Citation Nr: 21068229 Decision Date: 11/09/21 Archive Date: 11/09/21 DOCKET NO. 16-21 052 DATE: November 9, 2021 ORDER Entitlement to an effective date of August 1, 2010, but no earlier, for the grant of service connection for PTSD is granted. Entitlement to an effective date of August 1, 2010, but no earlier, for the grant of service connection for prostate cancer is granted. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The preponderance of the evidence is in relative equipoise that the Veteran initially filed a claim for service connection for PTSD prior to December 12, 2014. 2. The preponderance of the evidence is in relative equipoise that the Veteran initially filed a claim for service connection for prostate cancer prior to December 12, 2014. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The criteria for an effective date of August 1, 2010, but no earlier, for the grant of service connection for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) have been met. 38 U.S.C. § 5110; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.156(b), 3.400. 2. The criteria for an effective date of August 1, 2010, but no earlier, for the grant of service connection for prostate cancer have been met. 38 U.S.C. § 5110; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.156(b), 3.400. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The Veteran served in the United States Army from June 1967 to June 1970. These matters come before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal of a June 2015 rating decision by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). In October 2018, the Veteran testified at a Board hearing before a Veterans Law Judge via videoconference. A transcript of this hearing is associated with the claims file. However, in a letter dated August 27, 2021, the Veteran was notified that the judge who conducted his hearing was no longer available to participate in his appeal. He was informed that he could request an additional Board hearing via writing within thirty days of the date of the letter if he wished. However, the Veteran did not request a hearing within the required timeframe, and therefore the Board finds the Veteran did not want an additional hearing. These matters were previously before the Board in May 2019, at which time it was remanded for further development. It has since returned to the Board for further appellate review. 1. Entitlement to an effective date of August 1, 2010, but no earlier, for the grant of service connection for PTSD is granted. 2. Entitlement to an effective date of August 1, 2010, but no earlier, for the grant of service connection for prostate cancer is granted. The Veteran contends that he is entitled to an effective date prior to December 12, 2014 for the grant of service connection for PTSD and prostate cancer. Unless specifically provided otherwise, the effective date of an award based on a claim for compensation is to be fixed in accordance with the facts found, but not earlier than the date the claim was received. 38 U.S.C. § 5110(a). If a claim for compensation is received within one year after separation from service, the effective date for an award of service connection is the day following separation from active service. 38 U.S.C. § 5110; 38 C.F.R. § 3.400(b)(2). Here, the Veteran's claims for service connection for his PTSD and prostate cancer was received by VA on December 12, 2014. The RO granted his claims for service connection for PTSD and prostate cancer in a June 2015 rating decision, At the October 2018 Board hearing, the Veteran testified that he originally filed claims for service connection for PTSD and prostate cancer in August 2010. He testified that after his prostate operation, some of his veteran friends told him to file a claim with VA because prostate cancer could be caused by Agent Orange. However, he explained that there was some confusion between his intent to file compensation claims for PTSD and prostate cancer and VA's interpretation that he was applying for medical benefits. Additionally, he testified that he tried to follow up with his claims by calling VA, but he never got anywhere. He eventually received a letter from VA dated September 19, 2012 thanking him for his interest in the VA's Agent Orange Registry Program and asked him for additional information in order to continue processing his request for an Agent Orange examination. Furthermore, the Veteran explained that he did attempt to check on his PTSD and prostate cancer claims with the help of his spouse, who would call VA and speak with a representative about his claim, but nothing ever came from this. Although he eventually began sending correspondence via registered mail in order to have proof of delivery, the Veteran stated he did not start doing this until he filed his claims in December 2014. In its May 2019 remand, the Board instructed the RO to obtain the Veteran's VA treatment records prior to December 12, 2014, as well as to contact his previous attorney to request any documentation concerning claims filed prior to December 12, 2014. The RO sent letters to the Philadelphia VAMC as well as the Veteran's prior attorney and received responses with what documentation both parties had. As such, the Board finds the RO substantially complied with its May 2019 remand instructions. In his December 2020 response, the Veteran's prior attorney provided a copy of an October 2006 letter in which VA denied the Veteran medical benefits, as well as a copy of the September 19, 2012 letter regarding his interest in the VA Agent Orange registry. The attorney also explained that when the Veteran originally applied for benefits in 2006, he intended to file compensation claims for PTSD and prostate cancer and not medical benefits or a pension because he did not need medical benefits or a pension. The attorney provided a similar argument for the Veteran's request for an Agent Orange examination, stating that the Veteran intended to file a claim for compensation because he did not require a pension or any medical benefits. However, he stated that he did not have a copy of the Veteran's claims application prior to December 2014 because he did not help the Veteran file this claim. The Board finds the preponderance of the evidence is in relative equipoise that the Veteran filed claims for service connection for PTSD and prostate cancer prior to December 12, 2014. While there is not a copy of this application anywhere in the claim file, the September 19, 2012 letter concerning the VA Agent Orange Registry notes the Veteran had requested an Agent Orange examination. As the Veteran had been informed by fellow veterans that his prostate cancer was likely related to his Agent Orange exposure, it is likely his request for an Agent Orange examination was related to a claim for his prostate cancer. Additionally, the Veteran testified that he previously attempted to seek treatment for his PTSD through VA, and there is a VA Telephone Control Slip from September 2006 noting the Veteran had called regarding behavioral health. Although there is no additional documentation in the Veteran's file between September 2006 and December 2014 aside from the VA letters submitted by the Veteran, the fact that the Veteran had in his possession letters from October 2006 and September 2012 indicate that some of the Veteran's documentation may have been lost. The fact that the Veteran filed his December 2014 claims application via registered mail also suggests that the Veteran realized there had been an issue with his previous claim. Therefore, the Board finds the Veteran's testimony that he submitted compensation claims for his PTSD and prostate cancer in August 2010 to be credible. Although the Veteran's prior attorney stated that he originally intended to file a compensation claim in 2006 and not the claim for medical benefits that was denied in the October 2006 letter, the Veteran's own testimony goes against this statement. In his October 2018 hearing, the Veteran testified that he first filed a compensation claim for his PTSD and prostate cancer in August 2010, after he had undergone prostate surgery. As such, the Board finds that the Veteran did not file any compensation claims for PTSD or prostate cancer prior to August 2010. While the Veteran provided credible testimony that he submitted his claims for service connection for PTSD and prostate cancer in August 2010, he was unable to provide a specific date. The Board has settled on August 1, 2010 as the date of receipt of the Veteran's original claims for PTSD and prostate cancer finding it to be a sufficient compromise based on the facts available to the Board. Accordingly, the Board finds that an effective date of August 1, 2010, but no earlier, is warranted for the grant of service connection for PTSD and prostate cancer. Caroline B. Fleming Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board Gabrielle Ongies, 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.