Citation Nr: A20008905 Decision Date: 05/19/20 Archive Date: 05/19/20 DOCKET NO. 190701-37383 DATE: May 19, 2020 ORDER The issue of whether new and material evidence has been presented to reopen the claim of service connection for left ankle sprain is dismissed. Entitlement to service connection for a right ankle disability is dismissed. FINDING OF FACT The March 2015 rating decision is not eligible for review under VA’s modernized review system. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The criteria for dismissal of the issue of whether new and material evidence has been presented to reopen the claim of service connection for left ankle sprain have been met. 38 U.S.C. § 7105; 38 C.F.R. § 20.205. 2. The criteria for dismissal of entitlement to service connection for a right ankle disability have been met. 38 U.S.C. § 7105; 38 C.F.R. § 20.205. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSIONS The Veteran had active duty service in the United States Army from October 1998 to August 2003 and in the United States Air Force from February 2006 to April 2007. On August 23, 2017, the President signed into law the Veterans Appeals Improvement and Modernization Act, Pub. L. No. 115-55 (to be codified as amended in scattered sections of 38 U.S.C.), 131 Stat. 1105 (2017), also known as the Appeals Modernization Act (AMA). That law creates a new framework for Veterans dissatisfied with VA’s decision on their claim to seek review. The AMA became effective on February 19, 2019. In July 2019, the Veteran filed a Notice of Disagreement (NOD) (VA Form 10182) under the AMA framework seeking direct review by the Board of a rating decision that was issued by a Regional Office (RO) of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) in March 2015. The AMA applies to all claims for which VA issues notice of an initial decision on or after February 19, 2019. See 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.2400, 19.2. The AMA also applies where a claimant has elected review of a legacy claim under the AMA as provided in §3.2400(c). Id. This section only allows for the appellant to elect AMA review of a legacy claim by opting-in under the Rapid Appeals Modernization Program (RAMP), or by electing to proceed under the AMA after the issuance of a Statement of the Case (SOC). 38 C.F.R. § 3.2400(c)(1). The statute and regulations applicable to legacy appeals provide that appellate review will be initiated by a NOD and completed by a substantive appeal after an SOC is furnished. 38 U.S.C. § 7105(a); see also 38 C.F.R. § 19.20 (effective February 19, 2019). VA will only accept an expression of dissatisfaction or disagreement with an adjudicative determination by the AOJ as a NOD if it is submitted on a standardized form provided by VA for the purpose of appealing the decision, in cases where such a form is provided. See 38 C.F.R. § 19.21 (effective February 19, 2019). VA will not accept as a NOD an expression of a desire to contest the result of an adjudicative determination that is submitted in any other format, including on a different VA form. Id. (emphasis supplied); see also 38 C.F.R. § 20.202(e) (effective February 19, 2019) (instituting the same rule for AMA). Accordingly, the Board does not have jurisdiction to review this appeal, and it must be dismissed. STEVEN D. REISS Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board Joshua R. Castillo, 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.