Citation Nr: 21024569 Decision Date: 04/23/21 Archive Date: 04/23/21 DOCKET NO. 17-34 822 DATE: April 23, 2021 ORDER An effective date earlier than November 14, 2013, for the award of service connection for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) with bipolar disorder and alcohol and stimulant use disorders in remission is denied. FINDING OF FACT The Veteran’s original formal application for service connection for PTSD (personal assault) was received by VA on November 14, 2013. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for an effective date earlier than November 14, 2013 for grant of service connection have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 5107, 5110; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.155, 3.400. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Army from March 1975 to July 1975. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a July 2015 rating decision. In February 2021, the Veteran testified at a Virtual Hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge. A transcript of the hearing is associated with the record. Earlier Effective Date The Veteran seeks an effective date earlier than November 14, 2013 for the award of service connection for PTSD with bipolar disorder and alcohol and stimulant use disorders in remission. Specifically, at her hearing, the Veteran stated that although the original claim was filed in 2013, she attempted to seek treatment at VA back in 2000, and this should be recognized as her “intent” to file a claim for service connection. See Hearing Transcript at 2. By way of history, in a September 2014 rating decision, service connection for PTSD with bipolar disorder and alcohol and stimulant use disorders in remission was granted with an evaluation of 100 percent, effective November 14, 2013, the date VA received the Veteran’s original claim. The effective date for an award of service connection based on an original claim generally “shall be fixed in accordance with the facts found, but shall not be earlier than the date of receipt of application therefor.” 38 U.S.C. § 5110(a). The statutory provision is implemented by regulation, which provides that the effective date for an evaluation for disability compensation is the “date of receipt of the claim or the date entitlement arose, whichever is the later.” 38 C.F.R. § 3.400. For VA compensation purposes, a “claim” is defined as “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). An informal claim is “[a]ny communication or action indicating an intent to apply for one or more benefits.” It must “identify the benefit sought.” 38 C.F.R. § 3.155(a). Thus, the essential elements for any claim, whether formal or informal, are “(1) an intent to apply for benefits, (2) an identification of the benefits sought, and (3) a communication in writing.” Brokowski v. Shinseki, 23 Vet. App. 79, 84 (2009). VA must look to all communications from a claimant that may be interpreted as an application or claim, both formal and informal, for benefits and is required to identify and act on informal claims for benefits. Servello v. Derwinski, 3 Vet. App. 196, 198 (1992). First, as to the Veteran’s contention that attempting to seek treatment at VA back in 2000 should reflect “her intentions” of seeking a claim for service connection, the Board disagrees. The Board finds that merely seeking treatment does not establish a claim or an intent on the part of the veteran to seek service connection. Rather, a formal or informal claim must be filed in order for any type of benefit to accrue or be paid, and a claim for service connection must indicate an intent to apply for that benefit. See 38 U.S.C. § 5101(a); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.151(a), 3.155(a); Jones v. West, 136 F.3d 1296, 1299 (Fed. Cir. 1998). The record shows that VA received the Veteran’s formal application for benefits in November 14, 2013 where she listed a clam for PTSD (personal trauma). The record includes no statement or communication from the Veteran, prior to November 14, 2013, which can be construed as a claim for compensation for PTSD or mental disorders. While VA must interpret a claimant’s submissions broadly, VA is not required to conjure up issues not raised by the claimant. VA is not required to anticipate any potential claim for a particular benefit where no intention to raise it was expressed. Brannon v. West, 12 Vet. App. 32, 35 (1998); Talbert v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 352, 356-57 (1995). Second, the Veteran’s contends that she had medical treatment and hospitalizations for suicidal attempts going back to 1991 and has been treated by a private psychiatrist. Likewise, the Board has considered the Veteran’s contentions but finds them unavailing. Indeed, the Board acknowledges that medical records show the Veteran was treated for mental disorders prior to November 14, 2013. See Statement from M.S., PhD dated August 2013 indicating that the Veteran attended a drug rehabilitation treatment program of “individual therapy from 4/21/09 to 12/19/09” and signed a suicidal prevention plan. However, the mere presence of medical evidence does not establish intent on the part of the veteran to seek service connection or an entitlement to an earlier effective date. Brannon, 12 Vet. App. at 35. In other words, the effective date of service connection is not assigned based on the date the claimant asserts that the disability appeared, or on the date of the earliest medical evidence demonstrating the existence of such disability and a causal connection to service. Rather, the effective date is assigned based on the date that the application or claim upon which service connection was eventually granted was received by VA. 38 C.F.R. § 3.400. In sum, the record is absent for any documentation or written communication from the Veteran, prior to November 14, 2013, which even liberally construed could be deemed to be a claim for service connection for PTSD. Therefore, the Board observes that the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ) has assigned the earliest possible effective date for the grant of benefits, the date of receipt of the claim received by VA. Accordingly, the Board finds that the preponderance of the evidence is against the assignment of an effective date earlier than November 14, 2013 for the award of service connection for PTSD. The pertinent legal authority governing effective dates is clear and specific, and the Board is bound by such authority. Therefore, the Board concludes that the claim for an earlier effective date earlier for the grant of service connection must be denied. See 38 U.S.C. § 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.102. KELLI A. KORDICH Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board S. An, 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.