Citation Nr: 18147002
Decision Date: 11/05/18	Archive Date: 11/02/18

DOCKET NO. 16-30 846
DATE:	November 5, 2018
ORDER
The appeal as to whether the Veteran filed a timely substantive appeal (VA Form 9) to a September 2012 rating decision is denied.
FINDING OF FACT
The Veteran did not file a VA Form 9 within 60 days of the date on which the August 7, 2013 Statement of the Case (SOC) was sent to him, or within the remainder of the one-year period from the date of the September 11, 2012 letter notifying him of the September 2012 rating decision.
CONCLUSION OF LAW
A timely VA Form 9 was not filed as to the September 2012 rating decision. 38 U.S.C. § 7105 (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 20.200, 20.201, 20.202, 20.302, 20.303 (2017).
REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION
The Veteran served on active duty from September 1987 to July 1989. 
This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a September 2014 administrative decision and September 2012 rating decision by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Regional Office (RO).
Appellate review is initiated by the filing of a NOD and completed by the filing of a VA Form 9 after an SOC has been issued. A VA Form 9 must be filed within 60 days from the date that the RO mails the SOC to the Veteran, or within the remainder of the one-year period from the date of mailing of the rating decision being appealed, whichever period ends later. See 38 U.S.C. § 7105; 38 C.F.R. §§ 20.200, 20.201, 20.202. An extension of the 60-day period for filing a VA Form 9 may be granted for good cause, but such extension request must be made prior to the expiration of the time limit for filing a substantive appeal. See 38 C.F.R. § 20.303.
The Veteran has stated that the VA Form 9 received by the RO on October 25, 2013, should be considered timely because he was out of the country at the time of the mailing.
A September 2012 rating decision denied service connection for PTSD. The Veteran filed a NOD to that rating decision in February 2013. In August 2013, the AOJ issued an SOC, with correspondence notifying the Veteran of his appellant rights dated August 7, 2013. The Veteran filed a VA Form 9 to the August 2013 SOC on October 25, 2013. The Veteran does not contest that October 25, 2013 is the date VA first received his VA Form 9 in response to the August 2013 SOC. In a September 2014 administrative decision, VA informed the Veteran that it did not consider the October 2013 VA Form 9 timely. 
Because the evidence does not reflect, and the Veteran has not argued, he requested an extension prior to the expiration of the 60-day deadline to file a VA Form 9, 38 C.F.R. § 20.303 is not applicable. 
To the extent the Veteran argues that he was unable to reply in sufficient time due to being out of the country, the Board is unable to provide relief for such obstacles, because it must follow the statutory and regulatory framework provided by Congress. See Smith v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 429, 432-33 (1992) (“[N]o equities, no matter how compelling, can create a right to payment out of the United States Treasury that has not been provided for by Congress.”).
Because the law is dispositive, the issue must be denied as a matter of law. See Sabonis v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 426 (1994) (where the law is dispositive, a claim should be denied on the basis of the absence of legal merit).
The Board thanks the Veteran for his honorable service, and regrets a more favorable outcome could not be reached.
 
E. I. VELEZ
Veterans Law Judge
Board of Veterans’ Appeals
ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD	I. Kerner, Associate Counsel