Citation Nr: A21020429 Decision Date: 12/22/21 Archive Date: 12/22/21 DOCKET NO. 210903-184115 DATE: December 22, 2021 ORDER Entitlement to special monthly compensation (SMC) based on housebound status is denied. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The Veteran served on active duty from July 1959 to December 1962, he has been in receipt of a 100 percent rating based on unemployability since October 2020. 2. The Veteran does not meet the statutory requirements for payment of SMC at the housebound rate based on a schedular 100 percent evaluation for a single service-connected disability, plus additional service-connected disabilities independently ratable at 60 percent, and he did not otherwise meet the criteria for this benefit. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for SMC housebound status have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1114, 5103, 5103A, 5107 (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.350 (2021). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION In August 2017, the Veterans Appeals Improvement and Modernization Act, also known as the Appeals Modernization Act (AMA), was signed into law. This law created a new framework for veterans dissatisfied with VA's decision on their claim to seek review. This decision has been written under the AMA guidelines. The August 2021 rating decision on appeal denied service connection for SMC based on housebound status. The Veteran timely appealed this decision to the Board by submitting a VA Form 10182 in September 2021. He elected the Evidence Submission lane, in which he acknowledged that his appeal would be based upon all evidence submitted to VA as of 90 days after the date of that election. In the August 2021 Statement in Support of Claim, the Veteran's representative argued that the VA made a clear and unmistakable error (CUE) "based on not granting SMC S Housebound." The Board notes that under 38 C.F.R. § 3.105(a), a prior final decision of the VA can be reversed or amended where the evidence establishes CUE in the decision. Here, there is no final decision that could be subject to a CUE claim. See Link v. West, 12 Vet. App. 39, 44-45 (1998) (holding that CUE claim does not exist, as a matter of law, where there is no prior final RO decision); see also Best v. Brown, 10 Vet. App. 322, 325 (1997). As such, the Board will adjudicate the issue on the merits. Turning to the relevant laws and regulations, SMC at the housebound rate is payable where a veteran has a single service-connected disability rated as 100 percent and, (1) has additional service-connected disabilities independently ratable at 60 percent, separate and distinct from the 100 percent service-connected disability and involving different anatomical segments or bodily systems; or (2) is permanently housebound by reason of service-connected disability or disabilities. 38 U.S.C. § 1114(s); 38 C.F.R. § 3.350(i). If a single disability is determined to cause unemployability and the grant of a total disability rating for individual unemployability (TDIU), it qualifies as a total rating even if the underlying rating is less than 100 percent. To qualify for housebound status in fact, the veteran must have a 100 percent disability and a factual determination that the veteran is permanently housebound because of service-connected disabilities. The Veteran is service connected for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) at 70, right lower extremity (RLE) varicose veins at 40, left lower extremity (LLE) varicose veins at 40, tinnitus at 10, acne scars at 10, varicocele, bilateral hearing loss, scars, and acne, all rated as noncompensable. The Veteran's combined rating as of October 20, 2020, was 90 percent. He did not meet the statutory requirements for the payment of SMC at the housebound rate based on one service-connected disability rated as 100 percent disabling and a separate disability rated at 60 percent or higher at any time, as he was not in receipt of a 100 percent rating for any disability at any time. The Veteran has been in receipt of a 100 percent rating for TDIU since October 20, 2020. There is no indication that any one of the service-connected disabilities, standing alone, was sufficient to produce unemployability. Rather, the TDIU was based on the combined effects of his service-connected PTSD and varicose veins such that no single disability forms the basis for the rating. Further, the Veteran is not permanently confined to his dwelling and the immediate premises, nor was he institutionalized and confined to the ward or clinical areas. On the December 2020 VA examination for aid and attendance, it was noted that he left the home or immediate premises for medical appointments. Additionally, at the April 2021 VA examination for aid and attendance, it was noted that the Veteran left the house twice a week for doctors' appointments and physical therapy. Further, at the August 2021 VA PTSD examination, he reported that he met with mental health clinicians every few weeks at the VA clinic. Therefore, the evidence does not support housebound benefits on the basis of being permanently housebound. For these reasons the appeal is denied. Finally, the Veteran has not raised any other issues, nor have any other issues been reasonably raised by the record, for the Board's consideration. See Doucette v. Shulkin, 28 Vet. App. 366, 369-370 (2017) (confirming that the Board is not required to address issues unless they are specifically raised by the claimant or reasonably raised by the evidence of record). L. HOWELL Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board T. Grzeczkowicz 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.