Citation Nr: 21008153
Decision Date: 02/11/21	Archive Date: 02/11/21

DOCKET NO. 19-34 070
DATE: February 11, 2021

REMANDED

Entitlement to an effective date prior to July 31, 2017, for the award of service connection for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), to include on the basis of receipt of relevant service department records under the provisions of 38 C.F.R. § 3.156(c), is remanded.

Entitlement to an effective date prior to July 31, 2017 for the award of a total disability rating based on individual unemployability due to service-connected disabilities (TDIU) is remanded.

REASONS FOR REMAND

The Veteran filed a timely notice of disagreement (NOD) in June 2016 to the April 2016 rating decision which denied service connection for PTSD. In addition, the Veteran filed a timely notice of disagreement in December 2018 to the May 2018 rating decision which granted service connection for PTSD, effective from July 31, 2017, as to the effective date of the grant of service connection. The agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ) has not yet issued a statement of the case (SOC) for the Veteran’s claim of an earlier effective date for the grant of service connection, to include on the basis of the receipt of service records pursuant to 3.156(c). A remand is required for the AOJ to issue an SOC. 38 C.F.R. § 20.200; Manlincon v. West, 12 Vet. App. 238, 240-41 (1999). 

The Board notes that service connection has now been granted for PTSD, obviating the need for an SOC to address the issue of entitlement to service connection in response to the timely June 2016 NOD as to that issue.  However, the AOJ should consider the timely filing of the June 2016 NOD in determining the appropriate effective date for the grant of service connection for PTSD, as the Veteran, in filing the June 2016 NOD as to the April 2016 rating decision, continuously prosecuted her claim for service connection for PTSD from her date of claim received on January 14, 2016.  The failure to provide the Veteran an SOC in response to the June 2016 NOD potentially deprived her of the opportunity to preserve her effective date.

The Veteran’s claim of an earlier effective date for the grant of TDIU is inextricably intertwined with the issue of an earlier effective date for the grant of service connection for PTSD.

The matters are REMANDED for the following action:

In June 2016 and December 2018, the Veteran submitted NODs. A statement of the case (SOC) has not been issued to her. Therefore, remand is necessary for the RO to issue an SOC to the Veteran and her attorney addressing the issue of entitlement to an effective date prior to July 31, 2017 for the grant of service connection for PTSD. See Manlincon v. West, 12 Vet. App. 238, 240-241 (1999); Godfrey v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 398, 408-10 (1995). In making the determination as to the appropriate effective date, the RO should consider (1) the Veteran’s claim that relevant service department records were associated with the claims file subsequent to 2012, and, that, therefore, the effective date should be the date of her initial claim filed in 2012 pursuant to 38 C.F.R. § 3.156(c); and (2) the Veteran continuously prosecuted her claim of entitlement to service connection for PTSD by filing a timely NOD in June 2016 to the April 2016 rating decision; an SOC was never issued addressing that NOD.  The Veteran should be given the appropriate opportunity to respond to the SOC.

 

 

T. SHERRARD

Acting Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans’ Appeals

Attorney for the Board	J. Wozniak, 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.