Citation Nr: 18159028
Decision Date: 12/18/18	Archive Date: 12/18/18

DOCKET NO. 16-44 500
DATE:	December 18, 2018
REMANDED
Entitlement to an effective date prior to January 11, 2016 for the grant of service connection for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is remanded.
REASONS FOR REMAND
The Veteran served on active duty from April 1968 to January 1970.
This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a July 2016 rating decision by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). 
Entitlement to an effective date prior to January 11, 2016 for the grant of service connection for PTSD is remanded.
Effective March 24, 2015, 38 C.F.R. § 3.155 was amended to remove language concerning informal claims and was replaced with instructions for filing a claim for benefits. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.155 (2017). The August 2016 statement of the case (SOC) issued to the Veteran and his representative contained an older version of 38 C.F.R. § 3.155, which is completely inapplicable to the current matter. Relying on the inapplicable regulation provided in the August 2016 SOC, the Veteran stated that his October 2015 “informal claim” should be the basis of an earlier effective date. See October 2016 correspondence.
An SOC must contain “[a] citation to pertinent laws and regulations and a discussion of how such laws and regulations affect [VA’s] decision.” 38 U.S.C. § 7105(d)(1)(B). Because the August 2016 SOC provided the Veteran the wrong regulation (and he relied on that error), the August 2016 SOC is legally inadequate. Thus, to provide appropriate due process, remand for a supplemental statement of the case (SSOC) providing the Veteran the correct regulation applicable to his case is required. See 38 C.F.R. § 19.31(b) (stating that an SSOC will be furnished when there is a material defect or inadequacy in the SOC).
The matter is REMANDED for the following action:
The AOJ must issue an SSOC stating the correct, post-March 24, 2015 version of 38 C.F.R. § 3.155. If upon completion of the above action the issue remains denied, the case should be returned to the Board.
 
E. I. VELEZ
Veterans Law Judge
Board of Veterans’ Appeals
ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD	J. Sandler, Associate Counsel