Citation Nr: 20004246 Decision Date: 01/21/20 Archive Date: 01/17/20 DOCKET NO. 19-02 820 DATE: January 21, 2020 ORDER Entitlement to an earlier effective date for the grant of special monthly compensation (SMC) is dismissed. FINDING OF FACT The Board does not have jurisdiction to decide the Veteran’s claim for entitlement to an earlier effective date for the grant of SMC. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for dismissal of the issue of entitlement to an earlier effective date for the grant of SMC have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 7104, 7105 (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 19.20, 19.21, 20.103, 20.104 (2018). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION Entitlement to an earlier effective date for the grant of SMC The Veteran contends that he is entitled to an earlier effective date for the grant of SMC, as he met the criteria for such compensation prior to the currently assigned dates. However, the Board lacks jurisdiction to render a decision on the issue. The Board notes that VA must decide all questions of law and fact necessary to make a decision under a law that affects the provision of benefits by VA to veterans or the dependents or survivors of veterans. 38 U.S.C. § 511(a); 38 C.F.R. § 20.104(a). One of the threshold issues that the Board must address is the determination of appellate jurisdiction. 38 C.F.R. § 20.103. The Board may address questions pertaining to its jurisdictional authority to review a particular case or issue. 38 C.F.R. § 20.104(b). Generally, the Board’s jurisdiction is grounded in an appeal having been filed on an issue, or issues, in controversy. 38 U.S.C. §§ 7104, 7105; 38 C.F.R. § 20.104. If it does not have jurisdiction, the Board may dismiss that case or issue. 38 C.F.R. § 20.104(b). An appeal of a rating decision consists of a timely filed Notice of Disagreement (NOD) in writing and, after a Statement of the Case (SOC) has been furnished, a timely filed substantive appeal (e.g., a VA Form 9 or equivalent statement). 38 U.S.C. § 7105; 38 C.F.R. § 19.20. Specifically, “determinations with which the claimant disagrees must be identified to the extent a form provided requires. If the claimant wishes to appeal all of the issues decided by the agency of original jurisdiction, the form must clearly indicate that intent. Issues not identified on the form will not be considered appealed.” 38 C.F.R. § 19.21. In a November 2017 rating decision, the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ) granted entitlement to SMC based on anatomical loss of one foot pursuant to 38 U.S.C. § 1114(k), with an effective date of May 22, 2011. In his January 2018 NOD disputing the November 2017 rating decision, the Veteran claimed that he was entitled to SMC under 38 U.S.C. § 1114 subsections (k), (l), (s), (o), and (r)(2) and further indicated disagreement with the effective date assigned by the AOJ for the grant of SMC under subsection (k). In an August 2018 rating decision, the AOJ granted entitlement to SMC based on housebound criteria under 38 U.S.C. § 1114(s), with an effective date of November 16, 2017. In a January 2019 rating decision, the AOJ granted entitlement to an earlier effective date for the grant of SMC under 38 U.S.C. § 1114(s), with a new effective date of November 10, 2017. In a December 2019 rating decision, the AOJ granted entitlement to an earlier effective date for the grant of SMC under 38 U.S.C. § 1114(k), with a new effective date of July 10, 2008. The record does not reflect that the AOJ issued a SOC with respect for the Veteran’s disagreement with the effective dates assigned for the grants of SMC, or that the Veteran otherwise filed a VA Form 9 identifying that he wished to substantively appeal the issue of entitlement to an earlier effective date for the grant of SMC. Thus, the record shows that jurisdiction over the issue of entitlement to an earlier effective date for the grant of SMC remains with the AOJ. In fact, the AOJ’s relatively recent rating decisions granting entitlement to an additional form of SMC and an earlier effective date for the grants of SMC under 38 U.S.C. § 1114(k) and (s) indicate that it is actively considering the issues of entitlement to SMC, along with the effective dates for any such compensation that has already been granted. Accordingly, the Board lacks jurisdiction to render a decision on the issue of entitlement to an earlier effective date for the grant of SMC and it is therefore dismissed. The Board notes that entitlement to SMC, including the effective date for any award of SMC related to the underlying claim, is also part and parcel of an increased rating claim, and a separate claim for SMC does not have to be submitted. See Akles v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 118, 121 (1991); 38 C.F.R. § 3.155(d)(2) (2018). The Board recently remanded multiple increased rating claims and earlier effective date claims in a November 2019 decision and the increased rating claims remanded by the Board in that decision correspondingly encompass the issue of entitlement to SMC. M. H. HAWLEY Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board S. Ferguson, 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.