Citation Nr: 19136331 Decision Date: 05/10/19 Archive Date: 05/10/19 DOCKET NO. 15-41 807 DATE: May 10, 2019 ORDER An effective date prior to August 14, 2006, for the grant of service connection for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is dismissed. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. In a May 2012 decision, the Board denied the Veteran’s claim of entitlement to an earlier effective date than August 14, 2006 for the award of service connection for PTSD. 2. The Veteran has neither sought reconsideration by the Chairman of the Board (Chairman) of the Board’s May 2012 decision nor appealed the Board’s decision to United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court). CONCLUSION OF LAW The May 2012 Board decision that denied entitlement to an earlier effective date than August 14, 2006 for the award of service connection for PTSD is final. 38 U.S.C. § 7105; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.156, 20.1103. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty from November 1966 to November 1969. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a September 2013 rating decision(s) from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Oakland, California. This case has a complicated procedural history, which will be reviewed here for the benefit of all stakeholders. In July 1997, the Veteran was denied service connection for PTSD. The Veteran was afforded a VA examination which showed he had a diagnosis of depression/anxiety, which the RO did not address in its denial. The Veteran was notified of this decision in July 1997. In May 1998, the Veteran requested that his claim for SC for PTSD be reopened; a letter from the RO in July 1998 informed the Veteran that he had to submit new and material evidence to reopen the claim. No new evidence was submitted by the Veteran. In August 2006, the Veteran again requested to reopen his claim for service connection for PTSD, the RO granted service connection in 2010, and assigned a 30 percent evaluation, effective August 14, 2006. The RO granted an increased rating to 70 percent disabling effective April 30, 2010, in a May 2010 rating decision, the RO then granted an earlier effective date for the 70 percent rating of August 14, 2006, in a September 2012 rating decision. The Veteran appealed the May 2010 rating decision and in May 2012, the Board issued a decision that included a denial of an earlier effective date for the award of service connection. In July 2012, the Veteran sent correspondence to the RO asking that the RO “reconsider” the issue of an effective date assigned to the award of service connection for the PTSD. He argued that the Board should have considered whether he should have been service-connected for depression and anxiety from 1997 since his original claim had been for an “acquired psychiatric disorder” and not just PTSD therefore it remained an unadjudicated claim. 1. An effective date prior to August 14, 2006, for the grant of service connection for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is denied. The Veteran seeks an effective date prior to August 14, 2006, for the grant of service connection for PTSD. In the May 2012, decision, the Board denied entitlement to an effective date earlier than August 14, 2006 for a grant of entitlement to service connection for PTSD. The Veteran did not appeal this decision to the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court). That decision was a valid and final judgment, which was based on the substantive merits of the claim. The Veteran’s current claim arose from a Notice of Disagreement (NOD) he submitted to the September 2013 RO decision regarding the Veteran’s request for “reconsideration” sent to the RO in July 2012. Board decisions are final from the stamped mailing date on the face of the decision, unless reconsideration is ordered, the decision is revised because of clear and unmistakable error (CUE) or a motion for reconsideration, or a timely notice of appeal is received by the Court. 38 C.F.R. § 20.1100. VA Form 4597 notified the Veteran that he could, within 120 days of the Board decision, submit a notice of appeal directly to the Court. The form also notifies him that he could file with the Board, at any time after the issuance of the decision, a motion for reconsideration, a motion to vacate, or a motion for revision based on CUE. VA Form 4597 outlined the steps for filing a notice of appeal with the Court and for filing motions with the Board. “Except as provided by law, when a case or issue has been decided and an appeal has not been taken within the time prescribed by law, the case is closed, the matter is ended, and no further review is afforded.” DiCarlo v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 52 (2006). As noted above, the issue on appeal has already been addressed by the Board in a final, unappealed decision, and cannot be revisited in the absence of a motion for reconsideration or a motion of CUE in the May 2012 Board decision. The Veteran in this case has not, at any point, argued that his request for an earlier effective date should be construed as a motion to revise the May 2012 Board decision based on clear and unmistakable error, nor has the Veteran filed the necessary motion to have that prior decision revised or reconsidered. The Board has considered whether the July 2012 request for reconsideration sent to the RO can be construed as a motion for reconsideration, revision, or vacatur; however, even with a liberal reading of the Veteran’s communications, none rise to the level of a motion for reconsideration, revision, or vacatur. As noted in VA Form 4597, among other requirements, motions must be in writing, must be submitted directly to the Board, and must set forth the alleged basis for requesting the motion. General statements of dissatisfaction with the Board decision or some other aspect of the VA claims adjudication process will not suffice. See 38 C.F.R. §§ 20.904, 20.1000, 20.1001, 20.1400, and 20.1404. Here, the appellant did not submit his July 2012 request for reconsideration directly to the Board and he did not allege any error of facts or law in the May 2012 Board decision. Accordingly, the matter is res judicata. See Flash v. Brown, 8 Vet. App. 332 (1995) and Routen v. West, 142 F.3d 1434, (Fed. Cir. 1998). Based on the foregoing, the issue of entitlement to an effective date earlier than August 14, 2006 for a grant of service connection for PTSD decision must be denied as a matter of law. See Sabonis v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 426, 430 (1994) (where the law and not the evidence is dispositive the Board should deny the claim on the ground of the lack of legal merit or the lack of entitlement under the law). Regulations provide that an appellant must file an appeal of a Board decision directly with the Court. Further, the Veteran has not filed a motion for reconsideration, revision, or vacatur with the Board; nor has the Veteran filed a CUE claim in regard to the RO’s July 1997 decision or the Board’s May 2012   decision. Finally, the Veteran cannot file a freestanding claim for an earlier effective date. See Rudd v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 296 (2006), which prohibits a Veteran from attempting to collaterally attack the finality of a prior Board decision by filing a freestanding earlier effective date claim, as in this case. Accordingly, the May 2012 Board decision is final; the appeal for an earlier effective date for service connection for PTSD is dismissed. L. M. BARNARD Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD Department of Veterans Affairs