Citation Nr: 18155753 Decision Date: 12/06/18 Archive Date: 12/06/18 DOCKET NO. 14-41 245A DATE: December 6, 2018 ORDER An effective date of September 2, 2015, for the grant of a 60 percent evaluation for coronary artery disease and congestive heart failure is granted. [NOTE: The issues of an evaluation in excess of 30 percent for posttraumatic stress disorder and an effective date earlier than September 10, 2015, for the award of a total disability rating based upon individual unemployability are the subject of a separate Board decision.] FINDING OF FACT The Veteran submitted correspondence on July 24, 2015, that was not in one of the three specified standard formats for an intent to file a claim; VA received a completed claim on a standardized form on September 2, 2015. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for an effective date of September 2, 2015, for the grant of a 60 percent evaluation for coronary artery disease and congestive heart failure have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 5110 (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.400 (2017). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty from June 1967 to April 1969. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a January 2016 rating decision of a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). VA’s Duties to Notify and Assist The Veterans Claims Assistance Act of 2000 (VCAA), in part, describes VA’s duties to notify and assist claimants in substantiating a claim for VA benefits. 38 U.S.C. §§ 5100, 5102, 5103, 5103A, 5106, 5107, 5126 (2012); Honoring America’s Veterans and Caring for Camp Lejeune Families Act of 2012, Pub. L. No. 112-154, §§ 504, 505, 126 Stat. 1165, 1191-93; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.156(a), 3.159, 3.326(a) (2017). VA is required to notify the claimant and his or her representative of any information, and any medical or lay evidence, not of record (1) that is necessary to substantiate the claim; (2) that VA will seek to provide; and (3) that the claimant is expected to provide. 38 U.S.C. § 5103(a); 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(b); Quartuccio v. Principi, 16 Vet. App. 183 (2002). The duty to notify in this case was satisfied by a letter sent to the Veteran in September 2015. 38 U.S.C. §§ 5102, 5103, 5103A (2012); 38 C.F.R. § 3.159 (2016); Scott v. McDonald, 789 F.3d 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2015). The claim was last adjudicated in March 2016. The VCAA also requires VA to make reasonable efforts to help a claimant obtain evidence necessary to substantiate his claim. 38 U.S.C. § 5103A; 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(c), (d). This “duty to assist” contemplates that VA will help a claimant obtain records relevant to his claim, whether or not the records are in Federal custody, and that VA will provide a medical examination or obtain an opinion when necessary to make a decision on the claim. 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(c)(4). Here, however, the issue does not turn on the development of factual evidence. Instead, it turns on the date the claim was made in the first instance and the law surrounding the establishment of effective dates. Accordingly, no assistance would reasonably affect the outcome of the case. As there is no indication that any failure on the part of VA to provide additional notice or assistance reasonably affects the outcome of this case, the Board finds that any such failure is harmless. See Mayfield v. Nicholson, 19 Vet. App. 103 (2005), rev’d on other grounds, Mayfield v. Nicholson, 444 F.3d 1328 (Fed. Cir. 2006). 1. An effective date earlier than September 10, 2015, for the grant of a 60 percent evaluation for coronary artery disease and congestive heart failure. The Veteran seeks an effective date earlier than September 10, 2015, for the grant of a 60 percent initial evaluation for coronary artery disease and congestive heart failure. Generally, the effective date for the grant of service connection based on an original claim, a claim reopened after final disallowance, or a claim for increase is either the day following separation from active service or the date entitlement arose if the claim is received within one year after separation from service. Otherwise it will be the date of receipt of the claim or the date entitlement arose, whichever is the later. 38 U.S.C. § 5100(b)(1) (2012); 38 C.F.R. § 3.400(b) (2017). Effective dates assigned as part of the initial award of service connection, i.e. “initial evaluations,” are considered to belong in this category. The 60 percent evaluation at issue here is an initial evaluation, therefore, the foregoing criteria apply. Regulations defining a “claim” were revised, effective March 24, 2015. See 79 Fed. Reg. 57,660 (Sept. 25, 2014). The revision eliminated informal claims and required claims on specific forms. Prior regulations held that a claim was 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) (2013). Effective for claims filed on or after March 24, 2015, a specific claim in the form prescribed by the Secretary 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). Instead of informal claims, the new regulation provides that a claimant may request an application for benefits, upon receipt of which, the Secretary shall notify the claimant of the information necessary to complete the application form or form prescribed by the Secretary. 38 C.F.R. § 3.155 (a). The regulation also allows a claimant to submit an intent to file a claim, and VA may recognize the receipt date of the intent to file a claim as the date of claim so long as VA receives the successfully completed claim form within a year. 38 C.F.R. § 3.155 (b). There are three ways in which a claimant may submit an intent to file a claim: (i) saved electronic application- when an application otherwise meeting the requirements of paragraph (b) is electronically initiated and saved in a claims-submission tool with a VA web-based electronic claims application system, (ii) written intent, signed and dated on the intent to file a claim form prescribed by the Secretary, and (iii) oral intent communicated to designated VA personnel, recorded in writing, and documented in the claimant’s records. Id. “[E]ntitlement to benefits for a disability or disease does not arise with a medical diagnosis of the condition, but with the manifestation of the condition and the filing of a claim for benefits for the condition." DeLisio v. Shinseki, 25 Vet. App. 45, 56 (2011) (citing to the rule of 38 U.S.C. § 5110(a) that the effective date shall be fixed in accordance with “facts found”). Here, the first communication from the Veteran regarding service connection for a heart disorder was received on July 24, 2015, in a Statement in Support of Claim. Thus, it was received after March 24, 2015, the effective date of the change in the regulation requiring standard forms for claims. A Statement in Support of Claim is not one of the forms prescribed by the Secretary for submitting claims under the new regulations. After receipt of the July 2015 correspondence, VA correctly treated the correspondence as a request for an application for benefits and sent him a letter explaining the need for him to file a formal claim on the form prescribed by the Secretary. See August 2015 letter. His July 2015 correspondence could not legally be treated as an informal claim. See Standard Claims and Appeals Forms, 79 Fed. Reg. 57660, 57661 (Sept. 25, 2014) (codified at 38 C.F.R. pt. 3). The law no longer allows for informal claims. Instead, as explained above, a claimant may file an intent to file a claim form that can act as a placeholder for the effective date of a completed claim form received within a year. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.155 (b). The Veteran next submitted the formal claim for service connection for coronary artery disease on the form prescribed by the Secretary. The claim was received by VA on September 2, 2015. This is several days earlier than the current effective date of September 10, 2015. The September 2 date is warranted as the effective date of the claim as it was the date VA received the claim. D. Martz Ames Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD A. Rocktashel, Counsel