Citation Nr: 21022394 Decision Date: 04/15/21 Archive Date: 04/15/21 DOCKET NO. 17-07 015 DATE: April 15, 2021 ORDER An effective date prior to February 5, 2016, for the grant of service connection for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is denied. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The Veteran had active duty from July 1978 to February 1982; he has been 100 percent disabled since February 2016. 2. The Veteran’s initial claim for a nervous disorder was denied in 1982. He did not appeal, and that decision became final. 3. A claim for a psychiatric disorder, claimed as chronic anxiety and depressive neurosis, was again denied in March 2012 on the basis that the evidence was not new and material. The Veteran did not appeal, and that decision became final. 4. A claim for depression was denied in April 2015; he did not appeal and that decision became final. Rather, he filed another claim for depression and anxiety in October 2014 and November 2015. 5. The Veteran was initially diagnosed with PTSD in February 2016, which was attributed to service. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for an effective date prior to February 5, 2016, for the grant of service connection for PTSD have not been met. 38 U.S.C. § 5110 (2012); 38C.F.R. §§3.157, 3.400 (2020). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION The Veteran testified before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge in October 2019. A copy of the transcript has been associated with the claims file. In December 2019, the Board denied the claim. The Veteran appealed to the Veterans’ Claims Court. In November 2020, the Court Clerk vacated the Board’s decision in a Joint Motion for Remand (JMR) and remanded the claim for additional development. Turning to the relevant laws and regulations, the assignment of effective dates is governed by 38 U.S.C. § 5110 and 38 C.F.R. § 3.400. Generally, if a claim is received within one year of a veteran’s separation from service, the effective date will be the date of separation from active duty or the date that entitlement arose. Otherwise, the effective date for an award of pension, compensation, or dependency and indemnity compensation based on an original claim, a claim reopened after final disallowance, or a claim for increase, will be the date of receipt of the claim or the date that entitlement arose, whichever is later. See 38 U.S.C. § 5110; 38 C.F.R. § 3.400. The current effective date of February 5, 2016, corresponds to the date that the Veteran was first diagnosed with PTSD. He contended that he is entitled to either an effective date of October 1982, the date he first submitted a claim to VA, or October 2014, a date in which he filed a new claim for a psychiatric disorder. With respect to the effective date of October 1982, the Veteran did not appeal denials in October 1982, March 2012, or April 2015. As such, those decisions became final and can only be challenged on the basis of clear and unmistakable error, which is not before the Board at this time. Rather, the laws and regulations governing the effective date outlined above apply. That is, the Veteran filed a new claim for a psychiatric disorder in October 2014; he then filed a supplemental claim in November 2015 (claiming depression as secondary to headaches), as he had submitted new evidence to substantiate his claim. Therefore, November 2015 is considered the date of the claim as this is the date new evidence was received. The Veteran was diagnosed with PTSD in February 2016 (this is the date entitlement arose). As the later of the two dates is February 2016, this is the appropriate effective date for the grant of service connection for PTSD. In the JMR, the Court Clerk directed the Board to determine whether a retrospective medical opinion was needed in order to determine if the Veteran had PTSD prior to February 2016. Specifically, in a May 2016 VA examination, the examiner wrote that prior to 2016, the Veteran had psychiatric symptoms that were consistent with PTSD. Specifically, VA psychiatric examinations were undertaken prior to 2016 in which depression and anxiety were diagnosed; however, PTSD was not diagnosed until February 2016. The prior psychiatric evaluations and treatment were undertaken by a psychiatrist or clinical psychologist. The diagnoses included adjustment disorder with depressive mood (attributed to the death of the Veteran’s brother and grandmother), depression (attributed to the care of his terminally ill mother and also attributed to a traumatic brain injury (TBI)), and adjustment disorder with mixed depression and anxiety (attributed to his mother’s death, loss of his last immediate family member, and financial concerns). There were no psychiatric complaints related to service or to a TBI. During a July 2014 psychiatric evaluation, he reported that he was on alert patrols for first half of service then as a photographers mate. He did not report any stressors related to his naval service. In each case, the clinicians who diagnosed depression and anxiety (but not PTSD) considered the Veteran’s complaints and conducted mental status assessments. There is no indication that the treating providers were not fully aware of the Veteran’s past medical history, including his naval service and service-connected TBI, or that they misstated any relevant fact. Yet, none diagnosed PTSD until February 2016. There is no indication from the Veteran or in the medical evidence which suggests that PTSD was diagnosed prior to February 5, 2016. The Board places significant probative value on the contemporaneous findings and diagnoses of the medical professionals who did not diagnose PTSD until February 2016 and concludes that a retrospective medical opinion is not warranted. Therefore, the medical evidence does not support a finding that entitlement to service connection for PTSD arose prior to February 5, 2016, which forms the basis of the date of the grant of service connection. In sum, as the date in which entitlement arose is later than the date of receipt of claim, the proper effective date is February 5, 2016, the date of the PTSD diagnosis. Therefore, the appeal is denied. Finally, the Veteran has not raised any other issues, nor have any other issues been reasonably raised by the record, for the Board’s consideration. See Doucette v. Shulkin, 28 Vet. App. 366, 369-370 (2017) (confirming that the Board is not required to address issues unless they are specifically raised by the claimant or reasonably raised by the evidence of record). L. HOWELL Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board D. Ragofsky, Attorney Advisor 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.