Citation Nr: 18158003 Decision Date: 12/14/18 Archive Date: 12/13/18 DOCKET NO. 16-61 814 DATE: December 14, 2018 ORDER Entitlement to an effective date earlier than April 11, 2011 for the grant of service connection for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is denied. FINDING OF FACT The Veteran filed an informal claim for service connection for PTSD on August 7, 2009, but his formal claim for PTSD was not received until April 11, 2011. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for an effective date earlier than April 11, 2011 for the grant of service connection for PTSD have not been satisfied. 38 U.S.C. § 5110; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.155, 3.400. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran had active military service from October 1966 through October 1968. The Veteran served honorably and was awarded the Combat Infantryman Badge. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from an April 2014 rating decision issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Los Angeles, CA. A brief procedural history will help clarify the Veteran’s claim. On August 7, 2009, VA received an informal claim for service connection for PTSD. The Veteran was notified, by letters dated August 17 and August 18, 2009, that he was required to file a formal claim for service connection on form VA Form 21-526. VA received a formal claim (VA Form 21-526) from the Veteran seeking service connection for PTSD on April 11, 2011. In an October 2012 rating decision, the RO awarded service connection for PTSD with an effective date of April 11, 2011. Except as otherwise provided, the effective date of an evaluation and award of compensation based on an original claim or a claim reopened after final disallowance, will be the date of receipt of the claim or the date entitlement arose, whichever is later. 38 C.F.R. § 3.400. The effective date of an award of service connection shall be the day following the date of discharge or release if application is received within one year from such date of discharge or release. Otherwise, the effective date is the date of receipt of claim, or the date entitlement arose, whichever is later. 38 U.S.C. § 5110; 38 C.F.R. § 3.400 (b)(2)(i). A specific claim in the form prescribed by the Secretary must be filed for benefits to be paid to any individual under the laws administered by VA. 38 U.S.C. § 5110 (a); 38 C.F.R. § 3.151 (a). A “claim” is a written communication requesting a determination of entitlement or evidencing a belief in entitlement to a specific benefit. 38 C.F.R. § 3.1 (p). If a formal claim is received within one year of an informal claim, it will be considered filed as of the date of receipt of the informal claim. 38 C.F.R. § 3.155. However, the effective date of a claim will be the date of the informal claim if VA did not send a claimant a formal application form after receiving an informal claim, as required by 38 C.F.R. § 3.155, because the one-year time limit to return the formal claim did not begin. See, e.g., Quarles v. Derwinski, 3 Vet. App. 129, 137 (1992). To determine when a claim was received, the Board must review all communications in the claims file that may be construed as an application or claim. See Quarles, 3 Vet. App. 129, 134 (1992). The Veteran stated in his December 2016 substantive appeal (Form 9) that he received a notification letter from VA “requesting a second document to be filed I think it was VA 526, I did so and mailed it back, and heard nothing more from [the] VA until November 2012.” However, the Board notes the next correspondence received from the Veteran relating to his PTSD claim after his August 2009 informal claim was his April 11, 2011 formal claim. The Veteran states that VA correspondence, which notified him of his obligation to file a formal PTSD claim, misspells his name and address. After reviewing the record, the Board finds that the RO did address its August 17, 2009 notification letter to “David G. Lawton” but the RO corrected its mistake and addressed its subsequent August 18, 2009 notification letter to “David G. Leaton.” In any case, the Veteran concedes he received the VA notification letter from August 2009, which enclosed VA Form 21-526. The Veteran states he filed everything VA asked him to since 2009, and that he had an AMVETS Service Officer assist him in “filing all documentation again.” The Board notes that AMVETS is an independent organization outside of VA’s jurisdiction. To the extent the Veteran claims AMVETS may have submitted a formal claim on his behalf, VA is not liable for errors in submissions from outside organizations. After reviewing all the communications in the claims file, the Board finds that the evidence of the record demonstrates that the Veteran did not submit a formal claim for benefits within one year of the date he was notified of the requirement to do so. The record reflects the Veteran submitted a formal claim for service connection for PTSD that was received on April 11, 2011. Upon receipt of the Veteran’s informal claim for benefits in August 2009, the RO sent the Veteran an August 2009 letter which requested that he submit a formal application within one year of the informal claim. He failed to do so, and the record demonstrates Veteran received the VA notification letter. In this case, the law is clear. The evidence of record shows that the Veteran did not file a formal claim within one year of the August 2009 informal claim. VA acted upon receipt of the Veteran’s informal claim as noted, thus the informal claim has not remained pending. Furthermore, because the formal claim for benefits was not received within one year of the informal claim, it cannot be considered to have been filed as of the date the informal claim was received. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.155. Accordingly, the Board concludes that April 11, 2011 is the proper effective date for the award of service connection for PTSD, and the claim for an earlier effective date must be denied. In reaching this conclusion, the benefit of the doubt doctrine was considered. However, as a preponderance of the evidence is against the claim, this doctrine is not for application. See 38 U.S.C. § 5107 (b); Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49 (1990). R. FEINBERG Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD A. St. Laurent