Citation Nr: A25108564 Decision Date: 12/16/25 Archive Date: 12/16/25 DOCKET NO. 250120-510437 DATE: December 16, 2025 ISSUE Entitlement to an effective date prior to November 6, 2024 for the grant of service connection for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). ORDER Entitlement to an effective date of December 5, 2023, but no earlier, for the grant of service connection for PTSD is granted. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. Affording the benefit of the doubt to the Veteran, entitlement arose for his diagnosed PTSD on or before December 5, 2023, the initial date of claim. 2. The Veteran's earlier effective date claim has been continuously pursued from the December 5, 2023 initial date of claim. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for entitlement to an effective date of December 5, 2023, but no earlier, for the grant of service connection for PTSD have been met or approximated. 38 U.S.C. §5110 ; 38 C.F.R. §§3.114, 3.400, 3.2500. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty from June 1970 to April 1973 and from January 1979 to November 1988. This case comes before the Board from an appeal of a January 2025 rating decision by a Department of Veteran's Affairs (VA) Regional office (RO), which is the agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ). By way of background, following a January 2024 rating decision in which the AOJ denied entitlement to service connection for PTSD, an April 2024 supplemental claim, a July 2024 supplemental claim rating decision and an August 2024 Higher-Level Review (HLR) request, and a September 2024 HLR rating decision finding a duty to assist error, in a subsequent November 2024 rating decision the AOJ granted service connection for PTSD, 30 percent disabling, effective November 6, 2024. Following a December 2024 HLR request regarding the effective date assigned, in a January 2025 HLR rating decision the AOJ denied an earlier effective date. The Veteran then timely filed a January 2025 VA Form 10182, Decision Review Request: Board Appeal, Notice of Disagreement (VA Form 10182), selecting the Direct Review docket. Because the Veteran selected the Direct Review docket, the Board may only consider the evidence of record at the time of the November 2024 rating decision. 38 C.F.R. § 20.301. Any evidence submitted after the AOJ decision on appeal cannot be considered by the Board. 38 C.F.R. §§ 20.300, 20.301, 20.801. If the Veteran would like VA to consider any evidence that was submitted that the Board could not consider, the Veteran may file a supplemental claim and submit or identify this evidence. 38 C.F.R. § 3.2501. If the evidence is new and relevant, VA will issue another decision on the claim, considering the new evidence in addition to the evidence previously considered. Id. Specific instructions for filing a Supplemental Claim are included with this decision. The Board makes note that the denial of due process may include issuing a Board decision prior to the expiration of the time period allowed for a Veteran to request a docket change. See Williams v. McDonough, 37 Vet. App. 305 (2024). In this case, however, the Veteran has specifically requested an effective date of December 5, 2023, for the grant of service connection for PTSD. See January 2025 VA Form 10182. As the Board is able to grant the specifically requested relief as discussed below, the Veteran's due process rights are not adversely affected by Board adjudication prior to the end of the period in which to request a docket change. Additionally of note, the Veteran's attorney requested expedited adjudication at least in part due to the Veteran's age. Entitlement to an effective date prior to November 6, 2024 for the grant of service connection for PTSD. The Veteran claims an effective date prior to November 6, 2024 for the grant of service connection for PTSD. Specifically, he claims the appropriate effective date is December 5, 2023, the initial date of claim, from which he contends his claim has been continuously pursued. See January 2025 VA Form 10182. To that end, generally, the effective date of a service connection award based on an initial or supplemental claim for compensation benefits made more than one year following separation from service is the date of receipt of the claim or the date entitlement arose, whichever is later. Where a claim has been finally adjudicated and then reopened or readjudicated at a later date, the effective date of any subsequent award is the date of receipt of the new claim or the date entitlement arose, whichever is later. 38 U.S.C. § 5110; 38 C.F.R. § 3.400. As to the phrase "date entitlement arose," there is no regulatory definition. However, in Wright v. Gober, 10 Vet. App. 343 (1997), the phrase "date entitlement arose" was found to be similar to the phrase "facts found." Wright, along with the regulatory context, strongly suggest that the "date entitlement arose" is the date on which the facts in the case demonstrate that the entitling criteria are first met. The entitling criteria for a claim are frequently met on or before the date of claim based on the lay, medical, and other information presented during the entire process of claim development. Under the modernized appeal system (AMA), an effective date can be preserved if the claim is continuously pursued by filing an appropriate administrative review option to an AMA decision, generally within one year from when the decision was issued. 38 C.F.R. § 3.2500. If an AMA claim is continuously pursued, it will be considered filed as of the date of the first claim in the continuously pursued chain, not the date the most recent request for review was received. 38 C.F.R. § 3.2500. Per the above, then, the question(s) before the Board, as it pertains to whether the Veteran is entitled to an effective date prior to November 6, 2024 for his service-connected PTSD, is when that entitlement arose, the proper date of claim, and ultimately the appropriate effective date. Date Entitlement Arose For initial calibration, the Board notes that the AOJ assigned an effective date of November 6, 2024, the date of the second VA examination undertaken, in which the Veteran was diagnosed with PTSD. In the first VA PTSD examination, in December 2023, the examiner noted the Veteran's statements, including that he faced rocket attacks by the North Vietnamese, and opined that the stressor, related to the Veteran's fear of hostile military or terrorist activity, was adequate to support the diagnosis of PTSD. However, the examiner also opined that the Veteran did not have a current diagnosis of PTSD or any other mental disorder, noting that the Veteran denied any significant mental health problems, had not received any mental health treatment, taken any psychotropics, and denied current suicidal ideation, intent or plan. Additionally, the Veteran denied any significant legal or behavioral history. The Board affords this VA examination probative value to the extent that the examiner provided an assessment of the Veteran's mental health history and current condition, but notes that the rather perfunctory notation that the Veteran denied any significant current or past mental health problems lies in great contrast with Veteran statements just months later as well as the November 2024 VA PTSD examination, both discussed below. To that point, in the ensuing April 2024 signed affidavit the Veteran reiterated his experiences while deployed to Vietnam, including facing frequent rocket attacks. He also shared that he experiences vivid nightmares including about Vietnam, has trouble sleeping at night, kept up with worry, has memory loss, and a lack of motivation. He also reported that he often walks outside in his yard with a pistol due to concerns about safety. The Board finds the Veteran competent to report on his experiences and symptoms, and credible, particularly given that his military record, including his military occupational specialty (MOS) of aircraft rotor and propellor mechanic and aircraft engine mechanic, and awards of the Vietnam Service Medal with 2 Bronze Stars, the Vietnam Campaign Medal, and the Vietnam Cross of Gallantry with Palm, all support and help corroborate his statements regarding his active duty experiences. See DD-214. In the aforementioned November 2024 VA PTSD examination, a different examiner noted review of the Veteran's December 2023 Statement in Support of Claim for PTSD (stressors) and April 2024 affidavit, and that the prior December 2023 examiner had determined that the Veteran had no mental health diagnosis or symptoms. The examiner also noted that the Veteran reported that he had never received any behavioral health treatment because over time he hoped he would "forget it," but over the years it had gotten worse, and that his wife had been pushing him to get treatment. As to what was getting worse, the Veteran reported he was "staying awake more at night" than in the past, sometimes felt jittery and scared, and had "strange dreams" of violence or being threatened, often waking up startled and nervous. And although the Veteran had previously reported no legal issues, he did report that the police had come to his house to tell him he was not allowed to shoot [a gun] on his property. Ultimately, the examiner diagnosed the Veteran with PTSD related to his in-service stressor, with symptoms including depressed mood, anxiety, suspiciousness, panic attacks that occur weekly or less often, and chronic sleep impairment, noting that the Veteran's April 2024 statement was consistent with the findings on the day of the present examination. The Board affords this VA examination probative value in that the examiner provided an in-depth disability picture of the Veteran's diagnosed PTSD while noting the Veteran's consistent statements regarding his specific symptoms, and that the Veteran reported that the symptoms had continued to worsen over the years. Given the above, that is, the December 2023 VA examiner's perfunctory notation that the Veteran denied any significant current or past mental health problems, the Veteran's statements describing his symptoms and that they had worsened over the years, and the November 2024 VA examiner's diagnosis of PTSD and opinion that the Veteran's past statements were consistent with the findings on the day of the examination, the Board finds that the evidence is in at least approximate balance that entitlement arose for the Veteran's PTSD prior to November 6, 2024. Further, given the close temporal proximity of the initial claim, the Veteran's statements, and the diagnosis of PTSD, all within under a one-year span, the Board simply cannot conclude to the requisite degree that entitlement did not arise for the Veteran's PTSD on or before the Veteran submitted his December 5, 2023 initial claim. Said another way, based upon a longitudinal view of the disability picture of the Veteran's PTSD, the Board cannot conclude to the requisite degree that his PTSD was not manifest to a dispositive and compensable degree on the date of his claim. Therefore, affording the Veteran any benefit of the doubt, the Board finds that entitlement arose for the Veteran's PTSD on or before December 5, 2023. See 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303(a), 3.309; Lynch v. McDonough, 21 F.4th 776, 781-82 (2021). Thus, for purposes here, the date entitlement arose was no later than December 5, 2023. § 5110; 38 C.F.R. § 3.400. Date of Claim As noted, the Veteran filed an initial claim for entitlement to service connection for PTSD on December 5, 2023. Following the January 2024 rating decision in which the AOJ denied the claim, within a year the Veteran filed an April 2024 supplemental claim. Following a July 2024 rating decision in which the AOJ again denied the claim, within a year the Veteran filed an August 2024 HLR request. Following a November 2024 rating decision in which the AOJ granted service connection for PTSD, within a year the Veteran filed a December 2024 HLR request, appealing the assigned effective date of November 6, 2024. Following a January 2025 HLR rating decision in which the AOJ denied an earlier effective date, within a year the Veteran filed a January 2025 VA Form 10182. As the Veteran's supplemental claim, HLR requests, and VA Form 10182 filing were all within a year of applicable AOJ rating decisions, his effective date claim was continuously pursued from that December 5, 2023 initial claim, which is thus the proper date of the receipt of the claim. Effective Date As noted above, the effective date of a service connection award based on an initial or supplemental claim for compensation benefits made more than one year following separation from service is the date of receipt of the claim or the date entitlement arose, whichever is later. 38 U.S.C. § 5110; 38 C.F.R. § 3.400. As such, as the date entitlement arose is no later than December 5, 2023, and December 5, 2023 is the date of receipt of the claim, the appropriate effective date under 38 U.S.C. § 5110 and 38 C.F.R. § 3.400 is necessarily December 5, 2023. Therefore, the Board finds that the evidence of record persuasively supports an effective date of December 5, 2023, but no earlier, for entitlement to service connection for PTSD, and it is so granted. (Continued on next page.) Finally, in that the Veteran, through his attorney, specifically requested an effective date of December 5, 2023, this decision represents a full grant of the benefit sought. See January 2025 VA Form 10182. Michael A. Pappas Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board Matthew Leahy, 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.