Citation Nr: 18158213 Decision Date: 12/14/18 Archive Date: 12/14/18 DOCKET NO. 13-05 582 DATE: December 14, 2018 ORDER Entitlement to an effective date prior to March 9, 2001 for the award of service connection for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is denied. FINDING OF FACT The Veteran did not file an informal or formal claim for entitlement to service connection for PTSD prior to March 9, 2001. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for an effective date earlier than March 9, 2001, for the award of compensation benefits for PTSD have not been met. 38U.S.C. §§ 5101, 5110 (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.1, 3.151, 3.155, 3.159, 3.400 (2017); 38 C.F.R. § 3.155(a) (2012). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran had active service from May 1967 to April 1970. Entitlement to an effective date prior to March 9, 2001 for the award of service connection for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). The Veteran asserts that he is entitled to an earlier effective date for the grant of service connection for PTSD. Specifically, in a September 2011 statement, the Veteran indicated that he disagreed with the dates of the ratings of a September 2011 [rating] decision. The Veteran was initially granted service connection for PTSD in a September 2011 rating decision, effective May 3, 2011. In September 2012, the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ) granted an increased rating and an effective date for service connection of March 9, 2001. In the November 2014 remand, the Board noted that the Veteran had initiated an appeal for an effective prior to March 9, 2001 for the award of service connection for PTSD, and that Regional Office (RO) had responded with a November 2013 statement of the case (SOC). The Board further noted that the appellate period had not yet lapsed for the Veteran to perfect that appeal. Therefore, the Board referred that issue to the RO for appropriate action. In May 2017, the Board remanded the claim for further development. There was substantial compliance with the Board’s remand directives to decide the claim on appeal. See Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268 (1998). In deciding claims, it is the Board’s responsibility to evaluate the entire record on appeal. See 38 U.S.C. § 7104(a) (2012). Although the Board has an obligation to provide reasons and bases supporting this decision, there is no need to discuss each and every piece of evidence submitted by the Veteran or on his behalf. See Gonzales v. West, 218 F.3d 1378, 1380-81 (Fed. Cir. 2000). Rather, the Board’s analysis below will focus specifically on what evidence is needed to substantiate the claim and what the evidence in the claims file shows, or fails to show, with respect to the claim. See Timberlake v. Gober, 14 Vet. App. 122, 128-30 (2000). The law regarding effective dates states that, unless specifically provided otherwise, the effective date of an award based on an original claim, a claim reopened after final adjudication, or a claim for increase, of compensation, dependency and indemnity compensation, or pension, shall be fixed in accordance with the facts found, but shall not be earlier than the date of receipt of application therefor. 38 U.S.C. § 5110(a). This statutory provision is implemented by a VA regulation, which provides that 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 the later. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.400. A specific claim in the form prescribed by the Secretary of VA must be filed in order for benefits to be paid or furnished to any individual under the laws administered by VA. 38 U.S.C. § 5101(a)(1); 38 C.F.R. § 3.151(a). For claims received on or after March 24, 2015, VA amended its regulations governing how to file a claim. The effect of the amendment was to standardize the process of filing claims, as well as the forms accepted, in order to increase the efficiency, accuracy, and timeliness of claims processing, and to eliminate the concept of informal claims. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.155; 79 Fed. Reg. 57660-01. However, prior to the effective date of the amendment, an informal claim was any communication or action, indicating an intent to apply for one or more benefits under the laws administered by VA. The benefit sought must be identified, see Stewart v. Brown, 10 Vet. App. 15, 18 (1997), but need not be specific, see Servello v. Derwinski, 3 Vet. App. 196, 199 (1992). See 38 C.F.R. § 3.155(a) (2012). The Veteran submitted an informal claim on March 5, 2001, for compensation for PTSD that resulted from combat in Vietnam during his active duty service. Thus, the Board shall analyze his claim for an earlier effective date accordingly to the pre-March 24, 2015, VA laws and regulations. Upon receipt of an informal claim, if a formal claim has not been filed, an application form will be forwarded to the claimant for execution. If received within one year from the date it was sent to the veteran, it will be considered filed as of the date of receipt of the informal claim. Id. “Application” is not defined by 38 U.S.C. § 5110(a). However, in the regulations, “claim” and “application” are considered equivalent and are 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.” See 38 C.F.R. § 3.1(p) (2012); see also Rodriguez v. West, 189 F.3d 1351 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Federal Circuit), in Rodriguez, pointed out that for purposes of establishing the requirements and procedures for seeking veterans’ benefits, a claim, whether “formal” or “informal” must be “in writing” in order to be considered a “claim” or “application” for benefits, and that the provisions of 38 C.F.R. § 3.1(p) define “claim,” informal as well as formal, as a “communication in writing.” Id. Further, the Federal Circuit stated that when 38 C.F.R. § 3.155(a) refers to “an informal claim,” it necessarily incorporates the definition of that term in 38 C.F.R. § 3.1(p) as a “communication in writing.” The Federal Circuit also pointed out that the provisions of 38 C.F.R. § 3.155(a) make clear that there is no set form that an informal written claim must take. All that is required is that the communication “indicat[e] an intent to apply for one or more benefits under the laws administered by the Department,” and “identify the benefits sought.” However, medical evidence reflecting treatment for and diagnosis of a disorder does not constitute, by itself, an informal original claim for service connection under 38 C.F.R. § 3.155(a), “because the mere presence of the medical evidence does not establish an intent on the part of the veteran to seek” service connection for that disorder. MacPhee v. Nicholson, 459 F.3d 1323, 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2006). The Board has thoroughly and sympathetically reviewed the evidence of record and finds that an effective date earlier than March 9, 2001, for the grant of service connection for PTSD is not warranted because the Veteran did not file an informal claim, a formal claim, or expressed, in writing, an intent to file a claim for entitlement to service connection for this disability prior to March 9, 2001. In fact, the record is clear in showing that the Veteran first filed a claim for service connection that was received by VA on March 9, 2001 in the form of a written informal statement. In this statement, the Veteran indicated that he wished to amend his claim for service-connected disability to include PTSD. He contended that he was diagnosed with the impairment at the VAMC (VA Medical Center) in Mountain Home, Tennessee, and that it was a result of traumatic events that he suffered while engaged in combat in Vietnam from the period 1967-1968. He requested that VA obtain and review the medical records from the VAMC and also requested a Compensation and Pension examination. The Veteran filed an application for compensation and/or pension (VA Form 21-526), which was received by VA on February 7, 2001. In this formal claim for service connection, the Veteran specifically noted that he had not previously applied for any VA benefits, including pension and/or compensation. The Veteran only applied for service-connection for “diabetes [that was a] result of Agent Orange Exposure while on active duty in Vietnam from 1976 to 1968.” The February 7, 2001 formal application does not show an intent to apply specifically for service-connection for PTSD. It was not until the March 9, 2001 correspondence that such intent was shown. Additionally, the Board has reviewed the treatment records dated prior to March 9, 2001, which show that the Veteran presented to VA on January 19, 2001 with multiple psychiatric complaints and was discharged from the VA facility in February 2001 with several psychiatric diagnoses, including PTSD. However, as mentioned above, the presence of medical evidence does not establish an intent on the part of the Veteran to seek service connection for that disorder. MacPhee, 459 F.3d at 1326. The Veteran was not service connected for PTSD at that time, and, in reading through the hospitalization report, it did not show an intent by the Veteran that he was going to file a claim for service connection for PTSD. Thus, the preponderance of the evidence is against a basis on which an earlier effective date may be assigned for the award of service connection for PTSD, and the proper effective date is March 9, 2001. Accordingly, the claim for entitlement an effective date earlier than March 9, 2001, is denied because the AOJ has already assigned the earliest possible effective date provided by law. See 38 U.S.C. § 5110(a); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.155(a), 3.400; 38 C.F.R. § 3.155(a) (2012).   A. P. SIMPSON Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD D. Cheng, Associate Counsel