Citation Nr: A25035166 Decision Date: 04/16/25 Archive Date: 04/16/25 DOCKET NO. 241017-509490 DATE: April 16, 2025 ORDER The appeal concerning the issues of earlier effective dates for lumbar spine and bilateral lower extremity sciatica is dismissed. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. In October 2024, the Veteran submitted a VA Form 10182 (Decision Review Request: Board Appeal (Notice of Disagreement)). 2. At the time of the October 2024 filing, no Rating Decision issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) regarding the issues on appeal had been issued. 3. A December 2024 rating decision granted service connection for lumbar spine and bilateral lower extremity sciatica. 4. In December 2024, the Veteran filed a supplemental claim for lumbar spine and bilateral lower extremity sciatica. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for dismissal of the claim for entitlement to an earlier effective date for the lumbar spine and the bilateral lower extremity sciatica are met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 511, 7104, 7105; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.2400, 20.200-20.204. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION The December 2024 rating decision was the first rating decision which discussed the issues on appeal. This rating decision granted service connection for all three disabilities. However, the Veteran had filed his appeal to the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) in October 2024, prior to the promulgation of the initial rating decision which discussed the issues now pending before the Board. Therefore, at the time of the October 2024, appeal to the Board, there was no rating decision to appeal. Accordingly, the docketing of the October 2015 appeal to the Board was invalid as there was no decision to appeal at that time. The Board takes note that the Veteran filed a supplemental claim in December 2024 that should still be pending with the VBA. Current regulations prohibit concurrent election of review of a VA decision under different appeal lanes. 38 C.F.R. § 3.2500 (b). In Terry v. McDonough, the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court) emphasized that concurrent elections are prohibited. 37 Vet. App. 1 (2023). The Court held that "a claimant is able to select a second administrative review option with respect to a decision on the claim, so long as the 1-year period from that decision has not run and the second administrative review option does not run concurrently with the first administrative review option." Id. at 26. The Court's holding was expressly predicated on finding that multiple administrative review requests were "not pending concurrently" as such would be prohibited under 38 U.S.C. § 5104C(a)(2)(A). Id. at 2. Accordingly, the Court's holding in Terry makes it perfectly clear that only one administrative review option can be pursued at a time for any given issue or issues. In this case, the Veteran filed the supplemental claim immediately after the December 2024 rating decision. Since the October 2024 appeal to the Board was invalid, the December 2024 supplemental claim is the proper type of review for the December 2024 rating decision. Therefore, any request for a review under a different lane was a concurrent election. The Board should not have docketed this impermissible concurrent election. The Board may dismiss an appeal for a procedural defect, such as improper docketing of an appeal. See Hall v. McDonough, 34 Vet. App. 329 (2021). Due to this procedural defect, this appeal is dismissed, and the Veteran is encouraged to follow the progress of his supplemental claim and, if desired, submit an appeal of any adverse determinations made on that supplemental claim within the timeframe allowed to do so. 38 U.S.C. § 7105; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.2500. RAY BARTO SLABBEKORN, JR. Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board D. Andrew Ledman II 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.