Citation Nr: 19122004 Decision Date: 03/26/19 Archive Date: 03/23/19 DOCKET NO. 19-02 042 DATE: March 26, 2019 ORDER Entitlement to an effective date earlier than February 29, 2016, for the grant of service connection for ocular neuropathy, status post central retinal artery occlusion is denied. FINDING OF FACT The Veteran’s earliest claim of entitlement to service connection for ocular neuropathy, status post central retinal artery occlusion was received on February 29, 2016. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for an effective date earlier than February 29, 2016, for the grant of service connection for ocular neuropathy, status post central retinal artery occlusion have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 5107, 5110; 38 C.F.R. § 3.102, 3.155, 3.400. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served active service duty from April 1953 to April 1955; from April 1955 to July 1957; from July 1957 to July 1963; from July 1963 to January 1970; and from January 1970 to April 1973. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a June 2016 rating decision from the Department of Veteran Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). This appeal has been advanced on the Board’s docket pursuant to 38 C.F.R. § 20.900 (c). 38 U.S.C. § 7107 (a)(2). Duty to Notify and Assist VA informed the Veteran of how effective dates are selected in the VA Form 21-526EZ that he submitted in February 2016. 38 U.S.C. §§ 5102, 5103, 5103A; 38 C.F.R. § 3.159; Scott v. McDonald, 789 F.3d 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2015). With regard to the duty to assist, all evidence relevant to the Veteran’s claim has been secured. Notably, determinations regarding effective dates of awards are based essentially on what was shown by the record at various points in time and application of governing law to those findings. Generally, further development of the evidence is not necessary unless it is alleged that evidence constructively of record is outstanding. The Veteran has not identified any pertinent evidence that remains outstanding. VA’s duty to assist is met. Entitlement to an effective date earlier than February 29, 2016, for the grant of service connection for ocular neuropathy, status post central retinal artery occlusion is denied. In the February 2017 Notice of Disagreement, the Veteran contends his effective date should be December 22, 2012, because that is when his condition began. Also, in the January 2019 Form 9, the Veteran requested a waiver of the February 29, 2016, effective date, and to make January 20, 2014, the effective date. Unless specifically provided otherwise by statute, the effective date of an award for compensation benefits based on (1) an original claim, (2) a claim reopened after final adjudication, or (3) a claim for increase, is the date VA received the claim or the date entitlement arose, whichever is later. 38 U.S.C. § 5110(a); 38 C.F.R. § 3.400; Lalonde v. West, 12 Vet. App. 377, 382 (1999). The Veteran filed his claim for entitlement to service connection for ocular neuropathy, status post central retinal artery occlusion on February 29, 2016. The Board has reviewed the claims file for any document, submitted before the Veteran’s February 29, 2016, claim that could be considered a claim for service connection for ocular neuropathy, status post central retinal artery occlusion. Lalonde, 12 Vet. App. at 381. Prior to March 24, 2015, a “claim” was defined as “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). Any communication or action that (1) indicates an “intent to apply for one or more [VA] benefits” and (2) “identif[ies] the benefit sought” may be considered an informal claim. 38 C.F.R. § 3.155(a). The Board has found no communication from the Veteran, prior to March 24, 2015, to VA that could be construed as an informal claim of entitlement to service connection for ocular neuropathy, status post central retinal artery occlusion. Moreover, the Veteran has not asserted he filed an informal claim prior to March 24, 2015. Additionally, he has not asserted that he filed a formal claim between March 24, 2015 and February 28, 2016. Medical evidence showing treatment for a disorder does not establish intent to seek service connection for that disorder. Brannon v. West, 12 Vet. App. 32 (1998). Although, the Veteran’s medical record indicates the Veteran’s service-connected disability began before February 29, 2016, there is no evidence of intent to seek service connection benefits for his disability during this time. For these reasons, the Board concludes that the Veteran is not entitled to an effective date earlier than February 29, 2016, for service connection for ocular neuropathy, status post central retinal artery occlusion; which is the date of the claim that led to the grant of service connection. In his January 2019 VA Form 9, the Veteran stated that he was not informed, and he did not know, that the date of his filing of a claim would be his effective date. He was provided notice of how effective dates are selected on the VA Form 21-526EZ, as noted above. Additionally, the request for an earlier effective date is a downstream issue from the grant of the benefit sought. 38 U.S.C. § 5103(a) does not require VA to provide notice of this information for newly raised or “downstream” issues, such as a claim for earlier effective date following an initial grant of service connection on a claim for which VA has already given the appropriate section 5103(a) notice. See VAOPGCPREC 8-2003 (Dec. 22, 2003). The Board is sympathetic to the Veteran’s situation – that he did not know how effective dates were selected prior to deciding to file his claim. However, the Board is bound by the law and is without authority to grant benefits on an equitable basis. See 38 U.S.C. §§ 503, 7104; Harvey v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 416, 425 (1994). “No equities, no matter how compelling, can create a right to payment out of the United States Treasury which has not been provided for by Congress.” Smith v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 429, 432-33 (1992) (citing Office of Personnel Management v. Richmond, 496 U.S. 414, 426 (1990)). D. Martz Ames Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD L. Willoughby, Law Clerk