Citation Nr: 21000372 Decision Date: 01/05/21 Archive Date: 01/05/21 DOCKET NO. 16-26 732 DATE: January 5, 2021 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for polysubstance abuse, to include as secondary to service-connected posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), is dismissed. FINDING OF FACT The Veteran’s claim of entitlement to service connection for polysubstance abuse was granted in a June 2020 Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) decision. CONCLUSION OF LAW The appeal as to the issue of entitlement to service connection for polysubstance abuse, to include as secondary to service-connected PTSD, is dismissed due to the absence of a controversy. 38 U.S.C. § 7105. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Navy from October 1973 to February 1975. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a March 2014 rating decision of a VA RO. In January 2019, the Veteran, along with his wife and sister, appeared and testified at a videoconference Board hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge. A transcript of the proceeding is associated with the claims file. The Board notes that the issues of entitlement to service connection for polysubstance abuse, emphysema, lumbar spine disability, cervical spine disability, arthritis, hypertension, heart disease, hepatitis C, and an eye condition were before the Board in April 2019 when they were remanded for further development. In a June 2020 rating decision, the RO granted the issues of entitlement to service connection for polysubstance abuse and a lumbar spine disability. Additionally, the Board notes that following a June 2020 Supplemental Statement (SSOC) of the case, the Veteran opted the claims for entitlement to service connection for emphysema, cervical spine disability, arthritis, hypertension, heart disease, hepatitis C, and an eye condition into the modernized review system, also known as the Appeals Modernization Act (AMA), by submitting a July 2020 VA Form 10182, Decision Review Request: Board Appeal, identifying the June 2020 SSOC. As such, these issues will be addressed under a separate Board decision under the AMA. For reasons that remain unclear, the issue of entitlement to service connection for polysubstance abuse, to include as secondary to service-connected PTSD, was returned to the Board for adjudication and the Veteran was notified in a July 2020 letter that his appeal had been placed on the Board’s docket. Entitlement to service connection for polysubstance abuse, to include as secondary to service-connected PTSD It is a well-established judicial precedent that when there is no case or controversy, or when a once live case or controversy becomes moot, the Court lacks jurisdiction. See Bond v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 376, 377 (1992); Mokal v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 12, 15 (1990). As noted above, in a June 2020 decision, the RO granted service connection for alcohol use disorder (also claimed as sleep disorder, insomnia, and polysubstance abuse). The Veteran’s alcohol use disorder was associated with his already service-connected PTSD. Therefore, the issue has been resolved in the Veteran’s favor and is not on appeal. Thus, there is no “controversy” or “issue” currently before the Board as the claim currently before the Board has been fully resolved in the Veteran’s favor. See Shoen v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 456, 457 (1994) (a case or controversy must exist in order to obtain appellate review). The law provides that the Board may dismiss any appeal that fails to allege specific error of fact or law in the determination being appealed. 38 U.S.C. § 7105(d)(5). As the Veteran’s claim of entitlement to service connection for polysubstance abuse, to include as secondary to service-connected PTSD, has been granted, there remain no errors of fact or law for the Board to address, and the appeal must be dismissed. M. Donohue Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board S. Morrad, 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.