Citation Nr: 21026973 Decision Date: 05/04/21 Archive Date: 05/04/21 DOCKET NO. 20-26 453 DATE: May 4, 2021 ORDER 1. Entitlement to service connection for a left shoulder condition is dismissed. 2. Entitlement to service connection for a right shoulder condition is dismissed. 3. Entitlement to service connection for a neck condition is dismissed. 4. Entitlement to service connection for a skin condition is dismissed. 5. Entitlement to service connection for residuals of bronchitis is dismissed. 6. Entitlement to service connection for a respiratory condition is dismissed. 7. Entitlement to a rating in excess of 10 percent for rhinitis is dismissed. REMAND Entitlement to service connection for a heart condition is remanded. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The Veteran did not perfect an appeal as to service connection for a left shoulder condition. 2. The Veteran did not perfect an appeal as to service connection for a right shoulder condition. 3. The Veteran did not perfect an appeal as to service connection for a neck condition. 4. The Veteran did not perfect an appeal as to service connection for a skin condition. 5. The Veteran did not perfect an appeal as to service connection for chronic bronchitis. 6. The Veteran did not perfect an appeal as to service connection for a respiratory condition. 7. The Veteran did not perfect an appeal as to entitlement to a rating in excess of 10 percent for rhinitis. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The Board does not have jurisdiction to consider the claim of entitlement to service connection for a left shoulder condition. 38 U.S.C. § 7105 (a); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.2400, 19.2, 19.20, 19.21, 19.22. 2. The Board does not have jurisdiction to consider the claim of entitlement to service connection for a right shoulder condition. 38 U.S.C. § 7105 (a); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.2400, 19.2, 19.20, 19.21, 19.22. 3. The Board does not have jurisdiction to consider the claim of entitlement to service connection for a neck condition. 38 U.S.C. § 7105 (a); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.2400, 19.2, 19.20, 19.21, 19.22. 4. The Board does not have jurisdiction to consider the claim of entitlement to service connection for a skin condition. 38 U.S.C. § 7105 (a); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.2400, 19.2, 19.20, 19.21, 19.22. 5. The Board does not have jurisdiction to consider the claim of entitlement to service connection for chronic bronchitis. 38 U.S.C. § 7105 (a); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.2400, 19.2, 19.20, 19.21, 19.22. 6. The Board does not have jurisdiction to consider the claim of entitlement to service connection for a respiratory condition. 38 U.S.C. § 7105 (a); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.2400, 19.2, 19.20, 19.21, 19.22. 7. The Board does not have jurisdiction to consider the claim of entitlement to a rating in excess of 10 percent for rhinitis. 38 U.S.C. § 7105 (a); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.2400, 19.2, 19.20, 19.21, 19.22. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The Veteran served in the United States Navy from September 1963 to December 1970, from March 1977 to March 1983, and from August 1985 to February 1990. 1. Entitlement to service connection for a left shoulder condition. 2. Entitlement to service connection for a right shoulder condition. 3. Entitlement to service connection for a neck condition. 4. Entitlement to service connection for a skin condition. 5. Entitlement to service connection for residuals of bronchitis. 6. Entitlement to service connection for a respiratory condition. 7. Entitlement to a rating in excess of 10 percent for rhinitis. In December 2020, the Veteran's representative submitted an appellate brief in which entitlement to service connection for a left shoulder condition, right shoulder condition, neck condition, skin condition, bronchitis and a respiratory condition was claimed, in addition to a rating in excess of 10 percent for rhinitis. In this brief, the Veteran's representative stated that in June 2020, the Veteran's appeals were perfected. See December 2020 Appellate Brief, p. 2. However, the June 2020 VA Form 9 identified in the Veteran's appellant brief only appealed the issue of service connection for a heart condition, by stating that he was only appealing that one specific issue. See June 2020 Form 9. In the absence of a VA Form 9 signed by the Veteran or a duly appointed representative, the Board's jurisdiction is not established. A valid substantive appeal (VA Form 9 or written equivalent) was not received in response to the April 2020 Statement of the Case in reference to these issues. Accordingly, the appeals are dismissed. REASONS FOR REMAND Entitlement to service connection for a heart condition. In the present case, the Veteran claims to suffer from tachycardia, defined as a heart rate over 100 beats per minute, hereafter referred to as a heart condition. A review of the Veteran's medical records does not show any complaint, treatment, or diagnosis for tachycardia. To the contrary, in September 2006, May 2007, October 2008, and December 2018, July 2019 VA treatment records note the Veteran's heart rate was found to be normal. Likewise, the Veteran was afforded a VA examination in February 2018. The VA examiner found that the Veteran did not suffer from tachycardia and opined that there was no nexus, as the Veteran did not suffer from a current disability. However, the Board finds the February 2018 VA opinion to be inadequate, as the Veteran had a current diagnosis of coronary artery disease, which was diagnosed by the VA examiner. The Board finds that the Veteran is not expected to diagnose himself and VA should have interpreted the Veteran's claim broadly as a claim for all heart conditions. See generally Clemons v. Shinseki, 23 Vet. App. 1, 5 (2009) (a veteran is not expected to identify the precise nature of a disability when applying for benefits). As such, a new VA opinion is warranted to opine as to whether the Veteran's coronary artery disease is as likely as not due to his military service. The matter is REMANDED for the following action: Obtain an addendum medical opinion from an appropriate examiner to opine whether it is at least as likely as not (50 percent probability or greater) that the Veteran's coronary artery disease was incurred in, caused by, or otherwise etiologically related to the Veteran's military service. The examiner should review the Veteran's service treatment records, noting complaints of heart problems; medical treatment records; and the February 2018 and February 2020 VA examination reports. Any findings should be accompanied by a rationale, explaining how the examiner reached the conclusion(s). If such a determination cannot be made, the examiner should explain why. A. J. Spector Acting Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board P. Abels, 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.