Citation Nr: 18141340 Decision Date: 10/10/18 Archive Date: 10/10/18 DOCKET NO. 18-30 235 DATE: October 10, 2018 ORDER Entitlement to an earlier effective date for the grant of service connection for schizophrenia, unspecified, prior to December 10, 2010, based on clear and unmistakable error (CUE), is dismissed. FINDING OF FACT The October 1969 and October 1970 rating decisions that addressed service connection for a nervous condition claimed as schizophrenia were subsumed by the October 1975 Board decision. CONCLUSION OF LAW The October 1969 and October 1970 rating decisions regarding service connection for a nervous condition claimed as schizophrenia are not subject to a claim of CUE as a matter of law. 38 U.S.C. § 7104 (b); Manning v. Principi, 16 Vet. App. 534, 540-541 (2002) (citing Donovan v. West, 158 F.3d 1377 (Fed. Cir. 1998) and Dittrich v. West, 163 F.3d 1349 (Fed. Cir. 1998)). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty from October 1960 to October 1962. Earlier Effective Date Based on CUE By way of background, the Veteran’s claim of entitlement to service connection for a nervous condition was initially granted in an October 1969 rating decision. In an October 1970 rating decision, the October 1969 rating decision was amended to find that the present psychosis, diagnosed as schizophrenia, is considered to be a maturation of anxiety reaction. In a January 1975 letter, VA proposed to sever service connection for schizophrenic reaction as there was no evidence of treatment of psychoneurosis in service. A March 1975 letter followed that gave the Veteran 60 days to submit evidence showing that that the grant of service connection was not in error. Subsequently, in a May 1975 rating decision, the RO severed service connection for a mental condition, finding that the October 1960 and October 1970 rating decisions that established service connection for schizophrenia was clearly and unmistakably erroneous, as there was no evidence of treatment of psychoneurosis in service. The Veteran appealed this decision and in an October 1975 Board decision, the Board denied restoration of service connection for schizophrenia, finding that it was “convinced that the evidence supporting severance of service connection is considered clear and convincing.” See October 1975 Board decision at page 4 After the Veteran filed a claim to reopen and upon receipt of new and material evidence, the Veteran’s claim for service connection for schizophrenia was granted effective December 13, 2010. In May 2016, the Veteran contends that he is entitled to an earlier effective date than December 13, 2010, for the grant of service connection for schizophrenia, alleging that the May 1975 rating decision that severed the Veteran’s claim for service connection for a schizophrenia was based on CUE. At the onset, the Board notes that when a determination of the RO is affirmed by the Board, the determination is subsumed by the final appellate decision. 38 C.F.R. § 20.1104 (2017). Once an RO decision is subsumed by a Board decision, the RO decision is no longer subject to collateral attack based on an assertion of clear and unmistakable error. See Brown v. West, 203 F.3d 1378, 1380-81 (Fed. Cir. 2000) ("[A] [CUE] challenge to an RO determination may not be raised before the RO . . . if the Board . . . has sustained the RO determination on the same issue."). Based on the aforementioned, the May 1975 decision was subsumed by the final October 1975 Board decision. 38 C.F.R. § 20.1104. Thus, because the October 1975 Board decision became final based on the evidence of record at the time, it is not subject to revision in the absence of CUE in the decision. To this point, the Board notes that the Veteran has not alleged CUE in the October 1975 Board decision. Thus, the Board finds that a valid CUE claim has not been reasonably raised and the claim must be dismissed. Fugo v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 40, 43-44 (1993) (holding that for a claim of CUE to be reasonably raised, there must be some degree of specificity as to what the alleged error is and, unless it is the kind of error that, if true, would be CUE on its face, persuasive reasons must be given as to why the result would have been manifestly different but for the alleged error); Crippen v. Brown, 9 Vet. App. 412, 420 (1996). The only recourse that remains for the Veteran is to file a motion to revise the October 1975 Board decision on the basis of CUE. See 38 U.S.C. § 7111; 38 C.F.R. § 20.1400 (2017). To date, the Veteran has not done so. Accordingly, the claim must be dismissed. YVETTE R. WHITE Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD D. Abdelbary, Associate Counsel