Citation Nr: 22017281 Decision Date: 03/24/22 Archive Date: 03/24/22 DOCKET NO. 17-56 558 DATE: March 24, 2022 ORDER Entitlement to an effective date prior to November 8, 2016, for the grant of service connection for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is denied. REMANDED Entitlement to a rating in excess of 70 percent disabling for service-connected PTSD is remanded. Entitlement to a total disability rating based on individual unemployability (TDIU) is remanded. FINDING OF FACT The Veteran did not file a formal or informal claim for service connection for PTSD prior to November 8, 2016. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for an effective date prior to November 8, 2016, for the grant of service connection for PTSD, have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 5101, 5110; 38 C.F.R. § 3.400. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Army from August 1969 to August 1971. This case comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal of a March 2017 rating decision by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). In October 2021, the Veteran and his spouse testified at a hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge. A transcript of this hearing has been associated with the claims file. Entitlement to an effective date prior to November 8, 2016, for the grant of service connection for PTSD is denied. Generally, the effective date of an award based on an original claim for compensation benefits, if received more than one year after the claimant's discharge from service, 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 (b)(2)(i). The effective date "shall be fixed in accordance with the facts found but shall not be earlier than the date of receipt of application therefor." 38 U.S.C. § 5110. VA is required to identify and act on informal claims for benefits. 38 U.S.C. § 5110; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.1(p), 3.155(a). However, VA is not required to anticipate any potential claim for a particular benefit where no intention to raise it was expressed. See Brannon v. West, 12 Vet. App. 32, 35 (1998) (holding that before VA can adjudicate a claim for benefits, "the claimant must submit a written document identifying the benefit and expressing some intent to seek it"). See also Talbert v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 352, 356-57 (1995). In this case, the Veteran initially submitted and notified the VA of his intent to file a claim for benefits on November 8, 2016. Thereafter, on November 15, 2016, he filed a formal claim for entitlement to service connection for PTSD. In a March 2017 rating decision, the RO granted service connection for PTSD with an effective date of November 8, 2016, the date VA received notification of the Veteran's intent to file. At his November 2021 hearing, the Veteran and his representative argued the effective date for the award of service connection for his PTSD should have been March 1997, the date of his Agent Orange Registry Examination. Initially, the Board notes that generally, medical records alone cannot constitute an initial claim for service connection; rather there must be a record showing some intent by the claimant to apply for the benefit. Criswell v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 501 (2006); Brannon v. West, 12 Vet. App. 32, 35 (1998). Upon a thorough review of the entire record, there is no reference to a claim for PTSD in any document prior to November 8, 2016; or any document that could be construed as a formal or informal claim for service connection for PTSD. Based on the foregoing, the Board finds the evidence weighs against the Veteran's claim for an effective date earlier than November 8, 2016, for the grant of service connection for PTSD. In this regard, the Board acknowledges the Veteran's contention that he was first diagnosed with PTSD by the VA in March 1997. However, there is simply no basis in the law for granting an earlier effective date on this basis. Accordingly, the claim for an effective date earlier than November 8, 2016, for the grant of service connection for PTSD is denied. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran filed an April 2017 Notice of Disagreement (NOD) in which he appealed the March 2017 rating decision and disagreed with respect to the issue of PTSD and marked "effective date of award" as the area of disagreement. In his October 2017 VA Form 9, he specified that he sought an earlier effective date for the award of service connection for PTSD and an increased rating and/or TDIU for PTSD. The Veteran has not received the benefit of a statement of the case on the issue of an increased rating for PTSD, so a remand is required for the RO to issue a statement of the case. 38 C.F.R. § 20.200; Manlincon v. West, 12 Vet. App. 238, 240-41 (1999). Finally, where a claimant, or the record, raises the question of unemployability due to the disability for which an increased rating is sought, then part of the increased rating claim is an implied claim for TDIU. Rice v. Shinseki, 22 Vet. App. 447 (2009). Here, the Board finds the issue of entitlement to TDIU was raised by the Veteran's October 2017 VA Form 9; therefore, the issue of TDIU is added to the issues on appeal. The outcome of the Veteran's claim of entitlement to a TDIU is dependent, at least in part, on the outcome of the increased rating claim. Therefore, the Board also remands this issue as inextricably intertwined with the increased rating claim on appeal. See Tyrues v. Shinseki, 23 Vet. App. 166, 177 (2009) (en banc). Accordingly, this matter is REMANDED for the following action: The RO should issue a Statement of the Case on the issues of an increased rating for PTSD and entitlement to a TDIU. The Veteran should be informed of the requirements to perfect an appeal with respect to these issues. If the Veteran perfects an appeal with respect to these issues, the RO should ensure that all indicated development is completed before the case is returned to the Board. T. REYNOLDS Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board Nestander, Jessica S. 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.