Citation Nr: 1306741 Decision Date: 02/27/13 Archive Date: 03/01/13 DOCKET NO. 09-36 996 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Montgomery, Alabama THE ISSUE Entitlement to effective date earlier than August 24, 2004, for a grant of service connection for depressive disorder. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: Robert V. Chisholm, Attorney-at-Law WITNESS AT HEARING ON APPEAL The Veteran ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD J. N. Moats, Counsel INTRODUCTION The Veteran had active service from May 1962 to July 1965. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a July 2008 rating decision issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Montgomery, Alabama. A Board video conference hearing was held at the RO in August 2011 before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge and a copy of the hearing transcript has been added to the record. In a November 2011 decision, the Board denied the issue on appeal as well as the claim of whether there was clear and unmistakable error (CUE) in a September 1984 rating decision which denied claims of service connection for a nervous condition and for drug addiction. The Veteran appealed this decision to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court). The Veteran and the Office of General Counsel (hereinafter "the parties") filed a Joint Motion for Partial Remand in July 2012. The Veteran did not contest the part of the Board's decision that found no CUE in the September 1984 rating decision, but moved to have the Board's decision concerning the matter of entitlement to an earlier effective date vacated and remanded for further consideration. In a July 2012 Order, the Court granted the parties' motion. The case is now before the Board for further consideration in accordance with the Joint Motion. Specifically, given that additional service department records were associated with the claims file after the prior September 1984 rating decision, the Joint Motion directed the Board to consider whether an earlier effective date was available pursuant to 38 C.F.R. § 3.156(c). In January 2013, the Veteran submitted additional evidence along with a waiver of RO consideration of this evidence. 38 C.F.R. § 20.1304. The Board also observes that additional evidence, consisting of VA treatment records and VA examination reports, was also associated with the claims file after the most recent RO consideration of the issue on appeal in a September 2009 statement of the case. Nevertheless, as this evidence is not pertinent to the claim on appeal, waiver of RO consideration of this evidence is not necessary. 38 C.F.R. § 20.1304(c). Moreover, a review of the Virtual VA claims processing system does not reveal any additional evidence pertinent to the issue on appeal. As noted in the Board's prior November 2011 decision, the issue of the Veteran's continuing entitlement to non-service-connected disability pension benefits had been raised by the record but had not been adjudicated by the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ). In a deferred rating decision dated in August 2009 and included in the claims file, RO personnel determined that this issue would be referred to VA's Pension Management Center. It is still not clear whether this referral has occurred. Therefore, the Board does not have jurisdiction over this claim and it is again referred to the AOJ for appropriate action. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The Veteran filed a claim for nerves and drug addition on March 1, 1984, which was denied in a September 1984 rating decision; the Veteran did not initiate an appeal from this determination. 2. The Veteran filed a claim to reopen on August 24, 2004; and in a November 2007 rating decision, the RO granted service connection for depressive disorder and assigned an August 24, 2004 effective date. 3. Evidence considered in the November 2007 rating decision included newly received service department records that were in existence at the time of the prior RO decision and were, in part, the basis for the grant of service connection. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for an effective date of March 1, 1984, but no earlier, for a grant of service connection for depressive disorder, have been met. 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 5101, 5103, 5103A, 5107, 5110 (West 2002 & Supp. 2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.151, 3.155, 3.156(c), 3.159, 3.400 (2012). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION Duties to Notify and Assist Before addressing the merits of the claims, the Board is required to address the duty to notify and duty to assist imposed by 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 5103, 5103(A) and 38 C.F.R. § 3.159. VA has a duty to notify a claimant and his representative, if any, of the information and evidence needed to substantiate a claim. Although the RO sent notice to the Veteran in April 2008, the Courts have held that as in the instant case, once service connection is granted, the claim is substantiated, and additional notice is not required following substantiation of a claim, since the purpose of notice has been met. Hartman v. Nicholson, 483 F.3d 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2007); Dunlap v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 112 (2007). In turn, no further notice is required. In this case, the RO also provided assistance to the Veteran as to the claim for service connection for depressive disorder, as required by 38 U.S.C.A. § 5103A and 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(c). The Veteran and his representative have not made the RO or the Board aware of any additional evidence that needs to be obtained in order to fairly decide this appeal. In fact, the effective date for the grant of service connection must be made based on evidence already of record, so further development of the evidence is precluded. In addition, the Board finds that it is the law, and not the evidence that is dispositive in this case. There appears to be no dispute as to the essential facts which govern assignment of the effective date of the award of service connection. In such situations, the VA General Counsel has held that VA is not required to provide notice of the information and evidence necessary to substantiate a claim, where further development of facts cannot change the outcome of the claim. VAOPGCPREC 5-2004. The Court has also held that where the law, and not the development of the facts are dispositive in a matter, the VCAA can have no effect on the appeal. Manning v. Principi, 16 Vet. App. 534 (2002). For the reasons set forth above, and given the facts of this case, the Board finds that VA has fulfilled its VCAA notification duties to the Veteran to the extent necessary. A remand for additional notification or development would only result in unnecessarily delaying this matter with no benefit flowing to the Veteran. See Sabonis v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 426, 430 (1994). Laws and Regulations A specific claim in the form prescribed by VA must be filed in order for benefits to be paid or furnished to any individual under laws administered by VA. 38 U.S.C.A. § 5101(a); 38 C.F.R. § 3.151(a). Any communication or action, indicating an intent to apply for one or more benefits under laws administered by 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 an informal claim must identify the benefit sought. 38 C.F.R. § 3.155(a). "Claim" is defined broadly to include a formal or informal communication in writing requesting a determination of entitlement or evidencing a belief in entitlement to a benefit. 38 C.F.R. § 3.1(p); Brannon v. West, 12 Vet. App. 32, 34-5 (1998); Servello v. Derwinski, 3 Vet.App. 196, 199 (1992). To determine when a claim was received, the Board must review all communication in the claims file that may be construed as an application for a claim. See Quarles v. Derwinski, 3 Vet. App. 129, 134 (1992). Generally, the effective date of an award based on an original claim, a claim reopened after final adjudication, or a claim for increased compensation, dependency and indemnity compensation, or pension, shall be fixed in accordance with the facts found, but shall not be earlier than the date of the receipt of an application. 38 U.S.C.A. § 5110(a); 38 C.F.R. § 3.400. Furthermore, the effective date based on the submission of new and material evidence received after a final disallowance is the date of receipt of a new claim or date entitlement arose, whichever is later. 38 C.F.R. § 3.400(q)(1)(ii). Under 38 C.F.R. § 3.156(c), as in effect in 2004, when the Veteran submitted the claim underlying this appeal, the regulation provided that where new and material evidence such as a supplemental report from a service department was received before or after a decision has become final, the former decision "will be reconsidered" by the adjudicating agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ). This included official service department records which presumably had been misplaced and now been located and forwarded to VA. 38 C.F.R. § 3.156(c) (2004). The provisions of 38 C.F.R. § 3.156(c) were amended, effective October 6, 2006. See 71 Fed. Reg. 52,455 -52,457 (Sept. 6, 2006). The regulation now more clearly provides that if VA receives or associates with the claims file relevant official service department records that existed and had not been associated with the claims file when VA first decided the claim, VA will reconsider the claim, rather than reopen the claim, if the additional records include the Veteran's service records, or include records that could not have been obtained because the records were classified when VA decided the claim. The additional records do not support reconsideration of the prior decision if VA could not have obtained when it decided the claim because the records did not exist when VA decided the claim, or because the claimant failed to provide sufficient information for VA to identify and obtain the records. The preamble in the discussion of the proposed revision of 38 C.F.R. § 3.156(c) explained that the use of the words "new and material evidence" in the regulation was confusing. See 70 Fed. Reg. 35,388 -35,390 (June 20, 2005). The language inferred that VA was authorized to reopen a claim when service department records were received that were not available before. The revision clarifies that VA reconsiders, rather than reopens, the prior decision. The effective date assigned relates back to the date of the original claim, or the date entitlement arose, whichever is later. The effective date is not limited to the date of the claim to reopen. The change was also intended to broaden the description of service department records to include unit records, such as those received from the U.S. Army and Joint Services Records Research Center (JSRRC) (formerly, the U.S. Armed Services Center for Unit Records Research (CURR)) that pertain to military experiences claimed by a Veteran. It was noted that such evidence could be particularly valuable in connection to claims for benefits for PTSD. Id. Factual Background The Veteran essentially contends that his grant of service connection should be the date he originally filed a claim on March 1, 1984. The Board initially notes that the Veteran's original claim of service connection for depressive disorder with a history of polysubstance abuse (which he characterized as "nerves" and "drug addiction") was filed on a VA Form 21-526, "Veteran's Application for Compensation or Pension" which was signed by the Veteran, dated on February 27, 1984, and date-stamped as received by the RO in Los Angeles, California, on March 1, 1984. A review of this form shows that the mailing address provided by the Veteran was "[redacted]." It appears that the "[redacted]" in the mailing address was crossed out and "[redacted]" was written over it. Service treatment and personnel records associated with the record at that time were silent with respect to any psychiatric symptoms or diagnosis as well as drug dependence. A July 1964 certificate showed that after evaluation, there was no psychiatric diagnosis found. Moreover, a July 1965 service examination prior to discharge showed that the Veteran was evaluated as psychiatrically normal. In his contemporaneous medical history, the Veteran expressly denied frequent trouble sleeping, frequent or terrifying nightmares, depression or excessive worry, nervous trouble of any sort of any drug or narcotic habit. In support of his claim, he submitted a February 1979 to March 1979 VA hospital record that observed the Veteran participated in chemical testing while in service and underwent a follow-up evaluation. The psychiatric evaluation gave a diagnosis of drug dependence, opium derivatives with the predisposition for an antisocial personality disorder. Another May 1979 letter from the Department of Army thanked the Veteran for his participation in the Army LSD Follow-up Study. Another February 1984 letter from VA indicated that the Veteran had a psychiatric appointment scheduled in February 1984. However, there is no further record of any treatment. In response to the Veteran's claim, VA sent him a letter dated on March 15, 1984, in which he was asked to provide information concerning any recent treatment for his claimed disabilities and copies of any his service personnel records or service treatment records that were in his possession. This letter was mailed to the Veteran at [redacted], and was not returned as undeliverable by the postal service. On VA examination on April 26, 1984, it was noted that the Veteran had been under treatment for drug addiction "one or two years ago." The Veteran contended that he had been given drugs while on active service, he was not currently using drugs, and he had not used drugs in the past year. The VA examiner stated that the Veteran had no stigmata of drug use and no puncture marks on the extremities. This examiner also stated that the Veteran's treatment for drug addiction followed his separation from active service. The Veteran submitted a VA Form 21-4138 dated on May 1, 1984, in which he contended that he had been exposed to a variety of drugs, to include LSD, during active service. He also contended that this in-service exposure to drugs including LSD led to his current drug dependence and psychiatric problems. A review of this form shows that the Veteran listed his mailing address as "[redacted]." On VA psychiatric examination on June 8, 1984, no relevant complaints were noted. The Veteran listed his mailing address as "[redacted]" on the VA examination report form (VA Form 21-2545) which he completed as part of this examination. The VA examiner noted that, although the Veteran had never married, "he has been living with a woman intermittently for about five years and he has two children by her, and another child expected." The Veteran also reported that this woman "wants him to remain at home now." The Veteran stated that, while on active service, he was sent to Aberdeen Proving Grounds in Maryland on temporary duty for two months "where for this period of time he had undergone a drug testing program and later he learned it was LSD." He also stated that, approximately 5-6 months after completing this program, "in order to develop the feelings that he had previously experienced while in the testing stage in Maryland, he tried barbiturates, LSD, and other drugs. Heroin was the closes[t] to giving him the feeling that he experienced from LSD." Following his service separation, the Veteran reported that "he began to experience even more heavily on the use of drugs in order to obtain the feeling he had experienced in the Army." Mental status examination of the Veteran showed he was oriented with no delusions or hallucinations, and no ideas of reference "but he is quite self-conscious about himself - in his appearance - how he is clothed when going out into the public." The diagnoses were no mental conditions found and a history of drug addiction. As noted, in a rating decision dated on September 10, 1984, and issued to the Veteran on September 24, 1984, the RO denied a claim of service connection for depressive disorder (characterized as separate service connection claims for a nervous condition and for drug addiction). The RO determined that a review of the Veteran's service treatment records showed no complaints of or treatment for a nervous condition nor was this disability shown on the Veteran's VA examination. The RO also determined that no drug addiction was shown in the Veteran's service treatment records. This rating decision was mailed to the Veteran at [redacted], which was the mailing address he had provided previously to VA. It was not returned as undeliverable by the postal service. The Veteran did not initiate an appeal from this determination. The Veteran subsequently filed a VA Form 21-526 which was dated on August 10, 2004, and date-stamped as received by the RO on August 24, 2004. He sought to reopen his previously denied claim of service connection for depressive disorder (which he characterized as PTSD). In support of his claim, the Veteran also submitted additional service personnel records in his possession concerning his participation in a drug research program in 1963. In August 2004, Mobile Mental Health Clinic indicated that the Veteran had last been admitted in October 1981, but his records had been destroyed. In September 2004, SSA notified VA that the Veteran was not in receipt of SSA disability benefits. In response to a request from VA for the Veteran's private treatment records for "mental illness" in 1977-78 and in 1981-82, Mobile Mental Health in Mobile, Alabama, notified the RO October 2004 that the Veteran's chart had been destroyed and was no longer available. The RO also attempted to obtain treatment records from G.K. Fountain Correctional Center from 1987 to 1989, but no response was received. In October 2004, the Veteran's service personnel records were associated with the claims file from the National Personnel Records Center (NPRC). VA outpatient treatment records dated in 2004 and 2005 showed continuing treatment for a variety of psychiatric disabilities, to include depressive disorder. The Veteran reported a long history of depression and anxiety on and off. VA psychiatric examination completed on November 22, 2005, contained diagnoses of depressive disorder, not otherwise specified, and polysubstance abuse in complete remission. The VA examiner opined that it was as likely as not that the Veteran's "continued substance abuse started with his first exposure to illicit substances while part of the research program" during active service. She also opined that the Veteran's current depressive symptomatology "results from his long years of substance abuse." The examiner also observed that literature suggested that the chronic use of LSD and other drugs can cause cognitive changes, which might be part of the explanation of the Veteran's ongoing psychiatric symptoms as well. In a rating decision dated on January 20, 2006, and issued to the Veteran and his service representative on January 30, 2006, the RO denied the Veteran's claim of service connection for PTSD as there was no diagnosis based on a verified stressor, as well as denied the claim for service connection for drug addiction as it was due to willful misconduct. In statements on a VA Form 21-4138 dated on February 16, 2006, and date-stamped as received by the RO on March 7, 2006, the Veteran disagreed with the January 2006 rating decision. He specifically contended that his psychiatric problems (which he characterized as PTSD) were due to a drug addiction incurred after he was exposed to experimental drugs while on active service. The Veteran's sister reiterated this argument in a lay statement dated on May 23, 2006, and date-stamped as received by the RO on June 6, 2006. Importantly, in August 2007, the RO requested all evidence from the NPRC concerning any LSD drug research study that the Veteran participated in while in service. That same month, the NPRC sent additional documents concerning the Veteran's participation in a drug research program in 1963. Additional VA outpatient treatment records in 2006 and 2007 showed continuing treatment for a variety of psychiatric disabilities, to include depressive disorder. In a rating decision dated on November 19, 2007, and issued to the Veteran and his service representative on December 20, 2007, the RO granted the Veteran's claim of service connection for depressive disorder (characterized as depressive disorder with a history of polysubstance abuse in complete remission (also claimed as PTSD)), assigning a 50 percent rating effective August 24, 2004. The RO specifically acknowledged that evidence showed the Veteran's participation in a drug research program. The RO further noted that this was the appropriate effective date because this was the date that VA had received the Veteran's successfully reopened claims of service connection for a nervous condition and for drug addiction. The RO also noted that this action satisfied the issues of service connection for drug addiction and for PTSD. In statements on a VA Form 21-4138 dated on February 11, 2008, and date-stamped as received by the RO on February 23, 2008, the Veteran requested reconsideration of the effective date for the grant of service connection for depressive disorder. The Veteran contended that the in-service drug research program in which he participated had "forced me to use drugs and alcohol long after the program ended due to the chemicals in the drugs. My brain and body became addicted to substances that held me prisoner for 36 years and continue[] to play games on my mind mentally." He also contended that his post-service drug addiction had rendered him mentally incapable of appealing any adverse decisions on his claims for VA benefits. He requested an earlier effective date of September 10, 1984, the date of the rating decision which denied his original service connection claims. The RO properly interpreted this form as the Veteran's earlier effective date claim. As noted above, in the currently appealed rating decision dated on July 30, 2008, and issued to the Veteran and his service representative on July 31, 2008, the RO denied the Veteran's earlier effective date claim for the grant of service connection for depressive disorder. In statements on a VA Form 21-4138 dated on March 23, 2009, and date-stamped as received by the RO on March 31, 2009, the Veteran contended that he had never filed a claim for VA benefits in 1984. He also contended that "someone filed in my behalf at the Los Angeles, CA, VA center." The Veteran also stated, " I never lived at [redacted]. It was impossible for me to have received the denial" of his service connection claim that was issued in September 1984. He also disagreed with the denial of his earlier effective date claim. He stated further that, between early 1970 and the late 1990's, "I was a very sick young man" who was addicted to drugs, homeless, depressed, and unable to obtain and keep employment. The Veteran testified at his July 2011 Board hearing that he had never lived at the address where VA had mailed a copy of the September 1984 rating decision. See Board hearing transcript dated July 22, 2011, at pp. 4. He stated, " I think it was my son's mother's address. But it wasn't mine and how they got it there, I'm not sure." The Veteran also contended that he had been diagnosed as having a disability due to drug addiction shortly after his claim was denied in 1984. Id., at pp. 4-5. The Veteran reiterated on questioning from the Veterans Law Judge that he had never received a copy of the September 1984 rating decision because he was not living at the mailing address used by VA. Id., at pp. 6. He stated that he had been living at an address on Magnolia Street in Long Beach. He also stated that he had not filed any application for VA benefits between 1984 and when he filed to reopen his service connection claim for depressive disorder in approximately 2002-2003. Id., at pp. 7. He stated further that he had not filed for any VA benefits between 1984 and 2002-2003 because he thought VA "had just, you know, just denied me...which they had denied me but I didn't know anything officially about it." Id. In the November 2011 decision, the Board denied the Veteran's claim as there was a prior final rating decision issued in September 1984, and no evidence of a claim to reopen being filed until August 2004. However, this issued was returned to consider whether an earlier effective date is warranted under the provisions of 38 C.F.R. § 3.156(c). In a January 2013 statement, the Veteran's representative argued that the grant of service connection in the December 2007 rating decision was based upon the receipt of additional service records documenting the Veteran's participation in a drug research study. It was observed that these records were not before VA at the time of the September 1984 rating decision, and in turn, under the provisions of 38 C.F.R. § 3.156(c), and earlier effective date was warranted. The claims file also includes additional lay statements dated in December 2012 from the Veteran and his sister that essentially described the Veteran's psychiatric symptoms since his discharge from service. In support of his claim, the Veteran's representative also submitted a January 2013 private opinion, which in pertinent part, determined that the Veteran was suffering from depressive disorder back in 1984 and even before that date. Analysis Based on the evidence of record, the Board finds that an effective date of March 1, 1984 for the grant of service connection for depressive disorder is warranted. Typically, in a case that has been reopened, the effective date would be the date of receipt of the Veteran's claim to reopen. See 38 C.F.R. § 7105. However, in this case the facts are such that the new and material evidence to reopen the claim consists of additional service department records received after the previous decision issued in September 1984 has become final. 38 C.F.R. § 3.156(c). In such cases, the prior decision as to that issue are "reconsidered" based on all the evidence, thus negating the finality of the prior decision regarding that claim. In reconsidering the claim, the supplemental service records are relevant and probative to the basis of the prior final denial. In essence, the grant of service connection could be construed, at least in part, to have been based upon the receipt of the additional service records in October 2004 and August 2007. Again, the RO specifically acknowledged in the November 2007 rating decision that evidence showed that the Veteran participated in a drug research program while in service. With application of the revised provisions of 38 C.F.R. § 3.156(c)(3), which state that, where an award is made based all or in part on the additional service personnel records, as in this case, the grant of service connection based on those records is effective on the date entitlement arose or the date VA received the previously decided claim, whichever is later. In this case, the Veteran submitted the claim on March 1, 1984. However, VA psychiatric examination at that time showed no findings of a psychiatric disability. Nevertheless, while the records are not available, a statement indicated that the Veteran received mental health treatment as early as 1979. Further, follow up VA treatment records showed a diagnosis of depressive disorder as well as indicated that the Veteran had a long history of psychiatric symptoms, and the November 2005 VA examination linked the Veteran's depressive disorder to the drug research program he participated with in service. Moreover, lay evidence from the Veteran and his sister describe psychiatric symptoms beginning after the Veteran was discharged from service and the January 2013 private opinion opined that the Veteran's depressive disorder was present in 1984 and offered a detailed explanation for this finding. Hence, the March 1984 date of submission of the claim, is the date entitlement arose, which is the earliest date on which the grant of service connection for depressive disorder in this case may become effective. In sum, the grant of service connection for depressive disorder, based upon the Veteran's claim for such benefits must be made effective back to the date of receipt of the initial claim, March 1, 1984. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.400(b)(2); see also Lalonde v. West, 12 Vet. App. 377, 382 (1999) ("[T]he effective date of an award of service connection is not based on the date of the earliest medical evidence demonstrating a causal connection, but on the date that the application upon which service connection was eventually awarded was filed with VA."). Again, although the RO denied the Veteran's claim in the September 1984 rating decision, which was not appealed by the Veteran, as noted above, the provisions of 38 C.F.R. § 3.156(c) were amended during the course of the pendency of this appeal, effective October 6, 2006. See 71 Fed. Reg. 52,455 -52,457 (Sept. 6, 2006) (now codified at 38 C.F.R. § 3.156(c) (2012)). The Board recognizes that at times during the course of the appeal, the Veteran has asserted that he never received a copy of the September 1984 rating decision. However, in light of the Board's grant of an earlier effective date to the date of claim on which this decision was predicated, there is no need to further discuss whether he received a copy of this determination as there is no prejudice to the Veteran. The Board has also reviewed the evidence to determine whether there was any unadjudicated claim for service connection for depressive disorder, formal or informal, which was of record prior to March 1, 1984. However, the Veteran has not claimed nor does the evidence show that VA received any correspondence or communication that can be considered a claim for service connection prior to March 1, 1984. As a final matter, as discussed in the November 2011 decision, the Board again observes that this case can be distinguished from the challenged earlier effective date claim discussed in Rudd v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 296, 299 (2006). In Rudd, the Court held that an appellant cannot disturb the finality of an RO decision by filing a "freestanding" earlier effective date claim. The Court reasoned that to allow such claims would vitiate the rule of finality. Id. Although there are exceptions to the rule of finality and application of res judicata within the VA adjudication system, the Court held that a new and distinct claim for an earlier effective date is not one of the recognized statutory exceptions to finality. See Rudd, 20 Vet. App. at 300; see also DiCarlo v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 52, 56-57 (2006) (discussing the types of collateral attack authorized to challenge a final decision by the Secretary). Nevertheless, in this case, the Veteran's earlier effective date claim was intertwined with his claim that the RO committed clear and unmistakable error (CUE) in the September 1984 rating decision, which was decided in the prior November 2011 Board decision. See 38 U.S.C.A. § 5109A; 38 C.F.R. § 3.105(a). Because the Veteran was attempting to disturb the finality of the September 1984 rating decision by filing a CUE claim, his earlier effective date claim based on an allegation of CUE in the September 1984 rating decision is not a "freestanding" earlier effective date claim prohibited by Rudd. Thus, the Board finds that Rudd is inapplicable. See also 38 U.S.C.A. § 7105(c) (West 2002 & Supp. 2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.104, 20.302, 20.1103 (2012). In conclusion, when resolving all benefit of the doubt in favor of the Veteran, the evidence supports the assignment of an effective date of March 1, 1984, but no earlier, for the grant of service connection for depressive disorder. (ORDER ON NEXT PAGE) ORDER An effective date of March 1, 1984, but no earlier, is granted, subject to law and regulations governing the effective date of an award of monetary compensation; the appeal is granted to this extent only. ____________________________________________ MARJORIE A. AUER Veterans Law Judge, Board of Veterans' Appeals Department of Veterans Affairs