Citation Nr: 18145894 Decision Date: 10/30/18 Archive Date: 10/30/18 DOCKET NO. 15-18 635 DATE: October 30, 2018 ORDER Entitlement to an effective date of December 9, 2003, and no earlier, for the grant of service connection of frontotemporal dementia, is granted. FINDING OF FACT The earliest communication from the Veteran seeking entitlement to service connection for frontotemporal dementia was received by VA on December 9, 2003, in the form of a claim for pension which referenced onset of a mental disorder during service. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for an effective date prior of December 9, 2003, for the award of service connection for frontotemporal dementia, have been met. 38 U.S.C. § 5110 (2012); 38 C.F.R. § 3.400, 3.151 (2017). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran had active military service from January 1976 to September 1977. Unfortunately, the Veteran passed away in January 2010. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) from the June 2012 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Chicago, IL. The Appellant appeared at a January 2018 hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge. A transcript of the hearing is associated with the record. I. VA’s Duties to Notify and Assist VA has a duty to notify and assist claimants in substantiating a claim for VA benefits. 38 U.S.C. §§ 5100, 5102, 5102, 5103(A), 5107, 5126 (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.156(a), 3.159, and 3.326(a) (2017). In this case, the Board is granting the claim. Accordingly, assuming, without deciding, that any error was committed with respect to either the duty to notify or the duty to assist, such error was harmless and will not be further discussed. II. Other Due Process Considerations As noted in the Introduction, the Appellant was afforded a hearing before the undersigned VLJ in January 2018. In Bryant v. Shinseki, 23 Vet. App. 488 (2010), the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court) held that 38 C.F.R. § 3.103(c)(2) requires that the VLJ who conducts a hearing fulfill two duties to comply with the above regulation. These duties consist of (1) the duty to fully explain the issues and (2) the duty to suggest the submission of evidence that may have been overlooked. Here, the VLJ asked the Appellant specific questions concerning her claim. The hearing focused on the elements necessary to substantiate the claim, and the Appellant, through her testimony, demonstrated that she had actual knowledge of the elements necessary to substantiate the claim. In addition, the Appellant was assisted at the hearing by an accredited agent. No pertinent evidence that might have been overlooked and that might substantiate the claim was identified by the Appellant or her representative. Neither the representative nor the Appellant has suggested any deficiency in the conduct of the hearing. Therefore, the Board finds that, consistent with Bryant, the VLJ complied with the duties set forth in 38 C.F.R. § 3.103(c)(2). III. Legal Criteria In general, the effective date of an award based on an original claim shall be fixed in accordance with the facts found, but shall not be earlier than the date of the receipt of the application. 38 U.S.C. § 5110(a); 38 C.F.R. § 3.400. The implementing regulation clarifies this to mean that the effective date of an evaluation and an award of compensation based on an original claim or a claim reopened after final disallowance “will be the date of receipt of the claim or the date entitlement arose, whichever is the later.” 38 C.F.R. § 3.400. 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. § 5101 (a) (2012); 38 C.F.R. § 3.151 (a) (2017). 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) (2015); Brannon v. West, 12 Vet. App. 32, 34-5 (1998); Servello v. Derwinski, 3 Vet. App. 196, 199 (1992). Any communication or action indicating an intent to apply for one or more benefits under laws administered by VA from a claimant may be considered an informal claim. 38 C.F.R. § 3.155 (a) (2015). Additionally, a claim by a Veteran for pension may be considered a claim for compensation. 38 C.F.R. § 3.151. IV. Analysis The Board has reviewed all of the evidence in the Veteran’s claims file, with an emphasis on the medical and lay evidence for the issue on appeal. Although the Board has an obligation to provide reasons and bases supporting this decision, there is no need to discuss, in detail, the extensive evidence of record. Indeed, the Federal Circuit has held that the Board must review the entire record, but does not have to discuss each piece of evidence. Gonzalez v. West, 218 F.3d 1378, 1380-81 (Fed. Cir. 2000). Therefore, the Board will summarize the relevant evidence where appropriate, and the Board’s analysis below will focus specifically on what the evidence shows, or fails to show, as to the claim. The Appellant contends that she is entitled to an earlier effective date, prior to January 28, 2005, for the grant of service connection for the Veteran’s frontotemporal dementia. On January 28, 2005, the Veteran completed an application for disability compensation. Unfortunately, in January 2010, the Veteran passed away. Ultimately, in a June 2012 rating decision, the RO granted entitlement to accrued benefits based on the service connection condition of severe frontotemporal dementia with an effective date of January 28, 2005, the date of the Veteran’s original claim. However, at the Appellant’s Board hearing, she testified that she believes that the effective date for the grant of service connection for frontotemporal dementia should be December 9, 2003, the date that the Veteran filed for non-service connected pension benefits. Specifically, the Appellant contends that the Veteran went to a VA office with the intention of filing for benefits and was assisted by a VA employee due to the Veteran’s dementia. However, the Appellant argues that the VA employee, unbeknownst to the Veteran, completed an application for pension, and not compensation, benefits. The Board also notes that on the Veteran’s December 9, 2003 application for pension benefits, it lists the Veteran’s disability as a mental disorder with an onset date of 1975, which places the onset during the Veteran’s military service. The Board finds that the Veteran’s December 9, 2003 claim for pension benefits can be considered a claim for compensation as allowed under 38 C.F.R. § 3.151. Thereby, an effective date of December 9, 2003 for the grant of service connection of frontotemporal dementia is warranted. MICHAEL MARTIN Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD S. Mountford, Associate Counsel