Citation Nr: 23055456 Decision Date: 10/11/23 Archive Date: 10/11/23 DOCKET NO. 19-36 296A DATE: October 11, 2023 ORDER Entitlement to an effective date of September 5, 2017, for the granting of service connection for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is granted. FINDING OF FACT The AOJ received a claim for entitlement to service connection for PTSD on September 5, 2017. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for entitlement to an effective date of June 5, 2017, for the granting of service connection for PTSD have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 5101, 5110, 7105; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.1, 3.102, 3.151, 3.155, 3.156, 3.303, 3.400. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Air Force from April 1979 to August 1984. This matter was originally appealed from a rating action by the agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ) of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). The Board would note that the appellant had originally requested that she be given the opportunity to provide testimony before the Board. She subsequently withdrew her request in September 2023 and, as such, the Board will proceed with the review of her claim for benefits. Upon review, the Veteran has not raised any issues with VA's duties to notify or assist. See Scott v. McDonald, 789 F.3d 1375, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (holding that "the Board's obligation to read filings in a liberal manner does not require the Board. . . to search the record and address procedural arguments when the veteran fails to raise them before the Board"); Dickens v. McDonald, 814 F.3d 1359, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (applying Scott to a duty to assist argument). The Board has reviewed all the evidence in the Veteran's claims file. Although the Board has an obligation to provide adequate reasons and bases supporting this decision, there is no requirement that the evidence submitted by the Veteran or obtained on her behalf be discussed in detail. Rather, the Board's analysis below will focus specifically on what evidence is needed to substantiate the claim and what the evidence in the claims file shows, or fails to show, with respect to the claim. See Gonzales v. West, 218 F.3d 1378, 1380-81 (Fed. Cir. 2000) and Timberlake v. Gober, 14 Vet. App. 122, 128-130 (2000). This former Air Force appellant has come before the Board asking that the effective date that has been assigned to her service-connected PTSD rating be assigned an earlier effective date. She, through her attorney, believes that the AOJ was provided with a request for benefits prior to the date than the one that the AOJ has recognized. She thus asks that the date be made earlier to reflect the date in which the AOJ received her claim for benefits. The record shows that service connection was granted via a Rating Decision dated May 8, 2018. A 70 percent disability evaluation was assigned in accordance with the rating criteria found at 38 C.F.R. Part 4, Diagnostic Code 9411. The effective date of the rating was determined to be January 26, 2018. In using this date, the AOJ indicated that this was date that the appellant's claim was received by the AOJ. The question then is does the evidence show that an earlier effective date should be assigned? Unless specifically provided otherwise, the effective date of an award based on an original claim, a claim reopened after final adjudication, or a claim for increase, of compensation, dependency and indemnity compensation, or pension, 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(a). The implementing regulation clarifies this to mean, except as otherwise provided, the effective date of an evaluation and award of pension, compensation, or dependency and indemnity compensation based on an initial claim or supplemental claim will be the date of receipt of the claim or the date entitlement arose, whichever is later. 38 C.F.R. § 3.400. For continuously pursued claims, except as otherwise provided by other provisions of this part, including § 3.400, the effective date will be fixed in accordance with the date of receipt of the initial claim or date entitlement arose, whichever is later, if a claimant continuously pursues an issue by timely filing in succession any of the available review options as specified in 38 C.F.R. § 3.2500(c) within one year of the issuance of the decision, provided that any appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims must be accepted as timely by that court. 38 C.F.R. § 3.2500(h)(1). Except as otherwise provided in 38 C.F.R. § 3.2500, for supplemental claims received more than one year after the date on which the AOJ issues notice of a decision or the Board issued notice of a decision, the effective date will be fixed in accordance with the date entitlement arose but will not be earlier than the date of receipt of the supplemental claim. 38 C.F.R. § 3.2500(h)(2). With respect to the claim involving PTSD, the record shows that on May 3, 2017, the AOJ wrote a letter to the appellant acknowledging that the appellant had attempted to contact the VA with the expressed interest of filing a claim for benefits. However, a review of that letter indicates that it was unclear as to what type of claim the appellant was filing therefor. Following that letter, the appellant sent VA Form 21-0781a, Statement in Support of Claim for Service Connection for Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) Secondary to Personal Assault, dated May 24, 2017, and received June 5, 2017. The AOJ acknowledged her submission and the AOJ requested support documents with respect to her claim. At the same time the appellant was pursuing her claim involving military sexual assault, she was also seeking review by the Board on separate issues. Subsequently, the claim was slowly processed and service connection was granted. In light of the processing of the claim and when claims for benefits were received by the AOJ, the earliest date for which service connection could be assigned is the date in which the AOJ received the claim, or June 5, 2017. While the Board is sympathetic to the assertions of the Veteran, the Board is bound and constrained by law, and its decision is dictated by the relevant statutes and regulations. There is no evidence of any unadjudicated formal or informal claim of service connection for PTSD prior to June 5, 2017. Thus, that date is the earliest possible effective date because that is the date of the application was received. Accordingly, an effective date of June 5, 2017, the date that the claim for benefits was received by the AOJ, for the granting of service connection for PTSD is warranted. 38 C.F.R. § 3.400. Neither the Veteran nor her appellant has raised any other issues, nor have any other issues been reasonably raised by the record. See Doucette v. Shulkin, 28 Vet. App. 366, 368 (2017) (confirming that the Board is not required to address issues unless they are specifically raised by the claimant or reasonably raised by the evidence of record). M. Mills Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board Patrick J. Costello 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.