Citation Nr: 18146713 Decision Date: 11/01/18 Archive Date: 10/31/18 DOCKET NO. 16-03 420 DATE: November 1, 2018 ORDER Service connection for chronic fatigue syndrome is denied. An initial disability rating in excess of 40 percent for fibromyalgia is denied. A higher initial disability rating for major depressive disorder, rated as 30 percent disabling prior to September 12, 2014, and as 70 percent disabling from that day forward is denied. An effective date earlier than July 29, 2010, for the grant of service connection for fibromyalgia is denied. An effective date earlier than July 29, 2010, for the grant of service connection for major depressive disorder is denied. REMANDED Entitlement to a total disability rating due to individual unemployability resulting from service-connected disability (TDIU) is remanded. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. Current chronic fatigue syndrome has not been demonstrated at any time during the course of the appeal. 2. The Veteran is in receipt of the maximum schedular rating for fibromyalgia and the Veteran's fibromyalgia symptomatology is adequately contemplated by the rating schedule criteria. 3. Prior to Beginning September 12, 2014, the Veteran’s major depressive disorder (herein depression) most nearly approximated occupational and social impairment with occasional decrease in work efficiency and intermittent periods of inability to perform occupational tasks. 4. Beginning September 12, 2014, the Veteran’s depression manifests by occupational and social impairment with deficiencies in most areas, such as social relations, occupational functioning, thought process, and mood, but neither the symptoms nor overall impairment have more nearly approximated total social impairment. 5. The Veteran filed the claim for service connection for fibromyalgia on July 29, 2010, which is the current and proper effective date of the award of benefits. 6. The Veteran filed the claim for service connection for depression on July 29, 2010, which is the current and proper effective date of the award of benefits. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The criteria for service connection for chronic fatigue syndrome are not met. 38 U.S.C. § 1110; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. 2. The criteria for a disability rating in excess of 40 percent for fibromyalgia are not met. 38 U.S.C. § 1155; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.321, 4.71a, Diagnostic Code 5025. 3. Prior to September 12, 2014, the criteria for a disability rating in excess of 30 percent for depression are met. 38 U.S.C. § 1155; 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.7, 4.21, 4.130, Diagnostic Code 9434. 4. Beginning September 12, 2014, the criteria for a disability rating in excess of 70 percent for depression are not met. 38 U.S.C. § 1155; 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.7, 4.21, 4.130, Diagnostic Code 9434. 5. The criteria for an effective date earlier than July 29, 2010, for the grant of service connection for fibromyalgia are not met. 38 U.S.C. § 5110; 38 C.F.R. § 3.400. 6. The criteria for an effective date earlier than March 11, 2010, for the grant of service connection for depression are not met. 38 U.S.C. § 5110; 38 C.F.R. § 3.400. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The Veteran served on active duty from January 1992 to August 1995. 1. Entitlement to service connection for chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS) The Veteran contends that service connection is warranted for chronic fatigue syndrome. Unfortunately, the evidence does not demonstrate that service connection is warranted. The medical evidence of record does not demonstrate the presence or diagnosis of chronic fatigue syndrome since the claim was submitted in July 2010. While the medical and lay evidence demonstrate or corroborate the Veteran’s reports of consistent fatigue, trouble sleeping, and insomnia, these symptoms have been attributed to and contemplated in the rating assigned to her service-connected fibromyalgia and depression in multiple VA examinations. In addition, the Board notes that all medical treatment records in the claims file are negative for a diagnosis of or treatment for chronic fatigue syndrome. Again, the fatigue and sleeping issues the Veteran has reported has been consistently attributed to her already service-connected disabilities. There is no other competent and credible evidence demonstrating a current chronic fatigue syndrome disability. To the extent the Veteran has reported certain symptoms, the Board notes that she is not competent to diagnose such a disability or attribute symptoms to one diagnosis as opposed to another. To diagnose a specific disability and opine as to the etiology of such symptoms requires medical expertise when the question is a complex one, as is so in this case. See Jandreau v. Shinseki, 492 F.3d 1372, 1377 n.4 (Fed. Cir. 2007). The record does not show that the Veteran has such expertise. As an additional matter, to the extent to whether the Veteran has symptoms resembling chronic fatigue syndrome, the Board notes that she is already in receipt of a 70 percent rating for an acquired psychiatric disorder, and it is likely that such symptom are already being addressed under that diagnostic code. Based on the forgoing, the Board finds that service connection for chronic fatigue syndrome is not warranted. Accordingly, the Board must conclude that the preponderance of the evidence is against the claim, and it is, therefore, denied. As there is not an approximate balance of evidence, that benefit of the doubt rule is not applicable in this case. See Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49, 53 (1990); Ortiz v. Principi, 274 F. 3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Increased Rating Disability ratings are determined by applying the criteria set forth in the VA’s Schedule for Rating Disabilities, which are based on the average impairment of earning capacity. Individual disabilities are assigned separate diagnostic codes (DCs). 38 U.S.C. § 1155; 38 C.F.R. § 4.1. The basis of disability evaluations is the ability of the body, or, of the psyche, or, of a system or organ of the body to function under the ordinary conditions of daily life including employment. 38 C.F.R. § 4.10. In determining the severity of a disability, the Board is required to consider the potential application of various other provisions of the regulations governing VA benefits, whether or not they were raised by the Veteran, as well as the entire history of the Veteran’s disability. 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.1, 4.2 (2017); Schafrath v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 589, 595 (1991). If the disability more closely approximates the criteria for the higher of two ratings, the higher rating will be assigned; otherwise, the lower rating is assigned. 38 C.F.R. § 4.7. It is not expected that all cases will show all the findings specified; however, findings sufficiently characteristic to identify the disease and the disability therefrom and coordination of rating with impairment of function will be expected in all instances. 38 C.F.R. § 4.21. In deciding this appeal, the Board has considered whether separate ratings for different periods of time, based on the facts found, are warranted, a practice of assigning ratings referred to as “staging the ratings.” See Fenderson v. West, 12 Vet. App. 119 (1999). 2. Entitlement to an increased disability rating for fibromyalgia, rated as 10 percent disabling prior to July 29, 2010, and as 40 percent disabling from that day forward The Veteran contends that her fibromyalgia is worse than currently rated. Throughout the claim, he has been in receipt of a 40 percent disabling rating. Fibromyalgia is rated under Diagnostic Code 5025, which provides a maximum 40 percent disability rating when Fibromyalgia manifests with widespread musculoskeletal pain and tender points, with or without associated fatigue, sleep disturbance, stiffness, paresthesias, headache, irritable bowel symptoms, depression, anxiety, or Raynaud's-like symptoms, that is constant, or nearly so, and refractory to therapy. "Widespread pain" means pain in both the left and right sides of the body that is both above and below the waist, and that affects both axial skeleton (i.e., cervical spine, anterior chest, thoracic spine, or low back) and the extremities. 38 C.F.R. § 4.71a, Diagnostic Code 5025. As the Veteran is in receipt of the maximum schedular rating for the entire period on appeal, there is no legal basis for awarding a higher schedular rating for fibromyalgia. See Sabonis v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 426 (1994). The Board also finds that consideration for an extraschedular evaluation, a component of a claim for an increased rating, is not warranted. Bagwell v. Brown, 9 Vet. App. 337, 339 (1996). Although the Board may not assign an extraschedular rating in the first instance, it must specifically adjudicate whether to refer a case for extraschedular evaluation when the issue either is raised by the claimant or is reasonably raised by the evidence of record. Barringer v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 242 (2008). In considering whether an extraschedular rating may be warranted, VA must first determine whether the available applicable schedular rating criteria are inadequate because they do not contemplate the Veteran’s level of disability and symptomatology. If the rating criteria are inadequate, VA must then determine whether the Veteran exhibits an exceptional disability picture indicated by other related factors such as marked interference with employment or frequent periods of hospitalization. If such related factors are exhibited, then referral must be made to the Under Secretary for Benefits or the Director of the Compensation and Pension Service for extraschedular consideration. See Thun v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 111 (2008). In this case, the evidence does not indicate that Veteran’s disability picture could not be adequately contemplated by the applicable schedular rating criteria discussed above. Specifically, the Board has reviewed all of her relevant symptoms related to the issue on appeal, and concludes that there are no symptoms that were not able to be addressed by the applicable diagnostic codes. See Mittleider v. West, 11 Vet. App. 181 (1998). When asked about the functional impact of her fibromyalgia during the Veteran’s VA examinations, she reported stiffness, muscle weakness, widespread musculoskeletal pain, fatigue, and depression. The Board notes that these symptoms are specifically contemplated by the diagnostic criteria assigned for fibromyalgia and her service-connected major depressive disorder. Therefore, given that the applicable schedular rating criteria are more than adequate in this case, the Board need not consider whether the Veteran’s disability picture includes exceptional factors, and referral for consideration of the assignment of a disability evaluation on an extraschedular basis is not warranted. See Thun, 22 Vet. App. at 111; see also Bagwell v. Brown, 9 Vet. App. 337, 338-9 (1996); Floyd v. Brown, 9 Vet. App. 88, 96 (1996); Shipwash v. Brown, 8 Vet. App. 218, 227 (1995). Accordingly, the Board concludes that the preponderance of the evidence is against the claim for a higher initial disability rating for fibromyalgia, and it is, therefore, denied. In arriving at the decision to deny the claim, the Board has considered the applicability of the benefit-of-the-doubt rule enunciated in 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b). However, as there is not an approximate balance of evidence, that rule is not helpful to the Veteran. See Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49 (1990); Ortiz v. Principi, 274 F. 3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2001). 3. Entitlement to an increased disability rating for depression, rated as 30 percent disabling prior to September 12, 2014, and as 70 percent disabling from that day forward In this case, the Veteran contends that her current service-connected depression is worse than rated. As noted above, her disability is rated as 30 percent disabling prior to September 12, 2014, and as 70 percent disabling from that day forward. Acquired psychiatric disorders such as depression are evaluated under (Diagnostic Code) DC 9434 by applying the criteria found under the General Rating Formula for Mental Disorders at 38 C.F.R. § 4.130. Under 38 C.F.R. § 4.130, Diagnostic Code 9434, a 50 percent rating is warranted where the disorder is manifested by occupational and social impairment with reduced reliability and productivity due to such symptoms as flattened affect; circumstantial, circumlocutory, or stereotyped speech; panic attacks (more than once a week); difficulty in understanding complex commands; impairment of short- and long-term memory (e.g., retention of only highly learned material, forgetting to complete tasks); impaired judgment; impaired abstract thinking; disturbances of motivation and mood; difficulty in establishing and maintaining effective work and social relationships. Id. A 70 percent rating is warranted where there is occupational and social impairment, with deficiencies in most areas, such as work, school, family relations, judgment, thinking, or mood, due to such symptoms as: suicidal ideations; obsessional rituals that interfere with routine activities; speech intermittently illogical, obscure, or irrelevant; near continuous panic or depression affecting the ability to function independently, appropriately and effectively; impaired impulse control (such as unprovoked irritability with periods of violence); spatial disorientation; neglect of personal appearance and hygiene; difficulty in adapting to stressful circumstances (including work or a work-like setting); inability to establish and maintain effective relationships. Id. The criteria for a 70 percent rating are met if there are deficiencies in most of the areas of work, school, family relations, judgment, thinking, and mood. Bowling v. Principi, 15 Vet. App. 1, 11-14 (2001). A 100 percent schedular evaluation contemplates total occupational and social impairment, due to such symptoms as: gross impairment in thought processes or communication; persistent delusions or hallucinations; grossly inappropriate behavior; persistent danger of hurting self or others; intermittent inability to perform activities of daily living (including maintenance of minimal personal hygiene); disorientation to time or place; memory loss for names of close relatives, own occupation, or own name. 38 C.F.R. 4.130, Diagnostic Code 9434. The symptoms listed at 38 C.F.R. § 4.130 are not an exclusive or exhaustive list of symptomatology which may be considered for a higher rating claim. Mauerhan v. Principi, 16 Vet. App. 436 (2002). The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Federal Circuit) has emphasized that the list of symptoms under a given rating is a non-exhaustive list, as indicated by the words “such as” that precede each list of symptoms. Vazquez-Claudio v. Shinseki, 713 F.3d 112, 115 (Fed. Cir. 2013). In Vazquez-Claudio, the Federal Circuit held that a veteran may only qualify for a given disability rating under § 4.130 by demonstrating the particular symptoms associated with that percentage or others of similar severity, frequency, and duration. Id. at 118. Other language in the decision indicates that the phrase “others of similar severity, frequency, and duration,” can be thought of as symptoms of like kind to those listed in the regulation for a given disability rating. Id. at 116. Prior to September 12, 2014 Based on the evidence of record, the Board concludes that a disability rating in excess of 30 percent is not warranted during this period. The medical and lay evidence of record indicate that the Veteran’s symptoms of depression included depressed mood, decreased energy and interest inactivities, decreased self-esteem, sleep and appetite disturbance, and some difficulty with concentration and focus. Regarding social impairment, the Veteran reported during an August 2011 VA examination that her social activities were limited mainly due to her fibromyalgia-related fatigue and she expressed the desire to get out more. During VA treatment, she reported maintaining a good relationship with her two children and her long-term partner, whom she referred to at times as her common law husband. In terms of occupational impairment, while the Veteran reported some difficulty with concentration and focus during the 2011 VA examination, she also reported that she was currently employed as a fraud investigator for a credit card company in a position she had had for the last three years. She reported that she did well at work except for some period of exhaustion. Although the Veteran described some frustration with the lack of forward progression in her job during VA treatment, this was described as due to a lack of education. She further explained that she would like to further her education but felt that she could not due to her fibromyalgia symptoms. The Board notes that there have been variations in the severity of the Veteran’s depression during this period. In a May 2011 VA treatment record, the Veteran stated that her depression comes and goes and in a July 2011 VA treatment note, she denied depression but described frustration and anxiety symptoms. During an August 2011 VA examination, the Veteran explained that her depression symptoms vary depending on how her fibromyalgia symptoms are at any given time and that when her pain levels are lower, her mood lifts and she’s able to enjoy pleasurable activities more. Based on the Veteran’s reports of her symptoms, the VA examiner diagnosed the Veteran with major depression is partial remission. Throughout this period, including during the 2011 VA examination, the Veteran’s cognitive abilities, including capacity for abstraction, memory, and judgment were grossly intact, her speech and communication were appropriate, and her grooming and hygiene were appropriate. There was no evidence of panic, paranoia, obsessional rituals, or hypervigilance. While she described fleeting suicidal ideation without plan or intent in a 2011 VA treatment record, the remaining VA treatment records document her consistent denial of such symptoms. Although the Veteran described some disturbances in motivation and mood, such symptoms varied from day to day depending on her physical health symptoms, to the point that the 2011 VA examiner described her major depression to be in partial remission. Based on the forgoing, the Board finds that the Veteran’s depression disability has not risen to the level of severity as to warrant a disability rating higher than that already assigned for this period as the Veteran’s depression has not been shown to be manifested by occupational and social impairment with reduced reliability and productivity. She specifically described herself as doing well at work despite her symptoms. She has not been shown to experience symptoms such as flattened affect, circumstantial, circumlocutory, or stereotyped speech, panic attacks (more than once a week), difficulty in understanding complex commands, any impairment of short- and long-term memory, consistently impaired judgment, impaired abstract thinking, or difficulty in establishing and maintaining effective work and social relationships. In considering the appropriate disability ratings, the Board has also considered the Veteran’s statements that her psychiatric disability is worse than the rating she currently receives. In rendering a decision on appeal, the Board must analyze the credibility and probative value of the evidence, account for the evidence which it finds to be persuasive or unpersuasive, and provide the reasons for its rejection of any material evidence favorable to the claimant. See Gabrielson v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 36, 39-40 (1994); Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49, 57 (1990). Competency of evidence differs from weight and credibility. While the Veteran is competent to report symptoms because this requires only personal knowledge as it comes to her through his senses, she is not competent to identify a specific level of disability of his disabilities according to the appropriate diagnostic codes. Rucker v. Brown, 10 Vet. App. 67, 74 (1997); Layno v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 465, 469 (1994); see also Cartright v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 24, 25 (1991) (“although interest may affect the credibility of testimony, it does not affect competency to testify”). On the other hand, such competent evidence concerning the nature and extent of the Veteran’s disabilities has been provided by the medical personnel who have examined her during the current appeal and who have rendered pertinent opinions in conjunction with the evaluations. The medical findings (as provided in the examination reports) directly address the criteria under which this disability is evaluated. As such, the Board concludes that her depression symptomatology did not approximate the criteria for a schedular rating higher than 30 percent during this period. Beginning September 12, 2014 Based on the evidence of record, the Board concludes that a disability rating in excess of 70 percent is not warranted during this period. The medical and lay evidence of record indicate that symptoms of depression included sleep impairment, to include hypersomnia and insomnia, anxiety, depressed mood, decreased motivation, diminished interest in activities, difficulty concentrating, hypervigilance, difficulty obtaining and maintaining effective relationships, isolative behavior, memory impairment, difficulty interacting with others, a feeling of hopelessness, suicidal ideation, and decreased socialization throughout the entire appellate period. These symptoms more approximate those listed in the criteria for a 70 percent rating. Throughout the period on appeal, the Board finds that there have been few reports of the symptoms listed in the criteria for a 100 percent rating. The evidence, including a September 2014 and April 2016 VA examination and VA treatment records, primarily indicates that the Veteran’s speech tone and rate have been clear or within normal limits, her thought process and content logical and goal-oriented, and her judgment, insight, and impulse control unimpaired. While subjective reports of memory impairment have been reported by the Veteran during VA treatment, the symptoms were described as mild during the 2014 VA examination and were not found upon examination in 2016. At no time in the VA examinations and treatment records has the Veteran been shown to exhibit disorientation to time or place or memory loss for names of close relatives, own occupation, or own name. Moreover, while the Veteran has reported a sporadic history of suicidal ideation, she has consistently denied current ideation or any plans or intent to harm herself or others. Finally, the Veteran has not demonstrated persistent delusions or hallucinations or grossly inappropriate behavior in such records. Additionally, VA examinations and treatment records show that the Veteran has been found to be able to perform all activities of daily living, maintain minimum personal hygiene, and handle her financial affairs. Moreover, at no time in these records has the Veteran reported or the medical evidence demonstrated the other severe symptoms listed in the rating criteria, such as obsessional rituals which interfere with routine activities, impaired impulse control, spatial disorientation, or speech that is intermittently illogical, obscure, or irrelevant. Finally, the Board finds significant the fact that the Veteran has not reported that she is totally impaired due to her depression symptoms. Finally, the Board finds that there is insufficient evidence to show that a 100 percent rating is warranted as total overall social impairment has not been demonstrated. Mauerhan, 16 Vet. App. at 436. Regarding social impairment, neither of the VA examiners nor her VA treatment providers have found the inability to establish and maintain effective relationships. Upon VA examination in September 2014, the Veteran reported that she had a few friends that she spoke to on the phone, but did not see in person. She reported going to restaurants and the movies, often with her partner of 20 years, whom she called her fiancée. During the April 2016 VA examination, she reported that she still maintained some of the friendships she made during her time in the military. While she stated that her social activity was limited, she described this as due to her physical discomfort, not her mental health symptoms. She also reported that she was still able to do what was needed for her family. Furthermore, the evidence demonstrates that despite feeling distance from her children because they are older and have moved on to individual pursuits, she still maintains those relationships and has described them as good and supportive. The Board acknowledges that the Veteran submitted a May 2016 private disability benefits questionnaire (DBQ) and opinion in which Dr. R.W. described the Veteran’s symptoms as far more severe than currently rated. However, the Board finds that the findings of this examination are not adequately supported and are, in fact, directly contradicted by the many years of VA treatment records and two VA examinations, including the April 2016 examination conducted just about one month prior. First, Dr. R.W. stated that the Veteran’s severe depression symptoms have been present and debilitating since the claim was filed in 2010. However, as noted above, the Veteran herself described in contemporaneous VA treatment and VA examinations that her depression would come and go and it was diagnosed as in partial remission upon VA examination in August 2011. Moreover, by her own account, she was able to successfully work up until 2014, when she had to quit working due to her physical health symptoms. The DBQ lists the presence of impaired judgment and abstract thinking, gross impairment in thought processes or communication, an inability to establish and maintain effective relationships, impaired impulse control, such as unprovoked irritability with period of violence, grossly inappropriate behavior, persistent danger of hurting self and others, and intermittent inability to perform activities of daily living, including maintenance of minimal personal hygiene. However, as noted above, each of these findings were found not to be absent just one month prior as well as all throughout the VA treatment records and examinations during the claim. The DBQ and medical opinion do not suggest that these are a new worsening of symptomatology but that they have been present throughout the claim. Such symptoms are so completely contrary to contemporaneous medical and lay evidence of record that the Board affords the private opinion little probative value. Given the evidence above, the Board concludes that the Veteran’s symptoms do not more nearly approximate a 100 percent schedular disability rating and have not at any time during the appellate period. 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.7, 4.21, 4.73, Diagnostic Code 9434. In considering the appropriate disability ratings, the Board has also considered the Veteran’s statements that her psychiatric disability is worse than the rating she currently receives. In rendering a decision on appeal, the Board must analyze the credibility and probative value of the evidence, account for the evidence which it finds to be persuasive or unpersuasive, and provide the reasons for its rejection of any material evidence favorable to the claimant. See Gabrielson v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 36, 39-40 (1994); Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49, 57 (1990). Competency of evidence differs from weight and credibility. While the Veteran is competent to report symptoms because this requires only personal knowledge as it comes to her through his senses, she is not competent to identify a specific level of disability of his disabilities according to the appropriate diagnostic codes. Rucker v. Brown, 10 Vet. App. 67, 74 (1997); Layno v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 465, 469 (1994); see also Cartright v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 24, 25 (1991) (“although interest may affect the credibility of testimony, it does not affect competency to testify”). On the other hand, such competent evidence concerning the nature and extent of the Veteran’s disabilities has been provided by the medical personnel who have examined her during the current appeal and who have rendered pertinent opinions in conjunction with the evaluations. The medical findings (as provided in the examination reports) directly address the criteria under which this disability is evaluated. The copious amounts of contemporaneous VA treatment records and the VA examinations of record agree as to the severity of the Veteran’s depression disability. As such, the Board concludes that her depression symptomatology did not approximate the criteria for a schedular rating higher than 70 percent during this period. The Board also finds that consideration for an extraschedular evaluation, a component of a claim for an increased rating, is not warranted. Bagwell v. Brown, 9 Vet. App. 337, 339 (1996). In this case, the evidence does not indicate that Veteran’s disability picture could not be adequately contemplated by the applicable schedular rating criteria discussed above during this period. Specifically, the Board has reviewed all of her relevant symptoms related to the issue on appeal, and concludes that there are no symptoms that were not able to be addressed by the applicable diagnostic codes. See Mittleider v. West, 11 Vet. App. 181 (1998). Notably, as was established in Mauerhan, 16 Vet. App. at 444, a schedular rating for psychiatric disorders is not necessarily limited to the enumerated symptoms in the general rating formula, and no relevant symptoms have been excluded in the Board’s analysis. As such, the Veteran’s symptoms are not which are so unusual that they are outside the schedular criteria. Moreover, the Board has explained why the Veteran’s relevant symptoms do not merit ratings greater than the ones assigned. As such, the Veteran’s symptoms are not which are so unusual that they are outside the schedular criteria. Therefore, given that the applicable schedular rating criteria are more than adequate in this case, the Board need not consider whether the Veteran’s disability picture includes exceptional factors, and referral for consideration of the assignment of a disability evaluation on an extraschedular basis is not warranted. See Thun, 22 Vet. App. at 111; see also Bagwell v. Brown, 9 Vet. App. 337, 338-9 (1996); Floyd v. Brown, 9 Vet. App. 88, 96 (1996); Shipwash v. Brown, 8 Vet. App. 218, 227 (1995). Effective Date Generally, the effective date for an award of compensation based on an original claim will be the date of receipt of the claim or the date entitlement arose, whichever is later. 38 U.S.C. § 5110; 38 C.F.R. § 3.400. Although the regulations pertaining to the definition of claims were recently amended, these amendments are effective March 24, 2015, after the claim was filed in this case. See Standard Claims and Appeals Forms, 79 Fed. Reg. 57660 (Sept. 25, 2014). The amendments are therefore not for application. Prior to March 24, 2015, a claim was 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) (prior to March 24, 2015). 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. 38 C.F.R. § 3.155. 4. Entitlement to an effective date earlier than July 29, 2010, for the grant of service connection for fibromyalgia 5. Entitlement to an effective date earlier than July 29, 2010, for the grant of service connection for depression There is no dispute in this case that the Veteran did not submit a claim for service connection for fibromyalgia or depression within one year of her discharge from service. As such, VA regulations provide that the proper effective date is the date of receipt of the claim or the date entitlement arose, whichever is later. 38 C.F.R. § 3.400. The file demonstrates, and the Veteran does not dispute, that the initial claim for service connection for these issues was received on July 29, 2010. In fact, while she checked the box in her notice of disagreement for the effective date issue, she has not submitted any evidence or argument as to why an earlier effective date is warranted. There is no evidence that she filed either an informal or formal claim for service connection benefits for fibromyalgia or depression prior to that date. Based on the forgoing, the Board finds that an effective date earlier than July 29, 2010, the date of the initial claim for service connection, is not warranted and the claim must be denied. REASONS FOR REMAND 1. Entitlement to a TDIU is remanded. The claims file clearly raises the issue of entitlement to TDIU as there is evidence throughout the claim that the Veteran had to stop working and no longer felt like she could return to work due to her fibromyalgia and depression symptoms. However, it is unclear in the record when the Veteran stopped working as there are varying accounts. Moreover, a TDIU application has not been requested of or submitted by the Veteran. As such, upon remand, the Veteran should be requested to submit a TDIU application and provide a detailed history of her work or school status throughout the claim. For any period for which the Veteran was unemployed and did not meet the schedular requirements for TDIU, the claim should be referred to the Director of Compensation and Pension for an opinion regarding extraschedular TDIU. For the periods in which she was unemployed and also met the schedular criteria for TDIU, the claim for schedular TDIU should be adjudicated, with the aid of a VA examination, if necessary. The matter is REMANDED for the following action: 1. Ask the Veteran to submit a TDIU application and provide a thorough history of her work and school experience during this claim.   2. Then, adjudicate the issue of TDIU. For the period(s) in which she was unemployed and also met the schedular criteria for TDIU, the claim for schedular TDIU should be adjudicated, with the aid of a VA examination, if necessary. B.T. KNOPE Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD A.B., Counsel