Citation Nr: 18143373 Decision Date: 10/19/18 Archive Date: 10/18/18 DOCKET NO. 16-21 016 DATE: October 19, 2018 ORDER Entitlement to an effective date earlier than October 25, 2010 for the grant of a total disability rating due to individual unemployability (TDIU) is denied. FINDING OF FACT No claim (formal or informal) for TDIU was received prior to October 25, 2010. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for an effective date earlier than October 25, 2010 for the grant of TDIU have not been met. 38 U.S.C. § 5110 (2012); 38 C.F.R. § 3.400 (2018). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION Entitlement to an effective date earlier than October 25, 2010 for the grant of TDIU. The effective date of an increased rating claim is the date of receipt of the claim or the date entitlement arose, whichever is later. 38 U.S.C. § 5110(b)(2); 38 C.F.R. § 3.400(o). A claim for VA benefits, whether formal or informal, must be in writing and must identify the benefit sought. 38 U.S.C. § 5101; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.1(p), 3.151, 3.155; Rodriguez v. West, 189 F.3d 1351 (Fed. Cir. 1999); Lalonde v. West, 12 Vet. App. 377 (1999). While the VA should broadly interpret submissions from a veteran, it is not required to conjure up claims not specifically raised. Brannon v. West, 12, Vet. App. 32 (1998). The Veteran’s claim for TDIU was received on April 27, 2011. An August 2011 rating decision granted TDIU effective March 3, 2011. A January 2012 rating decision granted an earlier effective date of October 25, 2010 based on the results of a VA examination for the Veteran’s service-connected hypertensive retinopathy. On review of the record, the Board finds no correspondence regarding TDIU prior to receipt of the Veteran’s formal claim on April 27, 2011. The Veteran does not argue the contrary. Rather, he argues that an earlier effective date is warranted because he met the schedular criteria for TDIU prior to October 25, 2010. See December 2015 Correspondence. In the alternative, the Veteran argues that an earlier effective date for TDIU is warranted due to an RO error. See April 2016 Form 9. Reference is made to a service connection claim for glomerulonephritis that was submitted June 29, 2000, and was not adjudicated by the RO in its April 2002 decision. The Veteran submitted the claim again in May 2013, and service connection for glomerulonephritis with a 60 percent rating was granted in a November 2013 rating decision. An August 2014 rating decision granted an earlier effective date of June 29, 2000. The Veteran appears to argue that the RO’s failure to address the June 2000 glomerulonephritis claim prejudiced the effective date of his TDIU grant. There is no merit to the Veteran’s arguments. While the Veteran met the schedular criteria for TDIU from June 29, 2000, merely meeting the schedular criteria does not constitute a claim for TDIU. In so finding, the Board has considered the applicability of Rice v. Shinseki, 22 Vet. App. 447 (2009) and Roberson v. West, 251 F.3d 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2001) regarding whether a TDIU claim may be inferred from any increased rating claim received prior to October 25, 2010. No such inference could be made. Notably, when he filed the June 2000 claim, the Veteran stated that he voluntarily retired after twenty years of service. There was suggestion in the claim or the record that he became unemployable due to disability. An August 2002 notice of disagreement and April 2007 claim, which request increased ratings for service-connected disabilities, also refer to the Veteran’s retired status and neither contain nor are accompanied by evidence of unemployability. A June 2009 increased rating claim, as well as contemporaneous medical evidence submitted by the Veteran, is likewise silent regarding unemployability. Simply, the record does not reflect an increased rating claim submitted with evidence of unemployability prior to October 25, 2010, and therefore no claim for TDIU may be inferred. The Veteran is already in receipt of an effective date earlier than the date his claim was received. An earlier effective date for the grant of TDIU is not warranted. MICHAEL A. HERMAN Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD M. Alhinnawi, Associate Counsel