Citation Nr: 21008186
Decision Date: 02/11/21	Archive Date: 02/11/21

DOCKET NO. 10-05 122
DATE: February 11, 2021

ORDER

The claim of entitlement to a total disability rating based on individual unemployability (TDIU) is dismissed. 

FINDING OF FACT

In June 2020, the claim of entitlement to a TDIU was granted.  

CONCLUSION OF LAW

The criteria for dismissal of the claim of entitlement to a TDIU are met.  38 U.S.C. §§ 7104, 7105.

REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION

The Veteran served on active duty from November 1988 to February 1992, and from June 1998 to April 2008.  

The Board may dismiss any appeal which fails to allege specific error of fact or law in the determination being appealed.  38 U.S.C. §§ 7104, 7105.  A dismissal is warranted here because the TDIU claim has been granted.  

In an August 2008 rating decision, a regional office (RO) of the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) granted entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder.  The RO granted the award effective the day following discharge from active duty.  The Veteran appealed the assigned rating.  

In July 2014, the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) remanded the claim for additional development.  The Board then granted higher ratings in an April 2016 decision.  That decision is final because the Veteran did not appeal the decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, or otherwise contest the decision.  See 38 U.S.C. §§ 7104, 7111, 7266; 38 C.F.R. §§ 20.1100, 20.1400.  In April 2016, the Board also remanded the issue of whether a TDIU had been warranted during the appeal period.  See Rice v. Shinseki, 22 Vet. App. 447 (2009).  Later, the issue was addressed in two subsequent remands dated in November 2017 and January 2019.  

Following development conducted pursuant to the remands, the RO granted the claim in June 2020.  The Veteran has not appealed the assigned effective date of May 1, 2011.  As such, the appeal is moot.  There remain no allegations of errors of fact or law for appellate consideration.  The appeal must be dismissed, therefore.  See 38 U.S.C. §§ 7104, 7105.   

 

 

G. A. WASIK

Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans’ Appeals

Attorney for the Board	Christopher McEntee, 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 This decision is not precedential and does not establish VA policies or interpretations of general applicability. 38 C.F.R. § 20.1303.