Citation Nr: 18157633 Decision Date: 12/13/18 Archive Date: 12/12/18 DOCKET NO. 16-32 298 DATE: December 13, 2018 ORDER Entitlement to a rating in excess of 40 percent for service-connected osteoarthritis (OA) and spinal stenosis of the thoracolumbar spine is denied. A separate 30 percent disability rating, but no higher, for peripheral neuropathy (PN) of the right upper extremity (RUE) from June 26, 2015. Entitlement to a rating in excess of 40 percent for service-connected right lower extremity (RLE) lumbar radiculopathy is denied. Entitlement to an earlier effective date prior to January 18, 2013, for the grant of service connection for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) with alcohol and cannabis dependence (in remission) is denied. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The Veteran’s OA and spinal stenosis of the thoracolumbar spine manifested with flexion to 70 degrees, extension to 10, with evidence of pain that causes functional loss, IVDS, but no evidence of ankylosis or neurologic abnormalities. 2. The Veteran’s lumbar spine disability has been productive of neurological impairment of the RUE resulting in PN with moderate incomplete paralysis of median nerve. 3. The Veteran’s RLE radiculopathy manifested with moderately severe incomplete paralysis of the sciatic nerve. 4. The RO denied the Veteran’s claim for PTSD in February 1995. 5. The Veteran did not file a notice of disagreement to the February 1995 rating decision denying entitlement to service connection for PTSD or submit new evidence within one year of the rating decision, making the decision final. 6. On January 18, 2013, the RO received the Veteran’s claim to reopen service connection for PTSD. 7. In a December 2013 rating decision, the RO granted service connection for PTSD. 8. There was no prior claim to reopen service connection for PTSD or submission of new evidence prior to January 18, 2013. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The criteria for entitlement to a rating in excess of 40 percent for service-connected OA and spinal stenosis of the thoracolumbar spine have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1155, 5107 (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.1, 4.3, 4.7, 4.10, 4.40, 4.45, 4.71a, Diagnostic Codes (DCs) 5003, 5010, 5238, 5243 (2017). 2. From June 26, 2015, the criteria for a separate 30 percent rating, but no higher, for PN RUE are met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1155, 5107 (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, 4.7, 4.123, 4.124, 4.124a; Diagnostic Code (DC) 8515 (2017). 3. The criteria for entitlement to a rating in excess of 40 percent for service-connected RLE lumbar radiculopathy have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1155, 5107 (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.1, 4.3, 4.7, 4.124a, DC 8520 (2017). 4. The criteria for an earlier effective date prior to January 18, 2013, for the grant of service connection for PTSD with alcohol and cannabis dependence (in remission) have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 5101, 5103, 5103A, 5107, 5110 (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.155, 3.156, 3.159, 3.400 (2017). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The Veteran served active duty in the U.S Army from December 1980 to December 1983, and from March 1989 to August 1992. This case comes before the Board on appeal from an April 2012 and December 2013 rating decision. This case was previously before the Board in April 2007, where the issues on appeal were adjudicated. Increased Rating Disability evaluations are determined by the application of the Schedule for Rating Disabilities, which assigns ratings based on the average impairment of earning capacity resulting from a service-connected disability. 38 U.S.C. § 1155; 38 C.F.R. Part 4. Where there is a question as to which of two evaluations shall be applied, the higher evaluation will be assigned if the disability picture more nearly approximates the criteria required for that rating. Otherwise, the lower rating will be assigned. 38 C.F.R. § 4.7. To evaluate the level of disability and any changes in condition, it is necessary to consider the complete medical history of the Veteran’s condition. Schafrath v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 589, 594 (1991). Where an increase in the level of a disability is at issue, the primary concern is the present level of disability. Francisco v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 55 (1994). Separate ratings for distinct periods of time, based on the facts may be for consideration. Hart v. Mansfield, 21 Vet. App. 505 (2007). The Board reviewed all the evidence in the Veteran’s claims file. Although the Board has an obligation to provide adequate reasons and bases supporting this decision, there is no requirement that all the evidence submitted by the Veteran or obtained on his behalf be discussed in detail. Rather, the Board’s analysis below will focus specifically on what evidence is needed to substantiate the claim and what the evidence in the claim file shows, or fails to show, with respect to the claim. Gonzales v. West, 218 F.3d 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2000). When there is an approximate balance of positive and negative evidence regarding any issue material to the determination of a matter, VA shall resolve reasonable doubt in favor of the claimant. 38 U.S.C. § 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 4.3; Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49 (1990). Disability of the musculoskeletal system is primarily the inability, due to damage or inflammation in parts of the system, to perform normal working movements of the body with normal excursion, strength, speed, coordination and endurance. The functional loss may be due to absence of part or all the necessary bones, joints and muscles, or associated structures, or to deformity, adhesions, defective innervation, or other pathology, or may be due to pain, supported by adequate pathology and evidenced by visible behavior of the claimant undertaking the motion. Weakness is as important as limitation of motion, and a part which becomes painful on use must be regarded as disabled. See DeLuca v. Brown, 8 Vet. App. 202 (1995); 38 C.F.R. § 4.40; see also 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.45, 4.59 (2017). Although pain may be a cause or manifestation of functional loss, limitation of motion due to pain is not necessarily rated at the same level as functional loss where motion is impeded. See Mitchell v. Shinseki, 25 Vet. App. 32 (2011). The Veteran is currently rated at 40 percent disabling for his service-connected OA and spinal stenosis of the thoracolumbar spine under DCs 5003, 5010, 5238, 5243. Diagnostic Code 5003, states that degenerative arthritis (osteoarthritis and hypertrophic) established by X-ray findings will be rated based on limitation of motion under the appropriate diagnostic codes for the specific joint or joints involved. 38 C.F.R. § 4.71a, DC 5010. The limitation of motion must be objectively confirmed by findings such as swelling, muscle spasm, or satisfactory evidence of painful motion. 38 C.F.R. § 4.71a, DC 5010. The General Rating Formula DCs 5235-5243 provides for the rating of disabilities of the spine mostly based on limitation of motion. With or without symptoms such as pain (whether or not it radiates), stiffness, or aching around the spine affected by residuals of injury or disease, the relevant parts of the formula for the lumbar spine are as follows: A 100 percent rating is warranted for unfavorable ankylosis of the entire spine warranted. A 50 percent rating is warranted for unfavorable ankylosis of the entire thoracolumbar spine. A 40 percent rating is warranted for forward flexion of the thoracolumbar spine to 30 degrees or less, or with favorable ankylosis of the entire thoracolumbar spine. A 20 percent rating is warranted for forward flexion of the thoracolumbar spine greater than 30 degrees but not greater than 60 degrees, or the combined range of motion of the thoracolumbar spine not greater than 120 degrees, or muscle spasm or guarding severe enough to result in an abnormal gait or abnormal spinal contour such as scoliosis, reversed lordosis, or abnormal kyphosis. 38 C.F.R. § 4.71a. The regulations also provide for separate ratings for chronic orthopedic and neurological manifestations. Normal forward flexion of the thoracolumbar spine is zero to 90 degrees, extension is zero to 30 degrees, left and right lateral flexion are zero to 30 degrees, and left and right lateral rotation are zero to 30 degrees. The combined range of motion refers to the sum of the range of forward flexion, extension, left and right lateral flexion, and left and right rotation. 38 C.F.R. § 4.71a, Note (2). Intervertebral Disc Syndrome (IVDS) is evaluated either under the General Rating Formula or under the Formula for Rating IVDS Based on Incapacitating Episodes, whichever method results in the higher evaluation when all disabilities are combined under § 4.25. 38 C.F.R. § 4.71a, DC 5243 (2017). Note (1) of 38 C.F.R. § 4.71a, DC 5243 states that an “incapacitating episode” is a period of acute signs and symptoms due to intervertebral disc syndrome that requires bed rest prescribed by a physician and treatment by a physician. 1. Entitlement to a rating in excess of 40 percent for service-connected osteoarthritis and spinal stenosis of the thoracolumbar spine Here, the Veteran contends that he is entitled to a rating in excess of 40 percent disabling for his service-connected OA and spinal stenosis of the thoracolumbar spine. Based on the evidence of record, the Board disagrees. At the outset, the Board notes that there are VA outpatient treatment notes concerning the Veteran’s periodic epidural shots for the period on appeal. See VA Outpatient Treatment Notes. A number of these records are not pertinent in assisting the Board in rating the Veteran’s thoracolumbar disability because although they reflect the Veteran’s back pain, his painful motion is already accounted for in his 40 percent disability rating. Moreover, these treatment notes do not quantify the Veteran’s range of motion or indicate secondary disabilities needed for rating purposes. Therefore, the Board will discuss, in detail, the pertinent evidence of record. In a June 2015 emergency department note, the Veteran complained of seven weeks of severe, right sided neck, back and shoulder pain, with numbness and tingling in the 4th and 5th fingers of his right hand. The Veteran was lying in a stretcher in moderate distress secondary to pain. The etiology of the pain was unclear, but the examiner indicated it may be secondary to acute radiculopathy. Likewise, in a preceding note in May 2015 note, the examiner indicated that the Veteran’s had right shoulder pain in the medial aspect of the scapula with numbness/tingling sensation down the right arm, mostly in the 4th and 5th digits, starting from one spot in the posterior shoulder. Medication helped dull the pain only somewhat and there were no exacerbating issues, or issues with bowel or bladder. During the May 2015 treatment, the Veteran’s right shoulder manifested with flexion/abduction to 40 degrees, internal rotation approximately 60 degrees, with full range of motion (ROM) of shoulder/wrist/grip, but pain with pronation/supination. The Veteran’s left shoulder was normal. Again, in June 2015, the treating physiatrist performed an examination of the Veteran’s cervical spine, bilateral upper extremities and right shoulder. The examination revealed decreased ROM in the cervical spine throughout secondary to pain. There was no palpatory pain over the spinous process. There was positive Spurling’s to the right with pain into the shoulder and down the arm. The examination of the Veteran’s bilateral upper extremity revealed mild intrinsic wasting of the right hand. ROM was decreased secondary to pain in the shoulder. Sensation to light touch well intact. Strength decremented throughout proximally secondary to pain. Distally okay with FDI 4+/5. Reflexes were intact, with no upper motor neuron signs. The right shoulder examination revealed a normal right shoulder without erythema, dislocation or subluxation. There was no AC joint pain. The ROM of the right shoulder was good, but with a lot of pain. There was one very tender area along the medial scapular border, with radiation of pain into the shoulder. The impression from the physiatrist was the shoulder had some pathology, but not consistent with presentation. Multiple medications without relief of pain. Clinical evidence of acute radiculopathy with associated trigger point over the medial scapular border. In a June 2015 examination, sensory nerve conduction study (NCS) was performed on the Veteran’s right ulnar, median, and radial nerves. The right median sensory nerve showed increased latency across the wrist without amplitude loss. The rest of the sensory nerves were normal. Motor NCS was performed on the right median and ulnar nerves. The median motor study showed prolonged latency across the wrist without amplitude loss. The ulnar motor studies were normal. Electromyography (EMG) was performed on the right upper extremity (RUE). The biceps and triceps were normal, but the Veteran elected to terminate the examination secondary to pain. The physiatrist concluded that the examination was an incomplete and abnormal study. The physiatrist remarked that there is electrodiagnostic evidence of a RUE sensorimotor median mononeuropathy at or about the wrist without amplitude loss, of moderate severity. However, the physiatrist could not conclude about the presence or absence of a RUE cervical radiculopathy as the Veteran elected to stop the examination due to pain. In the October 2015 VA examination, the Veteran’s diagnosis of spinal stenosis, OA, and secondary radiculopathy of the RLE. The Veteran reported low back pain/ache, constant, worse in the morning at 7/10. Veteran’s reported flare-ups 3x/week, lasting few days at 10/10, with lower extremity weakness aggravated by prolonged standing more 10 minutes, prolonged walking 10 minutes, walking up/down stairs, bending over, carrying 10-15lbs. The Veteran’s initial ROM was flexion to 70 degrees, extension to 0, right lateral flexion to 10, left lateral flexion 20, right lateral rotation to 20, left lateral rotation to 20 degrees with objective evidence of pain on all ROM. There was no evidence of pain with weight bearing, but objective evidence of localized tenderness of the paraspinal muscle of the lumbosacral region. The Veteran could perform repetitive use testing without additional loss of function or range of motion. The VA examiner was unable to say without resorting to speculation, whether pain, weakness, fatigability or incoordination significantly limit functional ability with repeated use over a period. The Veteran did not have guarding or muscle spasm of the thoracolumbar spine; however, the Veteran exhibited disturbance in locomotion and interference standing as additional factors contributing to his disability. The Veteran had normal strength with hip flexion, bilateral knee extension, bilateral ankle plantar flexion/dorsiflexion, and great toe extension. There was no evidence of muscle atrophy. The Veteran’s deep tendon reflexes were absent in his knee and ankle bilaterally. Sensory examination revealed normal upper anterior thigh bilaterally, normal thigh/knee bilaterally, normal lower leg/ankle bilaterally, and normal foot/toes bilaterally. Straight leg raising test was positive bilaterally. The Veteran did exhibit radicular pain. Specifically, he had constant RLE pain indicated to be mild. Intermittent pain of the RLE and LLE indicated to be severe and moderate, respectively. There was no paresthesias and/or dysesthesias of the bilateral lower extremities. Likewise, there was no numbness of the bilateral lower extremities. The Veteran’s back disability did result in radiculopathy of the sciatic nerve (L4/L5/S1/S2/S2 nerve roots) bilaterally. The severity of the radiculopathy was moderate on the right and mild on the left. There was no ankylosis of the spine nor any other neurologic abnormalities or findings related to Veteran’s back disability. The Veteran did present with IVDS, but it was indicated that the Veteran did not have any episodes of acute signs and symptoms due to IVDS that required bed rest prescribed by a physician and treatment by a physician in the past twelve months. The Veteran reported using a brace and cane occasionally during flare-ups. There were no other pertinent physical findings or scars. The examiner stated the Veteran’s disability impacted his ability to work as he needed to avoid prolonged standing or walking more than 10 minutes and avoid carrying more than 15lbs. Based on the foregoing, the Veteran’s OA and spinal stenosis of thoracolumbar does not warrant a rating in excess of 40 percent disabling. The Veteran’s thoracolumbar disability manifested with flexion to 70 degrees, extension to 0, right lateral flexion to 10, left lateral flexion 20, right lateral rotation to 20, left lateral rotation to 20 degrees with objective evidence of pain on all ROM. However, a higher rating is not warranted as the Veteran’s disability did not result in unfavorable ankylosis of the entire thoracolumbar spine or unfavorable ankylosis of the entire spine. Moreover, although the Veteran had a diagnosis of IVDS, he did not have an incapacitating episode in the past twelve months that would warrant a rating in excess of 40 percent. Even more, the Veteran is already service-connected for bilateral lower extremity radiculopathy. Therefore, the 40 percent evaluation, and no higher is warranted for the Veteran’s OA and spinal stenosis of the thoracolumbar spine. Accordingly, as the preponderance of the evidence is against the claim, the benefit of the doubt doctrine is not for application and the claim must be denied. See 38 U.S.C. § 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 4.3; Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49 (1990). In addition to consideration of the orthopedic manifestations of the lumbar spine disability, VA regulations require that consideration be given to any associated objective neurologic abnormalities, which are to be evaluated separately under an appropriate diagnostic code. DC 8515 provides ratings for incomplete paralysis of the median nerve. 38 C.F.R. § 4.124a. Disability ratings of 10, 30, 50 percent are warranted, respectively, for mild, moderate, and severe incomplete paralysis of the median nerve for the dominant hand. 38 C.F.R. § 4.124a, DC 8515. A disability rating of 70 percent is warranted for complete paralysis of the median nerve. Id. The term “incomplete paralysis” indicates a degree of lost or impaired function substantially less than the type picture for complete paralysis given with each nerve, whether due to varied level of the nerve lesion or to partial regeneration. 38 C.F.R. § 4.124a. When the involvement is wholly sensory, the rating should be for the mild, or at most, the moderate degree. Id. Here, the Board finds that the Veteran’s lumbar spine disability has resulted in right side moderate incomplete paralysis of the median nerve. As indicated in June 2015 examination, the Veteran exhibited RUE sensorimotor median mononeuropathy at or about the wrist without amplitude loss, noted to be of moderate severity. As such, the Board finds that the evidence supports the Veteran’s entitlement to a separate 30 percent rating, and no higher, for moderate incomplete paralysis of the right side median nerve. Lastly, the competent evidence does not reflect any other objective neurologic abnormalities associated with the low back disability, such as any in the upper left extremity, bladder, or bowel, to warrant any additional separate ratings. 2. Entitlement to a rating in excess of 40 percent for service-connected right lower extremity (RLE) lumbar radiculopathy In this instance, the Veteran’s RLE lumbar radiculopathy has been evaluated at 40 percent disabling under DC 8520. DC 8520 provides ratings for incomplete paralysis of the sciatic nerve. 38 C.F.R. § 4.124a. Disability ratings of 10, 20, and 40 percent are warranted, respectively, for mild, moderate, and moderately severe incomplete paralysis of the sciatic nerve. 38 C.F.R. § 4.124, DC 8520. A disability rating of 60 percent is warranted for severe incomplete paralysis with marked muscle atrophy. An 80 percent rating is warranted with complete paralysis of the sciatic nerve. Id. The term “incomplete paralysis” indicates a degree of lost or impaired function substantially less than the type picture for complete paralysis given with each nerve, whether due to varied level of the nerve lesion or to partial regeneration. 38 C.F.R. § 4.124a. When the involvement is wholly sensory, the rating should be for the mild, or at most, the moderate degree. Id. The Veteran contends that his disability warrants a rating in excess of 40 percent. Based on the evidence of record, the Board disagrees. Specifically, as discussed above during the October 2015 VA examination, the Veteran’s thoracolumbar disability manifested with bilateral lower extremity radiculopathy. The examination revealed moderate radiculopathy of the Veteran’s RLE sciatic nerve, and mild radiculopathy of the LLE sciatic nerve. Thus, the disability rating for RLE sciatic nerve would be 20 percent disabling, and the LLE sciatic nerve would be 10 percent disabling. Under the “Diseases of the Peripheral Nerves,” the rater is instructed to combine the ratings under the bilateral factor. As such, the Board finds that the evidence fails to support a rating in excess of 40 percent for the Veteran’s RLE lumbar radiculopathy. Accordingly, as the preponderance of the evidence is against the claim, the benefit of the doubt doctrine is not for application and the claim must be denied. See 38 U.S.C. § 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 4.3; Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49 (1990). 3. Entitlement to an earlier effective date prior to January 18, 2013, for the grant of service connection for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) with alcohol and cannabis dependence (in remission) Here, the Veteran contends that he is entitled to an earlier effective date prior to January 18, 2013, for the grant of service connection for PTSD. See April 2014 NOD; see also July 2016 VA Form 9. Generally, the effective date of an award of disability compensation is the day following separation from service or the date entitlement arose if the claim is received within one year of separation; otherwise, the effective date is the date of claim or the date entitlement arose, whichever is later. 38 U.S.C. § 5110(b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.400(b)(2). In this instance, the Veteran filed a formal claim for PTSD in August 1994. See August 1994 VA 21-526 Application for Compensation or Pension. The claim was denied in a February 1995 rating decision. The basis for the denial was the claim was “not well grounded” as the Veteran did not have a current diagnosis of PTSD and the evidence did not provide a basis to show service incurrence. The Veteran did not file a timely notice of disagreement with the February 1995 rating decision. In January 2013, the Veteran filed a VA 21-4138 seeking service connection for PTSD. After providing detailed stressor information, the Veteran was provided a VA examination in August 2013. He was diagnosed with PTSD and cannabis and alcohol dependence in full remission. In the December 2013 rating decision, the Veteran was granted service connection for PTSD, effective January 18, 2013, the date he filed his claim to reopen. The Veteran’s main contention is that the VA’s verification of his in-service stressor from JSRRC constitutes receipt of service department records after the original denial of the claim, which warrants reconsideration of the claim and a grant of service connection back to the original date of claim in August 1994, pursuant to 38 C.F.R. § 3.156(c), Vigil v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 63 (2008). 38 C.F.R. § 3.156(c) states, in pertinent part: (1) Notwithstanding any other section in this part, at any time after VA issues a decision on a claim, if VA receives or associates with the claims file relevant official service department records that existed and had not been associated with the claims file when VA first decided the claim, VA will reconsider the claim. And, (3) An award made based all or in part on the records identified by paragraph (c)(1) of this section is effective on the date entitlement arose or the date VA received the previously decided claim, whichever is later, or such other date as may be authorized by the provisions of this part applicable to the previously decided claim. Effective from October 6, 2006, 38 C.F.R. § 3.156(c) was revised to include 38 C.F.R. § 3.156(c)(2), which states: Paragraph (c)(1) of this section does not apply to records that VA could not have obtained when it decided the claim because the records did not exist when VA decided the claim, or because the claimant failed to provide sufficient information for VA to identify and obtain the records from the respective service department, the Joint Services Records Research Center (JSRRC), or from any other official source. (emphasis added). Reports and/or records from the JSRRC (formerly the Center for Unit Records Research (CURR)) are considered relevant official service department records. See Vigil, 22 Vet. App. at 65-66. The electronic response from the service department in this case was based on reports from the Veteran’s unit during the Gulf War that were prepared contemporaneously with the period involved - in this case January 1990 – February 1991. The record must therefore be considered to have been in existence at the time of the Veteran’s initial claim in 1994. 38 C.F.R. § 3.156(c)(1). In this case, the Veteran was granted service connection for PTSD based, at least in part, on reports from JSRRC received in December 2013, which verified his claimed stressors; as well as an August 2013 VA examination that established a diagnosis of PTSD based on the claimed stressors. Therefore, the question for the Board is whether the Veteran provided sufficient information at the time of his initial claim in August 1994, sufficient to allow the VA to identify and obtain the records from a service department, JSRRC or another official source. The Board finds that the Veteran failed to provide sufficient information prior to final denial of his claim for PTSD. Specifically, during the Veteran’s initial claim in August 1994, the Veteran claimed PTSD began in 1994, and claimed depression, rage, sleeplessness began in 1992. The Veteran indicated that he was hospitalized in August 1994 for his claimed disabilities. In a review of an August 1994 hospitalization summary, the Veteran was admitted to the VAMC Wade Park with a diagnosis of polysubstance abuse. During his hospitalization, the Veteran reported that he was a secondary cook in the Gulf War, but his primary job was that of a guard on the border between Iraq and Saudi Arabia. He stated that he lived with constant fear that he may be bombed. Although he reported no actual combat experience, he reported that he saw two of his friends die, but these were during exercises and by friendly fire. The examiner at that time felt that the Veteran was malingering and PTSD was doubtful at that point. The examiner added that he did appear anxious, but it was uncertain whether this was secondary to being off the alcohol or because of some other underlying problem. Additionally, the examiner added that the Veteran continued to complain of “PTSD-like symptoms;” however, he was noted to be cordial, cooperative on the floor, and had no problems in relating with other people. Likewise, the Veteran did not show any evidence of anxiety when not directly observed. The Veteran was not diagnosed with PTSD upon his departure from the hospital. Subsequently, in October 1994, the RO sent the Veteran a request to provide specific details on his in-service stressor(s) to help corroborate his claim, as well as provide medical evidence that he had been diagnosed with PTSD. See October 1994 Notification Letter. The Veteran failed to provide the requested information. There is a report of contact dated October 26, 1994, that shows the Veteran was convicted of a felony, which the Veteran later confirmed. The Board notes that the Veteran has not argued that he did not receive the request to provide specific stressor information. However, to the extent that the Veteran argues that the letter was not sent to a current address, as he was incarcerated, the Veteran has a duty to notify VA of any address changes. As such, the Veteran’s claim was denied in the February 1995 rating decision because there was no diagnosis of PTSD and he failed to provide credible evidence supporting his claimed in-service stressors. Conversely, in correspondence from June to October 2013, the Veteran provided sufficient information on his claimed in-service stressors to allow the RO to identify and request information from JSRRC. Specifically, the Veteran provided the names of the soldiers involved in the friendly fire incident he witnessed, where the friendly fire incident took place, his unit and base camp where the Iraqi SCUD missile fired upon, and gave his best recollection on when the incidents occurred. See June 2013 PTSD Statement; see also October 2013 Report of General Information. Likewise, the Veteran was diagnosed with PTSD in an August 2013 VA examination. The Board finds that the provisions of 38 C.F.R. § 3.156(c)(2) control in this case, as the Veteran did not provide sufficient information to allow the RO to identify and seek information from JSRRC prior to the February 1995 rating decision and failed to provide any additional information regarding his stressors within a year after notification of the rating decision. As the evidence reflects, the Veteran provided sufficient information from June 2013 to October 2013, to allow JSRRC to corroborate the Veteran’s in-service stressors. See December 2013 DPRIS Response; see also DPRIS Response. Even more, the August 2013 VA examination diagnosed the Veteran with PTSD. Additionally, although the Veteran, through his attorney argues that he made claims in August 1978, October 1986 and February 1997, the Board notes that the Veteran filed his initial claim in August 1994, and there were no claims in August 1978 or October 1986. Even more, VA medical records failed to show a diagnosis of PTSD in February 1997, or at any time prior to May 2002. See VA outpatient treatment notes. Therefore, the medical evidence does not support a retroactive evaluation of the Veteran’s PTSD. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.156(c)(4). Therefore, the Veteran’s claim for earlier effective date prior to January 18, 2013, is not warranted. Accordingly, the preponderance of the evidence is against the claim for an earlier effective date; there is no reasonable doubt to be resolved; and an earlier effective date is not warranted. See 38 U.S.C. § 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102; Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49 (1990). KRISTI L. GUNN Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD I. Umo, Associate Counsel