Citation Nr: 23019199 Decision Date: 03/28/23 Archive Date: 03/28/23 DOCKET NO. 18-14 380A DATE: March 28, 2023 ORDER A rating higher than 10 percent for bilateral plantar fasciitis is dismissed. A rating higher than 40 percent for intervertebral disc syndrome (IVDS) and herniated disc currently is dismissed. Service connection for a dental condition (claimed as loss of teeth) is dismissed. FINDING OF FACT There is no specific error of fact or law alleged in the determination of the Veteran's ratings for his bilateral plantar fasciitis, IVDS, or regarding service connection for a dental condition. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for dismissal of an appeal by the Board have been met. 38 U.S.C. § 7105; 38 C.F.R. § 20.104 (2019), previously codified pre-AMA as 38 C.F.R. § 20.101 REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty from June 1988 to August 1993 and from May 1996 to November 2011. Dismissal The Board may dismiss any appeal which fails to allege specific error of fact or law in the determination being appealed. 38 U.S.C. § 7105; 38 C.F.R. § 20.104. Historically, a January 2018 rating decision increased the Veteran's ratings for his bilateral plantar fasciitis and IVDS as well as granted DEA benefits as of May 7, 2017. A concurrent SOC denied ratings higher than those assigned in the rating decision for bilateral plantar fasciitis and IVDS as well as denied service connection for a dental condition. No discussion of the Veteran's DEA benefits was undertaken in the January 2018 SOC. In March 2018, the Veteran filed a Form 9. In the March 2018 Form 9, the Veteran checked box A which stated that he was not appealing all the issues on the SOC and specifically stated the following: "I concur with findings of 100% disability; total and permanent. I simply disagree with the effective date of 5/7/17." The Veteran also stated on the Form 9 that a retroactive date for his total and permanent rating would close out his case. An October 2018 letter from VA informed the Veteran that should he wish to appeal the issues in the January 2018 rating decision, a notice of disagreement had to be filed on the proper form, which was provided to him with the January 2018 rating decision. No subsequent notice of disagreement was received by VA from the Veteran. A February 2023 informal hearing presentation (IHP) filed by the Veteran's representative also stated that the Veteran was solely seeking to appeal the May 2017 effective date. The IHP made no discussion of the ratings assigned to the Veteran's bilateral plantar fasciitis or IVDS or any argument or statement regarding the denial of service connection for the Veteran's dental condition. The sole focus of the SOC and the IHP was the effective date of May 7, 2017. Thus, the Veteran's Form 9 did not appeal the issues of his ratings for bilateral plantar fasciitis or IVDS or the denial of service connection for a dental condition. The January 2018 SOC did not discuss or identify any effective date of May 7, 2017. Further, there are no other Form 9s or other documents which could be construed as an appeal to the Board of these issues. The May 2022 Certification of Appeal, Form 8, did not certify any specific issue to the Board. As such, there has been no appeal by the Veteran of the ratings for bilateral plantar fasciitis or IVDS or the denial of service connection for a dental condition. Simply put, there has been no allegation of specific error of fact or law in the Veteran's ratings for bilateral plantar fasciitis or IVDS or in the denial of service connection for a dental condition. In so finding, the Board has considered Percy v. Shinseki, 23 Vet. App. 37 (2009), which addressed jurisdiction over untimely appeals. However, unlike the circumstances in Percy, this issue is not about a substantive appeal being inadequate or untimely. Rather, the Board is finding that no substantive appeal regarding the issues of the ratings for bilateral plantar fasciitis or IVDS or the denial of service connection for a dental condition exists. As such, the Board did not and does not have jurisdiction over these issues. The Board sincerely regrets any confusion and misunderstanding that this may cause to the Veteran. Pursuant to 38 C.F.R. § 20.104 (2019), previously codified pre-AMA as 38 C.F.R. § 20.101, regarding jurisdiction of the Board, the Board may dismiss any case of which it determines it does not have jurisdiction. Since there remains no allegation of error of fact or law for appellate consideration regarding these claims, the criteria for the dismissal of this appeal are met. 38 U.S.C. § 7105; 38 C.F.R. § 20.104. Ardie A. Bland Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board A. Parrish 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.