Citation Nr: 20007280 Decision Date: 01/28/20 Archive Date: 01/28/20 DOCKET NO. 19-13 558 DATE: January 28, 2020 ORDER Entitlement to an increased rating for service-connected generalized anxiety disorder prior to March 26, 2012, is dismissed. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The Veteran did not formerly appeal to the Board the issue of an earlier effective date prior to March 26, 2012, constituting the September 2019 statement of the case to be a final decision; and the issue of an increased rating is no longer intertwined. 2. The Board’s September 2019 grant of an increased evaluation of 100 percent for service-connected generalized anxiety, effective March 26, 2012, constitutes a full grant of benefits under the law; and therefore, this issue is no longer in appellate status. CONCLUSION OF LAW As the benefit sought on appeal has been granted, there remains no case or controversy as to the issue of an increased rating for service-connected generalized anxiety disorder. 38 U.S.C. § 7105; 38 C.F.R. §§ 20.201, 20.205. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty from August 1972 to September 1975. This case comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a January 2017 rating decision issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). This matter was previously before the Board in September 2019, where it was remanded for further development. The Board notes that there was substantial compliance with its September 2019 remand directives. See Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268, 271 (1998); D’Aries v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 97, 105 (2008). Entitlement to an increased rating exceeding 70 percent for service-connected generalized anxiety disorder. The Veteran filed a claim for service connection in March 26, 2012, which was granted in a January 2017 rating decision, with an initial evaluation of 70 percent given, effective August 21, 2011. The Veteran timely filed a notice of disagreement (NOD) in February 2017, disagreeing with the initial evaluation and effective date. Subsequently, in April 2017, the RO issued another rating decision, as the effective date of service connection for anxiety was clearly and unmistakably erroneous; issuing the correct effective date of March 26, 2012 (date VA received claim). In September 2019, the Board issued a decision granting an increased evaluation of 100 percent, effective March 26, 2012 (date VA received claim). The Board also remanded the Veteran’s claim for an earlier effective date prior to March 26, 2012, as no statement of the case (SOC) was issued, pursuant to Manlincon v. West, 12 Vet. App. 238 (1999); and remanded the claim for an increased evaluation prior to March 26, 2012, as this issue was intertwined with the adjudication of the earlier effective date. Subsequently, in September 2019, the RO issued a SOC denying the Veteran’s claim for an earlier effective date prior to March 26, 2012. The SOC also informed the Veteran that he had 60 days from the date of this letter to formally appeal this decision to the Board, and if an appeal is not received within that timeframe, the SOC becomes final and the issue will be closed. Additionally, in a September 2019 rating decision, the RO implemented the Board’s decision, noting that the 100 percent increase was the highest schedular evaluation allowed by law for the Veteran’s generalized anxiety disorder. After review of the record, the Board notes that, as of this date, the Veteran has not formally filed an appeal to the September 2019 SOC for the issue of an earlier effective date prior to March 26, 2012; therefore, this decision is final. 38 U.S.C. §§ 5108, 7105; 38 C.F.R. § 3.156. Given the finality of the SOC, the Veteran’s effective date will properly remain as March 26, 2012; and given the Board’s September 2019 grant of an increased evaluation of 100 percent for the entire period on appeal, the Board finds that this represents a full grant of benefits allowed for entitlement to an increased rating for service-connected generalized anxiety disorder. Therefore, as the Board may dismiss any appeal which fails to allege specific error of fact or law in the determination being appealed, there remains no allegation of error of fact or law for appellate consideration with respect to the Veteran’s claim currently on appeal. 38 U.S.C. § 7105. Accordingly, the Board does not have jurisdiction to review the appeal, and it is hereby dismissed. 38 C.F.R. § 20.101. M. H. HAWLEY Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board B. Hodges, 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.