Citation Nr: 21001784 Decision Date: 01/11/21 Archive Date: 01/11/21 DOCKET NO. 16-43 504 DATE: January 11, 2021 ORDER Entitlement to a rating in excess of 10 percent for an acquired psychiatric disorder (claimed as posttraumatic stress disorder, anxiety, and depression), to include a specified trauma or stressor-related disorder, is dismissed. FINDING OF FACT The Veteran did not file a notice of disagreement (NOD) via VA Form 21-0958 within one year of the issuance of the June 2016 rating decision, which granted service connection with a 10 percent rating for an acquired psychiatric disability. CONCLUSION OF LAW The appeal concerning the issue of entitlement to a rating in excess of 10 percent for an acquired psychiatric disability is dismissed. 38 U.S.C. §§ 7105, 7108 (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 20.200, 20.201, 20.202, 20.302, 20.303 (2019). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty from April 1968 to April 1972. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a June 2016 rating decision of a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). An appeal to the Board must be initiated by a notice of disagreement and completed by a substantive appeal after a statement of the case is issued to the claimant by VA. 38 U.S.C. § 7105(a); 38 C.F.R. §§ 20.200, 20.201, 20.202, 20.302. Proper completion and filing of a substantive appeal are the last actions a claimant needs to take to perfect an appeal. 38 C.F.R. § 20.202. A claimant or representative must file a notice of disagreement within one year from the date that the RO mailed notice of a decision. 38 C.F.R. § 20.302(a). If a notice of disagreement is not filed within the one-year time period, the decision becomes final. 38 U.S.C. § 7105(c); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.160(d), 20.200, 20.201, 20.302, 20.1103. The Board notes that as of March 24, 2015, a notice of disagreement must be filed on standard forms prescribed by the Secretary. See 79 Fed. Reg. 57660 (Sept. 25, 2014). An untimely notice of disagreement deprives the Board of jurisdiction to consider the merits of an appeal. 38 U.S.C. § 7105(c). While the Board may waive the issue of the timeliness of a substantive appeal, an untimely notice of disagreement is a jurisdictional bar to appellate consideration, and the issue may not be waived. Percy v. Shinseki, 23 Vet. App. 37 (2009). The Board is bound by the law and is without authority to grant an appeal on an equitable basis. 38 U.S.C. §§ 503, 7104; Harvey v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 416 (1994). In this case, the Veteran filed his claim for service connection for emotional conditions, including posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), depression, and anxiety in March 2014. The Veteran’s claim was denied in a January 2015 rating decision. The Veteran filed a NOD in February 2015 contesting the service connection denial. After a review of additional medical evidence, the Veteran was granted service connection for his psychiatric disability in a June 2016 rating decision, with a 10 percent rating. The Veteran did not submit a timely NOD regarding this 10 percent rating, but rather submitted a Form 9 (VA substantive appeal to the Board) in September 2016 and clarified during a July 2019 Board hearing that the matter being contested was the 10 percent rating assigned. As noted above, the Veteran must submit a NOD on the proper standardized form after March 24, 2015, and the Board is not permitted to waive the requirement of the filing of a NOD. See Percy 23 Vet. App. 37. The Board further notes that the RO has not certified the issue of an increased rating for the Veteran’s psychiatric disability, nor has a statement of the case (SOC) been issued. Based on the foregoing, the Board concludes that it does not have jurisdiction to consider the issue of entitlement to a rating in excess of 10 percent for an acquired psychiatric disability, as the requirements for filing an appeal as to this issue have not been met. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. M. HYLAND Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board M. Ariasaif, 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.