Citation Nr: 21069388 Decision Date: 11/18/21 Archive Date: 11/18/21 DOCKET NO. 17-62 252 DATE: November 18, 2021 ORDER Entitlement to an earlier effective date for the grant of service connection for an acquired psychiatric disability is denied. FINDING OF FACT 1. The Veteran filed a claim for service connection for "rape" in December 2003. In January 2004, the RO sent a letter to the Veteran indicating that "rape" was not a disability for which service connection could be granted and requested that the Veteran advise the RO which disabilities the Veteran is claiming. In April 2004, the Veteran indicated she did not want to pursue her claim for "rape." The September 2004 Notification Letter from the RO confirmed that the Veteran had withdrawn the claim for the issue of "rape" and indicated the RO would take no further action on the issue. 2. In September 2005, the Veteran requested to reopen her claims from the December 2003 application. In November 2005, the Veteran resubmitted her original claim for service connection for "rape" and identified that she saw a psychiatrist in Bryn Mawr, Pennsylvania between 1978 and 1981. The RO did not develop the claim for "rape." 3. In November 2015, the Veteran filed a claim for service connection for depression. In May 2016, the RO granted the Veteran's claim for service connection for PTSD (claimed as depression) rated at 70 percent disabling, effective July 31, 2015. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for an earlier effective date, prior to July 31, 2015, for the grant of service connection for an acquired psychiatric disability, have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 5101, 5110 (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.151, 3.155, 3.400. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty from January 1974 to July 1981, from February 1991 to March 1991, from April 1994 to September 1994, from November 1995 to June 1996, and from October 2001 to October 2003. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a May 2016 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). In July 2021, the Veteran testified at a Board hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge. A transcript of the hearing has been associated with the claims file. While the Veteran had initially filed a claim for entitlement to service connection for depression, in light of Clemons v. Shinseki, 23 Vet. App. 1 (2009), the Board finds that it is appropriate to recharacterize the claim more broadly as one of entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder, to include PTSD and depression. Entitlement to an earlier effective date for the grant of service connection for an acquired psychiatric disability The Veteran contends that she should be granted an earlier effective date for service connection for PTSD back to the date after the day she separated from active-duty service. Alternatively, the Veteran contends that she is entitled to an effective date based on the date of her September 2005 request to reopen her earlier claims for service connection for multiple disabilities including "rape." The Veteran contends that there was a duty to assist error based on the failure to develop the claim for service connection for "rape." The Veteran contends that her later claim for service connection for an acquired psychiatric disability would have been a component of the original claim had it been further developed by the RO. The Veteran has additionally contended that since 2003, MST is now covered under PTSD. The Board notes that the Veteran specifically withdrew her claim for service connection for "rape" in an April 2004 statement. In June 2006, based on the September 2005 request to reopen her earlier claims, the RO issued a rating decision. The rating decision did not address the Veteran's claim for "rape," and the Veteran did not include any discussion or argument regarding that claim in any subsequent correspondence or notice of disagreement prior to her application for service connection for depression in November 2015. Except as otherwise provided, the effective date of an evaluation and award of compensation based on an original claim, a claim reopened after final disallowance, or a claim for increase will be the date of receipt of the claim or the date entitlement arose, whichever is the later. 38 U.S.C. § 5100; 38 C.F.R. § 3.400. If a claim for disability compensation is received within one year after separation from service, the effective date of entitlement is the day following separation or the date entitlement arose; otherwise, it is the date of receipt of claim or the date entitlement arose, whichever is later. 38 C.F.R. § 3.400. A specific claim in the form prescribed by VA must be filed in order for benefits to be paid or furnished to any individual under the laws administered by VA. 38 U.S.C. § 5101(a); 38 C.F.R. § 3.151(a). The Board finds, however, that neither the Veteran nor the evidence does raises the issue of CUE regarding the original claim. Although a claimant need not identify the benefit sought "with specificity," see Servello v. Derwinski, 3 Vet. App. 196, 199-200 (1992), some intent on the part of the Veteran to seek benefits must be demonstrated. See Brannon v. West, 12 Vet. App. 32, 34-35 (1998). See also Talbert v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 352, 356-7 (1995) (noting that while VA must interpret a claimant's submissions broadly, VA is not required to conjure up issues not raised by claimant). The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has emphasized VA has a duty to fully and sympathetically develop a Veteran's claim to its optimum. Hodge v. West, 155 F.3d 1356, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1998). This duty requires VA to "determine all potential claims raised by the evidence, applying all relevant laws and regulations," Roberson v. West, 251 F.3d 1378, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 2001), and extends to giving a sympathetic reading to all pro se pleadings of record. Szemraj v. Principi, 357 F.3d 1370, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Effective March 24, 2015, VA amended its regulations to require that all claims governed by VA's adjudication regulations be filed on a standard form. Prior to March 24, 2015, VA recognized formal and informal claims. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.1(p). The amendments also, inter alia, eliminated the constructive receipt of VA reports of hospitalization or examination and other medical records as informal claims to reopen. See 79 Fed. Reg. 57,660 (Sept. 25, 2014), codified as amended at 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.151, 3.155. The amended regulations, however, apply only to claims filed on or after March 24, 2015. The evidence shows that the RO originally informed the Veteran that service connection was not possible for rape and requested information on which disabilities she was claiming. The evidence then shows that the Veteran withdrew her original claim for service connection for "rape" in April 2004. In 2005, the Veteran requested a blanket reopening of her prior claims but did not provide any new and material information regarding the claim for "rape." The evidence shows that the Veteran filed a claim for service connection for depression in November 2015. There is no correspondence associated with the claims file from the June 2006 rating decision to the November 2015 claim that could constitute an earlier claim to reopen. Therefore, the appropriate effective date is July 31, 2015. The Board has considered whether the Veteran's request to reopen the original claim for service connection for "rape" would constitute a claim for service connection for an acquired psychiatric disability as contemplated under 38 C.F.R. § 3.155(d)(2). However, the Board finds that the Veteran did not file a complete claim under 38 C.F.R. § 3.155 prior to November 2015. Because the preponderance of the evidence is against the finding of an earlier effective date, the claim for an effective date earlier than July 31, 2015 is denied. L. M. BARNARD Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board M.D. Taylor, 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.