Citation Nr: 18161011 Decision Date: 12/28/18 Archive Date: 12/28/18 DOCKET NO. 16-54 376 DATE: December 28, 2018 ORDER An effective date earlier than January 20, 2012, for the award of service connection for adjustment disorder with depressed mood secondary to service-connected for right knee degenerative joint disease is denied. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The Veteran separated from active service in October 1971. 2. The Veteran filed a service connection claim for anxiety and depression in January 2012. This was his first claim filed, both formally or informally, for any mental health related disability. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for an effective date earlier than January 20, 2012, for the award of service connection for adjustment disorder with depressed mood secondary service-connected right knee degenerative joint disease have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 5110, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.400. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty from October 1969 to October 1971. This matters come before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a January 2015 rating decision by a Department of Veteran Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). The Veteran’s representative timely withdrew from the case and, therefore, the Veteran is representing himself, pro se. See 38 C.F.R. § 20.608. Earlier Effective Date The provisions for the determination of an effective date of an award of disability compensation are set forth in 38 U.S.C. § 5110. In this regard, 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; 38 C.F.R. § 3.400. If a claim for disability compensation is received within one year after separation from service, the effective date of entitlement is the day following separation or the date entitlement arose. 38 C.F.R. § 3.400(b)(2). Otherwise, it is the date of receipt of claim or the date entitlement arose, whichever is 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 to any individual under the laws administered by the VA. 38 U.S.C. § 5101(A). Notably, this particular case, is not governed by the March 15, 2014 amendment that provided very specific rules for filing claims, which no longer permitted informal application but, now, requires claimant to follow a formal process in applying for benefits. Prior to the amendment, which applies here, a “claim” is 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. 38 C.F.R. § 3.1 (p); Brannon v. West, 12 Vet. App. 32, 34-5 (1998). Any written communication indicating application for a benefit under the laws administered by the VA may be considered an informal claim provided it identifies, but not necessarily with specificity, the benefit sought. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.155(a); Servello v. Derwinski, 3 Vet. App. at 199. This means an expressed intent to claim benefits must be in writing in order to constitute an informal claim, as an oral inquiry or oral communication does not suffice. See Rodriguez v. West, 189 F.3d. 1351 (Fed. Cir. 1999). However, to apply for VA benefits only requires written communication requesting a determination of entitlement, or evidencing a belief in entitlement, to a benefit. 38 C.F.R. § 3.1(p). Also, under 38 C.F.R. § 3.155(c) when a claim has been filed which meets the requirements of 38 C.F.R. § 3.151 or 3.152, an informal request for increase or reopening will be accepted as a claim. Therefore, to determine when a, informal, claim was received, the Board must review all communications in the claims file that may be construed as an application or claim. See Quarles v. Derwinski, 3 Vet. App. 129, 134 (1992). After a review of the evidence, the Board finds that the proper effective date for the award of service connection for adjustment disorder with depressed mood associated with right knee degenerative joint disease, is January 20, 2012, the date of the Veteran’s claim. Given that the date he filed his claim was well outside of his one year from separation of service, thus, even if medical records reflect a diagnosis or treatment preexisted his date of claim, an earlier effective date could still not be assigned as a matter of law. As such, an earlier effective date is not available that would precede the date of the Veteran’s original claim, which here was January 20, 2012. See Lalonde v. West, 12 Vet. App. 377 (1999). (Continued on the next page)   Since this was not a claim for increase, the controlling date is the date of the original claim. Here, the first claim filed for any mental health related disability, both formally or informally, was January 20, 2012. Thus, the effective date of January 20, 2012, is accurate and assignable for the grant of service connection for adjustment disorder with depressed mood secondary to service-connected right knee degenerative joint disease. L. Chu Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD T. Vaughn, Associate Counsel