Citation Nr: A21008374 Decision Date: 04/26/21 Archive Date: 04/26/21 DOCKET NO. 190528-19789 DATE: April 26, 2021 ORDER The appeal with respect to entitlement to compensation under 38 U.S.C. § 1151 for throat damage is dismissed. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The legacy rating decision underlying the present appeal was issued on February 6, 2019, and a notification letter was sent on February 14, 2019. 2. In May 2019, the Veteran attempted to initiate an appeal of the February 2019 rating decision by filing a VA Form 10182; no VA Form 21-0958 has been received. CONCLUSION OF LAW The Board does not have jurisdiction to consider the merits of this appeal at the present time. 38 U.S.C. § 7105; 38 C.F.R. §§ 20.200, 20.201 (2018); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.2400, 19.2, 19.20, 19.21, 20.202 (2019). 3.2400. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty from July 1976 to November 1977 and from February 1982 to March 1982. This matter comes to the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) from a February 2019 rating decision issued by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office. In November 2020, the Veteran testified at a hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge (VLJ). The appeal with respect to entitlement to compensation under 38 U.S.C. § 1151 for throat damage is dismissed. Generally, VA will only accept a notice of disagreement with an adjudicative determination by an agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ) if it is submitted on a standardized form provided by VA for the purpose of appealing the decision. See 38 C.F.R. § 20.201 (redesignated § 19.21 effective February 19, 2019). The regulations provide that VA will not accept a notice of disagreement to an adjudicative determination that is submitted in any other format, including on a different VA form. Id. The Appeals Modernization Act (AMA) applies to all claims for which VA issues notice of an initial decision on or after the effective date of the AMA, which is February 19, 2019. See 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.2400, 19.2. The AMA also applies where a claimant has elected review of a legacy claim by opting into the AMA under RAMP or by electing to proceed under the AMA after the issuance of a statement of the case. 38 C.F.R. § 3.2400 (c)(1). As with legacy appeals, the regulations applicable to the AMA clearly provide that VA will not accept as a notice of disagreement a desire to contest the adjudicative determination that is submitted in any other format. See 38 C.F.R. § 20.202 (e) (effective February 19, 2019). In short, there are different notice of disagreement forms for legacy appeals and AMA appeals, and the regulations require that the correct form be utilized by the claimant. In the present case, the legacy rating decision on appeal was issued on February 6, 2019, with a notification letter sent on February 14, 2019. The notification letter was sent prior to the effective date of the AMA (February 19, 2019). As such, the initial AOJ determination was a legacy decision and the VA Form 21-0958 is the proper form on which to initiate an appeal in the legacy system. In that vein, the February 2019 notification letter informed the Veteran that he could appeal the adverse decision by submitting a VA Form 21-0958. In a March 2019 letter, the AOJ sent the Veteran a letter enclosing the proper appeal form, a VA Form 21-0958. In May 2019, the Veteran filed a VA Form 10182 Decision Review Request, which is a form used to initiate an appeal to the Board under the AMA. In doing so, he requested a hearing with a VLJ. In a June 2019 correspondence, the AOJ notified the Veteran that VA regulations require he file his disagreement with the decision regarding throat damage on the proper form. In August 2019, the Board improperly docketed the Veteran’s appeal and a hearing was held in November 2020. However, as noted above, a VA Form 10182 is not the proper form with which a legacy appeal may be initiated. Rather, the proper form is VA Form 21-0958. Because the proper form was not submitted, the Board does not have jurisdiction to consider the merits of this appeal at the present time. This claim is not valid under the AMA system. While the Board sincerely regrets the error in improperly docketing the appeal, the AMA appeal must be dismissed. D. JOHNSON Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board K. Vuong, 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.