Citation Nr: 22045100 Decision Date: 08/09/22 Archive Date: 08/09/22 DOCKET NO. 19-38 154 DATE: August 9, 2022 ORDER Entitlement to an effective date of August 31, 1993, but no earlier, for the grant of service connection for schizophrenia is granted. FINDING OF FACT The July 1995 written communication constituted an informal notice of disagreement to the February 1995 rating decision denying service connection for a nervous disorder (later claimed as schizophrenia); as such, the February 1995 rating decision did not become final. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for an effective date of August 31, 1993, for the grant of service connection for schizophrenia have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 5107, 5110; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.400. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty in the Army from April 1969 to June 1970. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a February 2018 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ). The Veteran seeks an earlier effective date for the award of service connection for his now service-connected schizophrenia. Following a review of the pertinent evidence of record, the Board finds that a grant is warranted. By way of brief history, the Veteran initially filed his claim for a psychiatric disorder in March 1971, with subsequent requests for reopening; final rating decisions were issued in December 1972, May 1975, October 1978, and November 1990. In August 1993 the Veteran again filed a claim for a psychiatric disorder again; was denied in a February 1995 rating decision; and submitted three letters to VA in June of 1995 (although dated July 1995) stating his disagreement with a rating decision. A rating decision was issued in October 1995 denying the claim. In March 1997 the Veteran submitted a Notice of Disagreement, however, the Veteran was notified in June 1997 that his Notice of Disagreement was invalid as it was untimely. In April 2012, the Veteran again filed a claim for his psychiatric disorder, which was ultimately granted by the Board in November 2017 and implemented by the AOJ the next month, awarding a 10 percent rating with an effective date of April 23, 2012. In February 2018 a VA examination was obtained and a rating decision was issued later that month increasing the evaluation from 10 percent to 50 percent, effective February 20, 2018. The Veteran appealed. In September 2020, the Board denied entitlement to an effective date earlier than April 23, 2012, for the award of service connection for schizophrenia, and remanded the issues of entitlement to an initial disability rating in excess of 10 percent for service-connected schizophrenia prior to February 20, 2018, and a disability rating in excess of 50 percent thereafter, and also remanded the claim for entitlement to TDIU. The Veteran appealed the Board's denial of an effective date earlier than April 23, 2012, for the award of service connection for schizophrenia to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court). The Board notes that as the remanded issues are in a different appeal stream; thus, they will be addressed in a separate Board decision. In February 2022, the Court, in a Memorandum Decision, reversed the Board's September 2020 decision and remanded the case for readjudication in compliance with directives specified in its Memorandum Decision. In relevant part, the Court determined that the Board erroneously concluded that the February 1995 rating decision had become final because the Veteran's July 1995 correspondence was not a Notice of Disagreement. Instead, the Court held the Veteran demonstrated an error of law because the Board erred when it concluded that a July 1995 letter submitted by the Veteran was not a valid Notice of Disagreement. The timeliness of the July 1995 letter to the February 1995 Notice of Disagreement is not in dispute. The Court also determined the Veteran's August 1993 request to reopen his nervous disorder claim remained pending in appellate status at the time of the later November 2017 Board decision (and implemented via a December 2017 rating decision), which ultimately granted service connection for schizophrenia. The Court remanded the matter back to the Board for the assignment of an appropriate effective date that is consistent with the Court's analysis. As noted above, the Veteran was awarded service connection in a November 2017 Board decision for schizophrenia, effective from the April 23, 2012, date of claim. See VA Form 21-4138. At the time of the November 2017 Board decision awarding service connection, the Veteran had a pending appeal seeking service connection for a psychiatric disorder. On August 31, 1993, the Veteran filed his claim for service connection for a nervous condition. See VA Form 21-4138. His claim was denied in a February 1995 rating decision. In June 1995, the Veteran filed a statement dated July 1995 that the Court has determined constituted a valid Notice of Disagreement with respect to the February 1995 denial. 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). Here, the Veteran filed his claim of reopening for service connection for psychiatric disability on August 31, 1993, more than one year after his discharge from service. Therefore, in light of the Court's determination the Veteran's August 31, 1993 claim remained pending at the time of the award of service connection, the Board finds that an effective date of August 31, 1993 is warranted for the award of service connection for schizophrenia. A. Snoparsky Acting Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board J. J. Rogers, 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.