Citation Nr: A21020012 Decision Date: 12/15/21 Archive Date: 12/15/21 DOCKET NO. 210824-180268 DATE: December 15, 2021 ORDER The appeal for entitlement to an effective date earlier than March 31, 2011, for the award of service connection for prostate cancer is dismissed. The appeal for entitlement to an increased rating for prostate cancer is dismissed. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. In a June 2021 decision, the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) established that an effective date of March 31, 2011, for the date of service connection for prostate cancer is proper. The Board also granted a 100 percent rating from January 1, 2012, to July 28, 2015, and a 60 percent rating from July 29, 2015, for prostate cancer. 2. In a July 2021 rating decision, a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) effectuated the Board's June 2021 decision. CONCLUSION OF LAW A valid appeal to the Board of the July 2021 rating decision establishing an effective date of March 31, 2011, for service connection of prostate cancer, and establishing an increased rating of 100 percent from January 1, 2012, and 60 percent from July 29, 2015, for prostate cancer was not accomplished by the Veteran's August 2021 VA Form 10182, and the Board does not have jurisdiction over these matters. 38 U.S.C. § 7105; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.2500(c)(3), 20.104(c). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION Preliminary Matters The Veteran had honorable active duty service with the United States Navy from July 1964 to July 1968. On August 23, 2017, the President signed into law the Veterans Appeals Improvement and Modernization Act, Pub. L. No. 115-55 (to be codified as amended in scattered sections of 38 U.S.C.), 131 Stat. 1105 (2017), also known as the Appeals Modernization Act (AMA). This law creates a new framework for Veterans dissatisfied with VA's decision on their claim to seek review. This matter is before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a July 2021 AMA rating decision of a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). In August 2021, the Veteran filed VA Form 10182, Decision Review Request: Board Appeal (Notice of Disagreement (NOD)). In the NOD, the Veteran requested the Evidence Submission docket. Therefore, the Board may only consider the evidence of record at the time of the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ) decision on appeal, as well as any evidence submitted by the Veteran with, or within 90 days from receipt of, the VA Form 10182. 38 C.F.R. § 20.303. DISMISSAL 1. The appeal for entitlement to an effective date earlier than March 31, 2011, for the award of service connection for prostate cancer is dismissed. See Argument Below 2. The appeal for entitlement to an increased rating for prostate cancer is dismissed. In a June 2021 decision, the Board, in pertinent part, denied entitlement to an effective date earlier than March 31, 2011, for service connection of prostate cancer. The Board also granted a 100 percent rating from January 1, 2012, to July 28, 2015, and a 60 percent rating from July 29, 2015, for prostate cancer. The July 2021 rating decision on appeal effectuated (implemented) the benefits awarded in the June 2021 Board decision. The record reflects that the notification letter of the July 2021 rating decision was sent to the Veteran and his attorney on July 13, 2021. In the August 2021 VA Form 10182, the Veteran's attorney indicated that VA had never sent him the July 2021 rating decision. However, there is no indication in the appellate record that the Veteran or his attorney did not receive the July 13, 2021, notification letter and enclosed July 1, 2021, rating decision (such as returned mail or indication that either letter was undeliverable). The notice was mailed to the Veteran and his attorney at the correct mailing addresses then on file with VA at the time. A presumption of regularity is applied to all manner of VA processes and procedures. Miley v. Principi, 366 F.3d 1343, 1346-47 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ("The presumption of regularity provides that, in the absence of clear evidence to the contrary, the Court will presume that public officers have properly discharged their official duties."). The presumption of regularity extends to VA's ministerial acts of mailing decisional and notice documents to claimants. Clarke v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 130, 133 (2007) (applying the presumption of regularity to the RO's mailing of a rating decision). In the absence of clear evidence to the contrary, the presumption of regularity is applied, and it is presumed that the Veteran and his attorney received the July 2021 rating decision and accompanying notice and appeal rights. Neither the Veteran nor his attorney presented clear evidence to rebut the presumption of regularity. As such, it is presumed that the Veteran and his attorney received the July 13, 2021, notification letter containing the July 2021 rating decision and VA Form 20-0998. Because the July 2021 rating decision effectuated the June 2021 Board decision, notice of the July 1, 2021, rating decision constituted "notice of a decision on appeal to the Board of Veterans' Appeals." See 38 C.F.R. § 3.2500(c)(3). Therefore, the Veteran was limited to two procedural options after receiving notice of the July 2021 rating decision. Those options were filing a Supplemental claim under the AMA pursuant to 38 C.F.R. § 3.2501 or filing a Notice of Appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court) as to the June 2021 Board decision. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.2500(c)(3). In this case, the Veteran did not appeal the June 2021 Board decision to the Court. CONTINUED ON THE NEXT PAGE Instead, in response to the July 2021 rating decision, the Veteran filed a VA 10182 (NOD). However, this submission is not sufficient to appeal the June 2021 Board decision, or the effectuating July 2021 rating decision, and does not invoke jurisdiction of the Board under the AMA or review of the Board's prior decision on these issues. Thus, the Veteran has not submitted a valid appeal of the June 2021 Board decision. Therefore, the Board does not have jurisdiction over these issues at this time, and the claims will be dismissed. B. MULLINS Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board Y. MacDonald, 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.