Citation Nr: A25035129 Decision Date: 04/16/25 Archive Date: 04/16/25 DOCKET NO. 210917-185895 DATE: April 16, 2025 ORDER Service connection for right hand condition, claimed as curved hand, is dismissed. Service connection for left hand condition, claimed as curved hand, is dismissed. Service connection for bruised right foot is dismissed. Service connection for bruised left foot is dismissed. Service connection for nervous condition is dismissed. Service connection for schizophrenia is dismissed. Service connection for tooth loss is dismissed. Service connection for vision loss is dismissed. Service connection for headaches is dismissed. Service connection for anemia is dismissed. Service connection for neutropenia is dismissed. Service connection for hypertension is dismissed. Service connection for diabetes mellitus is dismissed. FINDING OF FACT While a July 6, 2021 VA Form 20-0995 Supplemental Claim Application was pending review by the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ), a VA Form 20-0996 Request for Higher Level Review (HLR), and an invalid VA Form 10182 Notice of Disagreement (NOD) (which was resubmitted to and accepted by the Board in September 2021 subsequent to another Supplemental Claim submitted in July 2021), were submitted for service connection for bilateral hand, bilateral foot, nervous condition, schizophrenia, tooth loss, vision loss, headaches, anemia, neutropenia, hypertension, and diabetes mellitus, which constituted an impermissible concurrent election of review options. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The criteria for dismissal of the instant appeal pertaining to the issue of service connection for right hand condition, on the basis of an improper concurrent election, are met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 5104C, 7105; 38 C.F.R. § 3.2500(b). 2. The criteria for dismissal of the instant appeal pertaining to the issue of service connection for left hand condition, on the basis of an improper concurrent election, are met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 5104C, 7105; 38 C.F.R. § 3.2500(b). 3. The criteria for dismissal of the instant appeal pertaining to the issue of service connection for right foot condition, on the basis of an improper concurrent election, are met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 5104C, 7105; 38 C.F.R. § 3.2500(b). 4. The criteria for dismissal of the instant appeal pertaining to the issue of service connection for left foot condition, on the basis of an improper concurrent election, are met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 5104C, 7105; 38 C.F.R. § 3.2500(b). 5. The criteria for dismissal of the instant appeal pertaining to the issue of service connection for nervous condition, on the basis of an improper concurrent election, are met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 5104C, 7105; 38 C.F.R. § 3.2500(b). 6. The criteria for dismissal of the instant appeal pertaining to the issue of service connection for schizophrenia, on the basis of an improper concurrent election, are met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 5104C, 7105; 38 C.F.R. § 3.2500(b). 7. The criteria for dismissal of the instant appeal pertaining to the issue of service connection for tooth loss, on the basis of an improper concurrent election, are met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 5104C, 7105; 38 C.F.R. § 3.2500(b). 8. The criteria for dismissal of the instant appeal pertaining to the issue of service connection for vision loss, on the basis of an improper concurrent election, are met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 5104C, 7105; 38 C.F.R. § 3.2500(b). 9. The criteria for dismissal of the instant appeal pertaining to the issue of service connection for headaches, on the basis of an improper concurrent election, are met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 5104C, 7105; 38 C.F.R. § 3.2500(b). 10. The criteria for dismissal of the instant appeal pertaining to the issue of service connection for anemia, on the basis of an improper concurrent election, are met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 5104C, 7105; 38 C.F.R. § 3.2500(b). 11. The criteria for dismissal of the instant appeal pertaining to the issue of service connection for neutropenia, on the basis of an improper concurrent election, are met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 5104C, 7105; 38 C.F.R. § 3.2500(b). 12. The criteria for dismissal of the instant appeal pertaining to the issue of service connection for hypertension, on the basis of an improper concurrent election, are met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 5104C, 7105; 38 C.F.R. § 3.2500(b). 13. The criteria for dismissal of the instant appeal pertaining to the issue of service connection for diabetes mellitus, on the basis of an improper concurrent election, are met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 5104C, 7105; 38 C.F.R. § 3.2500(b). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSIONS The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Navy from December 1981 to January 1982, with additional inactive duty service. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a rating decision issued in May 2021 from a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) AOJ. On July 6, 2021, the Veteran simultaneously submitted a VA Form 20-0995 Supplemental Claim, VA Form 20-0996 Request for HLR, and VA Form 10182 NOD, requesting review of the decision issued in May 2021. On July 20, 2021, VA notified the Veteran that she selected too many Board review options in Part II of her July 2021 VA Form 10182 NOD, had to submit another VA Form 10182 NOD, and indicate which Board review option she would like to choose. Four days later, she submitted a VA Form 20-0995 Supplemental Claim in response to the letter. Subsequently, on September 17, 2021, the Veteran submitted another VA Form 10182 NOD, selecting the evidence submission docket, which VA erroneously accepted on September 22, 2021. 1. Service connection for right hand condition, claimed as curved hand 2. Service connection for left hand condition, claimed as curved hand 3. Service connection for bruised right foot 4. Service connection for bruised left foot 5. Service connection for nervous condition 6. Service connection for schizophrenia 7. Service connection for tooth loss 8. Service connection for vision loss 9. Service connection for headaches 10. Service connection for anemia 11. Service connection for neutropenia 12. Service connection for hypertension 13. Service connection for diabetes mellitus Under the modernized review system, also known as the Appeals Modernization Act (AMA), a claimant may generally seek one of three available administrative review options by filing the appropriate form following adjudication of a claim. The three review options available are: (1) HLR, (2) supplemental claim, (3) Board review. See 38 U.S.C. § 5104C; 38 C.F.R. § 3.2500. However, under the AMA, concurrent election is prohibited, meaning that once a Veteran has filed for review under one lane (i.e., HLR, supplemental claim, Board review), they cannot seek review under a different lane while adjudication is pending in the previously selected lane. 38 C.F.R. § 3.2500 (b). See also Terry v. McDonough, 37 Vet. App. 1 (2023). Following review of the available documents in the claims file, the instant appeals must be dismissed as concurrent election of review options is prohibited. The above highlighted procedural developments show that a concurrent election of review options occurred when a VA Form 20-0995 Supplemental Claim, VA Form 20-0996 Request for HLR, and VA Form 10182 NOD (resubmitted and accepted on September 17, 2021, following submission of another Supplemental Claim in July 2021) were submitted on July 6, 2021. As concurrent elections are prohibited, the Board finds the instant appeal stream, which stems from the May 2021 rating decision, must be dismissed. The Board may dismiss any case over which it determines it does not have the ability to review the appeal. 38 U.S.C. § 7105(a). When the Board cannot dismiss an appeal for lack of jurisdiction in certain instances, it can still consider dismissing the appeal for other non-jurisdictional reasons such as a procedural defect. See generally Hall v. McDonough, 34 Vet. App. 329 (2021). Here, as the instant appeal was docketed creating an impermissible concurrent election for the issues of service connection for bilateral hand, bilateral foot, nervous condition, schizophrenia, tooth loss, vision loss, headaches, anemia, neutropenia, hypertension, and diabetes mellitus, this appeal must be dismissed due to the procedural defect. See again 38 U.S.C. § 5104C(a)(2)(A); 38 C.F.R. § 3.2500(b); Terry, 37 Vet. App. 1. The Veteran's appeal will be decided based on the supplemental claim filed in July 2021. Paulette Vance Burton Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board A.L.N. 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.