Citation Nr: 21001810 Decision Date: 01/11/21 Archive Date: 01/11/21 DOCKET NO. 20-07 907 DATE: January 11, 2021 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for heart condition is dismissed. Entitlement to service connection for hearing loss is dismissed. Entitlement to an initial disability rating in excess of 30 percent for unspecified trauma and stressor-related disorder is dismissed. Entitlement to an initial disability rating in excess of 20 percent for frostbite upper left extremity is dismissed. Entitlement to an initial disability rating in excess of 20 percent for frostbite upper right extremity is dismissed. Entitlement to an initial disability rating in excess of 20 percent for frostbite lower left extremity is dismissed. Entitlement to an initial disability rating in excess of 20 percent for frostbite lower right extremity is dismissed. Entitlement to an effective date prior to October 18, 2017, for the award of service connection for unspecified trauma and stressor-related disorder is dismissed. Entitlement to an effective date prior to October 18, 2017, for the award of service connection for frostbite upper left extremity is dismissed. Entitlement to an effective date prior to October 18, 2017, for the award of service connection for frostbite upper right extremity is dismissed. Entitlement to an effective date prior to October 18, 2017, for the award of service connection for frostbite lower left extremity is dismissed. Entitlement to an effective date prior to October 18, 2017, for the award of service connection for frostbite lower right extremity is dismissed. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. In a November 2018 rating decision, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) granted service connection for unspecified trauma and stressor-related disorder at 30 percent disabling from October 18, 2017; frostbite of the bilateral upper and lower extremities at 20 percent disabling each from October 18, 2017; and denied service connection for a heart condition and hearing loss. 2. In October 2019, the Veteran submitted a Notice of Disagreement (NOD) and disagreed with the denial of service connection for a heart condition and hearing loss, the evaluation of his unspecified trauma and stressor-related disorder and frostbite residuals of his bilateral upper and lower extremities, and the effective date for the award of service connection for his unspecified trauma and stressor-related disorder and frostbite residuals of his bilateral upper and lower extremities. 3. Following a December 2019 Statement of the Case (SOC), the Veteran submitted a VA Form-9 in February 2020. 4. The February 2020 VA Form 9 is not a valid appeal of the November 2018 rating decision. CONCLUSION OF LAW The Board does not have jurisdiction over the claims for entitlement to service connection for heart condition and hearing loss; entitlement to an initial disability rating in excess of 30 percent for unspecified trauma and stressor-related disorder, in excess of 20 percent for frostbite of the bilateral upper and lower extremities; and entitlement to an effective date prior to October 18, 2017, for the award of service connection for unspecified trauma and stressor-related disorder and frostbite of the bilateral upper and lower extremities. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION These matters come before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a November 2019 rating decision of a VA RO. The Veteran submitted a NOD in October 2019 and a SOC was issued in December 2019. In December 2019, the RO issued a proposed finding of incompetency. In February 2020, the VA received a VA Form-9 which was signed by the Veteran’s spouse. The proposed finding of incompetency was pending when the VA Form-9 was received, and the Veteran did not have an appointed fiduciary. Although the Veteran’s spouse held a Power of Attorney for the state of Maryland, she had not been appointed as the Veteran’s appointed representative or fiduciary for VA purposes. The Board initially sent the Veteran a letter in May 2020 notifying him that his appeal was formally placed on the Board’s docket. However, in August 2020, the Board sent the Veteran a new letter notifying him that the May 2020 letter was erroneously issued as the result of an administrative error. The August 2020 letter noted that the Board did not have jurisdiction over the Veteran’s appeal. The Board recognizes that a copy of this letter was not sent to the Veteran’s representative, however this defect was cured by the subsequent mailing of an October 2020 letter addressed below. The Board acknowledges that the Veteran was found not competent to handle disbursement of funds in a May 2020 rating decision. Additionally, the Veteran submitted an “Alternate Signer Certification” form in August 2020, naming his wife as an alternate signer. However, the finding of incompetency and submission of the alternate signer form were both subsequent to the February 2020 VA Form-9 and cannot be applied retroactively. In October 2020, the Board sent the Veteran and his representative a letter notifying him that his February 2020 VA Form-9 was defective and it was possible that the Board’s consideration of his appeal would result in a dismissal based on a jurisdictional defect. The Veteran and his representative were notified that they were able to present written argument and additional evidence relevant to jurisdiction or request a hearing before the Board to present oral argument on the jurisdictional question within 60 days from the date of the letter. The Veteran and his representative were notified that if the Board did not hear from them by the end of the 60-day period, it would be assumed that they did not have anything else to submit and that they did not wish to have a hearing on this issue and that the Board would proceed with adjudication of the matters. Neither the Veteran nor his representative have responded to the October 2020 letter. After a thorough review of the record, the Board finds that the February 2020 VA Form-9 was invalid because it was signed by someone other than the Veteran, his representative, or an appointed fiduciary. 38 C.F.R. § 19.50. As such, the Board finds that it lacks the jurisdiction to decide claims that have not been properly appealed through a valid Form-9 substantive appeal following a SOC. The Board has the authority to determine whether it has appropriate jurisdiction over a claim, and it may dismiss any case over which it determines it does not have jurisdiction. See 38 C.F.R. § 20.104(c). (Continued on the next page)   As the February 2020 VA Form-9 was not filed by an authorized person under 38C.F.R. § 19.50, the Board finds that the issues noted above have not been validly appealed, the Board does not have jurisdiction to review the appeals, and they are 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.