Citation Nr: 18149388 Decision Date: 11/09/18 Archive Date: 11/09/18 DOCKET NO. 15-39 774 DATE: November 9, 2018 ORDER Service connection for bilateral hearing loss is denied. Service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder, to include depression, anxiety, and posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is denied. Service connection for pleural effusions is denied. Service connection for asthma is denied. Service connection for sleep apnea is denied. Service connection for pseudobulbar affect is denied. Service connection for stroke residuals is denied. Service connection for a thyroid tumor is denied. Service connection for atrial fibrillation denied. Service connection for headaches is denied. Entitlement to a disability rating in excess of 10 percent for tinnitus is denied. Entitlement to a total disability rating based on individual unemployability due to service connected disabilities (TDIU) is denied. Entitlement to an effective date earlier than January 23, 2014, for the grant of service connection for tinnitus is denied. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The Veteran does not have a bilateral or unilateral hearing loss disability for VA purposes. 2. An acquired psychiatric disorder, to include depression, anxiety, and PTSD, is not related to service. 3. Pleural effusions are not related to service. 4. Asthma is not related to service. 5. Sleep apnea is not related to service. 6. Pseudobulbar affect is not related to service. 7. Stroke residuals are not related to service. 8. A thyroid tumor is not related to service. 9. Atrial fibrillation is not related to service. 10. Headaches are not related to service. 11. There is no dispute of fact that the maximum rating for tinnitus of 10 percent is already assigned. 12. The Veteran’s service-connected disabilities have not rendered him unable to secure or follow a substantially gainful occupation. 13. The earliest date of a pending claim of entitlement to service connection for tinnitus is January 23, 2014. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The criteria for service connection for bilateral hearing loss have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1101, 1110, 1112, 1113, 1131, 1137, 5103, 5103A, 5107 (West 2014); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.159, 3.303, 3.307, 3.309, 3.310, 3.385 (2017). 2. The criteria for service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder, to include depression, anxiety, and PTSD have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1101, 1110, 1112, 1113, 1131, 1137, 5103, 5103A, 5107 (West 2014); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.159, 3.303, 3.307, 3.309, 3.310, 4.125 (2017). 3. The criteria for service connection for pleural effusions have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1112, 1113, 1131, 5103, 5103A, 5107 (West 2014); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.159, 3.303 (2017). 4. The criteria for service connection for asthma have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1112, 1113, 1131, 5103, 5103A, 5107 (West 2014); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.159, 3.303 (2017). 5. The criteria for service connection for sleep apnea have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1112, 1113, 1131, 5103, 5103A, 5107 (West 2014); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.159, 3.303 (2017). 6. The criteria for service connection for pseudobulbar affect have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1112, 1113, 1131, 5103, 5103A, 5107 (West 2014); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.159, 3.303 (2017). 7. The criteria for service connection for stroke residuals have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1112, 1113, 1131, 5103, 5103A, 5107 (West 2014); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.159, 3.303 (2017). 8. The criteria for service connection for a thyroid tumor have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1112, 1113, 1131, 5103, 5103A, 5107 (West 2014); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.159, 3.303 (2017). 9. The criteria for service connection for atrial fibrillation have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1112, 1113, 1131, 5103, 5103A, 5107 (West 2014); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.159, 3.303 (2017). 10. The criteria for service connection for headaches have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1112, 1113, 1131, 5103, 5103A, 5107 (West 2014); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.159, 3.303 (2017). 11. The criteria for a disability rating in excess of 10 percent for tinnitus have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1155, 5103, 5103A, 5107 (West 2014); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.159, 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, 4.6, 4.7, 4.10, 4.85, Diagnostic Code 6100, (2017). 12. The criteria for TDIU have not been met. The criteria for TDIU have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1155, 5107 (West 2014); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.321, 3.340, 3.341, 4.15, 4.16 (2017). 13. The criteria for an effective date earlier than January 23, 2014, for the grant of service connection for tinnitus have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 5101, 5103, 5103A, 5107, 5110 (West 2014); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.151, 3.400 (2017). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The appellant is a veteran (the Veteran) who had active duty service from August 1974 to October 1976. This appeal comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) from a December 2014 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Wichita, Kansas. Service Connection VA law provides that, for disability resulting from personal injury suffered or disease contracted in line of duty, or for aggravation of a preexisting injury suffered or disease contracted in line of duty, in the active military, naval, or air service, during a period of war, or other than a period of war, the United States will pay to any veteran thus disabled and who was discharged or released under conditions other than dishonorable from the period of service in which said injury or disease was incurred, or preexisting injury or disease was aggravated, compensation, except if the disability is a result of the veteran's own willful misconduct or abuse of alcohol or drugs. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131 (West 2014). Entitlement to service connection on a direct basis requires (1) evidence of current nonservice-connected disability; (2) evidence of in-service incurrence or aggravation of disease or injury; and (3) evidence of a nexus between the in-service disease or injury and the current nonservice-connected disability. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a); Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Service connection on a secondary basis requires (1) evidence of a current nonservice-connected disability; (2) evidence of a service-connected disability; and (3) evidence establishing that the service-connected disability caused or aggravated the current nonservice-connected disability. 38 C.F.R. § 3.310(a),(b); Wallin v. West, 11 Vet. App. 509, 512 (1998). For specific enumerated diseases designated as “chronic” there is a presumption that such chronic disease was incurred in or aggravated by service even though there is no evidence of such chronic disease during the period of service. In order for the presumption to attach, the disease must have become manifest to a degree of 10 percent or more within one year of separation from active duty. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1101, 1112, 1113, 1137; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.307(a)(3), 3.309(a). The chronic presumptive diseases include organic diseases of the nervous system, to include sensorineural hearing loss, and psychoses. The chronic presumptive diseases do not include non-psychotic psychiatric disorders, pleural effusions, asthma, sleep apnea, pseudobulbar affect, thyroid tumors, stroke residuals, atrial fibrillation, or headaches. Presumptive service connection for chronic diseases may alternatively be established by way of continuity of symptomatology under 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(b). However, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Federal Circuit) has held that the theory of continuity of symptomatology can be used only in cases involving those conditions explicitly recognized as chronic in 38 C.F.R. § 3.309(a) Walker v. Shinseki, 708 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2013). Service connection for impaired hearing shall only be established when hearing status as determined by audiometric testing meets specified pure tone and speech recognition criteria. Audiometric testing measures threshold hearing levels (in decibels) over a range of frequencies (in Hertz). Hensley v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 155, 158 (1993). Impaired hearing will be considered to be a “disability” when the auditory threshold in any of the frequencies 500, 1000, 2000, 3000, or 4000 Hertz is 40 decibels or greater; or when the auditory thresholds for at least three of the frequencies 500, 1000, 2000, 3000, or 4000 Hertz are 26 decibels or greater; or when speech recognition scores using the Maryland CNC Test are less than 94 percent. 38 C.F.R. § 3.385. When audiometric test results at separation from service do not meet the regulatory requirements for establishing a “disability” at that time, he or she may nevertheless establish service connection for a current hearing disability by submitting evidence that the current disability is causally related to service. Hensley v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 155 (1993). Service connection for posttraumatic stress disorder requires (1) medical evidence diagnosing the condition in accordance with 38 C.F.R. § 4.125(a); (2) a link, established by medical evidence, between current symptoms and an in-service stressor; and (3) credible supporting evidence that the claimed in-service stressor occurred. 38 C.F.R. § 3.304(f). After the evidence has been assembled, it is the Board’s responsibility to evaluate the entire record. 38 U.S.C. § 7104(a) (West 2014). When there is an approximate balance of evidence regarding the merits of an issue material to the determination of the matter, the benefit of the doubt in resolving each such issue shall be given to the claimant. 38 U.S.C. § 5107 (West 2014); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 4.3 (2017). A VA claimant need only demonstrate that there is an approximate balance of positive and negative evidence in order to prevail. Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49, 53 (1990). To deny a claim on its merits, the preponderance of the evidence must be against the claim. Alemany v. Brown, 9 Vet. App. 518, 519 (1996). Service connection for bilateral hearing loss. Service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder, to include depression, anxiety, and posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Service connection for pleural effusions. Service connection for asthma. Service connection for sleep apnea. Service connection for pseudobulbar affect. Service connection for stroke residuals. Service connection for thyroid tumor. Service connection for atrial fibrillation. Service connection for headaches. A report of medical history completed by the Veteran on February 4, 1974, lists a history of asthma as a child, the last episode being 6 or 7 years prior (Record 05/06/2014 at 57). A report of medical examination performed on February 4, 1974 (service entrance), reveals normal clinical findings for all pertinent systems (Record 05/06/2014 at 59). Pure tone thresholds were as follows: HERTZ 500 1000 2000 3000 4000 RIGHT 20 0 0 0 5 LEFT 15 5 0 10 20 A report of medical history completed by the Veteran on August 9, 1974, reveals a history of asthma as a child. The Veteran noted having been hospitalized in 1956 for an asthma attack (Record 05/06/2014 at 53). A report of medical examination performed on August 9, 1974, reveals normal findings for all pertinent systems (Record 05/06/2014 at 49). Pure tone thresholds were as follows: HERTZ 500 1000 2000 3000 4000 RIGHT 20 0 0 0 5 LEFT 15 5 0 10 20 When examined in May 1975, pure tone thresholds were as follows (Record 05/06/2014 at 31). HERTZ 500 1000 2000 3000 4000 RIGHT 10 15 5 5 5 LEFT 25 15 10 15 10 A report of medical history completed by the Veteran on June 25, 1975, reveals the Veteran’s statement that he had asthma as a child (Record 05/06/2014 at 50). A report of medical examination performed on June 25, 1975 (service entry) reveals normal findings for ears and hearing (Record 05/06/2014 at 46). Pure tone thresholds were as follows: HERTZ 500 1000 2000 3000 4000 RIGHT 10 5 5 10 5 LEFT 5 5 5 0 0 When examined in May 1976, pure tone thresholds were as follows (Record 05/06/2014 at 31). HERTZ 500 1000 2000 3000 4000 RIGHT 25 20 15 15 15 LEFT 20 25 15 20 35 A report of medical examination performed on September 28, 1976 (service separation) reveals normal findings for the head, ears and hearing, throat, endocrine system, lungs, and heart, as well as normal psychiatric findings (Record 05/06/2014 at 5). The Board notes that the Veteran submitted a list of treatment providers with his claim (Record 01/23/2014). In August 2014, the RO responded with a letter informing him that he needed to complete an appropriate authorization for release of medical records for each provider identified. He was provided the appropriate form to complete (Record 08/04/2014). The Veteran did not provide the information requested. The report of a November 2014 VA Hearing Examination reveals pure tone thresholds as follows: HERTZ 500 1000 2000 3000 4000 RIGHT 20 20 25 30 20 LEFT 20 20 20 30 30 The examiner opined that the Veteran’s hearing loss was related to service. The rationale was that the Veteran served in a noisy environment; he denied post-military occupational noise exposure; he denied a family history of hearing loss, a history of ear disease, and exposure to ototoxic medication. The examiner noted that the Veteran’s main concern and complaint was not hearing loss, rather it was constant ringing tinnitus. He attributed the onset of other health problems to the tinnitus, including his inability to sleep. The examiner noted that, it is clear that an OSHA standard threshold shift did occur during service, and this threshold shift is indicative of acoustic trauma (Record 11/14/2014). After a review of all of the evidence, the Board finds that the Veteran does not have a hearing loss disability for VA purposes. The criteria set out under 38 C.F.R. § 3.385 have not been met at any time pertinent to the claim on appeal. The Board also finds that the claimed acquired psychiatric disorder, pleural effusions, asthma, sleep apnea, pseudobulbar affect, stroke residuals, thyroid tumor, atrial fibrillation, and chronic disability manifested by headaches, are not related to service or to a service-connected disability. As noted above, the Veteran was provided an opportunity to identify evidence that might substantiate his claims. Part of the identification process is to supply the necessary release forms to permit the RO to obtain his medical records. The Veteran did not provide this information when given the opportunity to do so. The duty to assist is not always a one-way street, nor is it a blind alley. Olson v. Principi, 3 Vet. App. 480, 483 (1992); Wood v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 190, 193 (1991). In this case, the Veteran has not provided evidence by which the Board can determine whether any of the claimed disabilities actually exists, or whether it is related to service. Notwithstanding the lack of evidence of current disabilities pertinent to the claims on appeal, the Board also notes that, with the exception of acknowledged noise exposure in service, there is no in-service injury or disease with respect to any of the other claims. Without an in-service injury or disease, there is no duty for VA to obtain a medical examination or medical opinion regarding any of these claims. VA has obtained a medical opinion regarding hearing loss, and that opinion favors the claim. However, without a showing of a current hearing loss disability for VA purposes, there can be no grant of service connection. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.385. The Board also finds that there is no notation of psychosis during service, and no manifestation of a psychosis to a degree of 10 percent or more within one year of service separation, for purposes of establishing service connection for a mental disorder as a presumptive chronic disease. In sum, the Board finds that there is no current hearing loss disability for VA purposes; and, the claimed acquired psychiatric disorder, pleural effusions, asthma, sleep apnea, pseudobulbar affect, stroke residuals, thyroid tumor, atrial fibrillation, and chronic disability manifested by headaches, are not related to service or to a service-connected disability. In light of these findings, the Board concludes that service connection for the claimed hearing loss, acquired psychiatric disorder, pleural effusions, asthma, sleep apnea, pseudobulbar affect, stroke residuals, thyroid tumor, atrial fibrillation, and chronic disability manifested by headaches, is not warranted. In reaching this conclusion, the Board has considered the applicability of the benefit-of-the-doubt doctrine. However, as the preponderance of the evidence is against each claim, that doctrine is not applicable. 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.102; Gilbert, 1 Vet. App. at 53-56. Increased Rating Disability ratings are determined by evaluating the extent to which a veteran’s service-connected disability adversely affects his or her ability to function under the ordinary conditions of daily life, including employment, by comparing his or her symptomatology with the criteria set forth in the Schedule for Rating Disabilities. See 38 U.S.C. § 1155; 38 C.F.R. § 4.1. If two ratings are potentially applicable, the higher rating will be assigned if the disability more nearly approximates the criteria required for that rating; otherwise, the lower rating will be assigned. See 38 C.F.R. § 4.7. Any reasonable doubt regarding the degree of disability will be resolved in favor of the veteran. See 38 C.F.R. § 4.3. A disability rating may require re-evaluation in accordance with changes in a veteran’s condition. Thus, it is essential that the disability be considered in the context of the entire recorded history when determining the level of current impairment. See 38 C.F.R. § 4.1. See also Schafrath v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 589 (1991). Nevertheless, where a veteran is appealing the rating for an already established service-connected condition, his present level of disability is of primary concern. See Francisco v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 55, 58 (1994). However, when an appeal is based on the assignment of an initial rating for a disability, following an initial award of service connection for this disability, the rule articulated in Francisco does not apply. Fenderson v. West, 12 Vet. App. 119 (1999). Instead, the evaluation must be based on the overall recorded history of a disability, giving equal weight to past and present medical reports. Id. Staged ratings are appropriate for an increased-rating claim when the factual findings show distinct time periods where the service-connected disability exhibits symptoms that would warrant different ratings. Hart v. Mansfield, 21 Vet. App. 505 (2007). A disability rating in excess of 10 percent for tinnitus. The current appeal arises from a claim of entitlement to service connection for tinnitus received at VA on January 23, 2014. In a December 2014 rating decision, VA granted service connection for tinnitus and assigned an initial disability rating of 10 percent under Diagnostic Code 6260, effective January 23, 2014. Under Diagnostic Code 6260, recurrent tinnitus is to be assigned a rating of 10 percent, which is the maximum rating listed. 38 C.F.R. § 4.85, Diagnostic Code 6260. Assign only a single evaluation for recurrent tinnitus, whether the sound is perceived in one ear, both ears, or in the head. 38 C.F.R. § 4.85, Diagnostic Code 6260, note (2). In Smith v. Nicholson, 19 Vet. App. 63, 78, (2005) the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) held that the pre-1999 and pre-June 13, 2003, versions of Diagnostic Code 6260 required the assignment of dual ratings for bilateral tinnitus. VA appealed this decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Federal Circuit). In Smith v. Nicholson, 451 F.3d 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2006), the Federal Circuit concluded that the CAVC erred in not deferring to VA’s interpretation of its own regulations, 38 C.F.R. § 4.25 and Diagnostic Code 6260, which limit a claimant to a single disability rating for tinnitus, regardless of whether the tinnitus is unilateral or bilateral. The Veteran’s service-connected tinnitus has been assigned the maximum schedular rating available for tinnitus. 38 C.F.R. §4.87, Diagnostic Code 6260. He has made no argument regarding extraschedular entitlement. The symptomatology described by the Veteran as associated with his tinnitus consists of constant ringing (Record 11/14/2014). Such symptomatology is fully contemplated under the rating schedule. As there is no factual basis upon which to award more than a single 10 percent rating for tinnitus, the Veteran’s appeal must be denied on the basis of lack of legal entitlement. See Sabonis v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 426 (1994). A total disability rating based on individual unemployability due to service-connected disabilities (TDIU) It is the established policy of VA that all veterans who are unable to secure and follow a substantially gainful occupation by reason of service-connected disabilities shall be rated totally disabled. 38 C.F.R. § 4.16. A finding of total disability is appropriate when there is present any impairment of mind or body which is sufficient to render it impossible for the average person to follow a substantially gainful occupation. 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.340(a)(1), 4.15. A claim for a total disability rating based upon individual unemployability presupposes that the rating for the service-connected disability is less than 100 percent, and only asks for TDIU because of subjective factors that the objective rating does not consider. Vettese v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 31, 34-35 (1994). In evaluating a veteran's employability, consideration may be given to his level of education, special training, and previous work experience in arriving at a conclusion, but not to his age or impairment caused by non-service-connected disabilities. 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.341, 4.16, 4.19. The term substantially gainful occupation is not specifically defined for purposes of the regulations governing TDIU. However, marginal employment is not considered substantially gainful employment. Marginal employment includes situations in which an individual’s annual income does not exceed the poverty threshold for one person. Employment may be marginal even when the individual’s earned income exceeds the poverty threshold if such individual is employed in a protected environment such as a family business or sheltered workshop. 38 C.F.R. § 4.16(a). A total disability rating for compensation may be assigned, where the schedular rating is less than total, when the disabled person is, in the judgment of the rating agency, unable to secure or follow a substantially gainful occupation as a result of service-connected disabilities, provided that, if there is only one such disability, this disability shall be ratable at 60 percent or more. If there are two or more disabilities, there shall be at least one disability ratable at 40 percent or more and the combined rating must be 70 percent or more. 38 C.F.R. § 4.16(a). Pursuant to 38 C.F.R. § 4.16(b), when a claimant is unable to secure and follow a substantially gainful occupation by reason of service-connected disabilities, but fails to meet the percentage requirements for eligibility for a total rating set forth in 38 C.F.R. § 4.16(a), such case shall be submitted for extraschedular consideration. For a veteran to prevail on a claim for a total compensation rating based on individual unemployability on an extraschedular basis, the record must reflect some factor which takes the case outside the norm. The sole fact that a claimant is unemployed or has difficulty obtaining employment is not enough. A disability rating in itself is recognition that the impairment makes it difficult to obtain or keep employment, but the ultimate question is whether the veteran is capable of performing the physical and mental acts required by employment, not whether he can find employment. Van Hoose v. Brown, 4 Vet. App. 361 (1993). In Hatlestad v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 164 (1991), the Court referred to apparent conflicts in the regulations pertaining to individual unemployability benefits. Specifically, the Court indicated there was a need to discuss whether the standard delineated in the controlling regulations was an “objective” one based on the average industrial impairment or a “subjective” one based upon the veteran's actual industrial impairment. In a pertinent precedent decision, the VA General Counsel opined that the controlling VA regulations generally provide that veterans who, in light of their individual circumstances, but without regard to age, are unable to secure and follow a substantially gainful occupation as the result of service-connected disability shall be rated totally disabled, without regard to whether an average person would be rendered unemployable by the circumstances. Thus, the criteria include a subjective standard. It was also determined that “unemployability” is synonymous with inability to secure and follow a substantially gainful occupation. VAOPGCPREC 75-91. In this case, service connection is in effect for the single disability of tinnitus, which is rated at 10 percent, for a combined disability rating of 10 percent. Accordingly, the schedular criteria for TDIU have not been met. After a review of all of the evidence, the Board finds that the Veteran’s sole service-connected disability of tinnitus does not render him unable to secure or follow a substantially gainful occupation. He has described no occupational impact of tinnitus. The November 2014 VA examiner found that there was no impact of the condition on the ordinary conditions of daily life, including the ability to work. Accordingly, the Board concludes that referral of the claim for consideration of an extraschedular TDIU award is not warranted. In reaching this conclusion, the Board has considered the applicability of the benefit-of-the-doubt doctrine. However, as the preponderance of the evidence is against the claim, that doctrine is not applicable. See 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.102; Gilbert, 1 Vet. App. at 53-56. An effective date earlier than January 23, 2014, for the grant of service connection for tinnitus. Unless specifically provided otherwise, the effective date of an award based on an original claim, a claim reopened after final adjudication, or a claim for increase, of compensation, dependency and indemnity compensation, or pension, shall be fixed in accordance with the facts found, but shall not be earlier than the date of receipt of application therefor. 38 U.S.C. § 5110(a). The effective date of an award of disability compensation to a veteran shall be the day following the date of discharge or release if application therefor is received within one year from such date of discharge or release. 38 U.S.C. § 5110(b)(1). This statutory provision is implemented by a regulation which provides that the effective date of an evaluation and 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. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.400. A specific claim in the form prescribed by the Secretary of VA must be filed in order for benefits to be paid to any individual under the laws administered by VA. 38 U.S.C. § 5101(a); 38 C.F.R. § 3.151(a). Prior to the January 23, 2014, claim of entitlement to service connection for tinnitus (and other disabilities), a February 27, 2013, notice letter from VA acknowledges receipt of an informal claim for “severe asthma, depression and anxiety.” There is no copy of this informal claim in the claims file. However, the issues included were clearly noted by the RO, and they did not include service connection for tinnitus. Prior to the February 27, 2013, notice letter, there are no records of any kind since October 10, 1982. There is no correspondence from the Veteran since June 5, 1980, and that is an address change request. The Board acknowledges its obligation to read the filings of this pro se claimant liberally. See Moody v. Principi, 360 F.3d 1306 (Fed. Cir. 2004); Szemraj v. Principi, 357 F.3d 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2004); and Roberson v. Principi, 251 F.3d 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (each emphasizing that pro se filings must be read liberally). However, there is no correspondence from the Veteran prior to the February 27, 2013, notice that can reasonable be interpreted as a claim for VA service-connected compensation. The evidence prior to that pertains to educational matters. There is no correspondence prior to the January 23, 2014, claim that can reasonably be interpreted as a claim of entitlement to service connection for tinnitus. To the extent the Veteran bases his claim on the presence of tinnitus prior to the current claim, or since service, this addresses only one of the criteria necessary for service connection, and thus the assignment of an effective date for service connection. Establishment of service connection and the effective date therefor is also premised on the date of receipt of a claim. The effective date is the later of the date entitlement arose and the date of receipt of a claim. In this case, there appears no dispute as to the earliest date of claim. The Veteran has not identified an earlier claim of entitlement to service connection for tinnitus, and the record does not substantiate any earlier date of claim. Accordingly, the Board concludes that an effective date for the grant of service connection for tinnitus earlier than January 23, 2014, is not warranted. In reaching this conclusion, the Board has considered the applicability of the benefit-of-the-doubt doctrine. However, as the preponderance of the evidence is against the claim, that doctrine is not applicable. See 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.102; Gilbert, 1 Vet. App. at 53-56. JONATHAN B. KRAMER Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD L. Cramp