Citation Nr: 25005358 Decision Date: 04/21/25 Archive Date: 04/21/25 DOCKET NO. 24-00 149 DATE: April 21, 2025 ORDER Entitlement to an effective date of November 29, 2017, for the award of service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder is granted. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. VA received the Veteran's initial claim seeking service connection for a mental health disorder on November 29, 2017. 2. By rating decision dated in February 2018, service connection for a mental health disorder, major depressive disorder with alcohol abuse, was denied. Notice of the decision was issued in March 2018. 3. In February 2019, VA received the Veteran's RAMP Selection Form, disagreeing with the denial of service connection for a mental disorder, MDD with alcohol abuse. 4. On February 19, 2021, VA received the Veteran's Supplemental Claim, seeking service connection for PTSD. 5. By rating decision dated in April 2021, service connection for PTSD was granted and rated as 100 percent disabling, effective February 19, 2021. 6. By decision issued in August 2023, the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) dismissed the Veteran's appeal in the AMA system based on a procedural defect and found that the February 2019 RAMP Selection Form could serve as a valid Notice of Disagreement (NOD) of the February 2018 rating decision. 7. By a separate decision issued in August 2023, the Board remanded the claim of entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder, to include MDD with alcohol abuse, and directed the issuance of a Statement of the Case (SOC) and appellate rights notice. 8. In June 2024, a SOC was issued to the Veteran for entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder, to include MDD with alcohol abuse, prior to February 19, 2021. 9. In June 2024, the Veteran perfected the appeal, seeking entitlement to an earlier effective date, in essence maintaining the "incorrect effective date" was assigned. 10. The Board finds that the Veteran has continuously prosecuted his claim since November 29, 2017. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for the assignment of an effective date of November 29, 2017, for the award of service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 5101, 5107, 5110; 38 C.F.R. § 3.102, 3.400. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty from July 1983 to February 1988, March 2003 to June 2003 and from August 2006 to November 2007. This matter comes before the Board on appeal of a February 2018 rating decision issued by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) regional office, an agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ) in March 2018. VA received the Veteran's Board Appeal (Notice of Disagreement (NOD)) in February 2019, attempting to opt in the modernized system (AMA), the Veteran elected the Hearing docket. During the pendency of this appeal, VA received a Decision Review Request: Supplemental Claim (VA Form 20-0995) in February 2021 and by rating decision issued in April 2021, service connection was awarded for an acquired psychiatric disorder effective February 19, 2021. Subsequently on August 17, 2023, the Board issued a decision dismissing the Veteran's attempted AMA appeal as an improper RAMP opt-in due to a procedural defect. Concurrently, in an August 18, 2023, Board decision, the Board restored the Veteran's attempted February 2019 RAMP opt-in the AMA system as a valid timely NOD under the Legacy appeal system and remanded for issuance of an SOC. A Statement of the Case (SOC) was issued in June 2024 denying service connection prior to February 19, 2021. The Veteran then perfected his appeal by filing a June 2024 VA Form 9 appealing the effective date of February 19, 2021, for the award of service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder in the Legacy system and declining the optional Board hearing. Therefore, the Board will proceed with adjudication of the instant appeal in the Legacy system. Based on the procedural development in this case, the Board also finds that in this legacy appeal, the issue of entitlement to service connection for a psychiatric disorder has been resolved, and as such, the issue on appeal is the downstream issue of entitlement to an earlier effective date for the grant of service connection. See Grantham v. Brown, 114 F.3d 1156 (Fed. Cir. 1997). In this regard, the Board notes that there was no perfected pending appeal before the Board and the Veteran's claim was not granted pursuant to new liberalizing law. See Johnson (Robert) v. Collins, No. 23-7589, 2025 U.S. App. Vet. Claims LEXIS 383 (March 26, 2025). In any event, the Board is granting the appeal in full; thus, there is no prejudice to the Veteran. Earlier Effective Date Entitlement to an earlier effective date prior to February 19, 2021, for the award of service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder. The Veteran contends that the effective date is incorrect for the award of service connection for his psychiatric disorder. See Veteran's June 2024 VA Form 9, see all June 2024 Written Brief Presentation. For the following reasons, the entitlement to an earlier effective date is warranted. Generally, the effective date of an evaluation and award of compensation based on an original claim; a claim reopened after final disallowance; or a claim for an increase will be the date the claim was received or the date the entitlement arose, whichever is later. 38 U.S.C. § 5110(a); 38 C.F.R. § 3.400. However, an effective date from the day following separation from active service or the date the entitlement arose may be assigned if a claim is received within one year after separation from service. 38 C.F.R. § 3.400(b)(2). In this case, the record shows that VA received the Veteran's claim, seeking service for a mental disorder on November 29, 2017. By rating decision dated in February 2018 and issued in March 2018, service connection for a mental health disorder, major depressive disorder with alcohol abuse, was denied. In February 2019 VA received the Veteran's RAMP Selection Form, indicating disagreement with the denial of service connection for a mental disorder, MDD with alcohol abuse. Additionally, on February 19, 2021, VA received the Veteran's Supplemental Claim, seeking service connection for PTSD. By rating decision dated in April 2021, service connection for PTSD was granted and rated as 100 percent disabling, effective February 19, 2021. As previously noted, thereafter, the record shows that by decision issued in August 2023, the Board dismissed the Veteran's RAMP appeal in the AMA system based on a procedural defect and found that the February 2019 RAMP Selection Form could serve as a valid notice of disagreement of the February 2018 rating decision. Additionally, in a separate decision issued in August 2023, the Board remanded the claim of entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder, to include MDD with alcohol abuse, and directed the regional office to issue a SOC and notice of appellate rights. An SOC was issued in June 2024. The SOC characterized the issue as entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder, to include MDD with alcohol abuse, prior to February 19, 2021. In response, the Veteran filed a timely substantive appeal, disagreeing with the assigned effective date of service connection for his mental disorder. The Veteran essentially wrote the "incorrect effective date" was assigned. In light of the foregoing procedural development, the Board finds that the Veteran has continuously prosecuted his claim since November 29, 2017. The Board notes that the Veteran's initial claim was denied in a February 2018 rating decision and thereafter VA received a February 2021 supplemental claim with new evidence warranting readjudication. In April 2021, service connection was granted. However, as previously discussed, the Board in an August 18, 2023, decision, restored the Veteran's attempted February 2019 RAMP opt-in the AMA appeal system as a valid timely NOD under the Legacy appeal system for the Veteran's March 2018 claim. Hall v. McDonough, 34 Vet. App. 329 (2021). Consequently, the Veteran's February 2021 supplemental claim and grant of service connection was filed during the pendency of the timely February 2019 NOD under the legacy system. See Bailey v. Wilkie, 33 Vet. App. 188, 203-04 (2021); Warren v. McDonald, 28 Vet. App. 214, 221 (2016). As such, the February 2018 rating decision denying service connection for a mental health condition did not become final. The Board also notes that the criteria for service connection were met prior to February 19, 2021. 38 U.S.C. § 1110; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303, 3.304. In this regard, the Board notes that the evidence shows that the Veteran's military occupation specialty was an explosive ordnance disposal specialist. The Veteran maintained that he investigated large explosives and witnessed multiple victims. He also feared for his life when performing his duties. See DD-214s, Veteran's November 2017 Statements in Support of Claim, Veteran's December 2017 PTSD Statement In Support of Claim. The evidence also shows that the Veteran was hospitalized and received treatment for his psychiatric disability. See December 2017 VA Treatment Reports. A December 2017 Initial PTSD Disability Benefits Questionnaire (DBQ) shows that a diagnosis of major depressive disorder was made and combat deployment, combat Iraq, bomb tech, witnessed and caused death was noted. In a July 2020 medical statement, Dr. F. Perry wrote that the Veteran's PTSD was directly related to service and caused by traumatic stress. The record also contains a July 2020 DBQ noting a diagnosis of a bipolar disorder as well as an April 2021 VA examination report noting PTSD. In April 2021, service connection for PTSD, rated as 100 percent disabling, was granted. Based on the foregoing, and after resolving all doubt in the Veteran's favor, the Board finds that the assignment of an effective date of November 29, 2017, for the grant of service connection for a psychiatric disorder, and no earlier, is appropriate. 38 U.S.C. § 5110(a); 38 C.F.R. § 3.400; see also Clemons v. Shinseki, 23 Vet. App. 1 (2009). The appeal is granted. C. CRAWFORD Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board Wright, Kadia 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.