Citation Nr: 20003076 Decision Date: 01/14/20 Archive Date: 01/14/20 DOCKET NO. 19-24 469 DATE: January 14, 2020 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for an abdominal aortic aneurysm is dismissed. FINDING OF FACT The Veteran’s August 2019 substantive appeal did not perfect an appeal for the issue of entitlement to service connection for an abdominal aortic aneurysm. CONCLUSION OF LAW The Board does not have jurisdiction to consider an appeal regarding entitlement to service connection for an abdominal aortic aneurysm. 38 U.S.C. § 7105(b)(2), (d)(5) (2012); 38 C.F.R. § 20.205 (2018). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty from April 1966 to April 1969. Dismissal To perfect an appeal, a substantive appeal must be filed within 60 days from the date the Agency of Original Jurisdiction mails a claimant a statement of the case (SOC) (or within the remainder of the one-year period from the date of mailing of the rating decision being appealed, whichever period ends later). 38 C.F.R. §§ 20.202, 20.300, 20.302 (2018). Otherwise, the rating decision becomes final. See 38 C.F.R. § 20.1103 (2018). The filing of a timely substantive appeal, as opposed to a notice of disagreement, is not a jurisdictional bar to the Board’s jurisdiction. Therefore, the Board can implicitly or explicitly waive the issue of timeliness with regard to a substantive appeal. Nonetheless, the Board may decline to exercise jurisdiction over an appeal if a substantive appeal was not timely filed. See Percy v. Shinseki, 23 Vet. App. 37, 45 (2009). Here, the RO adjudicated, in a June 2019 Statement of the Cases (SOC), the issues of entitlement to service connection for larynx cancer, bladder cancer, a thyroid condition, and an abdominal aortic aneurysm. In August 2019, the Veteran submitted a timely substantive appeal (VA Form 9) where he noted under “Box A” that he was only appealing the following issues: “Respiratory cancer…of the larynx.” He added that a side effect of this cancer was hardening of the carotid artery that required stents placement on both sides of the neck. While the Veteran mentioned the “hardening of the carotid artery” as a result of radiation, he simply raised another theory of entitlement, namely secondary service connection. In addition, he attached a medical opinion that stated, “We do think that radiation therapy to his neck was the original cause for his carotid artery disease.” The Board has reviewed the record and finds that the issue of entitlement to service connection for an abdominal aortic aneurysm was not perfected. The Veteran specifically selected box 8A on his August 2019 VA Form-9 that indicates that he was only appealing the issue, which he limited to his respiratory cancer/laryngeal cancer. See Hamilton v. Brown, 4 Vet. App. 528 (1993) (“where... the claimant expressly indicates an intent that adjudication of certain specific claims not proceed at a certain point in time, neither the RO nor BVA has authority to adjudicate those specific claims, absent a subsequent request or authorization from the claimant or his or her representative”). In addition to the limiting the issue on the Form-9, he referenced and submitted an attached letter and medical statement from his physician that discusses the Veteran’s larynx cancer, and carotid artery blockage, claimed as secondary to radiation treatment for larynx cancer. The Form-9 and enclosed submissions do not reference the aneurysm. Accordingly, the Board finds that, because the aneurysm claim was not perfected, it does not have jurisdiction to review the claim of entitlement to service connection for abdominal aneurysm and it therefore must be dismissed. It is further noted that although the Veteran did perfect an appeal as to the issue of entitlement to service connection for larynx cancer, he then opted in to the modernized appeal system when he submitted the August 2019 Form 10182; that issue will be decided in a separate Board decision under the modernized appeal stream. S. B. MAYS Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board A. Yaffe, Associate Counsel The Board’s decision in this case is binding only with respect to the instant matter decided. This decision is not precedential, and does not establish VA policies or interpretations of general applicability. 38 C.F.R. § 20.1303.