Citation Nr: A25041219 Decision Date: 05/06/25 Archive Date: 05/06/25 DOCKET NO. 220616-252126 DATE: May 6, 2025 ORDER The April 19, 1974, rating decision, which denied a claim of service connection for a nervous condition, was not the product of clear and unmistakable error (CUE). FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The Veteran filed his original claim of service connection for unspecified schizophrenia spectrum and other psychotic disorder (which he characterized as a nervous condition) in statements on a VA Form 21-526, "Veteran's Application For Compensation Or Pension," dated on March 8, 1974, and date-stamped as received that same day by VA. 2. In a rating decision dated on April 19, 1974, and issued to the Veteran on May 1, 1974, the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ) denied the Veteran's claim of service connection for unspecified schizophrenia spectrum and other psychotic disorder (which was characterized as a nervous condition); this decision was not appealed and became final. 3. The Veteran filed a claim of CUE in the April 19, 1974, rating decision, which denied a claim of service connection for a nervous condition, in statements on a VA Form 21-4138, "Statement In Support Of Claim," dated on September 12, 2018, and date-stamped as received electronically by VA on September 19, 2018. 4. The Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) referred the Veteran's claim of CUE in the April 19, 1974, rating decision, which denied a claim of service connection for a nervous condition, to the AOJ in an October 2021 Legacy decision which assigned an earlier effective date of November 16, 2005, for an award of service connection and a 100 percent rating for unspecified schizophrenia spectrum and other psychotic disorder; the Board's October 2021 decision was not appealed and became final. 5. In an AMA rating decision dated on May 9, 2022, and issued to the Veteran and his agent on May 10, 2022, the AOJ denied the Veteran's CUE claim. 6. The Veteran, through his agent, requested Higher Level Review (HLR) of the May 2022 AMA rating decision in statements on a VA Form 20 0996, "Decision Review Request: Higher Level Review," dated on May 11, 2022, and date-stamped as received electronically that same day by VA. 7. In the currently appealed AMA HLR rating decision dated on June 10, 2022, and issued to the Veteran and his agent on June 16, 2022, the AOJ denied the Veteran's CUE claim. 8. The Veteran, through his agent, disagreed with the denial of his CUE claim in statements on a VA Form 10182, "Decision Review Request: Board Appeal (Notice Of Disagreement)," dated on June 16, 2022, and date-stamped as received electronically that same day by VA. 9. Statements regarding the Veteran's entitlement to service connection for unspecified schizophrenia spectrum and other psychotic disorder on the basis of CUE reflect disagreement with how the AOJ weighed the evidence in the April 19, 1974, rating decision. CONCLUSION OF LAW The April 19, 1974, rating decision, which denied a claim of service connection for a nervous condition, was not the product of CUE. 38 U.S.C. §§ 5109A, 7105; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.104, 3.105. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION The Veteran had active U.S. Army service from October 1973 to February 1974. In May 2022, the Veteran submitted a VA Form 20-0996, Decision Review Request: Higher-Level Review (HLR), and requested review of a May 2022 decision. In June 2022, the AOJ issued the HLR decision on appeal which considered the evidence of record at the time of the prior May 2022 decision. In the June 2022 VA Form 10182, Decision Review Request: Board Appeal (Notice of Disagreement), the Veteran elected the Direct Review docket. Therefore, the Board only may consider the evidence of record at the time of the May 2022 AOJ decision which was subsequently subject to HLR. 38 C.F.R. § 20.301. If evidence was submitted during the period after the AOJ issued the decision which was subsequently subject to HLR, then the Board did not consider it in its decision. 38 C.F.R. §§ 20.300, 20.301, 20.801. Evidence was added to the claims file during a period of time when new evidence was not allowed. As the Board is deciding the claim listed above, it may not consider this evidence in its decision. 38 C.F.R. § 20.300. If the Veteran would like VA to consider any evidence that was submitted that the Board could not consider, then he 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 claim, considering the new evidence in addition to the evidence previously considered. Id. Specific instructions for filing a Supplemental Claim are included with this decision. The Veteran appointed his current service representative to represent him before VA by filing a completed VA Form 21-22 at the AOJ in August 2019. Having reviewed the record evidence, the Board finds that the issue on appeal should be characterized as stated above. Neither the Veteran nor his representative has raised any other issues nor have any other issues been reasonably raised by the record, to include entitlement to an additional disability rating, an extraschedular rating for a service-connected disability, service connection for another disability as secondary to a service-connected disability, or to a total disability rating based on individual unemployability (TDIU). See Doucette v. Shulkin, 28 Vet. App. 366, 369 370 (2017) (confirming that Board not required to address issues unless specifically raised by claimant or reasonably raised by record evidence). The Board is not persuaded that the evidence supports finding that the April 19, 1974, rating decision, which denied a claim of service connection for a nervous condition, was the product of CUE. The Veteran and his agent essentially contend that the AOJ committed CUE in the April 19, 1974, rating decision by not granting service connection for a nervous condition. Because the AOJ subsequently recharacterized this disability as unspecified schizophrenia spectrum and other psychotic disorder, the Board will refer to this disability as unspecified schizophrenia spectrum and other psychotic disorder for the remainder of this decision. The Veteran and his agent specifically contend that the AOJ misinterpreted the extant record evidence and misapplied the law and regulations in the April 19, 1974, rating decision. They also specifically contend that the AOJ misinterpreted or overlooked the findings contained in Medical Board proceedings in the Veteran's service treatment records in denying service connection for unspecified schizophrenia spectrum and other psychotic disorder (which was characterized as a nervous condition) in the April 1974 rating decision. They argue in the alternative that the AOJ subsequently conceded CUE in the April 1974 rating decision when it awarded, in pertinent part, service connection and a 100 percent rating effective April 24, 2012, for unspecified schizophrenia spectrum and other psychotic disorder in an October 2017 rating decision. They next argue in the alternative that the AOJ "failed to reconcile" an argument received in October 2018 from the Veteran's prior service representative concerning the allegation of CUE in the April 1974 rating decision when it adjudicated an earlier effective date claim for the service-connected unspecified schizophrenia spectrum and other psychotic disorder (which was subsumed by the Board's October 2021 Legacy decision). They further argue in the alternative that the Veteran timely disagreed with a February 1978 rating decision, which reopened and denied the service connection claim for a nervous condition, and this claim has been pending since that time. They also further argue in the alternative that the Court's decision in Moore v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 209 (1992), supports finding that there was CUE in the April 19, 1974, rating decision. They finally contend that, but for AOJ CUE in the April 19, 1974, rating decision, the Veteran is entitled to service connection for unspecified schizophrenia spectrum and other psychotic disorder effective May 8, 1974, or the date that VA received his original service connection claim for this disability (which was characterized as a nervous condition). These arguments do not rise to the level of a valid CUE claim. The Board notes that the AOJ properly denied a claim of service connection for unspecified schizophrenia spectrum and other psychotic disorder (which was characterized as a nervous condition) in the April 19, 1974, rating decision. The AOJ specifically reviewed all of the Veteran's available service treatment records in the April 19, 1974, rating decision, to include the Medical Board proceedings cited by the Veteran and his agent in the current CUE appeal. Moreover, the Board assigned an earlier effective date of November 16, 2005, for an award of service connection for unspecified schizophrenia spectrum and other psychotic disorder in an October 2021 Legacy decision which was not appealed and became final. See 38 U.S.C. §§ 7104, 7266. The Board also denied, at least implicitly, an earlier effective date than November 16, 2005, for an award of service connection for unspecified schizophrenia spectrum and other psychotic disorder in its October 2021 Legacy decision. In challenging the April 19, 1974, rating decision on the basis of CUE, the Veteran and his agent essentially disagree with how the AOJ weighed the record evidence in that prior final rating decision which can never rise to the level of a valid CUE claim. The record evidence shows that the Veteran filed his original claim of service connection for unspecified schizophrenia spectrum and other psychotic disorder (which he characterized as a nervous condition) in statements on a VA Form 21 526, "Veteran's Application For Compensation Or Pension," dated on March 8, 1974, and date-stamped as received that same day by VA. In a rating decision dated on April 19, 1974, and issued to the Veteran on May 1, 1974, the AOJ denied the Veteran's claim of service connection for unspecified schizophrenia spectrum and other psychotic disorder (which was characterized as a nervous condition). The AOJ essentially found that, although the Veteran's service treatment records showed that a psychiatric evaluation was "recommended relative to [his] ability to function in service," there were no relevant findings. The AOJ also essentially found that the Veteran's discharge examination was negative for a valid diagnosis of a neuropsychiatric disorder. Thus, the claim was denied. This decision was not appealed and became final. 38 U.S.C. § 7105; 38 C.F.R. §§ 20.302, 20.1103. The Veteran also did not submit any relevant evidence or argument within 1 year of the April 1974 rating decision which would render it non-final for VA adjudication purposes. See Buie v Shinseki, 24 Vet. App. 242, 251-52 (2011). The Veteran filed a claim of CUE in the April 19, 1974, rating decision, which denied a claim of service connection for nervous condition, in statements on a VA Form 21-4138, "Statement In Support Of Claim," dated on September 12, 2018, and date-stamped as received electronically by VA on September 19, 2018. He asserted that the appropriate effective date for an award of service connection for unspecified schizophrenia spectrum and other psychotic disorder was March 8, 1974. He also asserted that the AOJ committed CUE in the April 19, 1974, in not granting service connection for a nervous condition effective March 8, 1974. He next asserted that the AOJ committed CUE in the April 19, 1974, rating decision by misinterpreting or overlooking Medical Board proceedings which showed, in his view, that he experienced a nervous condition during active service and supported granting service connection for this disability effective March 8, 1974. He alternatively argued that his nervous condition existed prior to active service and was aggravated by service which entitled him to service connection for this disability effective March 8, 1974, on the basis of in-service aggravation of pre-service disability. He next asserted that an October 2017 rating decision "clearly indicates" that VA should have awarded him service connection for a nervous condition in the April 19, 1974, rating decision. In a September 2019 statement, the Veteran's agent asserted that a December 2018 Legacy rating decision, which adjudicated a claim of entitlement to an earlier effective for a 100 percent rating for service-connected unspecified schizophrenia spectrum and other psychotic disorder, also involved CUE. The agent also essentially argued that the appropriate effective date for an award of service connection for this disability should be the day after the date of the Veteran's discharge from active service. He asserted that a prior final rating AOJ decision issued in February 1978 and a prior final Board decision issued in January 1980 supported assigning an earlier effective date for an award of service connection for unspecified schizophrenia spectrum and other psychotic disorder. In an October 2021 Legacy decision which assigned an earlier effective date of November 16, 2005, for an award of service connection and a 100 percent rating for unspecified schizophrenia spectrum and other psychotic disorder, the Board referred the Veteran's claim of CUE in the April 19, 1974, rating decision, which denied a claim of service connection for a nervous condition, to the AOJ. The Board noted in it October 2021 decision that the Veteran's appeal for an earlier effective date for an award of service connection and a 100 percent rating for unspecified schizophrenia spectrum and other psychotic disorder originated in a December 2018 Legacy rating decision. The Board also noted that, because the AOJ had not yet adjudicated the Veteran's CUE claim, this claim was referred to the AOJ for adjudication. See Board decision dated October 28, 2021, at pp. 2. In an AMA rating decision dated on May 9, 2022, and issued to the Veteran and his agent on May 10, 2022, the AOJ denied the Veteran's CUE claim. The AOJ found that it did not commit CUE in the April 19, 1974, rating decision, which denied a claim of service connection for unspecified schizophrenia spectrum and other psychotic disorder (which was characterized as a nervous condition). The AOJ noted that the Veteran was diagnosed as having "hysterical neurosis" in a January 1974 Medical Board evaluation. The AOJ concluded that the decision to award service connection and a 100 percent rating effective November 16, 2005, for unspecified schizophrenia spectrum and other psychotic disorder was not CUE "because the decision was properly based on the available evidence of record at the time and the rules then in effect." The AOJ also concluded that entitlement to an earlier effective date than November 16, 2005, for an award of service connection for unspecified schizophrenia spectrum and other psychotic disorder was not shown by a review of the record evidence. The Veteran, through his agent, requested HLR of the May 2022 AMA rating decision in statements on a VA Form 20 0996, "Decision Review Request: Higher Level Review," dated on May 11, 2022, and date-stamped as received electronically that same day by VA. The agent repeated the prior arguments concerning the allegation of CUE in the April 19, 1974, rating decision. He also stated, "Ensure that any possible future denial includes very specific reference to the noted historical arguments as is required by" the Court's decision in Moore v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 209 (1992). In the currently appealed AMA HLR rating decision dated on June 10, 2022, and issued to the Veteran and his agent on June 16, 2022, the AOJ denied the Veteran's CUE claim. The AOJ essentially found that the April 19, 1974, rating decision challenged in this CUE appeal (and a subsequent rating decision issued in February 1978) denied the Veteran's service connection claim for a nervous condition "because you were shown to have been diagnosed with a personality disorder." The AOJ next found that, although the Veteran requested that this previously denied claim be reopened in July 1978, VA examination in September 1978 confirmed "a diagnosis of personality disorder" and, as a result, the claim was not reopened. The AOJ stated, "Please note that intellectual disability (intellectual developmental disorder) and personality disorders are not diseases or injuries subject to service connection for VA compensation purposes." The AOJ next stated that the Veteran's successfully reopened claim for unspecified schizophrenia spectrum and other psychotic disorder was received by VA on November 16, 2005. The AOJ then discussed the Board's October 2021 Legacy decision which assigned an earlier effective date of November 16, 2005, for an award of service connection and a 100 percent rating for unspecified schizophrenia spectrum and other psychotic disorder. The AOJ concluded that the assignment of an effective date of November 16, 2005, for an award of service connection and a 100 percent rating for unspecified schizophrenia spectrum and other psychotic disorder was not CUE "because the decision was properly based on the available evidence of record at the time and the rules then in effect." The Veteran, through his agent, disagreed with the denial of his CUE claim in statements on a VA Form 10182, "Decision Review Request: Board Appeal (Notice Of Disagreement)," dated on June 16, 2022, and date-stamped as received electronically that same day by VA. The agent stated: Per the noted denial, I ask the [Board] to review the VA Form 20 0996 dated 5/11/22 as well as all other historical arguments and evidence of record referenced. I do not feel the VARO adequately reconciled the entire set of arguments and the overall VA [claims] file. I ask the [Board] to grant an earlier effective date as petitioned under a CUE, or consider any potential effective date under a CUE from [the] date of military discharge to the current date of award [on] 11/16/05. The Court has propounded a three-prong test to determine whether CUE is present in a prior determination: (1) either the correct facts, as they were known at the time, were not before the adjudicator (i.e., more than a simple disagreement as to how the facts were weighed or evaluated) or the statutory or regulatory provisions extant at that time were incorrectly applied; (2) the error must be "undebatable" and of the sort "which, had it not been made, would have manifestly changed the outcome at the time it was made"; and (3) a determination that there was CUE must be based on the record and law that existed at the time of the prior adjudication in question. Damrel v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 242, 245 (1994), quoting Russell v. Principi, 3 Vet. App. 310, 313-14 (1992) (en banc); see also Bustos v. West, 179 F.3d 1378, 1380-81 (Fed. Cir. 1999). A determination that there was CUE must be based on the record and law that existed at the time of the prior adjudication in question and not on subsequent determinations of record. Damrel, 6 Vet. App. at 245. A mere difference of opinion in the outcome of the adjudication or a disagreement as to how facts were weighed and evaluated does not provide a basis upon which to find that VA committed administrative error during the adjudication process. Luallen v. Brown, 8 Vet. App. 92, 96 (1995). Even where the premise of error is accepted, if it is not absolutely clear that a different result would have ensued, the error complained of cannot be CUE. Allegations that previous adjudications had weighed and evaluated the evidence improperly also can never rise to the stringent definition of CUE. Fugo, 6 Vet. App. at 43 44. The Board again notes that CUE is a very specific and rare kind of error and a mere difference of opinion in the outcome of the adjudication or a disagreement as to how facts were weighed and evaluated does not provide a basis upon which to find that VA committed administrative error during the adjudication process. Id.; see also Luallen, 8 Vet. App. at 96. In challenging the denial of service connection for unspecified schizophrenia spectrum and other psychotic disorder (which was characterized as a nervous condition) in the April 19, 1974, rating decision, the Veteran and his agent essentially contend that the AOJ committed CUE in that rating decision by misinterpreting the record evidence at that time and misapplying the extant law and regulations. They specifically contend that the AOJ misinterpreted or overlooked findings contained in Medical Board proceedings in the Veteran's service treatment records in denying service connection for this disability in the April 1974 rating decision. They argue in the alternative that the AOJ subsequently conceded CUE in the April 1974 rating decision when it awarded, in pertinent part, service connection and a 100 percent rating effective April 24, 2012, for unspecified schizophrenia spectrum and other psychotic disorder in an October 2017 rating decision. They also argue in the alternative that the AOJ "failed to reconcile" an argument received in October 2018 from the Veteran's prior service representative concerning the allegation of CUE in the April 1974 rating decision when it adjudicated an earlier effective date claim for the service-connected unspecified schizophrenia spectrum and other psychotic disorder (which was subsumed by the Board's October 2021 Legacy decision). They further argue in the alternative that the Veteran timely disagreed with a February 1978 rating decision, which reopened and denied the service connection claim for a nervous condition, and this claim has been pending since that time. They also further argue in the alternative that the Court's decision in Moore v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 209 (1992), supports finding CUE in the April 19, 1974, rating decision. They finally contend that, but for AOJ CUE in the April 19, 1974, rating decision, the Veteran is entitled to service connection for unspecified schizophrenia spectrum and other psychotic disorder effective May 8, 1974, or the date that VA received his original service connection claim for this disability (which was characterized as a nervous condition). These arguments do not rise to the level of a valid CUE claim. With respect to the argument that the AOJ committed CUE in the April 19, 1974, rating decision by misinterpreting the record evidence and misapplying the extant law at that time, the Board notes initially that this argument merely reflects disagreement with how the AOJ weighed the evidence in that rating decision. Such argument never rises to the level of a valid CUE claim. The Board notes here that the Veteran's agent repeatedly argues that the AOJ misinterpreted or overlooked the findings contained in Medical Board proceedings in the Veteran's service treatment records when it denied service connection for this disability in the April 1974 rating decision. This repeated argument does not change the fact that the AOJ originally denied service connection for a nervous condition in the April 1974 rating decision because there was no evidence of any valid neuropsychiatric disorder at the Veteran's discharge (or separation) physical examination conducted as part of Medical Board proceedings. The AOJ essentially concluded in the May 2022 AMA rating decision which was subsequently subject to HLR that the Veteran was diagnosed as having "hysterical neurosis" in a January 1974 Medical Board evaluation which is not considered a valid neuropsychiatric disorder. This May 2022 AMA rating decision finding is in accord with the prior finding in the April 1974 rating decision challenged in this CUE appeal that the Veteran's discharge (or separation) physical examination conducted at the time of Medical Board proceedings did not include a valid neuropsychiatric disorder. The Board finds that the AOJ's action in the April 1974 rating decision was consistent with the extant law and regulations which require the existence of current disability in order to award service connection for a claimed disability found in § 3.303. This regulation has not been revised since it was added to the Rating Schedule in 1961. See 26 Fed. Reg. 1579 (Feb. 24, 1961), codified at 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. The Veteran and his agent essentially assume for the purposes of arguing that the AOJ committed CUE in the April 1974 rating decision that VA overlooked relevant evidence (here, the Medical Board proceedings) because it was not discussed explicitly in that rating decision. This assumption is misplaced and does not constitute a valid CUE claim. See, for example, Timberlake v. Gober, 14 Vet. App. 122 (2000) (noting that the law requires only that reasons for rejecting evidence favorable to the claimant be addressed). Having reviewed the record evidence, the Board finds that the AOJ did not commit CUE in the April 19, 1974, rating decision when it denied service connection for a nervous disorder based on the fact that the Veteran did not have a valid neuropsychiatric diagnosis at his service separation and any argument to the contrary is without merit. The Veteran's agent argues in the alternative that the AOJ somehow conceded that there was CUE in the April 19, 1974, when it awarded service connection for unspecified schizophrenia spectrum and other psychotic disorder (which he characterized as a mental condition) in an October 2017 rating decision. It appears that the agent is referring to a discussion about the Veteran's service treatment records in an October 2017 rating decision. The Board notes in this regard that, in the October 2017 rating decision, the AOJ awarded, in pertinent part, service connection and a 100 percent rating effective April 24, 2012, for unspecified schizophrenia spectrum and other psychotic disorder. With respect to the Veteran's service treatment records, the AOJ stated in the October 2017 rating decision that: Service medical records showed that your enlistment examination was silent for a psychiatric condition. However, on January 29, 1974, you [were] admitted to Moncrief Army Hospital because of an episode of hysterical neurosis. You underwent a Medical Board examination[] that diagnosed hysterical neurosis, dissociative type, manifested by grossly inappropriate, bizarre, and agitated behavior with amnesia for the episode. The stressor at the time of the medical board was noted as routine military service. These findings are in accord with the earlier finding in the prior final rating decision dated on April 9, 1974, and challenged in the Veteran's CUE appeal that there was no evidence of any valid neuropsychiatric disorder at the discharge (or separation) physical examination conducted as part of Medical Board proceedings. The AOJ's discussion of the Veteran's service treatment records, to include his Medical Board proceedings, in the October 2017 rating decision does not "clearly indicate[] that...service-connection was established back in 1974 when the Veteran was in the Army." Instead, the Board finds that the AOJ merely reiterated its prior finding concerning the lack of in-service complaints of, treatment for, or diagnosis of a valid neuropsychiatric disorder when it awarded, in pertinent part, service connection and a 100 percent rating effective April 24, 2012, for unspecified schizophrenia spectrum and other psychotic disorder in the October 2017 rating decision. And neither the Veteran nor his agent challenge the finality of the October 2017 rating decision in this CUE appeal. Thus, the Board finds that the AOJ's actions in an October 2017 rating decision do not demonstrate that the April 19, 1974, rating decision was the product of CUE. The agent also argues in the alternative in a September 2019 submission that the AOJ "failed to reconcile" an argument received in October 2018 from the Veteran's prior service representative "concerning why a CUE was committed and why the effective date of this disability should have gone back to the [separation date] of 1974" in a December 2018 rating decision. The Board notes initially that the October 2018 submission from the Veteran's prior service representative is duplicative of the September 2018 CUE motion addressed in this decision. Thus, submission of this duplicative argument does not enhance the probative value of the agent's allegation of CUE in the April 19, 1974, rating decision. Nor does submission of this duplicative argument require that the Board "reconcile" or otherwise make sense of it and apply it to the Veteran's CUE appeal. The Board next notes that the December 2018 rating decision, which denied the Veteran's claim of entitlement to an earlier effective date than April 3, 2012, for an award of service connection for unspecified schizophrenia spectrum and other psychotic disorder, was subsumed by its October 2021 Legacy decision which assigned an earlier effective date of November 16, 2005, for this award. In other words, the Board is not required to address any argument concerning findings in the December 2018 rating decision in this CUE appeal because that decision effectively no longer exists after being subsumed by the October 2021 Board decision. See 38 C.F.R. § 20.1104; see also Morris v. West, 13 Vet. App. 94, 96 (1999). The agent next argues in the alternative in the September 2019 submission that the Veteran submitted timely a notice of disagreement with a February 1978 rating decision, which essentially reopened and denied the claim of service connection for a nervous condition, and VA failed to issue a Statement Of the Case (SOC) on this claim. The agent also argues that the Board "accurately picked up on this per [Board] decision dated 1/7/80 and requested the VARO to develop further. The VARO never did this." (Emphasis in original.) It appears that the agent contends that VA's failure to assist the Veteran in prosecuting an appeal of the February 1978 rating decision by not issuing an SOC on his reopened service connection claim for a nervous condition means that this claim has been pending since that time. The agent's alternative argument here is not supported by a review of the record evidence. The AOJ reopened and denied, in pertinent part, a claim of service connection for a nervous condition in a rating decision dated on February 23, 1978, and issued to the Veteran on March 3, 1978. The AOJ concluded in the February 1978 rating decision that the Veteran's diagnosis of inadequate personality with emotional instability and intellectual dullness was a personality disorder for which service connection is prohibited under § 4.9 as a constitutional or developmental abnormality. See 38 C.F.R. § 4.9. The AOJ also denied a claim of entitlement to non-service-connected disability pension benefits in this rating decision. The Veteran requested that his claim of service connection for a nervous condition be reopened in statements on a VA Form 21-526 dated on July 10, 1978, and date-stamped as received by the AOJ on July 12, 1978. In response to the Veteran's VA Form 21-526, the AOJ advised him in a July 20, 1978, letter that he needed to submit new and material evidence in order to reopen his previously denied service connection claim successfully. The Veteran responded by sending a letter dated on July 24, 1978, and date-stamped as received by the AOJ on July 26, 1978, in which he stated: I have receive[d] a letter for the second time stating that my claim for VA benefits remains in a disallowed status. In 1972-73...I was to marry my first wife. I went to Southside Mental Health Center for marriage problems not for nerves because, at the time, I did not have bad nerves. I just went for [counseling] once a week. I don't think that it is fair that I can't get some disability benefits. I think that I can prove that I just went to Southside for marriage [counseling] not for nerves....I want to appeal my claim because I am [too] disable[d] to work. This letter is stamped, "Notice Of Disagreement," with a handwritten date of "8/2/78" on it. The AOJ promulgated an SOC in January 1979 and mailed it to the Veteran with the issue listed as, "Entitlement to pension benefits." The AOJ stated in the January 1979 SOC that, in the July 28, 1978, notice of disagreement received from the Veteran, "he is primarily seeking pension benefits because of permanent and total disability." The Veteran then perfected a timely substantive appeal by filing his VA Form 9 later in January 1979 with VA and requested a Board hearing. His hearing was rescheduled and then he failed to report for the rescheduled hearing. The Board issued a decision in January 1980 which denied the claim of entitlement to non-service-connected disability pension benefits. The Board stated in this decision that "the issue of service connection for a nervous disorder has not been developed or certified" for appellate review and, as a result, appellate review was limited to the non-service-connected disability pension benefits claim. See Board decision dated January 7, 1980, at pp. 2. Having reviewed the record evidence, the Board finds that it does not support the agent's alternative argument that a pending appeal for service connection for a nervous condition (initially adjudicated in a February 1978 rating decision) supports finding CUE in the 1974 rating decision. The Veteran, through his agent, finally argued in statements on the May 2022 VA Form 20 0996 that the Board must "include[] very specific reference to the noted historical arguments as is required" by the Court's decision in Moore v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 209 (1992). The citation by the Veteran's agent to Moore on May 2022 VA Form 20 0996 is irrelevant to the current CUE appeal. In Moore, the Court held that there was no CUE in a prior Board decision issued in 1987 which denied a service connection claim for a bilateral knee disability. See Moore, 2 Vet. App. at 212-13. The Court also held in Moore that the Board decision challenged on appeal, which denied an increased rating for a low back disability, was "plausible in light of the record viewed in its entirety" and affirmed the Board's decision. Id., at 213. There is no requirement in Moore that the Board must "include[] very specific reference to the noted historical arguments" as the Veteran's agent asserted on the May 2022 VA Form 20 0996. In any event, the Board addressed in this decision each of the Veteran's "historical arguments" concerning his allegation of CUE in the April 1974 rating decision. More importantly, as the Court held in Moore, although the Veteran, through his agent, alleged CUE in the April 1974 rating decision, his argument in this appeal merely disagrees with the "interpretation of the facts" found in that prior final rating decision. And, as the Court also found in Moore, the Veteran "has failed to demonstrate any" CUE in the prior final rating decision dated on April 19, 1974, "which would establish service connection for" unspecified schizophrenia spectrum and other psychotic disorder (which the AOJ characterized as a nervous condition). Id. Thus, the agent's alternative argument concerning the applicability of Moore to this CUE appeal is without merit. The Board finds that the AOJ properly interpreted the Veteran's July 1978 letter as expressing disagreement with the denial of his non-service-connected disability pension benefits claim. This letter does not "cover[] all issues" adjudicated in the February 1978 rating decision as the Veteran's agent alleged in September 2019. Instead, the AOJ reasonably interpreted this letter as limiting the Veteran's appeal to consideration of entitlement to non-service-connected disability pension benefits. The Board also did not request or direct further development of the service connection claim for a nervous condition by the AOJ in its January 1980 decision. That Board decision merely noted instead that the service connection claim for a nervous condition had not been developed or certified for appellate review and was not before it. Having reviewed the record evidence, the Board finds that alternative arguments presented by the Veteran's agent in the September 2019 submission do not support finding that the AOJ committed CUE in the April 19, 1974, rating decision. With respect to the argument that, but for AOJ CUE in the April 19, 1974, rating decision, the Veteran is entitled to service connection for unspecified schizophrenia spectrum and other psychotic disorder effective March 8, 1974, the Board again notes that this argument reflects a disagreement with how the AOJ weighed the record evidence in that decision. This argument again never rises to the level of a valid CUE claim. The Veteran, through his agent, essentially asserted in the CUE motion filed in September 2018 that he is entitled to service connection for unspecified schizophrenia spectrum and other psychotic disorder effective March 8, 1974, or the day that VA received his original claim for this disability (which he characterized as a nervous condition). The Board already has found that the AOJ properly denied service connection for unspecified schizophrenia spectrum and other psychotic disorder (which was characterized as a nervous condition) in the April 19, 1974, rating decision on the basis of no valid diagnosis of a neuropsychiatric disability during active service, including at the time of Medical Board proceedings. The fact remains that, at the time of the April 19, 1974, rating decision challenged in this CUE appeal, the Veteran did not have a valid in-service diagnosis of a neuropsychiatric disability. The AOJ correctly denied service connection for unspecified schizophrenia spectrum and other psychotic disorder (which was characterized as a nervous condition) in the April 19, 1974, rating decision on the basis of no valid in-service diagnosis of a neuropsychiatric disability. The AOJ correctly concluded in the currently appealed June 2022 HLR rating decision that it appropriately denied service connection for this disability in both the April 1974 rating decision challenged in this appeal and in the February 1978 rating decision because the record evidence showed no valid in-service diagnosis of a neuropsychiatric disability and "because you were shown to have been diagnosed with a personality disorder." The AOJ also correctly concluded in the June 2022 HLR rating decision that it appropriately denied service connection for this disability in both of the prior rating decisions dated in April 1974 and in February 1978 because "intellectual disability (intellectual developmental disorder) and personality disorders are not diseases or injuries subject to service connection for VA compensation purposes." This finding tracks the regulatory prohibition against awarding service connection for congenital or developmental defects, to include personality disorder, found in § 4.9. See 38 C.F.R. § 4.9. The Board notes here that § 4.9 has not been revised since it was added to the Rating Schedule in 1976. See 41 Fed. Reg. 11292 (Mar. 12, 1976), codified at 38 C.F.R. § 4.9. The Court held in Ater that an earlier effective date appeal made pursuant to a later rating decision is not inextricably intertwined with a CUE motion made pursuant to an earlier rating decision denying service connection for the same disability. See Ater v. McDonough, No. 23-2583 (Vet. App. Sept. 16, 2024). The Ater Court held that, because earlier effective date claims and CUE claims are two separate legal matters which stem from two distinct claims streams, the Board is not required to address these claims in the same decision. Having reviewed the record evidence, the Board finds that the argument concerning entitlement to an earlier effective date than November 16, 2005, for an award of service connection for unspecified schizophrenia spectrum and other psychotic disorder on the basis of CUE in the April 19, 1974, rating decision is without merit. Having reviewed the Veteran's arguments concerning an allegation of CUE in the April 1974 rating decision, the Board finds that they do not rise to the level of a valid CUE claim. These arguments essentially dispute how the AOJ weighed the record evidence at the time of the April 1974 rating decision and never rise to the level of a valid CUE claim. To the extent that the arguments presented by the Veteran and his attorney challenge the finality of the February 1978 rating decision, they also are contrary to this well-settled legal principle. See Rudd v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 296 (2006). It is undisputed that the rating decisions issued in April 1974 and in February 1978 were not appealed and became final. See 38 U.S.C. § 7105; 38 C.F.R. §§ 20.302, 20.1103. It also is undisputed that the October 2021 Board decision was not appealed to the Court and is now final. See 38 U.S.C. §§ 7104, 7266. Even assuming for the sake of argument only that there was error in the April 19, 1974, rating decision, because it is not absolutely clear that a different result would have ensued, the error complained of cannot be CUE. Again, the AOJ denied service connection for unspecified schizophrenia spectrum and other psychotic disorder (characterized as a nervous condition) in the April 1974 rating decision. The AOJ considered the Veteran's available service treatment records, including the Medical Board proceedings, which showed no valid neuropsychiatric diagnosis at service separation. In other words, the record evidence demonstrates what the AOJ previously concluded in the April 1974 rating decision, i.e., that the Veteran did not have a valid neuropsychiatric diagnosis at service separation which could be attributed to active service or any incident of service. Thus, it is not absolutely clear that a different result would have ensued under the interpretation advanced by the Veteran in his CUE motion. Because it is not absolutely clear to the Board that a different result would have ensued if the AOJ had weighed the record evidence under the theory advanced by the Veteran in this appeal, any alleged error made by the AOJ in the April 19, 1974, rating decision concerning the denial of service connection for unspecified schizophrenia spectrum and other psychotic disorder (characterized as a nervous condition) is not CUE. And, as noted above, the AOJ's conclusions in the April 19, 1974, rating decision with respect to the service connection claim for unspecified schizophrenia spectrum and other psychotic disorder (characterized as a nervous condition) were fully supported by the available evidence at the time of that decision. The record evidence does not support finding that the April 19, 1974, rating decision, which denied a claim of service connection for a nervous condition, was the product of CUE. The Veteran and his agent otherwise have not identified or submitted any evidence demonstrating that the April 19, 1974, rating decision was the product of CUE. The evidence persuasively weighs against the claim. Therefore, the benefit of the doubt rule does not apply. Lynch v. McDonough, 21 F.4th 776 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (en banc). In summary, the Board finds that the April 19, 1974, rating decision, which denied a service connection claim for a nervous condition, was not the product of CUE. The appeal is denied. S. Sorathia Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board Michael T. Osborne, 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.