Citation Nr: 18142858 Decision Date: 10/17/18 Archive Date: 10/16/18 DOCKET NO. 16-15 277A DATE: October 17, 2018 ORDER The claim for revision of a rating decision regarding the effective date assigned to the grant of service connection for schizophrenia on the basis of clear and unmistakable error (CUE) is dismissed without prejudice for refiling. FINDING OF FACT 1. The Veteran did not specify the date of the Regional Office rating decision being challenged. 2. The Veteran alleges that VA should have informed him that he needed to file a claim within one year of discharge from service. CONCLUSION OF LAW Because the pleading requirements for a claim for revision of a rating decision regarding the effective date assigned to the grant of service connection for schizophrenia based on clear and unmistakable error have not been met, the claim must be dismissed without prejudice to refiling. 38 C.F.R. § 3.105 (a) (2017). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran had active service from November 1972 to April 1973. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) from rating decisions of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in New Orleans, Louisiana. Whether there was clear and unmistakable error (CUE) in a rating decision that granted service connection for schizophrenia that assigned an effective date of December 11, 1992. Under the provisions of 38 C.F.R. § 3.105 (a), previous determinations that are final and binding, including decisions of service connection and degree of disability, will be accepted as correct in the absence of clear and unmistakable error. In order for a claim of clear and unmistakable error to be valid, there must have been an error in the prior adjudication of the claim; either the correct facts, as they were known at the time, were not before the adjudicator or the statutory or regulatory provisions extant at the time were incorrectly applied. Russell v. Principi, 3 Vet. App. 310, 313 (1992) (en banc). Evidence that was not of record at the time of the decision cannot be used to determine whether CUE occurred. Porter v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 233 (1993). Clear and unmistakable error is one of fact or law, that when called to the attention of later reviewers compels the conclusion, to which reasonable minds could not differ, that the result would have been manifestly different but for the error. Fugo v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 40, 43 (1993). When attempting to raise a claim of clear and unmistakable error, a claimant must describe the alleged error with some degree of specificity, and, unless it is the kind of error, that if true, would be clear and unmistakable error on its face, must provide persuasive reasons as to why the result would have been manifestly different but for the alleged error. Id. at 43-44. Fugo further held that neither a claim alleging improper weighing and evaluating of the evidence in a previous adjudication, nor general, non-specific claims (including sweeping allegations of failures to follow the regulations or to provide due process), meet the restrictive definition of clear and unmistakable error. Id. at 44. Final RO decisions are entitled to a presumption of validity. Berger v. Brown, 10 Vet. App. 166, 169 (1997). The party bringing a CUE challenge to a final RO decision bears the burden of proving that the decision was based on a clear and unmistakable error. Id. This burden is not satisfied by the mere assertion that the decision contained CUE; instead, the party must describe the alleged error “with some degree of specificity” and must provide persuasive reasons “as to why the result would have been manifestly different but for the alleged error.” Fugo at 44; Pierce v. Principi, 240 F.3d 1348 (2001). In September 2012, the Board dismissed the Veteran’s claim for an earlier effective date for schizophrenia because it was a free-standing claim. Since that time, the Veteran has asserted clear and unmistakable error (CUE) in a rating decision assigning an effective date of December 11, 1992 for his service-connected schizophrenia. He has not specifically indicated which rating decision includes CUE. If multiple RO decisions have been issued, claimants must specify the date of the RO decision being challenged. Mindenhall v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 271, 275 (1994). Here, there are multiple rating decisions of record dated as earlier as 1993. The Veteran has not specified the date of the rating decision that contains CUE. The Veteran has also not described the error made by the RO with specificity. Pierce v. Principi, 240 F.3d 1348, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (quoting Fugo v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 40, 44 (1993)). The Veteran argues that an effective date for service-connected schizophrenia should be the date of his discharge from service in 1973. He alleges that VA should have informed him that he needed to file a claim within a year of discharge. Failure of notification of the Veteran before the Veteran filed a claim is not considered an error in a rating decision or a basis upon which CUE can be claimed. In essence, the Veteran has not indicated which rating decision includes CUE and the Veteran’s arguments do not point to any error of fact or law in any rating decision. Because the pleading requirements for a claim for revision of a rating decision regarding the effective date assigned to the grant of service connection for schizophrenia based on clear and unmistakable error have not been met, the claim must be dismissed without prejudice to refiling. KRISTI L. GUNN Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD Tahirih S. Samadani, Counsel