Citation Nr: 21002858 Decision Date: 01/19/21 Archive Date: 01/19/21 DOCKET NO. 19-06 143A DATE: January 19, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to an effective date prior to February 1, 2018, for the grant of service connection for tinnitus, is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Army from December 1984 to July 1987. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from an April 2018 rating decision issued by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). The Board notes that 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). This law creates a new framework for Veterans dissatisfied with VA’s decision on their claim to seek review. Notably, a VA Form 20-0996, Request for Higher Level Review, was received on August 30, 2019, following a March 2019 clear and unmistakable error (CUE) rating decision, in which the Veteran elected Higher Level Review by the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ) on the question of an even earlier effective date for the grant of service-connection for tinnitus. Thereafter, the AOJ denied the earlier effective date claim in an October 2019 AMA decision. Subsequently, the Veteran submitted a VA Form 20-0995, Supplemental Claim Application, in December 2019, and the AOJ again denied the claim in a December 2019 AMA decision. The Veteran then appealed the December 2019 AMA decision to the Board by filing a VA Form 10182 and electing Direct Review of his claim by a Veterans Law Judge in February 2020. Appeals of initial decisions the AOJ issued on or after February 19, 2019 are considered under the AMA system. Appeal of a Legacy decision where the AOJ issued a SOC (statement of the case) or SSOC (supplemental SOC) on or after February 19, 2019, and the appellant responded by electing the AMA system within the time allowed for filing a substantive appeal, will also be considered under the AMA system. Unfortunately, as discussed in a corresponding AMA dismissal issued alongside this decision, here, the March 2019 CUE rating decision was not an initial decision because it was a partial grant of an earlier effective date issue that was already pending in the Legacy appeals system. As such, this issue cannot be processed under the AMA framework, and cannot be appealed directly to the Board on a VA Form 10182. 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.2400, 19.20. Rather, the appeal will be processed under the Legacy appeals system. Entitlement to an effective date prior to February 1, 2018, for the grant of service connection for tinnitus is remanded. The Veteran filed a timely Notice of Disagreement (NOD) to the April 2018 rating decision that granted service connection for tinnitus and assigned an effective date of March 16, 2018. See July 2018 NOD. Specifically, the Veteran argued that that the effective date should have gone back to April 2016. In a subsequent March 2019 rating decision, the RO granted an earlier effective date of February 1, 2018 on the basis of CUE. As the Veteran sought an even earlier effective date, this was only a partial grant as to the Legacy issue on appeal, and a SOC denying an effective date earlier than February 1, 2018 should have been issued. To date, a SOC has not been issued in this matter. Accordingly, the Board remands this appeal so that the Veteran may be furnished a SOC on remand. Manlincon v. West, 12 Vet. App. 238, 240-41 (1999). The matter is REMANDED for the following action: Issue a SOC addressing the issue of entitlement to an effective date prior to February 1, 2018 for the grant of service connection for tinnitus. Advise the Veteran that he must file a timely and adequate substantive appeal following receipt of the SOC in order to perfect an appeal of this issue to the Board. E. BLOWERS Acting Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board R. Asante 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.