Citation Nr: 21069055 Decision Date: 11/17/21 Archive Date: 11/17/21 DOCKET NO. 18-15 299 DATE: November 17, 2021 ORDER The legacy appeal pertaining to the issue of entitlement to service connection for a stomach condition, to include as secondary to chronic sinusitis with headaches, is dismissed. The legacy appeal pertaining to the issue of entitlement to service connection for a left toe condition is dismissed. The legacy appeal pertaining to the issue of entitlement to service connection for a back is dismissed. FINDING OF FACT On March 27, 2019, the Veteran opted into the modernized appeals system known as the Appeals Modernization Act (AMA) by submitting VA Form 10182, Decision Review Request: Board Appeal (Notice of Disagreement), within 60 days of the issuance of the March 6, 2019, Supplemental Statement of the Case (SSOC) that denied the claims of service connection for stomach, left toe and back disorders, thereby withdrawing the instant legacy appeal as to these matters. CONCLUSION OF LAW The Board does not have jurisdiction to review the Veteran's legacy appeal pertaining to the issues of entitlement to service connection for stomach, left toe and back disorders; thus, the legacy appeal as to these matters must be dismissed. 38 U.S.C. § 7105; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.2400 (c)(2), 19.2(d), 19.55. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty from February 1985 to February 1990. Generally, for legacy appeals, appellate review will be initiated by a notice of disagreement and completed by a substantive appeal after a statement of the case (SOC) is furnished. 38 U.S.C. § 7105(a); see also 38 C.F.R. § 20.200 (redesignated § 19.20, effective February 19, 2019). The Appeals Modernization Act (AMA) applies to all claims for which VA issues notice of an initial decision on or after the effective date of the AMA, which is February 19, 2019. See 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.2400, 19.2. The AMA also applies where a claimant has elected review of a legacy claim under the AMA as provided in § 3.2400(c). Under the law, an appellant may elect AMA review of a legacy claim only by opting in under RAMP or by electing to proceed under the AMA after the issuance of a SOC or SSOC. 38 C.F.R. § 3.2400(c)(1). These matters come before the Board on appeal from an April 2014 rating decision issued by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) under the legacy system which, in pertinent part, denied service connection for stomach, left toe and back disorders. The Veteran submitted a VA Form 21-0958, Notice of Disagreement, with this determination in April 2015; was issued a Statement of the Case (SOC) addressing these issues in January 2018; perfected his appeal of these matters (and requested a Board hearing) by submitting a VA Form 9, Appeal to Board of Veterans' Appeals, in March 2018; and was provided a SSOC on March 6, 2019. On March 27, 2019, the Veteran opted into the AMA system by submitting VA Form 10182, Decision Review Request: Board Appeal (Notice of Disagreement), within 60 days of the issuance of the March 6, 2019, SSOC that denied service connection for stomach, left toe and back disorders, thereby withdrawing the instant legacy appeal. 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.2400(c)(2), 19.2(d). As the March 27, 2019 VA Form 10182 was a timely filed, valid opt in to the AMA system, which withdrew the Veteran's legacy appeal, the Board does not have jurisdiction over the instant appeal in the legacy system. Consequently, the legacy appeal as to the claims of service connection for stomach, left toe and back disorders must be dismissed. 38 U.S.C. § 7105; 38 C.F.R. § 19.55. Notably, in his March 27, 2019 VA Form 10182, the Veteran selected the AMA hearing docket, his election into the AMA system was docketed accordingly, the requested hearing was held in February 2021 and the claims were remanded by the Board for additional development in June 2021. As such, the Veteran's election into the AMA system has been honored. M. C. GRAHAM Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board K Hughes 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.