Citation Nr: 18156882 Decision Date: 12/11/18 Archive Date: 12/11/18 DOCKET NO. 16-39 514 DATE: December 11, 2018 ORDER The issue of entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder, claimed as post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and anxiety, is dismissed. FINDING OF FACT A January 2017 rating decision granted service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder, claimed as PTSD and anxiety. CONCLUSION OF LAW There is no question of law or fact involving the claim of entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder, claimed as PTSD and anxiety; therefore, the appeal must be dismissed as moot. 38 U.S.C. §§ 7104, 7105 (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 19.24, 20.101 (2017). INTRODUCTION The Veteran served on active duty from March 2002 to December 2005. This case comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a November 2015 rating decision by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Houston, Texas. The Board notes the scope of a mental health disability claim includes any mental disability that may reasonably be encompassed by the claimant’s description of the claim, reported symptoms, and other information of record. See Clemons v. Shinseki, 23 Vet. App. 1, 5 (2009). A review of the record shows the Veteran’s psychiatric symptoms have been variously diagnosed. Accordingly, the Board has recharacterized the Veteran’s mental disability claim broadly, as reflected in the ORDER section of the decision, above. During the pendency of the appeal, in a January 2017 rating decision, the RO granted service connection for major depression. Thereafter, in a March 2017 rating decision, the RO recharacterized the Veteran’s service-connected acquired psychiatric disorder as PTSD. In a January 2018 statement, the Veteran contended he was entitled to an earlier effective date for the grant of service connection for his acquired psychiatric disorder. The Board notes that effective March 24, 2015, VA amended its rules as to what constitutes a valid NOD, requiring that NODs be submitted on a standardized form provided by VA, in cases where such a form is provided. 79 Fed. Reg. 57660 (Sept. 25, 2014); see also 38 C.F.R. § 20.201. VA will not accept as an NOD an expression of dissatisfaction or disagreement with an adjudicative determination by the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ) and a desire to contest the result that is submitted in any other format, including on a different VA form. See 38 C.F.R. § 20.201(a). In this case, the RO provided the Veteran with the standard NOD form in the notification letters for the January 2017 or March 2017 rating decisions. Therefore, the submission requirement in 38 C.F.R. § 20.201(a) applies in this case as to the earlier effective date issue, and as such, the Veteran’s January 2018 statement is not a valid NOD. Thus, the January 2017 decision represents a full grant of the benefits sought, as to the claim of service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder, claimed as PTSD and anxiety. See Grantham v. Brown, 114 F.3d 1156 (Fed. Cir. 1997). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Board has jurisdiction in all matters where there is a question of law or fact necessary for a decision by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs under a law that affects the provision of benefits by the Secretary to veterans or their dependents or survivors. 38 U.S.C. § 7104. The Board may dismiss any appeal which fails to allege a specific error of fact or law in the determination being appealed. 38 U.S.C. § 7105. In a January 2017 rating decision, the RO granted the relief sought, namely, entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder. As such, the Veteran’s appeal for entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder is moot, as the benefit sought on appeal has already been granted. See Baughman v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 563, 566 (1991), see also Grantham v. Brown, 114 F.3d 1156 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (where an appealed claim for service connection is granted during the pendency of the appeal, a second NOD must thereafter be timely filed to initiate appellate review of “downstream” issues such as the compensation level assigned for the disability or the effective date of service connection). Because there remains no case or controversy concerning whether the Veteran is entitled to the benefit sought, as the issue has been granted, the appeal is dismissed. 38 U.S.C. § 7105(d)(5). T. REYNOLDS Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD C. Martinez, Associate Counsel