Citation Nr: A25035982 Decision Date: 04/18/25 Archive Date: 04/18/25 DOCKET NO. 210814-178304 DATE: April 18, 2025 ORDER Entitlement to an increased rating for tinnitus, currently rated as 10 percent disabling is dismissed. Entitlement to an effective date earlier than April 30, 2020, for the award of service connection for tinnitus is dismissed. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. In April 2020, the Veteran filed a claim seeking service connection for tinnitus. 2. An August 2020 rating action granted service connection for tinnitus; the Veteran was notified of that rating action on August 10, 2020. 3. In a VA Form 10182: Notice of Disagreement received on August 14, 2021, the Veteran identified an April 2020 rating decision as the action being appealed; the VA Form 10182 was received more than one year following notice of the August 2020 rating action, and no good cause has been expressed or shown for an extension of the time in which to file an appeal of the August 2020 rating action. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The criteria for dismissal of entitlement to an increased rating for tinnitus have been met. 38 U.S.C. § 7105; 38 C.F.R. § 20.205. 2. The criteria for dismissal of entitlement to an effective date earlier than April 30, 2020, for the award of service connection for tinnitus have been met. 38 U.S.C. § 7105; 38 C.F.R. § 20.205. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty from August 2007 to November 2011. Although the Veteran identified the rating action at issue as dated in April 2020, a rating action was not issued that month. Rather, the Veteran appears to have mistakenly identified the date of her claim, rather than the date of the rating decision responding to that claim. There is only one rating action on file addressing tinnitus, and that is an August 2020 rating action. The Board therefore finds that this is the rating action at issue. Following the issuance of the August 2020 rating action, the Veteran submitted the proper form for appealing to the Board through the Evidence Submission lane without a Board hearing. Under the AMA, the Veteran had 90 days from submission of her NOD to submit additional evidence. Therefore, the Board may only consider the evidence of record at the time of the August 2020 agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ) decision on appeal and any additional evidence submitted by the Veteran within the 90 day period after her NOD. 38 C.F.R. § 20.301. Any evidence submitted after the AOJ decision on appeal or within 90 days of the NOD 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 (VA Form 20-0995) 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 claims, considering the new evidence in addition to the evidence previously considered. Id. Specific instructions for filing a Supplemental Claim are included with this decision. On the VA Form 10182, the Veteran simply listed the issue as "tinnitus". As the rating action at issue decided both the proper rating and the effective date for tinnitus, the Board construes her appeal as seeking review of both matters. Entitlement to an increased rating for tinnitus, currently rated as 10 percent disabling Entitlement to an effective date earlier than April 30, 2020, for the award of service connection for tinnitus. On April 30, 2020, the Veteran submitted a claim for service connection for bilateral tinnitus. An August 7, 2020 Regional Office (RO) rating decision granted service and assigned a 10 percent rating effective April 30, 2020, the date of claim. Notice of this rating action was sent to the Veteran on August 10, 2020. Thereafter, in an August 2021 notice of disagreement received on VA Form 10182 on August 14, 2021, the Veteran stated her disagreement was on a claim for "tinnitus" and listed the rating action at issue as April 29, 2020. The Veteran selected the Evidence Submission lane and had 90 days from the date of the NOD to submit any additional evidence. The Board notes that April 29, 2020, is not the rating action at issue, it is one day prior to the date of the Veteran's claim for service connection for tinnitus. Additionally, the Veteran simply wrote the word tinnitus as the specific issue, and while the Veteran did submit a statement within the 90 day period after the NOD, the statement referred to additional claims for service connection and did not clarify anything concerning the tinnitus claim. Therefore, it is not clear what exactly the Veteran disagrees with regarding the issue of tinnitus. No matter what specific disagreement the Veteran has with the issue of tinnitus, the Veteran's notice of disagreement received on August 14, 2021, making it untimely as it was not received within one year of the August 2020 rating decision granting service connection for tinnitus. The Veteran has not submitted good cause for an extension of the one-year period to submit her NOD, and the record does not otherwise suggest such good cause. Thus, because the notice of disagreement received in August 2021 is untimely as to the Veteran's claim regarding tinnitus, the issue is not properly before the Board at this time and must be dismissed. 38 U.S.C. § 7105. If the Veteran wishes to proceed with this claim, the Veteran should submit new and relevant evidence to the AOJ along with the standard form appropriate for filling a supplemental claim pursuant to 38 C.F.R. § 3.2501. Thomas H. O'Shay Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board Mitchell, Kimberly A. 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.