Citation Nr: 18150014 Decision Date: 11/14/18 Archive Date: 11/14/18 DOCKET NO. 16-50 933 DATE: November 14, 2018 ORDER The claim of entitlement to an effective date earlier than March 9, 2010, for the award of service connection for non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma is dismissed. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. In a June 2010 rating decision the Veteran was granted entitlement to service connection for non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma with an effective date of March 9, 2010. The Veteran was notified of this rating decision in correspondence dated June 2010. 2. The Veteran did not timely appeal the effective date assigned in the June 2010 rating decision. 3. The Veteran raised the matter of entitlement to an earlier effective date for the grant of service connection for non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma in March 2012. CONCLUSION OF LAW The Veteran’s claim regarding entitlement to an effective date earlier than March 9, 2010 for non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma is a freestanding claim. 38 U.S.C. § 7105 (c); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.104, 20.1103 (2017); Rudd v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 296 (2006). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION The Veteran contends that an earlier effective date is warranted for the grant of service connection for non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. In the June 2010 rating decisionservice connection for non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma was granted and assigned an effective date of March 9, 2010. The Veteran was notified of this rating decision in a letter dated from the same month but did not timely appeal the assigned effective date. The Veteran did not submit a claim for an earlier effective date for the grant of service connection for non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma until March 2012. A claimant has one year from notification of a rating decision to initiate an appeal by filing a notice of disagreement with the decision. 38 C.F.R. § 20.302 (2017). If the appeal is not initiated regarding the specific issue under contention, and then perfected within the allowed time period, then the rating decision becomes final. 38 C.F.R. § 20.1103. Thus, the Veteran would have had to submit a notice of disagreement by June 2011 indicating his disagreement with the effective date assigned for the grant of service connection for non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. The Board finds that a notice of disagreement with the effective date assigned for the grant of entitlement to service connection for non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma was not filed within one year of the June 2010 rating decision. Finality may also be prevented from attaching if new and material evidence is received within the one-year period to file a notice of disagreement. 38 C.F.R. § 3.156(b) (2017). The Veteran did not submit any additional evidence pertaining to the issue of an earlier effective date within one year of the June 2010 action. This rating decision is therefore final. 38 U.S.C. § 7105(c); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.156(b), 20.1103. Once a decision on a claim becomes final, it cannot be challenged through a freestanding claim for entitlement to an earlier effective date. See Rudd v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 296, 299-300 (2006). Thus, the Board is required to dismiss freestanding claims for entitlement to earlier effective dates. Id.; see also DiCarlo v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 52 (2006) (stating there is no such procedure as a freestanding challenge to the finality of a VA decision). In other words, if there is disagreement as to the effective date assigned in a given rating action, it must be timely appealed (within one year of notice of the rating decision assigning the effective date). In cases where this is not done, only a finding of clear and unmistakable error could enable an earlier effective date. See 38 U.S.C. § 5109A (b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.105(a). The Board acknowledges the Veteran’s contention that when he was diagnosed with non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma in 2007, a representative of the RO in Los Angeles told him that he could not be granted service connection for such disability and therefore because he relied on the representative’s statements, he should be granted an effective date approximately three years prior to the currently assigned effective date. The Board is sympathetic to the Veteran’s circumstances and does not doubt his assertion that, in relying on information provided to him by representatives of VA, he did not file a claim at that time because he was more focused on battling his illness. The critical question in this case, however, is whether he timely appealed the June 2010 rating decision. The evidence shows that he did not and the Veteran does not otherwise contend that he did so. (Continued on the next page)   As the current claim is a freestanding claim of entitlement to an earlier effective date, the law is dispositive of the issue, and the claim must be dismissed. See Sabonis v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 426, 430 (1994). GAYLE STROMMEN Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD Matthew Schlickenmaier, Counsel