Citation Nr: 21012251 Decision Date: 03/03/21 Archive Date: 03/03/21 DOCKET NO. 12-13 252 DATE: March 3, 2021 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for a lung disorder other than obstructive sleep apnea (also claimed as shortness of breath), to include as due to herbicide and asbestos exposure, is denied. Entitlement to a total disability rating based on individual unemployability due to service-connected disabilities (TDIU) prior to April 4, 2012, is dismissed. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The Veteran’s lung disorders other than obstructive sleep apnea did not manifest in service and are not otherwise related to service, including any exposures therein. 2. The July 2020 rating decision granting entitlement to TDIU effective from April 4, 2012, represents a full grant of the benefit sought on appeal. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. A lung disorder other than obstructive sleep apnea was not incurred in active service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1103, 1110; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.159, 3.300, 3.303. 2. The appeal for the issue of entitlement to TDIU prior to April 4, 2012, is dismissed. 38 U.S.C. § 1155; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.340, 3.341, 4.16. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The Veteran served on active duty from December 1967 to November 1971. This case comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from an August 2013 rating decision by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). A hearing was held before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge in January 2015. A transcript of the hearing is of record. The undersigned Veterans Law Judge held the record open for a 30-day period following the hearing to allow for the submission of additional evidence. Thereafter, the Veteran submitted additional evidence. See also August 2017 supplemental statement of the case (SSOC) (agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ) noted review of all evidence of record). In an October 2020 letter, the Board notified the Veteran that he may request a virtual tele-hearing instead of waiting for a travel board hearing; however, this letter was sent in error, as the record shows that the Veteran has not requested a second hearing. See Quinn v. Wilkie, 31 Vet. App. 284 (2019) and October 2020 Board memorandum. Based on the foregoing, there is no outstanding hearing request. The Veteran’s 2015 testimony has been considered by the undersigned in making this decision. In an April 2015 decision, the Board reopened claims for service connection for a bilateral foot disorder (also denied on the merits in that decision), a lung disorder, and a back disorder; granted a claim for service connection for bilateral hearing loss; denied claims for service connection for diabetes mellitus and a right knee disorder; and denied the Veteran’s appeal as to the timeliness of a March 2012 notice of disagreement (NOD) with a January 2011 rating decision denying service connection for back problems, shortness of breath, and erectile dysfunction. The Board also remanded the merits of the reopened claims for service connection for lung and back disorders, an increased evaluation claim for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and the TDIU claim for further development, as well as claims for service connection for obstructive sleep apnea and entitlement to compensation under 38 U.S.C. § 1151 for a diaphragm injury and a stomach bulge to schedule the Veteran for a Board hearing for those issues. The requested hearing for the claims as remanded in the Board’s April 2015 decision, as well as for additional claims for which appeals were perfected and certified to the Board after that time, was held before a different Veterans Law Judge in July 2016. A transcript of the hearing is of record. Those issues have been the subject of separate decisions issued by that Veterans Law Judge. See March 2017, June 2019, and July 2020 Board decisions (including claim for service connection for obstructive sleep apnea). In a March 2017 decision, the Board denied reopening claims for service connection for diabetes mellitus, hypertension, a thyroid disorder, and an increased evaluation for PTSD. The Board also remanded the above claims and the back disorder claim for further development. Thereafter, the above claims became subject to a stay of adjudication from the Secretary of VA until the effective date of the Blue Water Navy Vietnam Veterans Act of 2019 (the BWN Act), January 1, 2020, which has been lifted. Pub. L. 116-23, 133 Stat. 966 (June 25, 2019) (now codified in pertinent part at 38 U.S.C. § 1116A). In a December 2019 decision, the Board denied the back disorder claim not subject to the stay. The detailed procedural history of this portion of the appeal is set forth in the April 2015, March 2017, and December 2019 Board decisions. In February 2020, the Board remanded the above claims for further development. While the case was in remand status, the AOJ granted service connection for additional disabilities and then granted entitlement to TDIU and Chapter 35 Dependents’ Educational Assistance (DEA) benefits effective from April 4, 2012. See May 2020 and July 2020 rating decisions. The requested development has been completed, and the case has since been returned to the Board for appellate review. The Board also notes that the updated VA treatment records that were added to the claims file after the July 2020 SSOC contain the same information as that established in other records reviewed by the AOJ in connection with this appeal. As such, they do not materially alter the outcome of the case, and a remand for initial AOJ review is not necessary. Sabonis v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 426, 430 (1994) (remands which would only result in unnecessarily imposing additional burdens on VA with no benefit flowing to the veteran are to be avoided). The Veteran is now represented by the above-named recognized service organization, and a VA Form 21-22 is of record. Law and Analysis Initially, the Board finds that VA’s duty to assist has been met as to obtaining a VA examination or medical opinion. The Veteran was provided a VA examination and additional medical opinions were obtained for the lung disorder claim in response to the Board’s remands. The Veteran’s prior representative requested blood testing for the presence of heavy metals (claimed as lead, mercury, and arsenic). See February 2015 written statement. The July 2017/April 2020 VA examiner acknowledged this contention, but determined that there was no evidence to suggest that the Veteran had been exposed to heavy metals to necessitate such testing, noting that he had undergone other appropriate testing to monitor his lung problems. This determination based on the VA examiner’s knowledge, training, and expertise is more probative than the prior representative’s general assertions in this regard. The VA examiners’ adequate opinions for this claim also address the Veteran’s claimed and documented in-service exposures. Neither the Veteran nor any representative has raised any other issues with the duty to notify or duty to assist. See Scott v. McDonald, 789 F.3d 1375, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (holding that “the Board’s obligation to read filings in a liberal manner does not require the Board . . . to search the record and address procedural arguments when the veteran fails to raise them before the Board.”); Dickens v. McDonald, 814 F.3d 1359, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (applying Scott to a duty to assist argument). Service Connection – Lung Disorder Service connection may be established for disability resulting from personal injury suffered or disease contracted in line of duty in the active military, naval, or air service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131. That an injury or disease occurred in service is not enough; there must be chronic disability resulting from that injury or disease. Service connection may also be granted for any disease diagnosed after discharge, when all the evidence, including that pertinent to service, establishes that the disease was incurred in service. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(d). The disorders at issue are not considered chronic diseases for VA compensation purposes. As such, the provisions of 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(b) for chronic diseases are not for application in this case. 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303(b), 3.309; Walker v. Shinseki, 708 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2013). A veteran who served in the Republic of Vietnam between January 9, 1962, and May 7, 1975, shall be presumed to have been exposed during such service to an herbicide agent, unless there is affirmative evidence to establish that the veteran was not exposed to any such agent during that service. 38 U.S.C. § 1116(f); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.307(a)(6)(iii), 3.307(d). “Service in the Republic of Vietnam” includes service in the waters offshore and service in other locations if the conditions of service involved duty or visitation in the Republic of Vietnam. 38 C.F.R. § 3.307(a)(6)(iii). The presumption of exposure to herbicide agents has been extended to those veterans who served offshore of the Republic of Vietnam during the same time period. 38 U.S.C. § 1116A. For purposes of this section, an offshore location is one that is not more than 12 nautical miles seaward of a line commencing on the southwestern demarcation line of the waters of Vietnam and Cambodia and intersecting at certain enumerated points. In such circumstances, service connection may be granted on a presumptive basis for the diseases listed in 38 C.F.R. § 3.309(e), including respiratory cancers (cancer of the lung, bronchus, larynx, or trachea) manifested to a compensable degree at any time after service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1116(a)(1), 1116A(a); 38 C.F.R. § 3.307(a)(6)(ii). The Veteran’s lung disorders of record are not among the diseases for which service connection may be granted on a presumptive basis. When a claimed disability is not included as presumptive disorder, a veteran may nevertheless establish service connection based on evidence of actual direct causation. See Combee v. Brown, 34 F.3d 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1994); Brock v. Brown, 10 Vet. App. 155 (1997) (applying principle to Agent Orange exposure). There are no statutes specifically dealing with asbestos and service connection for asbestos-related diseases, and VA has not promulgated any specific regulations. However, VA has acknowledged a relationship exists between asbestos exposure and the development of certain diseases, which may occur 10 to 45 years after exposure. When considering VA compensation claims, rating boards have the responsibility to ascertain whether or not service records demonstrate evidence of asbestos exposure in service and of ensuring that development is accomplished to determine whether or not there was pre-service and/or post-service evidence of occupational or other asbestos exposure. A determination must then be made as to the relationship between asbestos exposure and the claimed diseases, keeping in mind the latency and exposure information noted above. It should be noted that the VA guidelines for service connection in asbestos-related cases are not substantive rules, and there is no presumption that a veteran was exposed to asbestos in service. Dyment v. West, 13 Vet. App. 141, 145 (1999), aff’d, Dyment v. Principi, 287 F. 3d 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2002); VAOPGCPREC 4-2000 (April 13, 2000). Except as otherwise provided by law, a claimant has the responsibility to present and support a claim for benefits. VA shall consider all information and lay and medical evidence of record in a case and when there is an approximate balance of positive and negative evidence regarding any issue material to the determination of a matter, VA shall give the benefit of the doubt to the claimant. 38 U.S.C. § 5107; Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49, 53 (1990). To deny a claim on its merits, the weight of the evidence must be against the claim. Alemany v. Brown, 9 Vet. App. 518, 519 (1996). In considering the evidence of record under the laws and regulations as set forth above, the Board concludes that service connection is not warranted for a lung disorder other than obstructive sleep apnea. The Veteran has contended that he has lung problems that started after service but are due to in-service exposures, including asbestos from the steam pipes on the ceiling of his sleeping quarters, jet fuel, and/or herbicide exposure. See, e.g., January 2015 Bd. Hrg. Tr. at 6, 24; August 2013 NOD; February 2015 prior representative written statement; July 2016 Veteran written statement. The post-service evidence shows that the Veteran has current lung disorder diagnoses. See, e.g., September 2015 VA examination report (diagnoses of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), benign migratory inflammatory nodules); May 2019 private treatment record (noted likelihood of malignancy related to lung nodules extremely low and follow-up imaging not required unless symptoms change). The Veteran has pursued separate claims for obstructive sleep apnea and claimed complications due to a September 2012 VA lung surgery to explore the lung nodules (status post thoracotomy) that are not part of this appeal. Regarding the claimed in-service herbicide exposure, the Board previously determined that the record establishes that the Veteran served aboard the USS Coral Sea (CV-43) and that his unit served in the official waters of the Republic of Vietnam on multiple occasions from 1968 to 1971. The deck logs indicate that the ship took position at the entrance to Da Nang Harbor on January 28, 1969, to effect transfer of the ship’s helicopters to Da Nang Air Force Base, which was a process that lasted about one and a half hours before the ship set a new course. The Veteran has been verified to be aboard the vessel on that date. See April 2015 and February 2020 Board decisions; September 2010 3101 printout; service treatment records with USS Coral Sea stamps. While the case was most recently in remand status, the AOJ additionally determined that the Veteran was aboard the USS Midway (CVA-41) with his unit on August 1, 1971, when the vessel was traveling in brown water/inland waterways. See May 2020 VA memorandum and attachments. The Veteran’s remaining contentions as to ongoing herbicide exposure beyond these offshore locations (such as routinely cleaning aircraft exposed to Agent Orange from missions), as addressed in prior Board decisions, remain unestablished. Regarding the remaining claimed in-service exposures, the Veteran’s DD 214 shows that his primary specialty was equivalent to an aircraft mechanic (a military occupational specialty (MOS) that has a probability of asbestos exposure). In addition, the Board finds that the Veteran would have had exposure to jet fuel given his MOS associated with aircraft maintenance. The post-service evidence also shows that the Veteran worked as a freight truck driver for many years, then as a utility locator, inspector testing for concrete and soil samples, and custodian. See, e.g., Social Security Administration (SSA) records with reported work history, including as a freight truck driver from the 1970s to 2003; remaining jobs performed from 2007 to 2009. Based on the foregoing, the Board finds that the Veteran served offshore of the Republic of Vietnam during a time in which herbicide exposure is presumed, and the presumed herbicide exposure, as well as the other exposures, constitute in-service events. The record also shows that the Veteran had a 30-pack year smoking history. See, e.g., July 1997 private treatment record and August 2012 VA pulmonary consultation; September 2015 VA examination report (Veteran reported long-time smoker until the mid-1990s). For claims received by VA after June 9, 1998, a disability or death will not be considered service-connected on the basis that it resulted from injury or disease attributable to a veteran’s use of tobacco products during service. The term “tobacco products” means cigars, cigarettes, smokeless tobacco, pipe tobacco, and roll-your-own tobacco. 38 U.S.C. § 1103; 38 C.F.R. § 3.300(a). Service connection is not precluded, however, where the disability or death resulted from a disease or injury that is otherwise shown to have been incurred or aggravated during service. For purposes of this section, “otherwise shown” means that the disability or death can be service-connected on some basis other than a veteran’s use of tobacco products during service or that the disability became manifest or death occurred during service; or, the disability or death resulted from a disease or injury that appeared to the required degree of disability within any applicable presumptive period under §§ 3.307, 3.309, 3.313, or 3.316. 38 C.F.R. § 3.300(b)(1)-(2). VA’s Office of General Counsel has explained that the legal bar to service connection for a disability or death attributable to tobacco use does not bar a finding of secondary service connection for a disability or death related to a veteran’s use of tobacco products after the veteran’s service, where that disability or death is proximately due to or aggravated by a service-connected disability that is not service-connected on the basis of being attributable to the veteran’s use of tobacco products during service. In other words, secondary service connection may be established for disability or death related to post-service tobacco use that is the result of or aggravated by a service-connected disability unrelated to tobacco use. That opinion further held that VA adjudicators must resolve: (1) whether the service-connected disability caused the veteran to use tobacco products after service; (2) if so, whether the use of tobacco products as a result of the service-connected disability was a substantial factor in causing a secondary disability; and (3) whether the secondary disability would not have occurred but for the use of tobacco products caused by the service-connected disability. If these questions are answered in the affirmative, the secondary disability or death may be service-connected. VAOPGCPREC 6-2003 (October 28, 2003). The Board notes that the Veteran is competent to report observable symptomatology and events. Nevertheless, the Board finds that his lung disorders did not manifest in service or for many years thereafter, and the Veteran has not contended otherwise. See, e.g., private treatment records from July 1997 (normal chest x-ray with no infiltrates; denied history of pulmonary diseases) and July 2006 (negative chest x-ray noting lungs clear); March 2010 original claim and January 2015 Bd. Hrg. Tr. (testified lung problems started after service, around the 1980s or 1990s). The Veteran’s service treatment records do not document any diagnosis of a lung problem. His relevant body systems were found to be normal at the time of the April 1967 entrance examination and on review in December 1967, and he denied having a history of relevant symptoms on the corresponding report of medical history. An October 1969 report shows that he was monitored for tuberculosis from 1968 to 1971 after being exposed to a shipmate with the disease during routine duties; however, subsequent follow-ups revealed negative chest x-rays and no diagnosis of tuberculosis. See also, e.g., September 2014 VA treatment record showing negative tuberculosis (TB) test. He was also treated in April 1970 for drainage associated with sinus problems (as opposed to a primary lung problem), diagnosed as a head cold. The Veteran’s relevant body systems were again found to be normal at the time of the October 1971 separation examination, including a contemporaneous chest x-ray. In addition to the lack of evidence showing that a lung disorder manifested in service or within close proximity thereto, the weight of the evidence of record does not relate a current disorder to the Veteran’s military service. The most probative evidence shows that the COPD cannot be service-connected on some basis other than the Veteran’s use of tobacco products during and after service. The record also does not reflect, and the Veteran has not contended, that service connection for COPD is warranted on the secondary service connection basis outlined above. In an October 2013 private medical opinion, Dr. R.B. (initials used to protect privacy) determined that the Veteran’s benign migratory inflammatory nodules had a 70 to 80 percent chance of being caused and/or exacerbated by his Agent Orange exposure; however, the opinion is based on an unsubstantiated determination that the Veteran had continuous exposure to the herbicide agent for the entire four years of his service from performing maintenance on aircraft, which is inconsistent with the facts in this case (i.e., an inaccurate factual premise). Dr. R.B.’s opinion also appears to be based in part on a VA webpage that provides information about respiratory diseases presumptively caused by herbicide exposure, but as noted above, this diagnosis is not a presumptive disease. In a February 2015 private evaluation, Dr. C.H. determined that that Agent Orange had damaged the Veteran’s lungs to the point of him having a chronic inflammatory disease, without further explanation. In a July 2016 private evaluation, Dr. C.H. again noted that the Veteran’s chronic inflammatory disease (noted to be interstitial lung disease) was caused by Agent Orange exposure, as well as asbestos exposure, without further explanation. Similar to the 2013 opinion, Dr. C.H.’s opinions are based on an unsubstantiated determination that the Veteran had ongoing exposure to the herbicide agent from cleaning the outside of covered aircraft that came in from missions. In summary, the Board finds that these medical opinions are not adequate to decide the case for the reasons outlined above. See also Reonal v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 458, 460-61 (1993); Swann v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 229, 233 (1993); Black v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 177, 180 (1993) (an opinion based on an inaccurate (or unsubstantiated) factual premise has limited, if any, probative value) and Nieves-Rodriguez v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 295, 304 (2008) (most of the probative value of a medical opinion comes from its reasoning). The September 2015 VA examiner diagnosed the Veteran with COPD, benign migratory inflammatory nodules, and status-post thoracotomy (for the inflammatory nodules) and determined that these disorders were less likely than not incurred in or caused by the claimed in-service injury, event, or illness. In providing this opinion, the examiner discussed the more recent history of the Veteran’s respiratory complaints, his field work after he retired as a truck driver (including sampling cement going into field construction projects for analysis as a quality insurance inspector), and the medical findings. He noted that the Veteran quit the job as a quality insurance inspector due to respiratory fatigue; imaging studies thereafter demonstrated migratory nodules, open lung biopsy demonstrated inflammation, and later bronchoscopy pathologic findings were suspicious for aspiration (noted to be inhaled material), probably during sleep. The examiner explained that these circumstances would explain the migratory nature of the inflammation nodules, as aspiration can occur during sleep as a result of his gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). The examiner further explained that, even if the level of Agent Orange exposure the Veteran described from cleaning airplanes was plausible, the dose exposure would have been very low, and his current difficulties were more likely related to the post-service factors, rather than a latent presentation of Agent Orange exposure 40 years later. The July 2017 VA examiner agreed with the determinations of the September 2015 VA examiner and addressed the remaining medical questions at that time as to the Veteran’s asbestos and jet fuel exposure. The examiner determined that it was less likely than not that the Veteran’s COPD and benign migratory inflammatory nodules manifested in or were otherwise related to his military service. In so doing, he noted that the aspiration when the Veteran slept could be exacerbated by obstructive sleep apnea, for which he also had a diagnosis, in addition to the GERD, citing to determinations made by his VA treatment providers. He also noted that the microaspirations resulted in small areas of pneumonic consolidation, a condition that has developed as the Veteran has become more obese and sedentary in later years, along with the GERD and obstructive sleep apnea contributing. Regarding the COPD, the examiner explained that the most common cause of COPD by far is tobacco smoking and that the Veteran has a 30-pack-year smoking history. He noted that the Veteran did not develop COPD until some 40 years after military discharge, which weighs against a finding that his COPD was the result of exposure to various industrial solvents or agents during his service in the late 1960s, because if that were the case, he would have developed symptoms far earlier. As to any respiratory problems from asbestos exposure, the examiner determined that the Veteran did not develop pleural plaques or symptomatic of asbestosis, nor had he ever been diagnosed with an asbestos-related illness, including mesothelioma or any malignancy related to asbestos exposure, on multiple thoracic CT scans. The Board requested an additional medical opinion to address herbicide exposure in relation to the Veteran’s COPD in the most recent remand in light of the newly established presumptive exposure discussed above. In an April 2020 medical opinion, the July 2017 VA examiner restated and confirmed his earlier opinion, indicating that the most likely cause of the Veteran’s COPD was his extensive smoking history, even considering his Agent Orange exposure. In so finding, he noted that the Veteran was very briefly exposed to Agent Orange and that exposure was very unlikely to have caused the current COPD problems. He further indicated that, if COPD had anything to do with the Veteran’s Agent Orange exposure, one would expect the problem to have manifested far earlier in his post-service history. The VA examiners’ opinions, taken together, address the various aspects of the in-service exposures and are highly probative on the questions of etiology, as they are based on a review of the claims file and are supported by rationale. Nieves-Rodriguez v. Peake, supra. In addition, the VA examiners contemplated the Veteran’s complete history, and their opinions are consistent with treatment records indicating that the Veteran’s respiratory complaints are related to nonservice-connected disorders. For example, the Veteran more recently transferred his respiratory care to private treatment provider Dr. B.F., who determined that the Veteran’s chronic cough was non-infections and associated with allergies and his COPD, and his shortness of breath was likely associated with his COPD and could also be related to his 2012 surgery. He noted the Veteran’s reported exposure to Agent Orange in the social history part of the treatment records, but he has not suggested a link to that exposure. See private treatment records from 2017 to 2019. The Board has also considered the Veteran’s statements, including his contention that his in-service exposures could be the cause of his current lung disorders. Although lay persons are competent to provide opinions on some medical issues, as to the specific issues in this case, the etiology of the diseases falls outside the realm of common knowledge of a lay person, particularly in light of the delayed onsets and the internal processes involved. See Kahana v. Shinseki, 24 Vet. App. 428, 435 (2011); Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372, 1377 n.4 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Moreover, even assuming that the Veteran is competent to opine on these medical matters, the Board finds that the VA examiners’ opinions are more probative, as they were provided by medical professionals with knowledge, training, and expertise and are supported by rationale. The VA examiners reviewed the claims file and considered the Veteran’s reported history and lay statements. In addition, the Board acknowledges the medical article submitted by the Veteran’s prior representative as to lung injuries related to chronic jet fuel exposure; however, he did not submit a medical opinion specific to the Veteran’s case in this regard. See Sacks v. West, 11 Vet. App. 314, 317 (1998) (“This is not to say that medical article and treatise evidence are irrelevant or unimportant; they can provide important support when combined with an opinion of a medical professional.”). Based on the foregoing, the Board finds that the weight of the evidence is against the Veteran’s claim. As such, the benefit-of-the-doubt rule does not apply, and the claim is denied. Gilbert, 1 Vet. App. 49, 53. TDIU All veterans who are shown to be unable to secure and follow a substantially gainful occupation by reason of service-connected disability shall be rated totally disabled. For VA purposes, total disability exists when there is present any impairment of mind or body which is sufficient to render it impossible for the average person to follow a substantially gainful occupation. 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.340, 4.16(b). A total disability rating for compensation may be assigned, where the schedular rating is less than total, when a veteran is, in the judgment of the rating agency, unable to secure or follow a substantially gainful occupation as a result of a single service-connected disability ratable at 60 percent or more, or as a result of two or more disabilities, provided at least one disability is ratable at 40 percent or more, and there is sufficient additional service-connected disability to bring the combined rating to 70 percent or more. 38 C.F.R. § 4.16(a). Nevertheless, even when the percentage requirements are not met, entitlement to TDIU on an extraschedular basis may be granted in exceptional cases when the veteran is unable to secure and follow a substantially gainful occupation by reason of service-connected disabilities. 38 C.F.R. § 4.16(b). The Veteran’s April 2012 TDIU claim was originally denied in the August 2013 rating decision on appeal. The issue remained intertwined with pending service connection claims remanded or stayed in the Board’s 2015, 2017, 2019, and 2020 remands, as well as his diabetes mellitus claim before the AOJ that was also subject to the stay at the time of the 2019 remand. In a July 2020 rating decision, the AOJ granted entitlement to TDIU effective from April 4, 2012, the date of the Veteran’s informal claim for the benefit. The AOJ determined that the decision was a partial grant of the benefit sought on appeal because it was not known whether the effective date assigned would satisfy the Veteran’s appeal, without any claim date considerations, and issued a corresponding July 2020 SSOC (phrasing the issue as one for an earlier effective date). The Veteran’s first claim for TDIU was the April 2012 claim for which the effective date was assigned. In addition, the AOJ processed the Veteran’s TDIU claim as non-initial increased evaluation claims for his service-connected disabilities at that time (PTSD and tinnitus). He did not have a pending appeal for any increased evaluation claims at that time. Cf. Rice v. Shinseki, 22 Vet. App. 447 (2009) and Harper v. Wilkie, 30 Vet. App. 356 (2018). The Veteran has not contended otherwise. Based on the foregoing, the Board finds that the July 2020 rating decision represents a full grant of the benefit sought on appeal. As such, the issue of entitlement to TDIU prior to April 4, 2012, has been rendered moot, and it is therefore dismissed. J.W. ZISSIMOS Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board M. Postek, 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.