Citation Nr: 18151332 Decision Date: 11/16/18 Archive Date: 11/16/18 DOCKET NO. 16-43 350 DATE: November 16, 2018 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for a dental disability for compensation purposes is denied. The appeal for an effective date prior to May 28, 2015 for the grant of service connection for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), to include based on clear and unmistakable error (CUE), is dismissed. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The Veteran’s current dental disorder is not considered a disability for VA compensation purposes. 2. The Veteran did not timely appeal an August 2015 rating decision which granted entitlement to service connection for PTSD, effective May 28, 2015. 3. Neither the Veteran nor his representative has specified the rating decision which allegedly contains CUE. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The criteria for entitlement to service connection for a dental disability for compensation purposes have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107(b) (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.381, 4.150 (2017). 2. The appeal as to the freestanding claim for an effective date prior to May 28, 2015 for the grant of service connection for PTSD is not authorized by law. 38 U.S.C. §§ 5110, 7105 (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.400, 20.1103 (2017); Rudd v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 296 (2006). 3. The Veteran has not filed a properly pled claim of CUE in a rating decision. 38 C.F.R. § 3.105 (2017). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The Veteran has indicated that he also seeks entitlement to service connection for a dental disability for VA treatment purposes. See September 2016 VA Form 9. The evidence of record indicates the Veteran and his representative were notified in a December 2016 letter how to initiate a claim for treatment purposes with the appropriate VA Medical Center, and that issue is not currently before the Board. 1. Entitlement to service connection for a dental disability for compensation purposes The Veteran contends his current dental condition, including an extracted tooth, crowns, implants, and trauma to teeth numbers 3, 4, 12, 14, and 30, is related to failed fillings performed during his active duty service in Vietnam. See, e.g., November 2016 Veteran statement; July 2016 VA Form 21-526EZ; July 2016 notice of disagreement; August 2015 Veteran statement; April 1971 VA Form 21-3101. The Veteran’s representative has also indicated the Veteran’s current dental condition may be related to combat service in Vietnam. See November 2016 VA Form 21-526EZ; September 2016 VA Form 9. Dental disorders are treated differently than other medical disorders in the VA benefits system. Under current VA regulations, compensation is only available for certain types of dental and oral conditions listed under 38 C.F.R. § 4.150. These conditions include, in relevant part, loss of teeth due to loss of substance of the body of the maxilla or mandible due to trauma or disease such as osteomyelitis rather than as a result of periodontal disease. Treatable carious teeth, replaceable missing teeth, and dental or alveolar abscesses are not considered disabling conditions, and may be considered service connected solely for establishing eligibility for VA outpatient dental treatment. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.381(b). The Veteran’s service treatment records indicate that upon his April 1969 initial dental examination, the Veteran was missing teeth numbers 2, 3, 4, 12, 14, 16, 19, and 30. A February 1970 dental treatment record indicated tooth number 1 was missing and tooth number 2 was present; teeth numbers 3, 4, 12, 14, 16, 19, and 30 were again marked as missing. February 1970 dental treatment records indicate restorations were performed on teeth numbers 2, 7, and 9, and a filling was performed on tooth number 7 in July 1970. The Veteran’s service treatment records do not document a tooth extraction during service, or indicate that the Veteran suffered any trauma to his face or mouth, a disease such as osteomyelitis, or any concerns regarding the maxilla or mandible. Although the service treatment records are not clear as to exactly when or why tooth number 1 was extracted, the Board finds the Veteran’s service treatment records do not indicate any bone loss of the maxilla or mandible during active duty service. Although the Veteran and his representative have generally contended the Veteran suffered dental trauma during service, and indicated the Veteran’s current dental disorder may be related to combat, neither the Veteran nor his representative contends a tooth was lost or extracted during service due to bone loss of the maxilla or mandible due to dental trauma or disease such as osteomyelitis. Further, the Board finds the preponderance of the competent and credible evidence of record is against finding that the Veteran’s reported dental implants following service were to replace missing teeth due to bone loss of the maxilla or mandible due to dental trauma or disease such as osteomyelitis during service. Instead, the Veteran has indicated his dental work following service was necessary due to failed dental fillings. See, e.g., November 2016 Veteran statement; July 2016 VA Form 21-526EZ; August 2015 Veteran statement. Again, treatable carious teeth and replaceable missing teeth are not considered disabling conditions. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.381(b). The Board has sympathetically considered the Veteran’s lay statements. However, as the Veteran has not been diagnosed with a dental disability for which service connection may be granted, the criteria for service connection for a dental disability for compensation purposes have not been met. Accordingly, the Board must conclude that the preponderance of the evidence is against the claim of entitlement to service connection for a dental disability for compensation purposes. The benefit of the doubt doctrine is therefore not applicable, and the claim must be denied. See 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.102; Fagan v. Shinseki, 573 F.3d 1282, 1287 (Fed. Cir. 2009). 2. Entitlement to an effective date prior to May 28, 2015 for the grant of service connection for PTSD, to include based on CUE In August 2015, the Veteran was notified of an August 2015 rating decision in which the Regional Office (RO) granted entitlement to service connection for PTSD, effective May 28, 2015. Neither the Veteran nor his representative submitted a notice of disagreement with the effective date for PTSD, and the August 2015 rating decision became final. See 38 C.F.R. §§ 20.201, 20.302, 20.1103; see also August 2016 notice of disagreement (regarding dental claim); February 2016 notice of disagreement (discussing only a dental claim). In July 2016 and November 2016 claims, the Veteran sought entitlement to an earlier effective date for the grant of service connection for PTSD. However, there is no legal basis for a freestanding claim for an earlier effective date for a grant of service connection. See Rudd v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 296, 299-300 (2006). Accordingly, the Veteran’s appeal for an effective date prior to May 28, 2015 for the grant of service connection for PTSD must be dismissed. In a December 2016 claim, the Veteran’s representative alleged the Veteran is entitled to an earlier effective date for the grant of service connection for PTSD based on CUE. The contentions include that there was an informal claim for benefits in 1971. See, e.g., May 2017 VA Form 9; December 2016 Veteran statement. A July 1971 rating decision denied entitlement to service connection for a dental disability for VA treatment purposes. Following the August 2015 rating decision granting service connection for PTSD, June 2016 and October 2016 rating decisions denied entitlement to an earlier effective date for the grant of service connection for PTSD. The Board finds that neither the Veteran nor his representative has specified which rating decision allegedly contains CUE. CUE claims must be pled with specificity, and if multiple RO decisions have been issued, the claimant must specify the date of the RO decision being challenged. See Pierce v. Principi, 240 F.3d 1348, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (quoting Fugo v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 40, 44 (1993)); Mindenhall v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 271, 275 (1994). Accordingly, the Board finds the appeal for an earlier effective date for the grant of service connection for PTSD based on CUE does not meet the pleading requirements, and must be dismissed without prejudice. DONNIE R. HACHEY Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD S. Delhauer, Counsel