Citation Nr: 21015395 Decision Date: 03/17/21 Archive Date: 03/17/21 DOCKET NO. 17-12 887 DATE: March 17, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to an earlier effective date prior to April 25, 2014 for the grant of a 20 percent rating for hemorrhoids with anal fissures is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served honorably in the United States Army from February 1981 to November 2004. This issue comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from an October 2014 rating decision issued by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). In January 2021 the Veteran testified at a Board hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge. The transcript is of record. The Veteran contends that he is entitled to an earlier effective date for the grant of a 20 percent for his hemorrhoids. By way of history, the Veteran initially filed a claim for service connection in July 2004. In a March 2005 rating decision, the claim was denied. In particular, the RO found that, while there were complaints of hemorrhoids in-service, VA examination found that there was no current evidence of hemorrhoids. In April 2005, the Veteran submitted a notice of disagreement for his hemorrhoids claim. In a July 2007 Statement of the Case, the RO affirmed its denial of the hemorrhoids claim. The Veteran was notified of the decision and of his appellate rights; however, he did not file a substantive appeal to the Board, thereby making the March 2005 rating decision final. In April 2014, the Veteran filed a request to reopen his claim for service connection for hemorrhoids. In the October 2014 rating decision at issue, the RO granted service connection for his hemorrhoids and awarded a 20 percent rating, effective from April 25, 2014, which was the date that the Veteran submitted his application to reopen the claim. The Veteran has argued that he is entitled to an effective date of December 1, 2004. The effective date for a reopened claim of entitlement to service connection can be no earlier than the date the petition to reopen was filed. 38 U.S.C. § 5110 (a); 38 C.F.R. § 3.400 (r). There is no provision in either the statutes or the regulations that allows for an earlier effective date based on a reopened claim unless a clear and unmistakable error (CUE) was committed in a prior decision or new and material evidence, in the form of relevant military records, was received after the final decision. 38 U.S.C. §§ 5110 (i), 7111; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.105, 3.156 (c). The Veteran, through his representative, raised the issue of CUE in the March 2005 rating decision that denied service connection for hemorrhoids at his Board hearing with the undersigned. As the Veteran has raised the issue of whether there was CUE in the March 2005 rating decision, the issue must first be adjudicated by the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ). Therefore, the Board does not have jurisdiction over the matter, and it must be remanded to the AOJ for adjudication. Additionally, the issue of entitlement to an earlier effective date is inextricably intertwined with the CUE claim raised at the Board hearing. Harris v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 180, 183 (1991). The RO has not yet adjudicated the CUE claim, and the Board is precluded from adjudicating that claim in the first instance. See Jarrell v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 326, 333-34 (2006). As such, a remand is necessary. The matter is REMANDED for the following action: 1. The AOJ should adjudicate the issue of whether there was CUE in the March 2005 rating decision which denied service connection for hemorrhoids with anal fissures. 2. After the above development, readjudicate the Veteran's claim, with application of all appropriate laws and regulations, and consideration of any additional information obtained as a result of this remand. All evidence since the February 2017 Statement of the Case should be considered. If the decision remains adverse to the Veteran, he and his representative should be furnished a supplemental statement of the case and afforded an appropriate period of time within which to respond thereto. G. A. WASIK Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board J.T. Massey, 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.