Citation Nr: 18152672
Decision Date: 11/23/18	Archive Date: 11/23/18

DOCKET NO. 16-00 256
DATE:	November 23, 2018
REMANDED
1. Entitlement to an effective date prior to March 9, 2006, for the award of service connection for an anxiety disorder is remanded.
2. Whether there was clear and unmistakable error (CUE) in an September 1973 rating decision that denied service connection for a nervous condition is remanded.
REASONS FOR REMAND
The Veteran served on active duty with the U.S. Army from May 1971 to May 1973. 
This case is before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a rating decision of a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO).
REFERRED ISSUE
The issue of whether there was CUE in the September 1973 rating decision that denied service connection claim for a nervous condition has been raised in the Veteran’s July 2014 notice of disagreement.  To date, that issue has not been adjudicated by the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ).  Therefore, the Board does not have jurisdiction over that matter, and it is referred to the AOJ for appropriate action.  This issue has been added to the title page because it is inextricably intertwined with the issue on appeal, giving the Board jurisdiction of the matter for the sole purpose of remanding it to the AOJ along with the intertwined issue.
1. Entitlement to an effective date prior to March 9, 2006, for the award of service connection for an anxiety disorder is remanded.
2. Whether there was clear and unmistakable error (CUE) in an September 1973 rating decision that denied service connection for a nervous condition.
A favorable determination of the Veteran’s CUE motion could render his claim for an earlier effective date for the award of service connection for anxiety disorder moot.  Thus, the CUE motion is inextricably intertwined with the pending appeal for an earlier effective date.  Accordingly, the CUE motion must be adjudicated by the AOJ prior to the Board’s adjudication of the Veteran’s appeal for an earlier effective date.  See Harris v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 180, 183 (1991) (issues are inextricably intertwined if one claim could have significant impact on the other).  As such, adjudication of the earlier effective date claim is deferred until the appropriate actions concerning the intertwined CUE motion is completed and the matter is either resolved or prepared for appellate review.  
The matter is REMANDED for the following actions:
1. After accomplishing any necessary notification and/or development action, adjudicate the issue of whether there is CUE in the September 1973 rating decision, which denied service connection for a nervous condition.  If the claim is denied, the Veteran and his representative must be notified of the denial of the claim and advised of the Veteran’s appellate rights.
The Veteran and his representative are hereby reminded that to obtain appellate jurisdiction of an issue not currently in appellate status, a timely appeal (consisting of an NOD, and, after issuance of an SOC, a substantive appeal) must be perfected. 
2. After adjudicating the inextricably intertwined issue and reviewing the additional evidence added to the record, readjudicate the earlier effective date claim.  If the benefit sought remains denied, the Veteran and his representative must be furnished a Supplemental Statement of the Case and be given an opportunity to submit written or other argument in response before the claims file is returned to the Board for further appellate consideration.
 
J. A. Anderson
Acting Veterans Law Judge
Board of Veterans’ Appeals
ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD	A. Price, Associate Counsel