Citation Nr: 21040060 Decision Date: 07/02/21 Archive Date: 07/02/21 DOCKET NO. 17-62 013 DATE: July 2, 2021 ORDER Entitlement to an effective date earlier than May 31, 2016, for the grant of service connection for pseudofolliculitis barbae (PFB) with residual scarring is denied. FINDING OF FACT By a July 2017 rating decision, the RO granted service connection for PFB with an effective date of May 31, 2016; the date the Veteran's intent to file a claim was received. The evidence of record does not show an informal or formal claim was filed prior to that date, including within year of separation from service. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for entitlement to an effective date earlier than May 31, 2016, for the grant of service connection for PFB have not been met. 38 U.S.C. § 5110; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.156, 3.400. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran had active duty service in the United States Navy from August 1974 to August 1977. He testified before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge (VLJ) at a virtual hearing in May 2021. A transcript of the hearing is of record. Entitlement to an effective date earlier than May 31, 2016, for the grant of service connection for PFB. Unless specifically provided otherwise in the statute, the effective date of an award based on an original claim for compensation benefits shall be the date of receipt of the claim or the date entitlement arose, whichever is later. 38 U.S.C. § 5110(a); 38 C.F.R. § 3.400. 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. 38 U.S.C. § 5110(b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.400(b)(2). Effective March 24, 2015, a specific claim in the form prescribed by VA must be filed in order for benefits to be paid or furnished to any individual under the laws administered by VA. 38 U.S.C. § 5101(a); 38 C.F.R. § 3.151(a). Prior to March 24, 2015, any communication or action indicating an intent to apply for one or more benefits under the laws administered by VA, from a Veteran or representative, or other party, may be considered an informal claim. An informal claim must identify the benefit sought. 38 C.F.R. § 3.155. As noted above, the Veteran separated from service in August 1977. No claim, formal or informal, was received within one year of separation. Thus, under the law, the next earliest possible effective date is the date a claim was received. The Board has thoroughly reviewed the Veteran's entire claims file. The evidence does not show that he intended to file a claim for PFB prior to May 31, 2016 on a form prescribed by the Secretary. It is worth noting that prior to May 31, 2016, VA treatment records do not contain a diagnosis of PFB, nor is there evidence of any communication or action indicating an intent to file a claim for benefits for PFB. Indeed, the Veteran has not identified any legal authority for assigning an earlier effective date in this case. Instead, at his Board hearing, he acknowledged that he did not file a claim for PFB prior to May 31, 2016. The reason for this was that he did not realize he could file such a claim. He stated that he has struggled with PFB since service and the Board does not doubt this assertion. The Board is sympathetic to the Veteran's contentions. However, to the extent his request for an earlier effective date relies upon an appeal for an award on an equitable basis (i.e., a sense of fairness and just due), the Board emphasizes that it may only grant entitlement to VA benefits authorized by law. The Board does not have authority to grant benefits on an equitable basis. See 38 U.S.C. §§ 503, 7104; Harvey v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 416, 425 (1994) ("no equities, no matter how compelling, can create a right to payment out of the United States Treasury which has not been provided for by Congress." Smith (Edward F.) v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 429, 432-33 (1992) (citing Office of Personnel Management v. Richmond, 496 U.S. 414, 426 (1990)). Because there is no legally valid basis for the assignment of any effective date prior to May 31, 2016, the claim must be denied. H.M. WALKER Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board Martha R. Luboch, 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.