Citation Nr: 21072321 Decision Date: 12/02/21 Archive Date: 12/02/21 DOCKET NO. 15-46 816 DATE: December 2, 2021 ORDER Entitlement to an effective date prior to May 30, 2012, for the grant of service connection for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is denied. REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for a left-hand disorder is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for a back disorder is remanded. FINDING OF FACT On May 30, 2012, the Veteran filed a claim of service connection for PTSD; no communications were received by VA prior to that time that may be construed as a formal or informal claim. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for an effective date for the grant of service connection for PTSD prior to May 30, 2012 have not been met. 38 U.S.C. § 5110; 38 C.F.R. § 3.400. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty from June 1979 to July 1981. The VLJ who conducted the Veteran's hearing is no longer employed at the Board and is unable to participate in any further adjudication. 1. Entitlement to an effective date prior to May 30, 2012, for the grant of service connection for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) The Veteran is seeking an effective date earlier than May 30, 2012, for the grant of service connection for PTSD. In particular, the Veteran, during hearing, states that a VA official impeded his ability to file a claim in approximately 2002 by stating that he could file only one claim for one disorder. The Veteran also states that medical records indicate that he was diagnosed with or had symptoms of PTSD prior to his current effective date. The general rule regarding effective dates is found at 38 U.S.C. § 5110(a): Unless specifically provided otherwise in this chapter, the effective date of an award based on an original claim, a claim reopened after final adjudication, or a claim for increase, of compensation, dependency and indemnity compensation, or pension, shall be fixed in accordance with the facts found, but shall not be earlier than the date of receipt of application therefor. The effective date of an award of service connection will be the day following the date of separation from service if the veteran filed a claim within one year after service; otherwise, the effective date will be the date of receipt of the claim. 38 U.S.C. § 5110 (a), (b)(1). A "claim" is a "formal or informal written communication requesting a determination of entitlement or evidencing belief in entitlement, to a benefit." 38 C.F.R. § 3.1(p). The Veteran filed a compensation claim for a psychiatric disorder in May 2012. In an August 2012 rating decision, the claim was denied. However, the claim was reopened in September 2013, where a subsequent rating decision granted entitlement to service connection. The record contains an application for a psychiatric disorder, received on May 30, 2012. The record does not contain a formal or informal claim for a psychiatric disorder prior to May 30, 2012, the current effective date of service connection for PTSD. The record does not contain a formal or informal claim to reopen prior to May 30, 2012. The record does not contain a rating decision regarding PTSD prior to August 2012. To the extent that the Veteran is asserting that he filed an earlier formal or informal claim, prior to May 30, 2012, or a claim to reopen, or submitted evidence or notice of disagreement within one year of the August 2012 rating decision, the record is against this. The provisions of 38 U.S.C. § 5110(a) require that the effective date shall not be earlier than the date of receipt of the application of a claim, which in this case is May 30, 2012. We note the argument that he has hindered from filing a claim. The argument that he was informed that he could not file a claim is inconsistent with the record and not credible. In 2001 he filed a claim for compensation. At that time, he filed for two disorders and did not mention a psychiatric disorder. The filing of that document establishes that the Veteran knew he could file a claim and knew how to file a claim for more than one benefit. It has been argued that he had PTSD, prior to the 2012 date. Whether he did is not determinative of the effective date since there was no claim for a psychiatric disorder prior to the date selected by the Regional Office. The effective date of a disorder is impacted by a variety of factors. Here, the controlling factors are the existence of the disability and the date of receipt of a claim. The Board is bound by the statutes enacted by Congress and as a result of their application, must find that a preponderance of the evidence is against the assertion that an earlier effective date should be assigned. REASONS FOR REMAND 1. Entitlement to service connection for a left-hand disorder is remanded. 2. Entitlement to service connection for a back disorder is remanded. Regrettably, the Board must remand these claims due to incomplete development. In the Board's January 2020 remand, the Board requested that after contacting the Joint Service Records Research Center, the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ) must obtain medical opinions for both the left-hand disorder and back disorder. Here, the AOJ did not obtain medical opinion for either disorder. As such, the Board finds that the remand directives were not complied with. Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268, 271 (1998). The Board is aware of a February 2014 VA examination for the Veteran's back disorder. However, the Board finds that remand is still necessary. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Return the claims file to examiners of appropriate expertise to issue medical opinions regarding the etiologies of the Veteran's left hand and back disorders. (a.) The respective examiners must discuss, for any diagnosed disorder, whether the disorder is at least as likely as not related to service, to include the physical demands of his service as a cavalry scout. (Continued on the next page) (b.) When making any determination regarding service-connection, the respective examiners should review and if possible discuss the Veteran's service treatment records. A complete rationale for any opinion expressed should be provided in a report. H. N. SCHWARTZ Acting Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board Jonah Nelson, 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.