Citation Nr: 18157951 Decision Date: 12/14/18 Archive Date: 12/13/18 DOCKET NO. 17-04 726 DATE: December 14, 2018 ORDER Entitlement to an effective date earlier than September 16, 2014, for the grant of service connection for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), is denied. FINDING OF FACT On September 16, 2014, VA received the Veteran’s original service connection claim for PTSD. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for an effective date earlier than September 16, 2014, for the award of service connection for PTSD have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 5107, 5110 (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.159, 3.400 (2017). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty from June 2003 to June 2007. Additional Reserve service is also indicated by the record Earlier Effective Date The Veteran claims entitlement to an effective date earlier than September 16, 2014, for the award of service connection for PTSD. The applicable law and regulations concerning effective dates state that, except as otherwise provided, the effective date of an evaluation and award of pension, compensation or dependency and indemnity compensation based on an original claim, a claim reopened after final disallowance, or a claim for increase will be the date of receipt of the claim or the date entitlement arose, whichever is the later. 38 U.S.C. § 5110(a) (2012); 38 C.F.R. § 3.400 (2017). Effective on March 24, 2015, VA amended its rules as to what constitutes a claim for benefits. The new rules require that claims be made on a specific claim form prescribed by VA, and available online or at a local RO. Given that this appeal involves a claim dated prior to the effective date of this newest rule, the pre-amendment rules apply. Prior to March 2015, a “claim” was defined broadly to include 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). Mere presence of evidence in the record of the existence of a disability did not establish an intent to seek service connection. To establish a claim, the Veteran had to assert the claim expressly or impliedly. Brannon v. West, 12 Vet. App. 32, 35 (1998). Indeed, VA’s duty to adjudicate all claims reasonably raised does not require VA to anticipate a claim for a particular benefit where no intention to raise it was expressed. See Brannon, supra. September 16, 2014, is the date on which VA received the Veteran’s original service connection claim for PTSD. See September 2014 VA 21-526EZ. The Veteran did not communicate prior to that date, either expressly or impliedly, an interest in seeking service connection for PTSD, or for any other psychiatric disability. In the March 2015 notice of disagreement (NOD), contesting the assigned effective date here, the Veteran asserted that the correct effective date would be in 2005. He asserted that he first claimed service connection for PTSD in 2005 while he was on active duty. See April 2015 notice of disagreement (NOD) and January 2017 VA Form-9. The record does not support the Veteran’s assertion that he filed a service connection claim in 2005. Review of the record reveals that prior to his September 2014 claim, the only evidence of record is the Veteran’s service treatment records (STRs). Significantly, in a May 2005 STR report of medical history, the Veteran indicated that he has never received and he has not applied nor does he have a pending application for pension or compensation for any disability or injury. As such, an earlier date in 2005 would not be warranted here. In his January 2017 VA Form-9, the Veteran claimed entitlement to an effective date for service connection in 2007. He indicated that, he again, filed a claim for PTSD in June 2007 when he got out of the military, but he never heard from VA. The record does not support the Veteran’s assertion that he filed a service connection claim in June 2007. As noted, review of the record reveals that prior to his September 2014 claim, the only evidence of record is the Veteran’s STRs. Further, in a May 2007 STR report of medical assessment, the Veteran indicated that at the present time, he did not intend to seek Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) disability. As such, an earlier date in June 2007 would not be warranted here. In his January 2017 VA Form-9, the Veteran asserted that he should be given a year of retro-active benefits since his filing date of September 16, 2014. See January 2017 VA Form-9. In this regard, the Board notes that having found that the record does not contain a prior unadjudicated claim, the effective date for the award of his claim for service connection for PTSD should be the date of receipt of the claim or the date entitlement arose, whichever is the later. 38 U.S.C. § 5110(a) (2012); 38 C.F.R. § 3.400 (2017). Despite any complaints he may have noted regarding his PTSD prior to September 16, 2014, the Board must find that the record does not contain an express or implied claim for service connection for PTSD prior to September 16, 2014. See Brannon and Talbert, both supra. In retrospect, the Veteran likely had psychiatric problems prior to September 16, 2014, particularly in light of the service connection finding for PTSD and the finding that stressors during service caused psychiatric illness. In any event, the mere likelihood that PTSD preexisted the September 2014 claim does not amount to a service connection claim for PTSD. Retrospective evidence of a disability is not a claim. See Brannon, supra. The law is clear that, in determining an effective date for the award of service connection, the date of onset of disability (i.e., “the date entitlement arose”) is not necessarily controlling. Rather, the “later” of the date of claim, or the date entitlement arose, is. In this matter, the date of claim is the “later” date. 38 C.F.R. § 3.400. So, irrespective of when the Veteran’s PTSD began, the appropriate effective date here is the date of the claim to service connection. That date is September 16, 2014. 38 C.F.R. § 3.400. Therefore, the claim is denied. DONNIE R. HACHEY Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD S. Schick, Associate Counsel