Citation Nr: 21022588 Decision Date: 04/16/21 Archive Date: 04/16/21 DOCKET NO. 20-08 864 DATE: April 16, 2021 ORDER Entitlement to an effective date earlier than November 29, 2014 for the award of special monthly compensation (SMC) based on housebound status is denied. FINDING OF FACT Prior to November 29, 2014, the Veteran did not have a single service-connected disability rated 100 percent with separate service-connected disability rated at 60 percent or more. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for an effective date prior to November 29, 2014 for SMC based on housebound status have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1114, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.350, 3.351, 3.400. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Army from October 1989 to March 1996. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from an October 2015 rating decision by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). In February 2021, the Board remanded the issue of an earlier effective date for SMC, pending implementation of the grant of service connection for left knee meniscal tear residuals, osteoarthritis and recurrent patellar dislocations, and an assigned rating. The Board has considered the Veteran’s contentions in his February 13, 2021 Rebuttal of Supplemental Statement of the Case. The Veteran’s attorney contends that the Board’s February 2021 decision assigned incorrect effective dates for the Veteran’s disabilities. However, it would be improper for the Board to address the issues regarding earlier effective dates for issues that the Board previously adjudicated. Such decisions would be properly addressed by an appeal to the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. Accordingly, the Board will address the matter of an earlier effective date for SMC based on housebound status, as remanded by the Board in February 2021. 1. Entitlement to an effective date earlier than November 29, 2014 for the award of SMC based on housebound status SMC at the housebound rate is payable when a Veteran has a single service-connected disability rated 100 percent and (1) has additional service-connected disability or disabilities independently ratable at 60 percent, separate and distinct from the 100 percent service-connected disability and involving different anatomical segments or bodily systems; or, (2) is permanently housebound by reason of service-connected disability or disabilities. 38 U.S.C. § 1114(s); 38 C.F.R. § 3.350(i)(1). The requirements of 38 U.S.C. § 1114(s)(2) are met when a Veteran is substantially confined as a direct result of service-connected disabilities to his dwelling and the immediate premises or, if institutionalized, to the ward or clinical area, and it is reasonably certain that the disability or disabilities and resultant confinement will continue throughout his lifetime. 38 C.F.R. § 3.350(i)(2). Prior to November 29, 2014, the Veteran was service-connected for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) (assigned a 100 percent rating from November 20, 2003); asthma (assigned a 30 percent rating from January 23, 2004); lumbar disc disease (assigned a 10 percent rating from January 23, 2004); limitation of flexion of the knee (assigned a 10 percent rating from November 20, 2003); status post left ankle fracture with pain (assigned a 10 percent rating from November 20, 2003); and left knee meniscal tear, osteoarthritis with recurrent patellar dislocations (assigned a noncompensable rating from November 20, 2003). While the Veteran did have a service-connected disability rated as 100 percent disabling prior to November 29, 2014, his remaining disabilities were not ratable at 60 percent. Thus, the Veteran did not meet the criteria for SMC under 38 U.S.C. § 1114(s)(1) prior to November 29, 2014. However, a Veteran may still receive housebound-rate SMC if, by reason of the service-connected disabilities, he is “housebound.” A Veteran will be determined to be permanently housebound when he is substantially confined to the house (or ward or clinical areas, if institutionalized) or immediate premises due to disabilities which are reasonably certain to remain throughout his or he lifetime. 38 U.S.C. § 1502(c); 38 C.F.R. § 3.351(d)(2). However, the evidence does not show such limitations prior to November 29, 2014. In the May 2018 Notice of Disagreement, the Veteran, though his representative, contended that his diagnosis of agoraphobia renders him substantially housebound. Neither the Veteran nor his representative provided further information regarding this contention or information regarding the date of onset. In an April 2012 mental health consultation note, the Veteran noted that he likes to DJ at clubs. See Sept. 2013 CAPRI, p. 78. In this note, he also stated that he had been active in AA since 2007 and was still active at the time of the consultation. In May 2013, the Veteran’s wife submitted a statement in support of his claim for PTSD. She stated that the Veteran is “basically isolated in our home” and that the Veteran no longer attends family outings because he experiences panic attacks when he gets in the car. She further stated that the Veteran had not been able to work for a year and a half, but prior to that, he worked for ten months. She noted that his employment ended due to “his temper.” In a June 2014 orthopedics surgery consultation, the Veteran stated that he had started to jog and do some light hiking. See Oct. 2015 CAPRI, p. 180. The provider further noted that the Veteran is interested in running “and some serious hiking.” Id. at 181. In a July 2014 psychiatry note, the Veteran noted he worked for ten months in 2012. Id. at 161. The Board finds that, prior to November 29, 2014, the evidence of record preponderates against a finding that the Veteran was substantially confined to the house or immediate premises due to disabilities which are reasonably certain to remain throughout his lifetime. The Board has considered the Veteran’s contentions regarding his agoraphobia causing him to be housebound and his wife’s contentions that he isolates himself in their home. However, the Board finds the Veteran’s ten-month employment in 2012, his self-reports of light hiking, and his desire to engage in “some serious hiking” to outweigh the favorable evidence regarding housebound status. Moreover, the fact that the Veteran has, at times, isolated by his own volition and remained in the house is insufficient to warrant SMC based on housebound status. Accordingly, the Board finds that SMC based on housebound status prior to November 29, 2014 is not warranted. The Board has considered the benefit of the doubt doctrine; however, as the preponderance of the evidence weighs against a finding in favor of the Veteran, it is not applicable. See 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b). J. O’CONNELL Acting Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board R. Watkins, 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.