Citation Nr: A20007340 Decision Date: 04/30/20 Archive Date: 04/30/20 DOCKET NO. 191017-38429 DATE: April 30, 2020 ORDER Service connection for a left ankle condition is dismissed. Service connection for a right ankle condition is dismissed. Service connection for a left knee condition is dismissed. Service connection for a right knee condition is dismissed. Service connection for right hip pain and weakness is dismissed. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. In a December 2018 rating decision, the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ) denied entitlement to service connection for a left and right ankle condition, a left and right knee condition, and right hip pain and weakness. 2. The Veteran improperly filed a VA Form 10182, Decision Review Request: Board Appeal (Notice of Disagreement), following and with respect to the December 2018 rating decision.   CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The Veteran’s claims of entitlement to service connection for a left ankle condition, right ankle condition, left knee condition, right knee condition, and right hip pain and weakness are dismissed. 38 U.S.C. §§ 7104, 7105; 38 C.F.R. §§ 20.201, 20.302(a). REASONS FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 1. Service connection for a left ankle condition is dismissed. 2. Service connection for a right ankle condition is dismissed. 3. Service connection for a left knee condition is dismissed. 4. Service connection for a right knee condition is dismissed. 5. Service connection for right hip pain and weakness is dismissed. For reasons explained below, the Board finds that the issues on appeal must be dismissed because the Board does not have jurisdiction over these issues. On August 23, 2017, the President signed into law the Veterans Appeals Improvement and Modernization Act, also known as the Appeals Modernization Act (AMA). The AMA became effective on February 19, 2019. In this matter, the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ) issued a rating decision in December 2018 denying entitlement to service connection for a left ankle condition, right ankle condition, left knee condition, right knee condition, and right hip pain and weakness. The AOJ notified the Veteran of its determination in a letter dated December 24, 2018 and, along with the notification letter and rating decision, the AOJ enclosed a VA Form 21-0958, Notice of Disagreement (NOD), and informed the Veteran that he must submit that form within one year from the date of the notification letter if he disagreed with the decision. See December 2018 Notification Letter. Despite the foregoing, the record reflects that, in October 2019, the Veteran, through his representative, filed a VA Form 10182, Decision Review Request: Board Appeal (Notice of Disagreement), requesting direct review by the Board of the issues of entitlement to of service connection for a left ankle condition, right ankle condition, left knee condition, right knee condition, and right hip pain and weakness that were denied in the December 2018 rating decision. See December 2019 VA Form 10182. The applicable statute and regulations provide that VA will only accept an Notice of Disagreement (NOD) if it is submitted on the 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. The regulations clearly provide that VA will not accept as an 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.; see also 38 C.F.R. § 20.202(e) (instituting the same rule for AMA). The statute and regulations applicable to legacy appeals provide that appellate review will be initiated by an NOD and completed by a substantive appeal after a statement of the case (SOC) is furnished. 38 U.S.C. § 7105(a); see also 38 C.F.R. § 19.20. In short, a legacy rating decision can only be appealed using the form that was provided to the Veteran in December 2018; a VA Form 21-0958. An AMA appeal comes before the Board in one of three ways: 1) an appeal of a Rapid Appeals Modernization Program (RAMP) rating decision; 2) an appeal of a rating decision with a notification letter dated on or after February 19, 2019; or 3) an opt-in to the AMA system from a statement of the case or supplemental statement of the case issued on or after February 19, 2019. 38 C.F.R. § 19.2(d); 38 C.F.R. § 3.2400. In this matter, review of the record reveals that the Veteran did not, at any time applicable to this appeal, opt into the Rapid Appeals Modernization Program (RAMP); nor was the December 2018 rating decision a RAMP rating decision. As noted, the December 2018 rating decision was issued prior to February 19, 2019, before commencement of the AMA system. The record also reflects that an SOC was not issued on or after February 19, 2019. Therefore, the VA Form 10182 submitted by the Veteran’s representative in October 2019 did not properly appeal the December 2018 rating decision. There is also no indication or allegation that the Veteran or his representative have submitted a VA Form 21-0958, Notice of Disagreement, with respect to the issues addressed in the December 2018 rating decision. The Board acknowledges that the Board sent a letter to the Veteran in April 2019 acknowledging receipt of a Board Appeal request (VA Form 10182, Decision Review Request: Board Appeal (Notice of Disagreement)) submitted in October 2019; however, that letter was sent in error because the VA Form 10182 submitted in this case was improperly filed, as explained above. As a result, an appeal of these issues of entitlement to service connection for a left ankle condition, right ankle condition, left knee condition, right knee condition, and right hip pain and weakness is not properly before the Board in the AMA system. Therefore, the Board does not have jurisdiction over these issues and the appeal of these issues must be dismissed. See 38 U.S.C. §§ 7104, 7105; 38 C.F.R. §§ 20.201, 20.302(a). M. Donohue Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board A. Turnipseed, 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.