his brother-in-law was helpful in that respect. He indicated that without the help of his brother-in-law he would not have been able to gain adequate employment in spite of his capabilities. He stated, however, that in 1989 when he ruptured a disc in his back that he became virtually unemployable because of liability considerations on the part of the employers. Following that time he attempted to continue employment on a self-employed basis, but stated that again because of his fearfulness and distrust of others, that he fared poorly, and estimated that at no time did he earn more than $15,000 a year. He stated that he was currently living on a farm, through the generosity of a friend who had allowed him to remodel a chicken coup for his habitation. The veteran stated that he still had recurring nightmares of the traumatic experiences he endured while in Vietnam, and that during the waking hours, sounds and smells, such as the sound of a helicopter, and smells that were similar to rotting flesh and other smells that he experienced in Vietnam, caused him to reflect back to Vietnam. This would also and interfered with his attention and concentration, and therefore the veteran's work activities. He stated that because of his frequent intrusive thoughts about Vietnam and his efforts to relieve that concern by verbalization alienated his spouse. His spouse eventually tired of his inability to extricate himself from reliving the past and this reportedly brought about the end of his marriage. He stated that he had no trust in others, that he was suspicious, that he was easily startled by persons from behind or loud sounds, and that he frequently had suicidal thoughts, but had taken no actions to act on them. He indicated that he was disillusioned regarding his current state and that the future looked grim to him. He stated that because of his isolated asocial behavior he was not involved in social activities in the community. He indicated that the kids in the neighborhood had expressed fear of him. Mental status examination showed that the veteran was soft spoken, mild mannered, withdrawn and radiated an attitude of fearful expectation of nonacceptance, and possible harm both verbally and physically at the hands of others. There was no evidence of psychotic process with such manifestations as disturbances of association of thought or of mood, sensory misperceptions and delusions. The diagnosis was PTSD. The examiner noted the following symptomatology: nightmares, flashbacks, increased startle reactions, suicidal ideation, impaired attention and concentration, and social withdrawal. It was noted that the veteran had deteriorating occupational and social functioning. His global assessment of functioning (GAF) score was 40. By a rating decision in June 1996, the 30 percent rating for PTSD was continued and an effective date earlier than July 31, 1992 for a 30 percent evaluation for PTSD was denied. In December 1996, the Board again remanded the issues of entitlement to an increased evaluation for PTSD and earlier effective date for a 30 percent evaluation for the RO's consideration of the "new" criteria applicable to neuropsychiatric disabilities, effective November 7, 1996. A rating in excess of 30 percent for PTSD was again denied by a supplemental statement of the case issued in November 1998, and another November 1998 rating decision denied a claim for a total disability rating based on individual unemployability due to service-connected disability. The denial of the claim for a total disability rating based on individual unemployability was also developed for appellate consideration, and a July 1999 Board decision addressed this issue in addition to the already pending issues of entitlement to an increased rating and an earlier effective date. The July 1999 Board decision determined that the veteran's PTSD warranted a 70 percent evaluation, and thereby further entitled the veteran to a 100 percent evaluation pursuant to the provisions of former 38 C.F.R. § 4.16(c) (1996). The Board further found that June 3, 1992 VA treatment records demonstrated symptoms warranting entitlement to an increased evaluation for the veteran's PTSD. Thus, the Board determined that the veteran was entitled to an effective date of June 3, 1992 for a 30 percent evaluation for his PTSD. As was noted by the Board in July 1999, relevant VA medical evidence of record and dated within one year prior to the July 31, 1992 claim to reopen consisted of VA treatment records dated from June 1992. While there are private treatment records also dated during this period, they relate to treatment for disabilities other than PTSD and were received after July 31, 1992. Therefore, the private records could not serve to afford the veteran entitlement to an earlier effective date for an increased evaluation for PTSD. The veteran did not appeal the July 1999 Board decision which assigned an earlier effective date for a 30 percent evaluation for PTSD from July 31, 1992 to June 3, 1992. Therefore, the Board's decision in this regard is final, and the Board is now precluded from consideration of entitlement to a rating in excess of 30 percent earlier than the date of claim of July 31, 1992. A September 1999 rating decision subsequently assigned the 30 percent evaluation for PTSD, effective from June 3, 1992, and increased the evaluation for PTSD to 100 percent, effective from June 4, 1996. The veteran has appealed the effective date assigned for the 100 percent evaluation, asserting that it should be as early as March 1990. II. Rating Criteria and Analysis As the July 31, 1992 reopened claim for increased rating was prior to the revision of the diagnostic criteria applicable to PTSD in November 1996, and the relevant period for consideration is all prior to the current effective date for the 100 percent evaluation, only the "old" rating criteria for this disability will be considered. 38 C.F.R. § 4.132, Diagnostic Code 9411 (in effect prior to November 1996). Disability evaluations are determined by the application of a schedular rating which is based on average impairment of earning capacity. 38 U.S.C.A. § 1155; 38 C.F.R. Part 4. Separate diagnostic codes identify the various disabilities. Where there is a question as to which of two evaluations shall be applied, the higher evaluation will be assigned if the disability picture more nearly approximates the criteria required for that rating. Otherwise, the lower rating will be assigned. 38 C.F.R. § 4.7 (2000). The "old" rating criteria for neuropsychiatric disabilities permit a 10 percent evaluation if there is less of the criteria for the 30 percent evaluation, with emotional tension or other evidence of anxiety productive of mild social and industrial impairment. The "old" criteria provide a 30 percent evaluation if there is definite impairment in the ability to establish or maintain effective and wholesome relationships with people and where the initiative, flexibility, efficiency and reliability levels are so reduced by reason of psychoneurotic symptoms as to result in definite industrial impairment. 38 C.F.R. Part 4, Codes 9400 and 9411. In Hood v. Brown, 4 Vet. App. 301 (1993) the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (previously known as the United States Court of Veterans Appeals prior to March 1, 1999, hereafter "the Court") stated that the term "definite" in 38 C.F.R. § 4.132 was "qualitative" in character, whereas the other terms were "quantitative" in character, and invited the Board to "construe" the term "definite" in a manner which quantifies the degree of impairment for purposes of meeting the statutory requirement that the Board articulate its "reasons or bases" for its decision. 38 U.S.C.A. § 7104(d)(1) (West 1991). In a precedent opinion, dated November 9, 1993, the General Counsel of the VA concluded that the term "definite" is to be construed as "distinct, unambiguous, and moderately large in degree." It represents a degree of social and industrial inadaptability, which is "more than moderate but less than rather large." O.G.C. Prec. 9-93 (Nov. 9, 1993). The Board is bound by this interpretation of the term "definite." 38 U.S.C.A. § 7104(c). Under the "old" criteria, a 50 percent evaluation is warranted if the ability to establish or maintain effective or favorable relationships with people is considerably impaired and where the reliability, flexibility, and efficiency levels are so reduced by reason of psychoneurotic symptoms as to result in considerable industrial impairment. A 70 percent evaluation is warranted where the ability to establish or maintain effective or favorable relationships with people is severely impaired, and where psychoneurotic symptoms are of such severity and persistence that there is severe impairment in the ability to obtain or retain employment. A 100 percent evaluation is to be granted when the attitudes of all contacts except the most intimate are so adversely affected as to result in virtual isolation in the community; when there are totally incapacitating psychoneurotic symptoms bordering on gross repudiation of reality with disturbed thought or behavioral processes associated with almost all daily activities resulting in profound retreat from mature behavior; or when the veteran is demonstrably unable to obtain or retain employment. 38 C.F.R. Part 4, Codes 9400 and 9411. Hence, the older rating criteria set forth three independent bases for granting a l00 percent evaluation, pursuant to Diagnostic Code 9411. See Johnson v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 95 (1994). It should also be noted that 38 C.F.R. § 4.16 (2000) previously provided in 38 C.F.R. § 4.16(c) (1996), that when the only compensable service-connected disability is a mental disorder assigned a 70 percent evaluation, and such mental disorder precludes the veteran from securing or following a substantially gainful employment, the disability shall be assigned a 100 percent schedular evaluation under the appropriate diagnostic code. 38 C.F.R. § 4.16(c) (1996). In applying the above criteria to the veteran's disability for purposes of determining entitlement to an earlier effective date for the assignment of an increased evaluation for PTSD, the Board finds that this issue is governed by 38 C.F.R. § 3.400(o)(1), which provides that except as provided in 38 C.F.R. § 3.400(o)(2) of this section and 38 C.F.R. § 3.401(b), the effective date of a claim for increased rating is the date of receipt of claim or date entitlement arose, whichever is later. Consequently, in the process of considering entitlement to an effective date earlier than June 4, 1996 for an evaluation in excess of 30 percent for PTSD, the Board must evaluate the level of the veteran's disability between July 31, 1992 and June 3, 1996. As was noted above, under the "old" criteria, a 70 percent evaluation is warranted where the ability to establish or maintain effective or favorable relationships with people is severely impaired, and where psychoneurotic symptoms are of such severity and persistence that there is severe impairment in the ability to obtain or retain employment, and in the event of such a finding, wheb PTSD is the veteran's only compensable service-connected disability, if such mental disorder precludes the veteran from securing or following a substantially gainful employment, the disability shall be assigned a 100 percent schedular evaluation under the appropriate diagnostic code. 38 C.F.R. § 4.16(c). In this regard, the Board's review of the medical evidence during this period demonstrates periodic exacerbation and remission such that it is difficult to determine precisely when the veteran's condition became totally or virtually totally disabling. More specifically, as far as the veteran's ability to maintain effective relationships is concerned, while the Board recognizes that the evidence demonstrates the veteran was participating in Indian festivals in October 1993, that he was found to be in good spirits, and was joined by a new girlfriend who accompanied the veteran for an appointment in February 1994, that he continued to report having a girlfriend in May 1994, and that his social life included fishing and hunting with friends in July 1995, in 1992, the veteran expressed concern over his difficulty with relationships, and from late 1993 to early 1994, the veteran was involved in a lengthy divorce proceeding. In addition, at the time of VA examination in October 1992, the veteran reported feelings of helplessness and hopelessness with mood indicated as tearful and affect, depressed, and VA outpatient records from that same month indicate that the veteran reported that he needed therapeutic intervention in order to better express his combat readjustment problems, such as sleep and daytime intrusions with recollections of combat, inability to sleep, difficulty with relationships, anxiety, and recurring depression. Moreover, VA examination later in July 1996 noted numerous symptoms of nightmares, flashbacks, increased startle reactions, suicidal ideation, impaired attention and concentration, and social withdrawal. At this time, the examiner also indicated that the veteran had deteriorating occupational and social functioning. Clearly, while the findings and symptoms from July 31, 1992 to June 3, 1996 may not be reflective of total social and industrial impairment the Board finds that giving the veteran the benefit of the doubt, since symptoms during this period were consistent with severe impairment, the Board finds that the veteran's symptoms were reflective of a severe inability to establish or maintain effective or favorable relationships with people and psychoneurotic symptoms of such severity and persistence that there was severe impairment in the ability to obtain or retain employment. Thus, as a 70 percent evaluation for this period is warranted under the "old" criteria, 38 C.F.R. § 4.16(c) provides that a 100 percent evaluation is warranted from July 31, 1992. As the Board has found that the maximum rating is appropriate for the entire time period subject to appellate review, the later date and claim date are one and the same, and the effective date of July 31, 1992 will be the effective date for the increased evaluation of 100 percent. 38 C.F.R. § 3.400(o)(1). As for the possibility of entitlement to an even earlier effective date based on an earlier informal claim, the Board would again point out that in view of the July 1999 Board decision's specific finding of June 3, 1992 as the effective date for a 30 percent evaluation for PTSD, and the fact that this decision was not appealed, the Board finds that it is precluded from addressing the issue of entitlement to an even earlier effective date for a 100 percent evaluation. The Board again notes the representative's contentions that the Board should find the veteran entitled to a March 1990 effective date based on the premise that the applicable statute, 38 U.S.C.A. § 5110(a), permits the assignment of an effective date in accordance with the facts found and that the facts support the effective date of March 1990. However, as alluded to earlier, the August 1990 decision that adjudicated that March 1990 claim became final and can not therefore be reopened except on the basis of CUE or error pursuant to cases such as Hayre v. West, 188 Vet. App. 1327 (Fed.Cir. 1999), and the Board finds that the authorities cited by the veteran's representative do not permit the Board to go around the finality of the August 1990 decision in order to assign an earlier effective date. In addition, as was also noted previously, entitlement to staged ratings under Fenderson v. West, supra, has no application in the instant claim, and in any event, the Board has considered entitlement to a rating in excess of the rating assigned for the only pertinent time period for which the Board currently has jurisdiction. Finally, while the Board also notes that the veteran's attorney expressed the view that the VCAA requires that the Board remand this matter for an examiner to express an opinion as to the level of disability demonstrated by the medical evidence during the period of July 31, 1991 to June 3, 1996, the Board finds that the evidence of record for this period contains numerous and detailed findings which enable the Board to make a decision on the claim. Consequently, the Board does not find that remand for an additional opinion is necessary. 38 U.S.C.A. § 5103(A)(d)(1). Moreover, any "current" opinion about the veteran's condition during a period in the past would be of limited value, as the contemporaneous evidence of the veteran's symptoms would be of far greater value than a recent medical opinion interpreting those symptoms. Burns v. HHS, 3 F.3d 415, 417 (Fed. Cir. 1993); United States v. Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364, 396, 68 S. Ct. 525 (1947). ORDER Entitlement to an effective date of July 31, 1992 for an evaluation of 100 percent for service-connected PTSD is granted. John E. Ormond, Jr. Member, Board of Veterans' Appeals