Citation Nr: A20007347 Decision Date: 04/30/20 Archive Date: 04/30/20 DOCKET NO. 190705-15444 DATE: April 30, 2020 ORDER The appeal regarding the proposal to sever service connection for left MCA cardiometabolic stroke is dismissed. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. In a June 2019 rating decision, the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ) proposed to sever service connection for left MCA cardiometabolic stroke. 2. The Veteran filed a VA Form 10182, Decision Review Request: Board Appeal (Notice of Disagreement), with the June 2019 rating decision proposing severance of service connection; however, as severance had not yet been finalized, the Board lacks jurisdiction over the current appeal. CONCLUSION OF LAW The appeal regarding the proposal to sever service connection for left MCA cardiometabolic stroke is dismissed. 38 U.S.C. §§ 7104, 7105 (2012); 38 C.F.R. § 20.104 (2019). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty from January 1969 to January 1971. This matter is before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) from a June 2019 rating decision of a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). Dismissal 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). The AMA became effective on February 19, 2019. In this matter, the RO issued a rating decision in June 2019 proposing to sever service connection for left MCA cardiometabolic stroke. The RO notified the Veteran of the June 2019 rating decision in a letter dated June 11, 2019. In the notification letter, the Veteran was advised that he could submit additional evidence within 60 days showing that the severance should not be effectuated, and that he had 30 days from the date of the notice to request a personal hearing if he desired one. The claims file also reflects that the Veteran was sent a notification letter dated June 12, 2019, where he was advised that he had one year from the date of this letter to select a supplemental claim, higher-level review, or appeal to the Board review options. The Veteran filed a VA Form 10182 in July 2019 requesting evidence submission review by the Board of the June 2019 rating decision. Although the Board acknowledges that the Board sent a letter to the Veteran in August 2019 acknowledging receipt of a Board Appeal request (VA Form 10182, Decision Review Request: Board Appeal (Notice of Disagreement)), a review of the Veteran’s file indicates that the appeal regarding the proposal to sever service connection for left MCA cardiometabolic stroke must be dismissed because the Board does not have jurisdiction over this issue. Although the rating decision was issued after February 19, 2019, it was only a proposal to sever service connection for left MCA cardiometabolic stroke and the RO had not yet finalized the proposed action at the time the Veteran filed the VA Form 10182 in July 2019. As the proposal had not been finalized, the appeal was not ripe for adjudication by the Board. As a result, an appeal of the proposal to sever service connection is not properly before the Board. The Board therefore does not have jurisdiction and the appeal must be dismissed. 38 U.S.C. §§ 7104, 7105; 38 C.F.R. § 20.104. The Board notes that the RO issued a rating decision in November 2019, which finalized the severance of service connection for left MCA cardiometabolic stroke. The Veteran was notified of this decision by letter dated November 8, 2019 and was notified that he had one year from the date of the letter to select a review option in order to protect his initial filing date for effective date purposes. The time period has yet to expire for the Veteran to submit a VA Form 10182, Decision Review Request: Board Appeal (Notice of Disagreement), with the final severance effectuated by the November 2019 decision. M. SORISIO Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board Bonnie Yoon, 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.