Citation Nr: 21025992 Decision Date: 04/29/21 Archive Date: 04/29/21 DOCKET NO. 16-19 502A DATE: April 29, 2021 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for urinary incontinence is dismissed. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. An October 2020 rating decision granted service connection for urinary incontinence. 2. The Veteran has not initiated an appeal of the downstream elements of the assigned rating or effective date for urinary incontinence. CONCLUSION OF LAW As the appeal regarding entitlement to service connection for urinary incontinence has been granted in full, there is no case or controversy remaining before the Board. 38 U.S.C. § 7105(2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.2500, 20.202 (2020). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty from June 2006 to August 2010. 1. Entitlement to service connection for urinary incontinence As background, in June 2014, a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) issued a rating decision which adjudicated 14 issues. In a June 2015 notice of disagreement (NOD), the Veteran indicated disagreement with the denials of service connection for urinary frequency, migraines, irritable bowel syndrome (IBS), and gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). Pertinent to migraines, during the appeal, in an April 2018 rating decision, the RO granted service connection for migraine headaches. The Board finds that this grant constitutes a full award of the benefit sought on appeal with respect to this issue. See Grantham v. Brown, 114 F. 3d 156, 1158 (Fed. Cir. 1997). The record contains no indication that the Veteran has appealed the downstream elements of assigned rating or effective date; thus, this matter is not in appellate status. As for urinary infrequency, IBS, and GERD, in a September 2018 decision, the Board denied service connection for IBS and GERD. The claim for urinary incontinence was remanded for a VA opinion. As such, the only claim remaining on appeal was entitlement to service connection for urinary incontinence. A medical opinion was obtained in October 2020 and in an October 2020 rating decision the RO granted service connection for urinary incontinence and assigned staged ratings. To date, the Veteran has not elected a review option and filed an appropriate NOD form. Accordingly, the Board finds that the grant of service connection constitutes a full award of the benefit sought on appeal and this issue is not presently before the Board. See Grantham, 114 F. 3d at 1158-59 (indicating a veteran had to separately appeal these “downstream” issues regarding the ratings and effective dates assigned once this disability was granted service connection). Within one year from the date on which an agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ) issues a notice of a decision on a claim or issue, except as otherwise provided in paragraphs (c), (e), and (f) of section 3.2500, a claimant may elect one of the following administrative review options by timely filing the appropriate form prescribed by the Secretary: (i) a request for higher level review under §3.2601; or (ii) an appeal to the Board under § 20.202. At any time after VA issues a notice of a decision on an issue within a claim, a claimant may file a supplemental claim under § 3.2501. 38 C.F.R. § 3.2500(a). In this case, in a December 2020 appellate brief, the Veteran’s representative requested a 60 percent for urinary incontinence. However, a form indicating disagreement with the assigned rating has not been filed. To this regard, in an October 2020 letter, the Veteran was notified of the decision that granted service connection for urinary incontinence and assigned applicable ratings and effective dates, and his appellate rights, but to date he has not submitted an appropriate form indicating disagreement with this decision. Because the Veteran has not perfected an appeal of the urinary incontinence rating, there are no claims properly before the Board. 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.2500, 20.202. In short, the benefit being sought, service connection for urinary incontinence, has already been awarded. If the Veteran disagrees with the disability rating or effective date assigned, the instructions for seeking review were included in the October 23, 2020 notification letter and he has one year from that date to select a review option. As the benefit being sought has already been awarded, the appeal is dismissed as a matter of law. M. Donohue Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board Amanda Baker, 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.