Citation Nr: 18123777
Decision Date: 08/03/18	Archive Date: 08/02/18

DOCKET NO. 11-11 467
DATE:	August 3, 2018
ORDER
The appeal as to the issue of entitlement to a disability rating in excess of 50 percent for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
FINDING OF FACT
In a March 2018 rating decision, the RO increased the Veteran’s PTSD disability rating from 30 percent to 50 percent.  To date, the Veteran has not initiated an appeal of this rating decision.  
CONCLUSION OF LAW
The Board lacks jurisdiction over the issue of entitlement to an increased rating in excess of 50 percent for PTSD because a notice of disagreement has not been received.  38 U.S.C. § 7105(a); 38 C.F.R. § 20.200.
REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION
The formality of perfecting an appeal to the Board is part of a clear and unambiguous statutory and regulatory scheme that requires the filing of both a notice of disagreement (NOD) and a formal appeal.  Appellate review of a Regional Office (RO) decision is initiated by an NOD and completed by substantive appeal after a statement of the case (SOC) is furnished.  38 U.S.C. § 7105(a); 38 C.F.R. § 20.200.
In an April 2010 rating decision, the RO denied service connection for an anxiety disorder (subsequently recharacterized as a claim for PTSD), tinnitus and for a traumatic brain injury (TBI).  The Veteran submitted an NOD as to the denial of service connection for all three claims.  In March 2011, the RO granted service connection for PTSD and assigned a 30 percent disability rating.  The Veteran did not submit a notice of disagreement as to the assigned rating; therefore, the decision as to that claim became final.  On that same day, the RO issued an SOC for the denial of service connection for tinnitus and for a TBI.  The Veteran properly submitted a substantive appeal in response to the March 2011 SOC; and the appeal as to service connection for tinnitus and TBI was subsequently referred to the Board.  In January 2017, the Board remanded these two claims to the RO for additional development.  
Thereafter, in February 2017, the Veteran submitted a request for an increased rating for his PTSD.  In a March 2018 rating decision, the RO increased the Veteran’s PTSD disability rating from 30 percent to 50 percent.  In that same rating decision, the RO granted service connection for tinnitus and TBI and assigned separate 10 percent disability ratings.  To date, the Veteran has not initiated an appeal as to any of the claims in this rating decision by submitting a notice of disagreement.
However, a review of the claims file reveals that the RO was apparently confused as to the issues properly before the Board in January 2017, as it prepared a supplemental statement of the case (SSOC) in March 2018 pertaining to the appropriateness of the disability rating assigned to the Veteran’s PTSD.  
The record in this case clearly reveals that the Veteran has never appealed the assignment of a disability rating for his service-connected PTSD, since he has never submitted an NOD regarding these ratings.  Thus, the appropriateness of the disability rating assigned to the Veteran’s service-connected PTSD is not properly on appeal to the Board; and this appeal must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.  
 
MICHAEL E. KILCOYNE
Veterans Law Judge
Board of Veterans’ Appeals
ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD	Talpins, Patricia