Citation Nr: 21013209 Decision Date: 07/12/21 Archive Date: 07/12/21 DOCKET NO. 15-43 391 DATE: July 12, 2021 ORDER Entitlement to an effective date prior to June 30, 2014 for service connection for a lumbosacral spine disability is denied. FINDING OF FACT The earliest effective date entitlement to service connection for a lumbosacral spine disability arose was June 30, 2014, the earliest date a claim for benefits was received. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for an effective date prior to June 30, 2014 for service connection for a lumbosacral spine disability have not been met. 38 U.S.C. § 5110 (b)(2) (2012); 38 C.F.R. § 3.400 (o) (2020). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Army from December 2004 to December 2005 and from August 2011 to September 2012, to include service in Kuwait/Iraq. He also had service in the Army National Guard, to include a period of initial active duty for training from August 1999 to April 2000. This matter comes to the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from an April 2015 rating decision issued by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). This matter was previously before the Board and remanded in July 2019. The Board finds that there has been substantial compliance with those remand directives. See Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268, 271 (1998) (holding that a remand by the Board confers upon the Veteran, as a matter of law, the right to compliance with its remand instructions, and imposes upon VA a concomitant duty to insure compliance with the terms of the remand); see also D'Aries v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 97, 105 (2008) (holding that only substantial rather than strict compliance with the Board's remand directives is required under Stegall). An effective date prior to June 30, 2014 for service connection for a lumbosacral spine disability Legal Criteria The effective date of an award of disability compensation shall be the day following separation from service or the date entitlement arose if the claim is received within one year of separation, otherwise the date of claim or the date entitlement arose, whichever is later. 38U.S.C. §5110 (b); 38C.F.R. §3.400 (b)(2) (emphasis added). The only exception to this rule is if an increase is "factually ascertainable" within the year preceding the claim. See Gaston v. Shinseki, 605 F.3d 979 (2010). A specific claim in the form prescribed by the Secretary of VA must be filed in order for benefits to be paid to any individual under the laws administered by the VA. 38 U.S.C. § 5101 (a) (2012). A "claim" is defined broadly to include 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) (2019); Brannon v. West, 12 Vet. App. 32, 34-5 (1998); Servello v. Derwinski, 3 Vet. App. 196, 199 (1992). Any communication indicating an intent to apply for a benefit under the laws administered by the VA may be considered an informal claim provided it identifies, but not necessarily with specificity, the benefit sought. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.155 (a) (2019); Servello, 3 Vet. App. at 199 (holding that 38 C.F.R. § 3.155 (a) does not contain the word "specifically," and that making such precision a prerequisite to acceptance of a communication as an informal claim would contravene the Court's precedents and public policies underlying the statutory scheme). To determine when a claim was received, the Board must review all communications in the claims file that may be construed as an application or claim. See Quarles v. Derwinski, 3 Vet. App. 129, 134 (1992). Factual Background & Analysis The Veteran contends that an effective date prior to June 30, 2014 is warranted for service connection for his lumbosacral spine disability. As an initial matter, the claims file reflects that June 30, 2014 is the earliest date of receipt of a formal claim for service connection. See June 30, 2014 Fully Developed Claim (VA Form 21-526EZ). There is no evidence of formal claims for service connection prior to this submission. The Veteran stated in the April 2015 Notice of Disagreement (NOD) that his effective date for service connection should date back to 2006 when he annotated his military separation paperwork to reflect a lumbosacral spine disability. He stated that he would have filed a claim for compensation sooner had he known the procedures for doing so. VA adjudicators cannot troll through medical records searching for possible eligibility for service connection claims. See MacPhee v. Nicholson, 459 F.3d 1323, 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2006); see also MacPhee v. Nicholson, 459 F.3d 1323, 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (explaining that medical evidence reflecting treatment for and diagnosis of a condition does not constitute, by itself, an informal original claim for compensation under 38 C.F.R. § 3.155 (a), because the mere presence of the medical evidence does not establish an intent on the part of the veteran to seek service connection for that condition. Rather, VA adjudicators review claims that are filed.) Consequently, the presence of medical records which predate the Veteran's formal claim for service connection does not amount to an informal claim which can establish and earlier effective date for the grant of service connection sought on appeal. In this case, there is no indication of any claim for any disability prior to June 2014. The Board sympathizes with the Veteran's contentions but unfortunately the regulations governing effective dates for service connection are unambiguous. In this case, the current effective date is appropriately the date the Veteran's formal claim for service connection was received and entitlement to an earlier effective date for the grant of service connection for a lumbosacral spine disability is not warranted. 38 C.F.R. § 3.400 (2020). Jennifer White Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board Kyle McKone 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.