Citation Nr: 21014357 Decision Date: 03/12/21 Archive Date: 03/12/21 DOCKET NO. 16-34 078 DATE: March 12, 2021 ORDER Entitlement to an effective date of June 13, 1977 for service connection of tinnitus is granted. FINDING OF FACT The Veteran’s first filed a claim for service connection for a hearing disability, received in August 1977, reasonably included a valid claim for service connection of tinnitus. CONCLUSION OF LAW Resolving all reasonable doubt in favor of the Veteran, the criteria for an effective date of June 13, 1977 for service connection of tinnitus have been met. 38 U.S.C. § 5110 (2012); 38 C.F.R. § 3.400 (2019). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty from June 1964 to June 1977. This matter comes to the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from an April 2015 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. 1. Entitlement to an effective date prior to May 16, 2014 for service connection of tinnitus Generally, the effective date for an award of service connection is the date of receipt of the claim or the date entitlement arose, whichever is later. 38 U.S.C. § 5110 (a); 38 C.F.R. § 3.400 (b). Alternately, disability compensation may be effective the day following separation from active service if the claim is received within one year after separation from service. 38 C.F.R. § 3.400 (b)(2)(i). Prior to regulatory changes effective March 24, 2015, a valid claim is a formal or informal communication in writing requesting a determination of entitlement, or evidencing a belief in entitlement, to a benefit. 38 C.F.R. § 3.1 (p) (2014). The essential elements for any claim, whether formal or informal, are: (1) intent to apply for benefits; (2) identification of the benefits sought; and (3) communication in writing. Brokowski v. Shinseki, 23 Vet. App. 79, 84 (2009). The Board notes VA has a duty to sympathetically interpret the filings of claimants. Szemraj v. Principi, 357 F.3d 1370, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (finding VA is obligated to sympathetically read the filings of a pro se Veteran); see also Comer v. Peake, 552 F.3d 1362, 1369-70 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (holding assistance by a Veterans Service Organization does not vitiate VA’s duty to sympathetically review filings). The United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court) has held that “a claimant’s identification of the benefit sought does not require any technical precision.” Brokowski, 23 Vet. App. at 85; see also Ingram v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 232, 256-57 (2007) (“It is the pro se claimant who knows what symptoms he is experiencing and that are causing him disability,.... [and] it is the Secretary who knows the provisions of title 38 and can evaluate whether there is a potential under the law to compensate an averred disability based on a sympathetic reading of the material in a pro se submission.” (citations omitted)); see also Clemons v. Shinseki, 23 Vet. App. 1 (2009) (claims of service connection for psychiatric disability encompass claims for all psychiatric disorders that are reasonably raised by the record). Although the Board must interpret a claimant’s submissions broadly, “the Board is not required to conjure up issues that were not raised by the claimant.” Brannon v. West, 12 Vet. App. 32, 35 (1998) (holding that before VA can adjudicate an original claim for benefits, “the claimant must submit a written document identifying the benefit and expressing some intent to seek it”); see also Criswell v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 501, 504 (2006) (“The mere existence of medical records generally cannot be construed as an informal claim; rather, there must be some intent by the claimant to apply for a benefit.”). The Board finds the essential elements for a claim (an intent to apply for benefits, an identification of the benefits sought, and a communication in writing) were met with the May 1977 claim form. See Brokowski, supra. The Board acknowledges the Veteran’s November 2020 credible testimony before the undersigned, and finds most pertinent that his claim form indicated “hearing” rather than specifically hearing loss or tinnitus. The Board finds that sympathetic interpretation of this written claim encompasses all hearing related disabilities – which include both hearing loss and tinnitus. Indeed, a September 1977 VA hearing examination reflects a clear diagnosis of hearing loss with tinnitus. (Continued on the next page)   The Veteran’s DD form 214 reflects that he separated from active service in June 1977. Hence, the claim was received within one year following separation from service, and compensation is effective the day following separation. 38 C.F.R. § 3.400 (b)(2)(i). Jennifer White Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board Department of Veterans Affairs 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.