Citation Nr: 18159722 Decision Date: 12/19/18 Archive Date: 12/19/18 DOCKET NO. 17-00 503 DATE: December 19, 2018 ORDER Entitlement to an effective date earlier than March 18, 2013, for the grant of service connection for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is denied. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The Veteran’s claim of entitlement to service connection for PTSD was denied by the RO in an February 2009 rating decision. The Veteran was notified of the decision and his appellate rights, but he did not appeal or submit new and material evidence within the one-year appeal period. 2. VA received the Veteran’s petition to reopen the previously denied claim on March 18, 2013, and the RO granted service connection for PTSD effective on that date. 3. The Veteran did not file a formal or informal claim to reopen his previously denied claim for service connection for a psychiatric disability after the issuance of the February 2009 rating decision but before March 18, 2013. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for an effective date prior to March 18, 2013, for the grant of service connection for PTSD have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 5107(b), 5110 (2012); 38 C.F.R. § 3.400 (2018). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION VA’s duty to notify was satisfied by a letter sent in December 2013. 38 U.S.C. §§ 5102, 5103, 5103A (2012); 38 C.F.R. § 3.159 (2018); Scott v. McDonald, 789 F.3d 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2015). The evidence of record includes the Veteran’s VA treatment records, and the Veteran has not referred to any additional, unobtained, relevant, available evidence. Consequently, all relevant, identified, and available evidence has been obtained. The duty to assist also includes providing an examination when the record indicates a claim may have merit but there is insufficient evidence to decide the matter. 38 U.S.C. § 5103A (2012); McLendon v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 79 (2006). The Veteran received a VA examination in January 2014. The examination was adequate because it was based on a thorough examination, a description of the Veteran’s pertinent medical history, a complete review of the claims file, and appropriate diagnostic tests. The examiner also provided a rationale for the opinion. See Barr v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 303, 312 (2007); Stefl v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 120, 124-25 (2007) Accordingly, VA has fulfilled its duty to assist. The Veteran filed a claim for PTSD on August 28, 2008. In February 2009, the RO denied the Veteran’s claim for PTSD. The Veteran did not submit a Notice of Disagreement or submit new and material evidence within one year of its promulgation. See Buie v. Shinseki, 24 Vet. App. 242, 251-52 (2011); see also Bond v. Shinseki, 659 F.3d 1362, 1367-68 (Fed. Cir. 2011). Accordingly, the February 2009 rating decision became final. 38 U.S.C. § 7105 (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.104, 3.160(d), 20.200, 20.302, 20.1103 (2018). In a March 2014 rating decision, the RO reopened the Veteran’s claim and granted service connection for PTSD effective March 18, 2013; the date his petition to reopen the previously denied claim was received. In this case, the March 2014 rating decision granted service connection and assigned an effective date. The Veteran’s claim is not an impermissible “freestanding” effective date claim. Rudd v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 296, 299 (2006). The rating decision granting service connection was dated March 18, 2013. The Veteran asserted that he was entitled to an earlier effective date in a statement received in February 2015. Except as otherwise provided, the effective date of an evaluation and award of 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 later. 38 U.S.C. § 5110 (2012); 38 C.F.R. § 3.400 (2018). If there is a prior final rating decision denying the benefit sought, the effective date cannot be earlier than a subsequent claim to reopen. See Leonard v. Principi, 17 Vet. App. 447 (2004); Sears v. Principi, 16 Vet. App. 244, 246-50 (2002), aff’d, 349 F.3d 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2003); Flash v. Brown, 8 Vet. App. 332 (1995). The Board finds that there is no document of record that can be construed as an informal or formal claim for service connection for a psychiatric disorder that was received after the last final February 2009 denial, but prior to the March 18, 2013 application to reopen. The Board acknowledges the Veteran asserts a PTSD claim was filed in 2009 that also included a request for a VA examination. However, the Board finds there is no evidence of a PTSD service connection claim in 2009 in the record; the only service connection claim from the Veteran from 2009 is for another disability. Likewise, the Board considers the Veteran’s hesitancy to fully pursue his PTSD claim in 2008, including attending his VA examination. Nevertheless, the Board finds the medical evidence of record fails to show a PTSD diagnosis prior to his March 2013 service connection claim. The existence of a current disability is the cornerstone of a claim for VA disability compensation. 38 U.S.C. § 1110 (2012); see Degmetich v. Brown, 104 F.3d 1328, 1332 (1997). In the absence of evidence of a current disability there can be no valid claim. Brammer v. Derwinski, 3 Vet. App. 223, 225 (1992). Accordingly, prior to March 18, 2013, there was no evidence of a current PTSD disability. The effective date is assigned based on consideration of the date that the application upon which service connection was eventually awarded was received by VA. See Lalonde v. West, 12 Vet. App. 377 (1999). Thus, the proper effective date is March 18, 2013, the date his petition to reopen was received. The Veteran has not presented evidence of CUE to overcome the finality of the February 2009 rating decision denying service connection. Any claim of CUE must be pled with specificity. See Andre v. Principi, 301 F.3d 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2002). This specific allegation must assert more than merely disagreement with how the facts of the case were weighed or evaluated. Persuasive reasons must be given as to why the result would have been manifestly different but for the alleged error. The Board concludes the Veteran is not entitled to an effective date earlier than March 18, 2013, for his PTSD, which is the date of his application to reopen. D. Martz Ames Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD R. Brunot, Associate Counsel