Citation Nr: 18141884 Decision Date: 10/11/18 Archive Date: 10/11/18 DOCKET NO. 17-07 418 DATE: October 11, 2018 ORDER Entitlement to an increased rating higher than 40 percent for right upper extremity peripheral neuropathy with carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS) is denied. Entitlement to an initial rating of 30 percent, but no higher, for left upper extremity peripheral neuropathy with CTS prior to October 13, 2017, is granted, subject to the law and regulations governing the award of monetary benefits. Entitlement to a rating higher than 30 percent for left upper extremity peripheral neuropathy with CTS from October 13, 2017, is denied. Entitlement to an initial rating higher than 20 percent for right lower extremity peripheral neuropathy prior to January 23, 2017, is denied. Entitlement to a rating of 40 percent, but no higher, for right lower extremity peripheral neuropathy from January 23, 2017, is granted, subject to the law and regulations governing the award of monetary benefits. Entitlement to an initial rating higher than 20 percent for left lower extremity peripheral neuropathy prior to January 23, 2017, is denied. Entitlement to a rating of 40 percent, but no higher, for left lower extremity peripheral neuropathy from January 23, 2017, is granted, subject to the law and regulations governing the award of monetary benefits. Entitlement to an effective date earlier than October 2, 2015, for a 40 percent rating for right upper extremity peripheral neuropathy with CTS is denied. Entitlement to an effective date earlier than October 2, 2015, for the award of service connection for left upper extremity peripheral neuropathy with CTS is denied. Entitlement to an effective date earlier than October 2, 2015, for the award of service connection for right lower extremity peripheral neuropathy is denied. Entitlement to an effective date earlier than October 2, 2015, for the award of service connection for left lower extremity peripheral neuropathy is denied. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The evidence reflects that Veteran’s peripheral neuropathy of the right upper extremity more nearly approximates moderate severity, but the preponderance of the evidence reflects that it does not more nearly approximate severe severity. 2. For the entirety of the appeal period, the evidence reflects that the Veteran’s peripheral neuropathy of the left upper extremity more nearly approximates moderate severity, but the preponderance of the evidence reflects that it does not more nearly approximate severe severity 3. Prior to January 23, 2017, the evidence reflects that the Veteran’s peripheral neuropathy of the bilateral lower extremities more nearly approximates moderate severity, but the preponderance of the evidence reflects that it does not more nearly approximate moderately severe severity. 4. From January 23, 2017, the evidence reflects that Veteran’s peripheral neuropathy of the bilateral lower extremities more nearly approximates moderately severe severity, but the preponderance of the evidence reflects that it does not more nearly approximate severe severity. 5. In May 2007, the RO denied service connection for CTS of the right upper extremity secondary to service-connected contracture of the right little finger (also claimed as right-hand finger deteriorating condition). The Veteran did not appeal the decision. 6. On October 2, 2015, the Veteran filed an application for service connection for peripheral neuropathy of the upper and lower extremities due to exposure to Agent Orange. 7. On April 7, 2016, the RO recharacterized the Veteran’s service-connected right little finger disability as peripheral neuropathy of the right upper extremity with CTS, and granted an increased rating of 40 percent. In the same decision, the RO also awarded service connection for peripheral neuropathy of the left upper extremity, right lower extremity, and left lower extremity. All the awards were effective from the October 2, 2015, date of claim. 8. The claims file includes no statement or communication from the Veteran, or other document, received by VA prior to October 2, 2015, that constitutes a claim for an increased rating for peripheral neuropathy of the right upper extremity; and service connection for peripheral neuropathy of the let upper extremity, right lower extremity, and left lower extremity. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The criteria for an increased rating higher than of 40 percent for peripheral neuropathy of the right upper extremity have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1155, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.159, 3.321, 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, 4.7, 4.4.124a, DC 8513. 2. Prior to October 13, 2017, the criteria for an initial rating of 30 percent, but no higher, for peripheral neuropathy of the left upper extremity have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1155, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.159, 3.321, 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, 4.7, 4.4.124a, DC 8513. 3. From October 13, 2017, the criteria for a rating higher than 30 percent for peripheral neuropathy of the left upper extremity have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1155, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.159, 3.321, 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, 4.7, 4.4.124a, DC 8513. 4. Prior to January 23, 2017, the criteria for an initial rating higher than 20 percent for peripheral neuropathy of the bilateral lower extremities have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1155, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.159, 3.321, 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, 4.7, 4.4.124a, DC 8520. 5. From January 23, 2017, the criteria for a rating of 40 percent, but no higher, for peripheral neuropathy of the bilateral lower extremities have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1155, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.159, 3.321, 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, 4.7, 4.4.124a, DC 8520. 6. The criteria for an effective date earlier than October 2, 2015, for an increased rating of 40 percent for peripheral neuropathy of the right upper extremity have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 5103, 5103A, 5107(b), 5110; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.400. 7. The criteria for an effective date earlier than October 2, 2015, for service connection for peripheral neuropathy of the left upper extremity have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 5103, 5103A, 5107(b), 5110; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.400. 8. The criteria for an effective date earlier than October 2, 2015, for service connection for peripheral neuropathy of the right lower extremity have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 5103, 5103A, 5107(b), 5110; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.400. 9. The criteria for an effective date earlier than October 2, 2015, for service connection for peripheral neuropathy of the left lower extremity have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 5103, 5103A, 5107(b), 5110; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.400. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The Veteran served on active duty from November 1965 to November 1968. These matters came to the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from an April 2016 rating decision from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Officer (RO), which increased a rating for peripheral neuropathy of the right upper extremity to 40 percent; and awarded service connection for peripheral neuropathy of the left upper extremity, rated as 20 percent disabling; and separate ratings for bilateral lower extremity, each rated as 20 percent disabling. All ratings are effective October 2, 2015. The Veteran timely appealed the effective dates and the ratings of the awards. In October 2017, the RO awarded a rating of 30 percent for peripheral neuropathy of the left upper extremity, effective October 13, 2017. The Veteran did not indicate satisfaction with the grant of this rating, and this issue therefore remains on appeal as part of the appeal of the initial rating assigned in connection with the grant of service connection. See AB v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 35, 39 (1993) (a veteran is presumed to be seeking the maximum possible rating unless he indicates otherwise). Increased Rating Disability ratings are determined by comparing a Veteran’s symptoms with criteria set forth in VA’s Schedule for Rating Disabilities, which are based on average impairment in earning capacity. 38 U.S.C. § 1155 (2012); 38 C.F.R. Part 4 (2017). When a question arises as to which of two ratings applies under a particular diagnostic code, the higher of the two evaluations is assigned if the disability more closely approximates the criteria for the higher rating. Otherwise, the lower rating will be assigned. 38 C.F.R. § 4.7. After consideration of the evidence, any reasonable doubt remaining is resolved in favor of the Veteran. 38 C.F.R. § 4.3. The Veteran’s entire history is reviewed when making disability evaluations. See generally 38 C.F.R. § 4.1; Schafrath v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 589 (1991). Where the question for consideration is the propriety of the initial evaluation assigned, evaluation of the medical evidence since the grant of service connection and consideration of the appropriateness of a “staged rating” (assignment of different ratings for distinct periods of time, based on the facts found) is required. See Fenderson v. West, 12 Vet. App. 119, 126 (1999). In addition, when an increase in the disability rating is at issue, it is the present level of disability that is of primary concern. See Francisco v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 55, 58 (1994). However, staged ratings are also appropriate in any increased rating claim in which distinct time periods with different ratable symptoms can be identified. Hart v. Mansfield, 21 Vet. App. 505 (2007). The analysis in this decision is, therefore, undertaken with consideration of the possibility that different ratings may be warranted for different time periods. 1. Entitlement to an increased rating higher than 40 percent for right upper extremity peripheral neuropathy with carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS) The Veteran contends that his service-connected peripheral neuropathy of the right upper extremity warrants an increased rating higher than 40 percent. The Board notes that the disability is currently rated under 38 C.F.R. § 4.124a, DC 5227-8516. Hyphenated diagnostic codes are used when a rating under one diagnostic code requires use of an additional diagnostic code to identify the basis for the evaluation assigned. The additional code is shown after a hyphen. As an initial matter, while the Board notes that the rating codesheet reflects that this disability was rated under DC 8516, the April 2016 rating decision refers to DC 8513 and the RO evaluated the disability under this diagnostic code. Therefore, the Board finds that DC 8513 is the appropriate DC under which to evaluate this disability, and not DC 8516. Under DC 8513, mild incomplete paralysis is rated as 20 percent disabling for either the major or minor extremity; moderate incomplete paralysis is rated as 40 percent disabling for the major extremity and 30 percent for the minor extremity; and severe incomplete paralysis is rated as 70 percent disabling for the major extremity and 60 percent for the minor extremity. Complete paralysis of all radicular groups is rated 90 percent disabling for the major extremity and 80 percent disabling for the minor extremity. Neither the Rating Schedule nor the regulations provide definitions for descriptive words such as “mild,” “moderate,” “moderately severe,” and “severe.” Sellers v. Wilkie, No. 16-2993 (Vet. App. Aug. 23, 2018) (“DC 8520 does not define ‘mild,’ ‘moderate,’ ‘moderately severe,’ or ‘severe,’ or generally associate those terms with specific symptoms”). Rather than applying a mechanical formula, the Board must instead evaluate all of the evidence to the end that its decisions are “equitable and just.” 38 C.F.R. § 4.6. The term “incomplete paralysis,” with this and other peripheral nerve injuries, indicates a degree of lost or impaired function substantially less than the type picture for complete paralysis given with each nerve, whether due to varied level of the nerve lesion or to partial regeneration. When the involvement is wholly sensory, the rating is for the mild, or at most, the moderate degree. The ratings for the peripheral nerves are for unilateral involvement; when bilateral, the ratings combine with application of the bilateral factor. See 38 C.F.R. § 4.124a, note at “Diseases of the Peripheral Nerves.” VA’s Adjudication Manual, which is not binding on the Board but provides useful guidance, gives the following guidance on cases where a peripheral nerve disability is only manifested by sensory impairment: “To make a choice between mild and moderate, consider the evidence of record and the following guidelines: The mild level of evaluation would be more reasonably assigned when sensory symptoms are recurrent but not continuous, assigned a lower medical grade reflecting less impairment, and/or affecting a smaller area in the nerve distribution. Reserve the moderate level of evaluation for the most significant and disabling cases of sensory-only involvement. These are cases where the sensory symptoms are continuously assigned a higher medical grade reflecting greater impairment and/or affecting a larger area in the nerve distribution.” VA Adjudication Procedures Manual, III.iv.4.G.4.b (October 25, 2016). Here, the Veteran is right-hand dominant, and therefore his peripheral neuropathy of the right upper extremity is rated as a major extremity. VA treatment records in June 2015 reflect that the Veteran’s right upper extremity had adequate tone; and no rigidity, paralysis, wasting, and fasciculations. He had normal strength testing and normal sensory examination. In February 2016, the Veteran reported that he experienced numbness in his fingers, tingling or prickling in his hands, and that he was constantly dropping things such as keys and wallets. A March 2016 VA examination report reflects that the Veteran was right-hand dominant. His symptoms for his right upper extremity was no constant pain, no intermittent pain, moderate paresthesias, and moderate numbness. He had normal muscle strength, decreased sensation in the right hand and fingers, loss of vibratory sensation in the right hand, and no trophic changes. The examiner found that the Veteran had mild incomplete paralysis of the right median nerve and mild incomplete paralysis of the right ulnar nerve. An October 2017 VA examination report indicates daily numbness and paresthesias in the right upper extremity. The Veteran had no constant or intermittent pain, moderate paresthesia, and moderate numbness in the right upper extremity. There was normal strength testing, normal deep tendon reflexes, and normal position sense. He had decreased light touch and vibration sensations to the hand and fingers. The examiner found that the Veteran had mild radial nerve incomplete paralysis; moderate median nerve incomplete paralysis, and mild ulnar nerve incomplete paralysis of the right upper extremity. Based on the evidence above, the Board finds that an increased rating higher than 40 percent for peripheral neuropathy of the right upper extremity disabilities is not warranted. Here, the March 2016 and October 2017 VA examinations both reflect moderate paresthesias and numbness, as well as decreased sensations to the hand and fingers. This is congruent with the Veteran’s statements that he experienced right hand numbness and that he often dropped objects such as keys. There is no evidence that that the Veteran experiences pain, either constant or intermittent, or has absent sensations to the right upper extremity. The Board finds that these symptoms more nearly approximate a moderate severity of the Veteran’s right incomplete paralysis of all radicular groups, which warrants a rating of 40 percent for a major extremity. The Board has also considered the Veteran’s contentions that his radiculopathy of the right upper extremity is more disabling than his currently evaluated ratings. The Veteran is competent to report that he has numbness and tingling sensations. The guidance provided in the Note accompanying 38 C.F.R. § 4.124a and in the Adjudication Manual reflect, however, that the Veteran’s statements by themselves do not provide the basis for a higher rating given the mostly normal examination findings. 2. Entitlement to an initial rating higher than 20 percent for left upper extremity peripheral neuropathy with CTS prior to October 13, 2017; and higher than 30 percent thereafter The Veteran contends that his service-connected peripheral neuropathy of the left upper extremity, currently rated under 38 C.F.R. § 4.124a, DC 8513, warrants an initial rating higher than 20 percent prior to October 13, 2017; and higher than 30 percent thereafter. As noted above, under DC 8513, mild incomplete paralysis is rated as 20 percent disabling for either the major or minor extremity; moderate incomplete paralysis is rated as 40 percent disabling for the major extremity and 30 percent for the minor extremity; and severe incomplete paralysis is rated as 70 percent disabling for the major extremity and 60 percent for the minor extremity. Complete paralysis of all radicular groups is rated 90 percent disabling for the major extremity and 80 percent disabling for the minor extremity. Here, the Veteran is right-hand dominant, and therefore his peripheral neuropathy of the left upper extremity is rated as a minor extremity. VA treatment records in June 2015 reflect that the Veteran’s left upper extremity had adequate tone; and no rigidity, paralysis, wasting, and fasciculations. He had normal strength testing and normal sensory examination. In February 2016, the Veteran reported that he experienced numbness in his fingers, tingling or prickling in his hands, and that he was constantly dropping things such as keys and wallets. A March 2016 VA examination report reflects that the Veteran was right-hand dominant. The symptoms for his left upper extremity were no constant pain, no intermittent pain, moderate paresthesias, and moderate numbness. He had normal muscle strength, decreased sensation in the left hand and fingers, loss of vibratory sensation in the left hand, and no trophic changes. The examiner found that the Veteran had mild incomplete paralysis of the left median nerve and mild incomplete paralysis left ulnar nerve. An October 2017 VA examination report indicates daily numbness and paresthesias in the left upper extremity. The Veteran had no constant or intermittent pain, moderate paresthesia, and moderate numbness in the left upper extremity. There was normal strength testing, normal deep tendon reflexes, and normal position sense. He had decreased light touch and vibration sensations to the hand and fingers. The examiner found that the Veteran had mild radial nerve incomplete paralysis, moderate median nerve incomplete paralysis, and mild ulnar nerve incomplete paralysis of the left upper extremity. Based on the evidence above, the Board finds that an initial rating of 30 percent, but no higher, for peripheral neuropathy of the left upper extremity is warranted for the entirety of the appeal period. Here, the March 2016 and October 2017 VA examinations both reflect moderate paresthesias and numbness, as well as decreased sensation to the hand and fingers. This is congruent to the Veteran’s statements that he experienced right hand numbness and that he often dropped objects such as his keys. There is no evidence that that the Veteran experiences pain, either constant or intermittent, or has absent sensations to the left upper extremity. The Board finds that these symptoms more nearly approximate a moderate severity of the Veteran’s left incomplete paralysis of all radicular groups, which warrants a rating of 30 percent for a minor extremity. The Board has also considered the Veteran’s contentions that his radiculopathy of the left upper extremity is more disabling than his currently evaluated rating. The Veteran is competent to report that he has numbness and tingling sensations. The guidance provided in the Note accompanying 38 C.F.R. § 4.124a and in the Adjudication Manual reflect, however, that the Veteran’s statements by themselves do not provide the basis for a higher rating given the mostly normal examination findings. 3. Entitlement to an initial rating higher than 20 percent for right and left lower extremity peripheral neuropathy The Veteran contends that his service-connected bilateral lower extremity peripheral neuropathy warrants a higher initial rating. The Veteran is currently service-connected for right and left sciatic and external popliteal nerves, each separately rated as 20 percent disabling under 38 C.F.R. § 4.124a, DC 8520. Under DC 8520, a 10 percent rating is assigned for mild incomplete paralysis of the sciatic nerve; a 20 percent rating is assigned for moderate incomplete paralysis of the sciatic nerve; a 40 percent rating is assigned for moderately severe incomplete paralysis; a 60 percent rating is assigned for severe incomplete paralysis, with marked muscular atrophy; and an 80 percent rating is assigned for complete paralysis of the sciatic nerve, where the foot dangles and drops, and there is no active movement possible of muscles below the knee, flexion of knee weakened, or (very rarely), lost. 38 C.F.R. § 4.124a, DC 8520. VA treatment records in June 2015 reflect that the Veteran’s bilateral lower extremities had adequate tone; and no rigidity, paralysis, wasting, and fasciculations. He had normal strength testing and normal sensory examination. In February 2016, the Veteran reported that he often tripped when walking or his knees bent, which caused him to fall if he did not hang or hold on to something close to him. A March 2016 VA examination report reflects that the Veteran experienced no constant pain, moderate bilateral intermittent pain, paresthesias, and numbness. He had normal muscle strength, decreased sensation in the bilateral feet and toes, loss of vibratory sensation in the bilateral toes, and no trophic changes. The examiner found that the Veteran had mild incomplete paralysis in the bilateral sciatic nerves and mild incomplete paralysis in the bilateral external popliteal nerves. The Veteran also had restless leg syndrome. A January 2017 private treatment record documents that the Veteran could not kneel at church due to numbness, pain, and decreased strength. He could walk and stand less than 30 minutes; he had decreased muscle strength of 4 out of 5; and decreased sensation to light touch and vibration. In a statement, the Veteran explained that he knelt for 15 minutes during church services and then could not get up. He had to push himself onto the seat with his arms and wait for several minutes prior to regaining function in his legs. An October 2017 VA examination report indicates daily numbness and paresthesias in the bilateral lower extremities. The Veteran experienced no constant pain, moderate bilateral intermittent pain, moderate bilateral paresthesia, and moderate bilateral numbness in the lower extremities. There was normal strength testing, normal deep tendon reflexes, and normal position sense. He had decreased light touch and vibration sensations to the ankle and toes. There were trophic changes in the form of loss of hair in the distal one-third to the bilateral lower extremities. The examiner found that the Veteran had moderate bilateral sciatic nerve incomplete paralysis, and moderate bilateral femoral nerve incomplete paralysis. Based on the evidence above, the Board finds that an initial rating higher than 20 percent for peripheral neuropathy of the bilateral lower extremities is not warranted prior to January 23, 2017; but that a rating of 40 percent, but no higher, is warranted thereafter. Prior to January 23, 2017, the evidence reflects moderate bilateral intermittent pain, paresthesias, and numbness; as well as decreased sensations in the bilateral feet and toes. However, the Veteran had normal muscle strength testing, normal deep tendon reflexes, and no trophic changes. This is congruent to the Veteran’s statements in February 2016 and his VA treatment records in 2015. The Board finds that these symptoms more nearly approximate a moderate severity of the Veteran’s bilateral incomplete paralysis, which warrants a 20 percent rating. From January 23, 2017, the evidence reflects a worsening. In his January 2017 statement, the Veteran reported that he could not move after kneeling during church services and that he had to pull himself onto a seat and wait several minutes before being able to move his legs. He stated that this had never happened before and that his peripheral neuropathy of the bilateral lower extremities had worsened. He continued to experience moderate bilateral intermittent pain, paresthesias, and numbness; as well as decreased sensations in the bilateral feet and toes. However, he also had decreased muscle strength testing in January 2017, and trophic chances in the form of loss of hair in the distal one-third to the bilateral lower extremities. The Board finds that these symptoms more nearly approximate a moderately severe severity of the Veteran’s bilateral incomplete paralysis, which warrants a 30 percent rating. The Board has also considered the Veteran’s contentions that his radiculopathy of the bilateral lower extremities is more disabling than his currently evaluated ratings. The Veteran is competent to report that he has numbness and tingling sensations. Consistent with the guidance in the Note accompanying 38 C.F.R. § 4.124a, as well as the Adjudication Manual, however, the Veteran’s statements by themselves do not provide the basis for a higher rating given the mostly normal examination findings. 4. Additional Considerations The above determinations are based on consideration of the applicable provisions of VA’s rating schedule. The Veteran has not raised any other issues, nor have any other issues been reasonably raised by the record, with respect to this claim. See Doucette, 28 Vet. App. at 369-70. With regard to an extraschedular rating, the Court has indicated that “when considering the first Thun element in the context of the evaluation of a neurological condition, one must assess not only whether symptoms are contemplated by the particular DC under which the condition is rated, here, DC 8520, but also whether they are contemplated in the language of the preface to the neurologic and convulsive disorders DCs, that is, in § 4.120. Given the broad nature of that provision, finding symptoms not contemplated by its ‘impairment of motor, sensory or mental function’ language presents quite a challenge.” Sellers v. Wilkie, No. 16-2993 (Vet. App. Aug. 23, 2018). As to entitlement to a total disability rating based on individual unemployability (TDIU), the Veteran filed a formal TDIU application form (VA Form 21-8940) in 2001 and in March 2007 indicated he could not work due in part to these disabilities, but these were filed well before the appeal period that began one year prior to the October 2015 increased rating claims on appeal, and there has been no indication that these disabilities have rendered the Veteran unemployable during the pendency of the current claims. Consequently, the issue of entitlement to a TDIU has not been raised by the record. Cf. Rice v. Shinseki, 22 Vet. App. 447, 453 (2009) (TDIU raised when there is evidence of unemployability due to the disabilities for which the Veteran is seeking higher ratings). For the foregoing reasons, the preponderance of the evidence is against any higher ratings. The benefit of the doubt doctrine is therefore not for application with regard to these claims. 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. § 4.3. Effective Date 4. Entitlement to an effective date earlier than October 2, 2015, for the increased rating of 40 percent for peripheral neuropathy of the right upper extremity with CTS The Veteran contends that he is entitled to an effective date earlier than October 2, 2015, for the award of an increased rating to 40 percent rating for peripheral neuropathy of the right upper extremity. The Board notes that while the Veteran originally filed for a claim for service connection for peripheral neuropathy, the evidence demonstrated that his current problems were symptoms of his service-connected right little finger disability. As such, the RO treated the Veteran’s claim for service connection as a claim for an increased rating. Generally, the effective date of an evaluation and award of compensation based on a claim for increase will be the date of receipt of the claim, or the date entitlement arose, whichever is later. 38 U.S.C. § 5110(a); 38 C.F.R. § 3.400. Specifically, the effective date of an award of increased disability compensation shall be the earliest date as of which it is factually ascertainable that an increase in disability had occurred if a claim is received within one year from such date, otherwise, date of receipt of claim. 38 U.S.C. § 5110(b)(2); 38 C.F.R. § 3.400(o)(2). If the increase became ascertainable more than one year prior to the date of receipt of the claim, then the proper effective date would be the date of claim. In a case where the increase became ascertainable after the filing of the claim, then the effective date would be the date of increase. See generally Harper v. Brown, 10 Vet. App. 125 (1997). Following notification of an initial review and adverse determination by the RO, an NOD must be filed within one year from the date of notification thereof; otherwise, the determination becomes final. 38 U.S.C. § 7105. Applicable regulation provides that, if new and material evidence was received during an applicable appellate period following an AOJ decision (one year for a rating decision and 60 days for a statement of the case) or prior to an appellate (Board) decision (if an appeal was timely filed), the new and material evidence will be considered as having been filed in connection with the claim that was pending at the beginning of the appeal period. 38 C.F.R. § 3.156(b); see also Young v. Shinseki, 22 Vet. App. 461, 466 (2009). Thus, under 38 C.F.R. § 3.156(b), “VA must evaluate submissions received during the relevant [appeal] period and determine whether they contain new evidence relevant to a pending claim, whether or not the relevant submission might otherwise support a new claim.” Bond v. Shinseki, 659 F.3d 1362, 1367-68 (Fed. Cir. 2011). “New and material evidence” under 38 C.F.R. § 3.156(b) has the same meaning as “new and material evidence” as defined in 38 C.F.R. § 3.156(a). See Young, 22 Vet. App. at 468. Here, the record reflects that the Veteran filed a claim for service connection for right CTS secondary to his right little finger disability in December 2006, which was denied in May 2007. The Veteran did not appeal this decision by filing an NOD within one year of notice of the May 2007 rating decision. Moreover, new and material evidence was not received within one year of either decision and, in turn, the provisions of 38 C.F.R. § 3.156(b) are not applicable. Accordingly, the decisions became final in May 2008. Thereafter, there is no indication in the record of any intent to file a claim for service connection for a right upper extremity disability separate or secondary to the Veteran’s service-connected right little finger disability, or an increased rating for the Veteran’s service-connected right little finger disability until October 2, 2015; the date VA received his current claim. In this regard, the Board has considered the provisions of former 38 C.F.R. § 3.157(b) (effective prior to March 25, 2015), which stated that, once a formal claim for compensation had been allowed or a formal claim for compensation disallowed for the reason that the service-connected disability was not compensable in degree, receipt of (1) a report of examination or hospitalization by VA or uniformed services, (2) evidence from a private physician or layman, or (3) reports and records from State and other institutions would be accepted as an informal claim for increased benefits or an informal claim to reopen. If the report was generated by VA, the date of the examination or treatment was to be accepted as the date of receipt of the informal claim. If the report was privately generated, the date of receipt of the report was to be accepted as the date of receipt of the informal claim. Id. See Standard Claims and Appeals Forms, 79 Fed. Reg. 57,660 (Sept. 25, 2014) (rescinding the provisions of 38 C.F.R. § 3.157 with respect to claims and appeals filed on or after March 25, 2015). In the present case, no pertinent evidence or lay statements were received prior to October 2, 2015, to establish a date of claim prior to that date. Having determined that October 2, 2015, is the date of receipt of the claim for purposes of assigning an effective date, the Board is obliged to review the evidence of record to determine whether an ascertainable increase in disability occurred during the preceding year. 38 U.S.C. § 5110(b)(2); 38 C.F.R. § 3.400(o)(2). In this case, the evidence does not reflect any pertinent medical records addressing the severity of the Veteran’s peripheral neuropathy of the right upper extremity prior to October 2, 2015. As such, there is no evidentiary basis for assigning an effective date for the current 40 percent rating at any time during the one-year period prior to October 2, 2015. The Board acknowledges the Veteran’s assertion that his increased rating should be made effective prior to October 2, 2015. However, on the current record, for the Veteran to be awarded an effective date based on his earlier claim, he would have to demonstrate clear and unmistakable error (CUE) in the prior adjudication of his claim. See Flash v. Brown, 8 Vet. App. 332, 340 (1995). He and his representative have not made any such pleading or allegation with the required specificity in terms of what the CUE was and why, if not committed, this would have manifestly changed the outcome of the prior decision. Accordingly, no award can be made on that basis. For all the foregoing reasons, the Board concludes that the current record provides no legal basis for assignment of an effective date prior to October 2, 2015, for the award of a 40 percent rating for peripheral neuropathy of the right upper extremity. The appeal must therefore be denied. 5. Entitlement to an effective date earlier than October 2, 2015, for the award of service connection for peripheral neuropathy of the left upper extremity and bilateral lower extremities Unless specifically provided otherwise, the effective date of an award of disability compensation is set in accordance with the facts found, but cannot be earlier than the date of receipt of the claim for the compensation that was granted. 38 U.S.C. § 5110(a). If the claim for compensation was received within one year of separation from service, the effective date is the day following separation from service. See 38 U.S.C. § 5110(b)(1); see also 38 C.F.R. § 3.400(b)(2)(i) (the effective date for a claim for disability compensation is the date of receipt of claim or the date entitlement arose, whichever is later, unless filed within a year of separation). The Honoring America’s Veterans and Caring for Camp Lejeune Families Act of 2012 (Honoring America’s Veterans Act), Public Law 112-154, Section 506, 126 Stat. 1165 was signed into law on August 6, 2012. Section 506 of the Act amended 38 U.S.C. § 5110 to allow up to a one-year retroactive effective date for awards of disability compensation based on fully developed original claims for compensation received from August 6, 2013 through August 5, 2015. Under the Act, an effective date of up to one year prior to submission of the claim may be assigned when evidence demonstrates that the disability existed for one year prior to submission of the claim. The Veteran asserts that he is entitled to an effective date prior to October 2, 2015, for the award of service connection for his claims. Specifically, he argues that he should be granted an effective date in 2001 and 2002, the date his disabilities were first diagnosed. For the following reasons, the currently assigned effective date of October 2, 2015, is the earliest effective date assignable for service connection for peripheral neuropathy of the left upper extremity and bilateral lower extremities as a matter of law. In this case, the Veteran filed a claim for service connection for peripheral neuropathy of the left upper extremity and bilateral lower extremities via a VA Form 21-526EZ, Fully Developed Claim for Compensation, which was received by VA on October 2, 2015. On April 2016, the RO granted the Veteran service connection for his claims, effective October 2, 2015, the date VA received his claims. In his April 2016 NOD, the Veteran contended that he should be granted an earlier effective date as of the date his disabilities were first diagnosed (2001 for left upper extremity, and 2002 for bilateral lower extremities) because VA was aware of his conditions and that he had been exposed to Agent Orange. The Board must consider whether any evidence of record prior to October 2, 2015, could serve as a formal or informal claim in order to entitle the Veteran to an earlier effective date for his disabilities. In this regard, any communication or action, indicating an intent to apply for one or more benefits under the 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 informal claim must identify the benefit sought. \38 C.F.R. § 3.155. The Board notes that VA amended its adjudication regulations on March 24, 2015, to require that all claims governed by VA’s adjudication regulations be filed on standard forms prescribed by the Secretary, regardless of the type of claim or posture in which the claim arises. See 79 Fed. Reg. 57660 (Sept. 25, 2014). The amendments, however, are only effective for claims and appeals filed on or after March 24, 2015. Here, there is no document submitted prior to October 2, 2015, that indicates an intent to pursue such claims. Moreover, the Veteran has not asserted that he ever filed a service connection claim for peripheral neuropathy of the left upper extremity and bilateral lower extremities prior to October 2, 2015. Instead, and as noted in his April 2016 NOD, the Veteran contends that since he was diagnosed with his disabilities as early as 2001 and 2002, his effective date for the grants of service connection for his disabilities should be from the time of his diagnoses. However, as noted above, the effective date of an original claim for compensation is the date of claim or date entitlement arose, whichever is later. Even assuming that entitlement arose prior to the date of claim, the law and regulations mandate that the proper effective date would be the date of claim. As there is no claim for entitlement to service connection, either formal or informal, that was received by VA at any time prior to the October 2, 2015 date of claim, the proper effective date for the grant of service connection for peripheral neuropathy of the left upper extremity and bilateral lower extremities is October 2, 2015. In addition, the Board has considered whether the Veteran would be entitled to a one-year retroactive effective date under the Honoring America’s Veterans and Caring for Camp Lejeune Families Act of 2012 (Honoring America’s Veterans Act), Public Law 112-154, Section 506, 126 Stat. 1165 was signed into law on August 6, 2012. However, the Act applies to claims filed from August 6, 2013 through August 5, 2015. Here, the Veteran filed his claim on October 2, 2015, and is therefore not eligible for the one-year retroactive effective date. Although the Board is sympathetic to the Veteran’s argument that an effective date earlier than October 2, 2015, should be awarded for the grant of service connection, the Board is bound by the laws and regulations that apply to veterans’ claims. 38 U.S.C. § 7104(c); 38 C.F.R. §§ 19.5, 20.101(a). Those laws and regulations reflect that an effective date earlier than October 2, 2015, is not warranted for the grant of service connection for peripheral neuropathy of the left upper extremity and bilateral lower extremities. As the preponderance of the evidence is against the claims, the benefit of the doubt doctrine is not for application. 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.102. Jonathan Hager Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD L. Leifert, Associate Counsel