Citation Nr: 18159529 Decision Date: 12/20/18 Archive Date: 12/19/18 DOCKET NO. 16-58 540A DATE: December 20, 2018 ORDER Entitlement to an effective date earlier than May 31, 2002, for the grant of service connection for paranoid schizophrenia is denied. REMANDED Entitlement to an initial rating higher than 70 percent for service-connected paranoid schizophrenia is remanded. FINDING OF FACT On May 31, 2002, the Veteran’s representative submitted a statement informing VA that the Veteran would like to submit a new application to establish service connection for schizophrenia. There is no unadjudicated claim of service connection for schizophrenia prior to that date. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for entitlement to an effective date earlier than May 31, 2002, for the grant of service connection for paranoid schizophrenia, have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 5103, 5103A, 5107, 5110; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.159, 3.400, 20.1103. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty from January 1985 to January 1988, and from May 1989 to May 1993. These matters come before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from an August 2015 rating decision by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) which granted service connection for paranoid schizophrenia and assigned a 70 percent initial evaluation, effective May 31, 2002. Entitlement to a total disability rating based on individual unemployability due to service-connected disabilities (TDIU) was granted effective May 31, 2002, by an April 2017 rating decision. With respect to the Veteran’s claim decided herein, VA has met all statutory and regulatory notice and duty to assist provisions. See 38 U.S.C. §§ 5100, 5102, 5103, 5103A, 5106, 5107, 5126; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.156(a), 3.159, 3.326 REFERRED The intention to claim entitlement to service connection for alcohol abuse in remission was raised in a December 2015 statement and is referred to the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ) for adjudication. 1. Entitlement to an effective date earlier than May 31, 2002, for the grant of entitlement to service connection for paranoid schizophrenia The Veteran believes he should be assigned an effective date earlier than May 31, 2002, for the grant of service connection for paranoid schizophrenia. The Board finds that the Veteran does not meet the criteria for an effective date earlier than May 31, 2002. The statutory and regulatory guidelines for the determination of an effective date of an award of disability compensation are set forth in 38 U.S.C. § 5110 (2012) and 38 C.F.R. § 3.400. The effective date of an evaluation and an award of compensation based on an original claim, a claim reopened after a final disallowance, or a claim for increase will be the date the claim was received or the date entitlement arose, whichever is later. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.400. The applicable statutory and regulatory provisions require that VA look to all communications from the veteran which may be interpreted as applications or claims-formal and informal-for benefits. In particular, VA is required to identify and act on informal claims for benefits. See 38 U.S.C. § 511(b)(2); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.1(p), 3.155(a); see also Servello v. Derwinski, 3 Vet. App. 196, 198-200 (1992). The claim leading to the award of service connection for paranoid schizophrenia was received on May 31, 2002. There is nothing that can be construed as a claim for service connection for paranoid schizophrenia, formal or informal, prior to that date. The Veteran’s representative has argued that a TDIU claim has been pending since August 15, 2001, and the Board notes that an August 15, 2001 VA treatment note indicates that the Veteran reported that he was unable to work. However, the Veteran’s VA treatment records do not contain an indication that the Veteran reported that he believed his schizophrenia was caused by service on August 15, 2001, or at any other point prior to May 31, 2002. Therefore, the Veteran’s VA treatment records do not contain a statement that can be construed as a claim of entitlement to service connection for schizophrenia prior to May 31, 2002. Although the Board recognizes that the Veteran suffered from paranoid schizophrenia prior to May 31, 2002, the effective date is the later of the date of claim or the date entitlement arose. In other words, the effective date cannot be earlier than the date of claim. Because there is no indication that VA received a claim prior to May 31, 2002, an effective date earlier than May 31, 2002, for entitlement to service connection for paranoid schizophrenia must be denied. REASONS FOR REMAND 1. Entitlement to an initial rating higher than 70 percent for service-connected paranoid schizophrenia is remanded. The Veteran’s representative has repeatedly requested the November 2009 and August 2010 examiner’s curriculum vitae (CV) and engagement letters. This request should be complied with upon remand. Nohr v. McDonald, 27 Vet. App. 124 (2014). The record should also be updated to include VA treatment records compiled since September 2015. The Veteran was most recently examined for the disability at issue in August 2010. Medical reports of record reflect that the Veteran receives continued treatment, including medication, for the disability at issue. While the medical records reflect the Veteran’s disability has been characterized as stable, there are no treatment findings more recent than 2015. The Board believes that more recent examination findings would be useful in adjudicating the appeal. The matter is REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain the Veteran’s VA treatment records for the period from September 2015 to the present. 2. Provide the Veteran and his representative with a copy of the November 2009 and August 2010 examiner’s curriculum vitae and engagement letters. If such documents are not available, such unavailability should be documented of record, and the Veteran and his representative informed in this regard. 3. Schedule the Veteran for an examination to assess the current nature and severity of the service-connected paranoid schizophrenia. All manifestations, including frequency and severity, as well as resultant functional impairment, should be documented. The claims folder should be reviewed in conjunction with the examination. 4. After the above development, and any additionally indicated development, has been completed, readjudicate the issue on appeal. If the benefit sought is not granted to the Veteran’s satisfaction, send the Veteran and his   representative a Supplemental Statement of the Case and provide an opportunity to respond. If necessary, return the case to the Board for further appellate review. U. R. POWELL Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD A. Budd, Counsel