Citation Nr: A25041204 Decision Date: 05/06/25 Archive Date: 05/06/25 DOCKET NO. 240923-476310 DATE: May 6, 2025 ORDER The appeal for an effective date prior to January 20, 2011, for the grant of a 10 percent rating for right hip trochanteric bursitis is dismissed. The appeal for service connection for degenerative arthritis of the left hip is dismissed. The appeal for service connection for a low back disorder is dismissed. The appeal for service connection for scar on forefinger, left hand, is dismissed. The appeal for an effective date prior to July 31, 2007, for the grant of a 20 percent rating for status/post fracture, right distal fibula, is dismissed. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The Veteran service on active duty from May 1983 to April 1986. 2. On January 8, 2019, the agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ) notified the Veteran of the rating decision denying an increased rating for the right hip and service connection for the left hip. The AOJ also previously notified the Veteran on September 13, 2010, of the rating decision denying the left hip claim. 3. The issue of service connection for a low back disorder and left finger scar, and an increased rating for a right fibula fracture, is part of an earlier legacy appeal pending at the Board. 4. On September 23, 2024, the Veteran submitted an improper and untimely VA Form 10182 (appeal to the Board) requesting Direct Review of the April 2008, September 2010, November 2018, and January 2019 legacy rating decisions for the above claims. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The criteria for dismissal of an appeal for an effective date prior to January 20, 2011, for the grant of a 10 percent rating for right hip trochanteric bursitis have been met. 38 U.S.C. § 7104 (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.2500(b), 20.205 (2024). 2. The criteria for dismissal of an appeal for service connection for degenerative arthritis of the left hip have been met. 38 U.S.C. § 7104 (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.2500(b), 20.205 (2024). 3. The criteria for dismissal of an appeal for service connection for a low back disorder have been met. 38 U.S.C. § 7104 (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.2500(b), 20.205 (2024). 4. The criteria for dismissal of an appeal for service connection for scar on forefinger, left hand, have been met. 38 U.S.C. § 7104 (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.2500(b), 20.205 (2024). 5. The criteria for dismissal of an appeal for an effective date prior to July 31, 2007, for the grant of a 20 percent rating for status/post fracture, right distal fibula, have been met. 38 U.S.C. § 7104 (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.2500(b), 20.205 (2024). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The Board notes that the rating decisions on appeal were variously issued in April 2008, September 2010, November 2018, and January 2019. In September 2024, the Veteran appealed to the Board via a Form 10182 and elected the Direct Review docket. As the appeals are decided on the same legal basis, they will be discussed together. Turning to the relevant laws and regulations, the Board may dismiss any appeal which fails to allege specific error of fact or law in the determination being appealed. 38 C.F.R. § 20.104(c). In the present case, there is no specific error of fact or law as there are no valid appeals. Specifically, in August 2017, the Veterans Appeals Improvement and Modernization Act, also known as the Appeals Modernization Act (AMA), was signed into law. This law created a new framework for veterans dissatisfied with VA's decision on their claim to seek review and became effective February 19, 2019. As the April 2008, September 2010, November 2018, and January 2019 rating decisions predate the effective date of the AMA, the legacy appellate system governs those rating decisions. Consequently, the Veteran's filing of VA Form 10182 (appeal to the Board) under AMA, rather than under the prior legacy appeal system, was improper. 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.2400, 19.2(c). Under the legacy appeals system, an appeal consists of a timely filed notice of disagreement (NOD) and, after a statement of the case (SOC) has been furnished, a timely filed substantive appeal via a VA Form 9. 38 U.S.C. § 7105; 38 C.F.R. § 20.200. By regulation, a substantive appeal must consist of a properly completed VA Form 9 or correspondence containing the necessary information. Cuevas v. Principi, 3 Vet. App. 542, 546 (1992); 38 C.F.R. § 20.202. Further, the substantive appeal must either indicate that all the issues presented in the applicable SOC or supplemental SOC (SSOC) are being appealed or, if only particular issues are being appealed, should specify those. 38 C.F.R. § 20.202. The substantive appeal must be filed within sixty days after the mailing of the SOC, or within the remainder of the one-year period from the mailing of notification of the determination being appealed. 38 C.F.R. § 20.302. This filing deadline may be extended for a reasonable period on request for good cause shown. 38 U.S.C. § 7105(d)(3); 38 C.F.R. § 20.303. A request for such an extension should be in writing and must be made prior to expiration of the time limit for filing the substantive appeal. 38 C.F.R. § 20.303. With regard to the issue of service connection for the left hip and an earlier effective date for right hip trochanteric bursitis, notwithstanding the use of an improper form, the September 2024 VA Form 10182 was untimely as to the January 2019 rating decision. In this case, the Veteran did not file a NOD within one year of the January 2019 rating decision and it became final. An untimely NOD deprives the Board of jurisdiction to consider the merits of an appeal. 38 U.S.C. § 7105 (c). Accordingly, the Board cannot review the appeals and they are dismissed. With regard to the issues of service connection for the low back and left finger scar, and an increased rating for right fibula fracture, a November 2018 rating decision denied service connection for low back, left finger scar, and continued the 20 percent rating for the right distal fibula. The Veteran appealed that decision in a December 2018 NOD. Following issuance of a March 2020 SOC, he timely submitted a substantive appeal with the Board in May 2020. In January 2024, the Board remanded the claims on appeal for further development. As such, this AMA appeal is in error as the Veteran has claims pending in the legacy system at the Board for the same service connection claims for a low back disorder and left finger scar, and an increased rating for right fibula fracture (the earlier effective date claim in AMA is part and parcel to the increased evaluation claim pending under legacy). Consequently, the Board will dismiss these appeals as moot since he already has an appeal pending for these issues which are being addressed in a separate Board decision properly under the legacy system. Finally, the Veteran has not raised any other issues, nor have any other issues been reasonably raised by the record, for the Board's consideration. See Doucette v. Shulkin, 28 Vet. App. 366, 369-370 (2017) (confirming that the Board is not required to address issues unless they are specifically raised by the claimant or reasonably raised by the evidence of record). L. HOWELL Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board Y.Asfaw, 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.