Citation Nr: 18148494 Decision Date: 11/07/18 Archive Date: 11/07/18 DOCKET NO. 17-62 463 DATE: November 7, 2018 ORDER Entitlement to an effective date prior to December 2, 2012, for the grant of entitlement to service connection for dependency and indemnity compensation (DIC) is denied. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. Rating decisions dated February 2007 and February 2010, which denied entitlement to service connection for DIC, were not appealed and are final. 2. On December 3, 2012, the Veteran filed an appeal to reopen a claim for entitlement to service connection for DIC. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for an effective date prior to December 2, 2012, for DIC have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 5103, 5103A, 5107, 5110; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.159, 3.400. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Army from September 1977 to May 1978. He passed away in March 2006 and Appellant is his surviving spouse. By correspondence received October 2017, while the Appellant granted power of attorney to the National Association of County Veterans Service Officers Inc, a subsequent power of attorney dated in May 2008 reflects that she has more recently reestablished her relationship with her prior attorney. 1. Entitlement to an effective date prior to December 2, 2012, for the grant of entitlement to service connection for dependency and indemnity compensation (DIC) In September 2017, the RO granted entitlement to service connection for dependency and indemnity compensation (DIC) from December 3, 2012. The Appellant has appealed, arguing that she is entitled to an effective date of June 5, 2006. On June 5, 2006, the Appellant filed a claim of entitlement to service connection for DIC. In February 2007, the RO issued a notification letter denying the claim and stating that the Appellant had one year to file an appeal. The Appellant did not file an appeal or submit new evidence within one year of the February 2007 decision. The February 2007 decision became final when it was not appealed within a year of issuance. See 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.160(d); 20.302(a). On September 22, 2009, the Appellant filed an appeal to reopen her claim of entitlement to service connection for DIC. In February 2010, the RO issued a second notification letter denying the claim and stating that the Appellant had one year to file an appeal. The Appellant did not file an appeal or submit new evidence within one year of the February 2010 decision. The February 2010 decision became final when it was not appealed within a year of issuance. See 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.160(d); 20.302(a). On December 3, 2012, the Appellant filed an appeal to reopen her claim of entitlement to service connection for DIC. In a November 2017 decision, the Board granted the claim. In September 2017, the RO issued a decision granting DIC with an effective date of December 3, 2012. The Appellant timely appealed, arguing that she should be granted an effective date of June 5, 2006, the date that she filed her first DIC claim. Since June 2006, the Appellant has listed the same mailing address on all submitted forms. The RO has sent all letters and decisions to this address. There is no evidence or argument that the Veteran did not receive the February 2007 and February 2010 notification letters. As there is no clear evidence to the contrary, the Appellant is presumed to have received the notification letters. See Mindenhall v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 271, 274 (1994). The effective date for a grant of service connection on the basis of the receipt of new and material evidence following a final, prior disallowance is the date of receipt of the application to reopen, or the date entitlement arose, whichever is later. 38 U.S.C. § 5110; 38 C.F.R. § 3.400 (q)(1)(ii). For VA compensation purposes, a “claim” is defined as 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). The essential elements for any claim, whether formal or informal, are (1) an intent to apply for benefits, (2) an identification of the benefits sought, and (3) a communication in writing. Brokowski v. Shinseki, 23 Vet. App. 79, 84 (2009). VA must look to all communications from a claimant that may be interpreted as an application or claim for benefits and is required to identify and act on informal claims for benefits. See Servello v. Derwinski, 3 Vet. App. 196, 198 (1992). Under these principles and the facts of the case, an effective date of December 3, 2012, but no earlier, is warranted because a claim for DIC was received by VA on that date. An earlier effective date is not warranted because December 3, 2012, was the first day that VA received a written communication from the Appellant seeking to reopen her most recently-denied claim of entitlement to service connection for DIC. Michael J. Skaltsounis Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD B. Cannon, Associate Counsel