Citation Nr: A21019971 Decision Date: 12/15/21 Archive Date: 12/15/21 DOCKET NO. 200519-85182 DATE: December 15, 2021 ORDER The appeal with respect to entitlement to a total disability rating based on individual unemployability due to service-connected disability (TDIU) is dismissed. FINDING OF FACT In September 2021, while the current appeal was pending, the agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ) granted TDIU, effective May 27, 2014. CONCLUSION OF LAW There remains no case or controversy with respect to the Veteran's entitlement to TDIU over which the Board may exercise jurisdiction. 38 U.S.C. §§ 7104, 7105; 38 C.F.R. §§ 20.103, 20.104. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served in the Army National Guard between January 1979 and August 1997, to include a period of active duty for training from April 1979 to August 1979. The matter presently on appeal arises from an October 2019 rating decision issued by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). The RO, in pertinent part, denied a TDIU. Following another denial of the claim on Higher Level review in January 2020, the Veteran timely appealed to the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) in May 2020, requesting direct review of the evidence considered by the AOJ. 38 C.F.R. §§ 20.201, 20.202(b)(1). The Veteran's claim for a TDIU has a somewhat complex procedural history. The RO initially denied the claim in June 2015, and he perfected an appeal of that decision in the legacy system. In March 2018, the Board remanded the issue to the AOJ for additional development. In September 2018, while the case was in remand status, the Veteran opted into the Appeals Modernization Act (AMA) review system by submitting a Rapid Appeals Modernization Program (RAMP) election form. Following a denial on Higher Level review in October 2018, he timely appealed to Board that same month, requesting direct review of the evidence considered by the AOJ. 38 C.F.R. § 20.202(b)(1). In April 2019, the Board denied the claim for a TDIU. The Veteran appealed that decision to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court). Meanwhile, he also filed a new claim for TDIU (VA Form 21-526EZ) in May 2019 (resulting in the October 2019 rating decision, noted above, which underlies the present appeal stream). In August 2020, the Court granted a Joint Motion for Remand (JMR) filed by the parties to the appeal before the Court (the Veteran, through an attorney, and representatives from VA General Counsel), thereby vacating the Board's April 2019 decision and remanding the matter for readjudication. Thereafter, following a remand by the Board in May 2021, the AOJ granted TDIU in a September 2021 rating decision, effective May 27, 2014. That action notwithstanding, the current appeal stream remains pending before the Board. Entitlement to a TDIU Under 38 U.S.C. § 7105, the Board may dismiss any appeal that fails to allege specific error of fact or law in the determination being appealed. One of the principal functions of the Board is to make determinations of appellate jurisdiction. 38 C.F.R. § 20.103. The Board may address questions pertaining to its jurisdictional authority to review a particular case. 38 C.F.R. § 20.101(d). In September 2021, while the current appeal was pending, the AOJ granted the Veteran's claim for service connection for TDIU, effective May 27, 2014 (well before the date of receipt of the May 2019 claim from which the current appeal stream arises). As the benefit sought has been allowed, there remains no case or controversy over which the Board may exercise jurisdiction. See 38 U.S.C. §§ 511, 7104; 38 C.F.R. §§ 20.103, 20.104; Grantham v. Brown, 114 F.3d. 1156 (Fed. Cir. 1997). The appeal must therefore be dismissed. If the Veteran is dissatisfied with the effective date of his award, he may pursue an appeal of the September 2021 rating decision if he wishes to do so. DAVID A. BRENNINGMEYER Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board John Kitlas, 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.