Case A26032199

LUKE PELICAN · 2026 · Case ID: A26032199

GRANTED

Summary

The Veteran, an Army veteran who served from January 1989 to November 1991, appeals the denial of an earlier effective date for service connection and a 100 percent rating for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). The Veteran initially filed a claim for PTSD in March 2019, which was initially granted service connection at 70 percent with an effective date of June 20, 2019. A subsequent February 2020 rating decision increased the PTSD rating to 100 percent, effective February 14, 2020. The Veteran sought an earlier effective date for both the initial service connection and the 100 percent rating. The Board reviewed two VA PTSD examinations from September 2019 and February 2020. Both examiners provided diagnoses of PTSD and described significant symptomology and occupational/social impairment, with the February 2020 examiner noting persistent depressive disorder secondary to PTSD and total occupational and social impairment. The Board found both examinations to be highly probative and similar in their findings. The Board granted entitlement to an effective date of March 26, 2019, for both the award of service connection for PTSD and the 100 percent rating, finding that the Veteran's claim and symptomology warranted this earlier date based on the evidence and resolving doubt in the Veteran's favor. The Board denied any entitlement to an effective date prior to March 26, 2019, as no claim or intent to file was of record before that date.

Rationale

Veteran filed new claim March 26, 2019.; AOJ acknowledged claim as request for application.; Symptomology consistent between Sept 2019 and Feb 2020 VA exams.; Resolving doubt in Veteran's favor for earlier effective date.

Service Branch

ARMY

Special Benefit

NO SPECIAL BENEFIT

Docket No.

201026-117722

Full Decision Text

Citation Nr: A26032199
Decision Date: 04/08/26 Archive Date: 04/08/26

DOCKET NO. 201026-117722
DATE: April 8, 2026

ORDER

Entitlement to an effective date of March 26, 2019, but no earlier, for the award of service connection for posttraumatic stress disorder with persistent depressive disorder (PTSD) is granted.

Entitlement to an earlier effective date of March 26, 2019, but no earlier, for the increased evaluation of 100 percent for service-connected PTSD is granted.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. The Veteran filed a new claim application on March 26, 2019. The Veteran was notified of the need for a proper application on a supplemental claim in May 2019. The Veteran filed a supplemental claim application in June 2019 within one year of the filing of the March 2019 new claim application.

2. The Veteran filed a new claim for PTSD on March 26, 2019. The September 2019 rating decision awarded service connection for PTSD at 70 percent effective June 20, 2019. The Veteran filed a VA Form 21-8940 on September 24, 2019, which resulted in a February 2020 rating decision which increased the Veteran's PTSD rating to 100 percent effective February 14, 2020. During the entire period on appeal, the Veteran's PTSD symptomology more closely approximated total occupational and social impairment.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1. The criteria for entitlement to an effective date of March 26, 2019, but no earlier, for the award of service connection for PTSD have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 503, 5104, 5107, 5110, 7103, 7104, 7105; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.103, 3.104, 3.105, 3.155, 3.160, 3.400, 3.2500, 4.3, 19.25, 20.104, 20.302, 20.1100, 20.1103, 20.1104.

2. The criteria for entitlement to an effective date of March 26, 2019, but no earlier, for the award of an increased rating of 100 percent for PTSD have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 503, 5104, 5107, 5110, 7103, 7104, 7105; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.103, 3.104, 3.105, 3.155, 3.160, 3.400, 3.2500, 4.3, 19.25, 20.104, 20.302, 20.1100, 20.1103, 20.1104.

REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Army from January 1989 to November 1991. His awards and decorations include the National Defense Service Medal, among others.

Evidentiary Windows

The higher level review rating decision on appeal was issued in August 2020; therefore, the modernized review system, known as the Appeals Modernization Act (AMA), applies. In the October 2020 VA Form 10182, Decision Review Request: Board Appeal Notice of Disagreement (NOD), the Veteran elected the Hearing docket before a Veterans Law Judge. However, on October 28, 2024, the Veteran's attorney submitted a signed statement and withdrew the hearing request. See October 2024 Third Party Correspondence.

Therefore, the Board may only consider the evidence of record at the time of the February 2020 rating decision, which was the subject of the August 2020 higher level review, as well as any evidence submitted by the Veteran, or representative, within 90 days following receipt of the withdrawal of the hearing request which is until January 26, 2025. 38 C.F.R. § 20.302(b). If evidence was submitted either (1) during the period after the AOJ issued the decision on appeal and prior to receipt of the withdrawal, or (2) more than 90 days following receipt of the withdrawal, the Board did not consider it in its decision. 38 C.F.R. §§ 20.300, 20.302(b), 20.801.

If the Veteran wishes to have the Board consider evidence submitted outside of the review window
0 higher level review, as well as any evidence submitted by the Veteran, or representative, within 90 days following receipt of the withdrawal of the hearing request which is until January 26, 2025. 38 C.F.R. § 20.302(b). If evidence was submitted either (1) during the period after the AOJ issued the decision on appeal and prior to receipt of the withdrawal, or (2) more than 90 days following receipt of the withdrawal, the Board did not consider it in its decision. 38 C.F.R. §§ 20.300, 20.302(b), 20.801.

If the Veteran wishes to have the Board consider evidence submitted outside of the review window, a supplemental claim should be submitted identifying such evidence. Cook v. McDonough, 36 Vet. App. 175 (2023); 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.

Rating Decision on Appeal

As a final initial matter, the Board notes that the October 2020 VA Form 10182 was submitted while a supplemental claim was currently pending at the AOJ. See September 2020 VA Form 20-0995. Additionally, the October 2020 VA Form 10182, which appears to have been completed by the Veteran's then-current representative, only indicated an appeal of "earlier effective date" with no further discussion and provided a decision date of October 26, 2020; however, there is no rating decision provided on that date. The most recent rating decision adjudicating an earlier effective date was the August 2020 higher level review which denied an earlier effective date for the Veteran's assigned 100 percent PTSD rating. Therefore, as a matter of judicial discretion based upon the unique facts and circumstances of this claim and based on the duty to liberally construe the Veteran's claim, the Board will liberally construe the Veteran's October 2020 VA Form 10182 as appealing the August 2020 higher level review rating decision which is within the one year window of the October 2020 VA Form 10182.

Additionally, based on the unique facts and circumstances of this Veteran's claim, the Board will also liberally construe the Veteran's October 2020 VA Form 10182 as appealing the August 2020 higher level review rating decision which denied an earlier effective date for the award of service connection for PTSD. As such, an earlier effective date for the award of service connection for PTSD is also before the Board. 38 C.F.R. § 20.202; Robinson v. Shinseki, 557 F.3d 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (The Board has an obligation to read appeal findings in a liberal manner).

1. Entitlement to an effective date of March 26, 2019, but no earlier, for the award of service connection for PTSD is granted.

Effective Dates

The effective date of an award of disability compensation, in conjunction with a grant of entitlement to service connection, shall be the day following separation from active service or the date entitlement arose if the claim is received within one year of separation from service; otherwise, the effective date shall be the date of receipt of the claim, or the date entitlement arose, whichever is later. 38 U.S.C. § 5110; 38 C.F.R. § 3.400(b)(2)(i). An effective date for a reopened claim of entitlement to service connection can be no earlier than the date the request to reopen the claim was filed. 38 U.S.C. § 5110(a); 38 C.F.R. § 3.400(q)(1)(ii).

A claimant may indicate a desire to file a claim for benefits by submitting an intent to file a claim to VA. Any communication indicating an intent to apply for a benefit under the laws administered by VA may be considered an informal claim provided it identifies, but not necessarily with specificity, the benefit sought. 38 C.F.R. § 3.155(a). This communication may be "transmitted through VA's electronic portal or otherwise." Id. Upon receipt of the intent to file a claim, VA will furnish the claimant with the appropriate application form prescribed by the Secretary. If VA receives a complete application form, appropriate to the benefit sought within one year of receipt of the intent to file a claim, VA will consider the complete claim filed as of the date the intent to file a claim was received. 38 C.F.R. § 3.155(b
apply for a benefit under the laws administered by VA may be considered an informal claim provided it identifies, but not necessarily with specificity, the benefit sought. 38 C.F.R. § 3.155(a). This communication may be "transmitted through VA's electronic portal or otherwise." Id. Upon receipt of the intent to file a claim, VA will furnish the claimant with the appropriate application form prescribed by the Secretary. If VA receives a complete application form, appropriate to the benefit sought within one year of receipt of the intent to file a claim, VA will consider the complete claim filed as of the date the intent to file a claim was received. 38 C.F.R. § 3.155(b). To determine when a claim was received, the Board must review all communications in the claims file that may be construed as an application or claim. Quarles v. Derwinski, 3 Vet. App. 129, 134 (1992).

Where a request for benefits is filed which is not filed on the appropriate prescribed form on or after March 24, 2015, the request for benefits will be called a request for application. The date of claim will be established based on the date the request for application was received. M21-1, II,iii.2.G.1.a. While the Board is not bound by the provisions of the M21-1, it must discuss relevant (usually favorable) guidance provisions included in it. Healey v. McDonough, 33 Vet. App. 312, 320-321 (2021).

Finality of Rating Decisions

Generally, a decision that is not appealed becomes final one year after the claimant is notified of the decision. 38 U.S.C. § 7105; 38 C.F.R. §§ 20.302, 20.1103. A final rating decision is not subject to revision on the same factual basis except by duly constituted appellate authorities, or when the decision contains clear and unmistakable error (CUE) as provided in 38 C.F.R. § 3.105. 38 C.F.R. § 3.104(a). However, the key point here is "after the claimant is notified." A rating decision does not become final and binding until written notification of the decision is issued to the claimant. 38 U.S.C. § 5104(a); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.103, 3.104(a), 3.160(d), 19.25. Adams v. Shinseki, 568 F.3d 956, 960 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (a claim will be considered to be pending if VA has failed to notify the claimant of the denial of his claim or of his right to appeal an adverse decision) (citing to Cook v. Principi, 318 F.3d 1334, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (en banc)); Tablazon v. Brown, 8 Vet. App. 359, 361 (1995) (finding that a rating decision did not become final because no SOC was issued after a NOD was timely submitted); Hauck v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 518, 519 (1994).

It is typically assumed that VA has timely issued notification of rating decisions to claimants. The presumption of regularity provides that, in the absence of clear evidence to the contrary, the Court will presume that public officers have properly discharged their official duties. Miley v. Principi, 366 F.3d 1343, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2004). The presumption has been applied to the Government's mailing of certain types of notices. Crain v. Principi, 17 Vet. App. 182, 186 (2003) ("The law presumes the regularity of the administrative process...."); Davis v. Principi, 17 Vet. App. 29, 37 (2003) (applying a "presumption of regularity of mailing"). The presumption of regularity is rebutted by submission of clear evidence to the contrary. Ashley v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 307, 309 (1992) (quoting Rosler v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 241, 242 (1991)).

Benefit of the Doubt

When there is an approximate balance of positive and negative evidence regarding the merits of an issue material to the determination of the matter, the benefit of the doubt in resolving each such issue shall be given to the claimant. 38 U.S.C. § 5107
29, 37 (2003) (applying a "presumption of regularity of mailing"). The presumption of regularity is rebutted by submission of clear evidence to the contrary. Ashley v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 307, 309 (1992) (quoting Rosler v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 241, 242 (1991)).

Benefit of the Doubt

When there is an approximate balance of positive and negative evidence regarding the merits of an issue material to the determination of the matter, the benefit of the doubt in resolving each such issue shall be given to the claimant. 38 U.S.C. § 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.102, 4.3. When a Veteran seeks benefits and the evidence is in relative equipoise, the Veteran prevails. Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49 (1990). The benefit-of-the-doubt rule does not apply when the evidence persuasively favors one side or the other. Lynch v. McDonough, 21 F.4th 776, 781-82 (Fed. Cir. 2021).

By way of history, the Veteran filed a new claim for benefits in March 2019. See March 2019 VA Form 21-526EZ. The Veteran also submitted photographs and a statement in support of claim for PTSD. See March 2019 VA Form 21-0781. However, in May 2019, the AOJ sent a letter to the Veteran indicating that the Veteran's claim for PTSD had been previously adjudicated and must be submitted on the proper form. See May 2019 Correspondence. The Veteran then submitted a June 2019 supplemental claim. See June 2019 VA Form 20-0995.

The Board finds that the AOJ was correct in the May 2019 letter indicating that this claim had been previously adjudicated. The Veteran's claim for PTSD and generalized anxiety disorder was denied in a May 1993 rating decision. See May 1993 rating decision. The Veteran was notified of the May 1993 rating decision in June 1993. See June 1993 Notification Letter. Following the May 1993 rating decision denying entitlement to service connection, a private treatment record dated July 8, 1993 was uploaded into the claims file. See July 1993 Medical Treatment Record - Non-Government Facility. An August 1993 handwritten rating decision again denied the claim. Additionally, an August 2024 Board decision determined these rating decisions as final. See August 2024 Board decision. As such, the Board is bound by this prior decision regarding the finality of the May 1993 and August 1993 rating decisions based on res judicata. 38 U.S.C. §§ 503, 7103, 7104; 38 C.F.R. §§ 20.104, 20.1100, 20.1104.

In light of the history discussed above regarding service connection for PTSD, the Board finds that the Veteran's claim for an effective date earlier than June 20, 2019 for the award of service connection for PTSD must be granted. As noted, an effective date for a claim of entitlement to service connection can be no earlier than the date of receipt of the claim, or the date entitlement arose, whichever is later. 38 U.S.C. § 5110(a); 38 C.F.R. § 3.400(q)(1)(ii).

Here, this claim must be granted because the Veteran filed the March 26, 2019 VA Form 21-526EZ. Based on the requirements of the AOJ's M21-1, the AOJ should have determined that the March 26, 2019 new claim was a request for application and assigned an effective date consistent with the submission of the request for application. M21-1, II,iii.2.G.1.a. As such, the proper effective date for service connection of PTSD is March 26, 2019, but no earlier, as there was no claim for benefits pending between the August 1993 final rating decision and the submission of the March 26, 2019 new claim. See June 2016 and June 2018 VA Form 21-526EZ; see also October 2017 VA Form 21-526b; see also June 2018 and August 2018 VA Form 21-8940.

2. Entitlement to an effective date of March 26, 2019, but no earlier, for the increased evaluation of
21-1, II,iii.2.G.1.a. As such, the proper effective date for service connection of PTSD is March 26, 2019, but no earlier, as there was no claim for benefits pending between the August 1993 final rating decision and the submission of the March 26, 2019 new claim. See June 2016 and June 2018 VA Form 21-526EZ; see also October 2017 VA Form 21-526b; see also June 2018 and August 2018 VA Form 21-8940.

2. Entitlement to an effective date of March 26, 2019, but no earlier, for the increased evaluation of 100 percent for service-connected PTSD is granted.

The Veteran contends that his assignment of a 100 percent rating should be effective prior to February 14, 2020. See October 2020 VA Form 10182 and April 2020 VA Form 20-0996.

The Veteran was awarded service connection for PTSD in a September 2019 rating decision and assigned a 70 percent rating from June 20, 2019. The AOJ assigned June 20, 2019 as the effective date because that was the date that the Veteran submitted a supplemental claim. See June 2019 VA Form 20-0995. Following a September 2019 TDIU claim, a February 2020 rating decision assigned an increased PTSD rating of 100 percent with an effective date of February 14, 2020. Following an April 2020 higher level review, an August 2020 rating decision denied a claim for an earlier effective date for service connection of PTSD.

Regarding increased rating claims: generally, the effective date of an award of an increased rating is the date of receipt of a claim or the date entitlement arose, whichever is later. 38 U.S.C. § 5110(a); 38 C.F.R. § 3.400.

The pertinent criteria for the effective date of an award for an increase in disability compensation are found in 38 U.S.C. § 5110(b)(2) and 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.400(o)(1), 3.400(o)(2). However, 38 U.S.C. § 5110(b)(2) and 38 C.F.R. § 3.400(o)(2) are applicable only where an increase in disability precedes a claim for an increased disability rating. Otherwise, the general default rule for earlier effective dates applies. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.400(o)(1); Harper v. Brown, 10 Vet. App. 125, 126 (1997).

Evidence and Analysis

VA Examinations and Opinions

Turning to the record, the Board notes that two VA examinations are of record.

The Veteran was first provided a September 2019 VA PTSD examination. This examination was completed in-person, and the examiner provided a diagnosis of PTSD but no other mental health diagnoses. The examiner marked that this Veteran has occupational and social impairment with deficiencies in most areas.

The examiner also found PTSD criteria including: directly experiencing the traumatic event; witnessing in person the traumatic event as it occurred to others; recurrent, involuntary, and intrusive distressing memories and dreams of the traumatic event; intense or prolonged psychological distress at exposure to internal or external cues that symbolize or resemble the traumatic event; marked physiological reactions to internal or external cues that symbolize or resemble an aspect of the traumatic event; avoidance of or efforts to avoid distressing memories, thoughts, feeling, or external reminders of the traumatic event; persistent and exaggerated negative beliefs; persistent, distorted cognitions about the cause or consequences of the traumatic event that lead the individual to blame himself or others; persistent negative emotional state; markedly diminished interest or participation in significant activities; hypervigilance; exaggerated startle response; problems with concentration, and sleep disturbance.

Additionally, the examiner found PTSD symptoms including: depressed mood; anxiety; panic attacks that occur weekly or less often; chronic sleep impairment; mild memory loss; flattened affect; disturbance of motivation and mood; difficulty in establishing and maintaining effective work and social relationships; difficulty in adapting to stressful circumstances, including work or a work like setting; suicidal ideation; obsessional rituals which interfere with routine activities; and impaired impulse control such as unprovoked irritability with periods of violence.

Additionally, the examiner also noted that the Veteran was tearful and broke down sobbing through parts of the examination. The examiner noted that the Veteran experiences inappropriate guilt with restless sleep and nightmares. The Veteran was noted to be afraid of sleeping in the same bed because he may hurt others during his nightmares. The examiner noted passive suicidal ideation. Further, the examiner noted that the Veteran would throw
mild memory loss; flattened affect; disturbance of motivation and mood; difficulty in establishing and maintaining effective work and social relationships; difficulty in adapting to stressful circumstances, including work or a work like setting; suicidal ideation; obsessional rituals which interfere with routine activities; and impaired impulse control such as unprovoked irritability with periods of violence.

Only five months later as part of a claim for TDIU, the Veteran was also provided with another VA PTSD examination in February 2020. This examination was completed in-person, and the examiner provided a diagnosis of PTSD and persistent depressive disorder. The examiner marked that this Veteran had total occupational and social impairment. Additionally, the examiner noted that there were no changes since the Veteran's previous examination in October 2019.

The examiner also found PTSD criteria including: directly experiencing the traumatic event; witnessing in person the traumatic event as it occurred to others; recurrent, involuntary, and intrusive distressing memories and dreams of the traumatic event; dissociative reactions in which the individual feels or acts as if the traumatic events are recurring; intense or prolonged psychological distress at exposure to internal or external cues that symbolize or resemble the traumatic event; marked physiological reactions to internal or external cues that symbolize or resemble an aspect of the traumatic event; avoidance of or efforts to avoid distressing memories, thoughts, feeling, or external reminders of the traumatic event; persistent and exaggerated negative beliefs; persistent, distorted cognitions about the cause or consequences of the traumatic event that lead the individual to blame himself or others; persistent negative emotional state; markedly diminished interest or participation in significant activities; feelings of detachment or estrangement from others; persistent inability to experience positive emotions; irritable behavior and angry outbursts; reckless or self-destructive behavior; hypervigilance; exaggerated startle response; problems with concentration, and sleep disturbance.

The examiner also found PTSD symptoms including: depressed mood; anxiety; suspiciousness; panic attacks that occur weekly or less often; near-continuous panic or depression affecting the ability to function independently; chronic sleep impairment; impairment of short and long term memory; flattened affect; disturbance of motivation and mood; difficulty in establishing and maintaining effective work and social relationships; difficulty in adapting to stressful circumstances, including work or a work like setting; inability to establish and maintain effective relationships; suicidal ideation; obsessional rituals which interfere with routine activities; and impaired impulse control such as unprovoked irritability with periods of violence.

Additionally, the examiner specifically noted that the diagnosis of persistent depressive disorder has been present and persistent since he had to leave the military service and related to the long term effects of his PTSD.

Significant probative value is afforded to both the September 2019 and the February 2020 VA PTSD medical examinations. Notably, the examiners, via in-person examinations, offered a definitive medical examination supported by a detailed rationale which directly contemplates the severity of the Veteran's service-connected PTSD. There is no evidence that the examiners misstated any relevant fact in providing the examinations which are supported by a comprehensive review of the claims file and related medical research analysis. As such, the Board finds both the September 2019 and the February 2020 VA PTSD medical examinations to be afforded significant probative value.

Conclusion

In light of the history discussed above regarding the increased rating claim, the Board finds that the Veteran's claim for an effective date earlier than February 14, 2020 for the assigned 100 percent rating must be granted. As noted, an effective date for a claim of entitlement to service connection can be no earlier than the date of receipt of the claim, or the date entitlement arose, whichever is later. 38 U.S.C. § 5110(a); 38 C.F.R. § 3.400(q)(1)(ii). Here, this claim must be granted because the Veteran filed the March 2019 request for application which was acknowledged by VA. As noted above, both of the VA PTSD examinations of record are remarkably similar to each other in terms of PTSD criteria noted and symptomology described. The AOJ accepted the criteria and symptomology of the September 2019 VA PTSD examination in awarding a 70 percent rating and the February 2020 VA PTSD examination as warranting a 100 percent rating. Additionally, while not addressed by the AOJ
the date entitlement arose, whichever is later. 38 U.S.C. § 5110(a); 38 C.F.R. § 3.400(q)(1)(ii). Here, this claim must be granted because the Veteran filed the March 2019 request for application which was acknowledged by VA. As noted above, both of the VA PTSD examinations of record are remarkably similar to each other in terms of PTSD criteria noted and symptomology described. The AOJ accepted the criteria and symptomology of the September 2019 VA PTSD examination in awarding a 70 percent rating and the February 2020 VA PTSD examination as warranting a 100 percent rating. Additionally, while not addressed by the AOJ, the February 2020 VA PTSD examiner noted that not much had changed since the September 2019 VA PTSD examination and noted that the newly provided diagnosis had been long standing and had impacted the symptomology of the Veteran's PTSD. Based on this finding by the February 2020 VA examiner and the fact that only five months had expired between the two VA PTSD examinations, the Board finds, when resolving doubt in the Veteran's favor, that the Veteran's 100 percent rating is warranted from the date of the Veteran's March 2019 claim.

(Continued on the next page)

The evidence of record indicates, and the Board treats as a favorable finding, that entitlement to benefits arose prior to the June 20, 2019 supplemental claim, as indicated by the September 2019 rating decision. 38 C.F.R. § 3.104. The Veteran filed his claim for PTSD on March 26, 2019 which may be viewed as a request for application. Additionally, the symptomology of the September 2019 VA PTSD examination is effectively the same as the February 2020 VA PTSD examination, and both examiners found that the PTSD criteria and symptomology were long standing issues for this Veteran. As such, the Board finds that the entitlement to benefits arose prior to the March 26, 2019 request for application. As such, the earliest effective date assignable for the 100 percent PTSD rating is the Veteran's submission of the March 26, 2019, request for application. Additionally, there is no intent to file of record or any claim pending prior to March 26, 2019, which would apply to this claim. 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.155(b)(6), 3.400, 3.2500(c).

In sum, the Board finds that the evidence of record persuasively weighs in favor of the claim for an effective date of March 26, 2019, but no earlier, for the assignment of service connection for PTSD and for assignment of a 100 percent rating for PTSD. To that extent, the appeal is granted. The Board finds that there are no claims documents or Intent to File forms of record prior to March 26, 2019 as it relates to the claimed PTSD. To that extent, the appeal is denied. 38 U.S.C. § 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 4.3; Lynch v. McDonough, 21 F.4th 776, 781-82 (Fed. Cir. 2021).

Luke Pelican

Acting Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans' Appeals

Attorney for the Board Daniel Stephens, Associate 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.

Analyze in VA Law Explorer