Citation Nr: 21039904 Decision Date: 07/01/21 Archive Date: 07/01/21 DOCKET NO. 18-28 817 DATE: July 1, 2021 ORDER Entitlement to an effective date earlier than March 18, 2016 for the grant of service connection for pseudofolliculitis barbae is denied. REMANDED Entitlement to an initial compensable rating for the pseudofolliculitis barbae is remanded. FINDING OF FACT The Veteran did not file a claim of entitlement to service connection for pseudofolliculitis barbae or for any other skin condition until March 18, 2016, which was not within a year of his discharge from service. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria are not met for an effective date earlier than March 18, 2016 for the grant of service connection for pseudofolliculitis barbae. 38 U.S.C. §§ 5101(a), 5110; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.1(p), 3.151(a), 3.155; 3.400, 3.816. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty from August 1967 to June 1973. This appeal to the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) is from a December 2016 rating decision of a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). The Veteran testified in support of these claims during a hearing in May 2021 before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge (VLJ) of the Board. A transcript of the hearing is of record. Entitlement to an effective date earlier than March 18, 2016 for the grant of service connection for pseudofolliculitis barbae (ingrown hairs) The Veteran contends that he is entitled to an effective date earlier than March 18, 2016 for the grant of service connection for pseudofolliculitis barbae because he had symptoms of this condition well prior to that date, starting during his service. While testifying during his recent hearing before this Board, he added that he even was discharged from the military (so forced to stop serving) because of this condition since he was a Marine and not shaving was not permissible, and he could not do since it caused a flare up of this condition. The first thing worth pointing out in response to this argument, however, is that the effective date for an award of service connection is not generally predicated on the date of medical or other evidence showing or suggesting the Veteran had the condition at issue or even commonly associated symptoms, instead, it is based on when he actually filed a claim for the condition. In other words, in the absence of a sufficient manifestation of an intent to apply for benefits for a particular disease or injury, a document providing medical information in and of itself is not an informal claim for VA benefits. See Ellington v. Nicholson, 22 Vet. App. 141 (2007). The Veteran readily conceded during his hearing that he did not first file a claim for service connection for this condition until March 18, 2016, but, as justification, he explained that he did not know he could file a claim for this condition when he got out of service. The general rule for an effective date for service connection provides that, if a claim for disability compensation is received within one year after separation from service, the effective date of entitlement will be either the day following separation from service or the date entitlement arose. 38 U.S.C. § 5110(b)(1). Here, there is no contention that a claim for this skin condition was received within a year of the Veteran's separation from service in June 1973, so by June 1974. 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). 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); Brannon v. West, 12 Vet. App. 32, 34-5 (1998). Any communication indicating an intent to apply for a benefit under the laws administered by 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). 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). Consider also however that, effective March 24, 2015, VA amended its regulations to require that all claims governed by VA's adjudication regulations be filed on a standard form. The amendments implement the concept of an intent to file a claim for benefits, which operates similarly to the informal claim process, but requires that the submission establishing a claimant's effective date of benefits must be received in one of three specified formats. The amendments also eliminated the constructive receipt of VA reports of hospitalization or examination and other medical records as informal claims under 38 C.F.R. § 3.157. See 79 Fed. Reg. 57660 (Sept. 25, 2014). In this case at hand, a review of the record on appeal shows that on March 18, 2016, the Veteran submitted a VA Form 21-526EZ, Application for Disability Compensation and Related Compensation Benefits. On this form, he indicated that he was claiming entitlement to service connection for pseudofolliculitis barbae. He had not submitted an earlier intent to file a claim, so March 18, 2016 was his initial claim for this skin condition. Even if, as he testified, the Veteran simply did not know that he could file a VA claim for this condition prior to March 18, 2016, does not provide legal grounds for granting an earlier effective date in this instance. A claim for an earlier effective date in this circumstance amounts to a "freestanding" claim, which is not permitted. See Rudd v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 296 (2006). As such, the Board finds no legal basis for an effective date earlier than March 18, 2016 for the grant of service connection for pseudofolliculitis barbae, so this claim must be denied as a matter of law. See Sabonis v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 426, 430 (1994). REASONS FOR REMAND Entitlement to an initial compensable rating for the pseudofolliculitis barbae is remanded. The Veteran originally underwent a VA skin examination in November 2016. The examiner observed the Veteran had no scarring on his face, head, or neck. However, during his more recent May 2021 hearing before this Board, the Veteran testified that, when he used to shave, he got the ingrown hairs, and they were painful and consequently uncomfortable, so his wife had to pick them out. Indeed, he added, the eruptions also scarred his face and involve large nodules, so he has stopped shaving. Sometimes, the nodules would get infected and cause a rash, which he would treat with hot compresses. His wife said she is allergic to his facial hair, further complicating this medical issue. That November 2016 VA examination was nearly 5 years ago, and the Veteran's and his wife's testimony during the more recent hearing, under oath, of worsening symptoms during the several years since that examination is reason enough to have him reexamined to reassess the severity of this service-connected skin condition. See Palczewski v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 174, 181-82 (2007). Accordingly, this claim is REMANDED for the following action: 1. If there are outstanding records concerning this remaining claim for a higher (compensable) rating for the pseudofolliculitis barbae, obtain them and appropriately notify the Veteran if unable to obtain any additional records that he identifies with the required amount of information. 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(c) and (e). 2. After receiving all additional treatment or other relevant records, schedule the Veteran for an examination by an appropriate clinician to reassess the severity of his service-connected pseudofolliculitis barbae. The examiner should provide a full description of this skin condition and report all signs and symptoms necessary for evaluating it under the applicable rating criteria. *To this end, the examiner is asked to indicate whether there is any scarring on the Veteran's head, face or neck owing to his pseudofolliculitis barbae and, if there is, describe it in terms of size and configuration, number of scars, whether they are superficial versus deep, etc. *Also since skin conditions, by their very nature, tend to wax and wane, so sometimes are more prevalent or apparent than others, if possible the examination should be scheduled during an active stage of the disease to give the best indication of this condition's severity. See, e.g., Ardison v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 405, 408 (1994). KEITH W. ALLEN Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board K. Pak 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.