Citation Nr: A25035792 Decision Date: 04/18/25 Archive Date: 04/18/25 DOCKET NO. 241120-491446 DATE: April 18, 2025 ORDER Proposal to discontinue entitlement to special monthly compensation (SMC) is dismissed. Proposal to reduce to rating assigned to non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, status post left femur replacement (NHL), from 100 percent to 30 percent, is dismissed. Entitlement to service connection for inner ear damage/ear disability is dismissed. Entitlement to service connection for posttraumatic stress disorder is dismissed. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The proposal to discontinue SMC is not an initial decision. 2. The proposal to reduce the rating assigned to the Veteran's NHL from 100 percent to 30 percent is not an initial decision. 3. The November 20, 2024 VA Form 10182 was not timely received following the April 5, 2023 rating decision with respect to the service connection claim for inner ear damage/ear disability, and the Veteran did not provide good cause for a request to extend the time to file. 4. The November 20, 2024 VA Form 10182 was not timely received following the April 5, 2023 rating decision with respect to the service connection claim for PTSD, and the Veteran did not provide good cause for a request to extend the time to file. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The criteria for dismissal of the proposal to discontinue entitlement to SMC have been met. 38 U.S.C. § 7105; 38 C.F.R. § 3.2400. 2. The criteria for dismissal of proposal to reduce the rating assigned to the Veteran's NHL from 100 percent to 30 percent have been met. 38 U.S.C. § 7105; 38 C.F.R. § 3.2400. 3. With respect to the claim of entitlement to service connection for inner ear damage/ear disability, the criteria for an extension for the filing of a VA Form 10182 have not been met, and the Veteran's VA Form 10182 was not otherwise timely received. 38 U.S.C. § 7105; 38 C.F.R. § 20.203. 4. With respect to the claim of entitlement to service connection for PTSD, the criteria for an extension for the filing of a VA Form 10182 have not been met, and the Veteran's VA Form 10182 was not otherwise timely received. 38 U.S.C. § 7105; 38 C.F.R. § 20.203. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The Veteran served on active duty from November 1963 to November 1965. These matters come before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) following rating decisions by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). Proposals In April 2023, the RO issued a rating decision wherein it granted service connection for the Veteran's NHL and assigned a 100 percent rating thereto, effective October 13, 2022. The RO also granted SMC effective October 13, 2022. After undergoing VA examinations in June and October 2024, the RO issued an October 2024 rating decision wherein it proposed to reduce the rating assigned to the Veteran's NHL from 100 percent to 30 percent, and proposed to discontinue SMC. In November 2024, the Veteran submitted a VA Form 10182, Decision Review Request: Board Appeal (Notice of Disagreement), wherein he identified the RO's proposals from the October 2024 rating decision. These are the matters before the Board at present. The Board finds that these issues were erroneously docketed. The Veteran can only perfect an appeal to the Board under the Appeals Modernization Act system after VA issues notice of an initial decision on or after February 19, 2019. 38 C.F.R. §§ 19.2(a), 3.2400. As discussed above, the October 2024 rating decision only proposed a reduction of the disability rating assigned to the Veteran's NHL and only proposed to discontinue SMC. Neither proposal in the October 2024 rating decision has been effectuated or, more precisely, neither proposal was effectuated at the time the Veteran submitted the November 2024 VA Form 10182. Consequently, the Board finds that the October 2024 proposals do not constitute initial decisions and, thus, these issues must be dismissed as premature. The Veteran is advised that, if/when the RO issues rating decisions that effectuate the October 2023 proposals, he can pursue an appeal of either or both issues. Service Connection Claims In an April 2023 rating decision, the RO denied the Veteran's claims of entitlement to service connection for inner ear damage/ear disability and PTSD. In an April 5, 2023 letter, the RO provided the Veteran with notice of this decision and notice of his appellate rights. VA regulations provide that, except in limited circumstances (which do not apply here), a notice of disagreement (VA Form 10182) must be submitted to the RO within one year of the notice of a rating decision being appealed. 38 C.F.R. § 20.203(b). Additionally, VA regulations allow for an extension to be granted "for good cause" if the request is offered in writing and submitted to the Board. 38 C.F.R. § 20.203(c). Here, the Veteran's VA Form 10182 was received by VA on November 20, 2024, well over one year after the issuance of the notice letter for the April 2023 rating decision the Veteran is appealing. As such, the Board finds that it is untimely. However, in his November 20, 2024 VA Form 10182, the Veteran requested an extension of time to file this document due to good cause. He was directed to attach additional sheets explaining why he believed there was good cause to grant an extension. In an attached sheet, the Veteran stated that the good cause underlying his request for an extension was so that he could "gather[] additional evidence to support the claim." Difficulty in obtaining evidence or discovery of new evidence during a period in which VA's duty to assist does not apply are specifically listed as examples of justifications that do not constitute good cause. See 84 Fed. Reg. 138, 153 (Jan. 18, 2019). The Veteran has not otherwise provided good cause to grant an extension of time for the submission of a VA Form 10182. In sum, good cause has not been shown for extending the time to file a VA Form 10182, and the Veteran's VA Form 10182 was not timely filed. Consequently, the Board does not have jurisdiction over the service connection claims for inner ear damage/ear disability and PTSD, and they are dismissed. T. REYNOLDS Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board Sean Pflugner, 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.