Case A26037603

G. E. WILKERSON · 2026 · Case ID: A26037603

MIXED

Summary

The veteran, an Air Force veteran who served from October 1988 to October 1992, appeals the denial of an earlier effective date for service connection for PTSD. The veteran initially filed a claim for PTSD on September 28, 1998, which was denied in August 1999. Crucially, additional service department records verifying the PTSD stressor were received by VA after the 1999 denial but were not associated with the claims file at that time. These records later formed the basis for a December 2022 rating decision that granted service connection for PTSD with a 70 percent rating and an effective date of September 24, 2021. The veteran argued for an earlier effective date of September 28, 1998, based on the later-received service records, citing 38 C.F.R. § 3.156(c). The Board agreed, finding that the additional service records, which corroborated the stressor and were linked to the ultimate award, satisfied the "based all or in part on" requirement of § 3.156(c)(3), as interpreted in Reynolds v. Collins. The Board granted the earlier effective date of September 28, 1998. The case is remanded for the assignment of the initial rating for PTSD for the period from September 28, 1998, to September 24, 2021.

Rationale

38 C.F.R. § 3.156(c) applies due to receipt of service records after initial denial; Records linked to ultimate award of benefits per Reynolds v. Collins; Benefit of doubt resolved in Veteran's favor for effective date

Service Branch

AIR FORCE

Special Benefit

NO SPECIAL BENEFIT

Docket No.

250304-521108

Full Decision Text

Citation Nr: A26037603
Decision Date: 04/22/26 Archive Date: 04/22/26

DOCKET NO. 250304-521108
DATE: April 22, 2026

ORDER

Entitlement to an effective date of September 28, 1998, for the award of service connection for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is granted.

REMANDED

Entitlement to an increased initial rating for PTSD is remanded.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. The Veteran filed a service-connection claim for PTSD on September 28, 1998, and the claim was denied by a rating decision of August 1999.

2. After the August 1999 denial of service connection for PTSD, additional service department records verifying the Veteran's PTSD stressor were received by VA, were relied upon in VA's verification of the Veteran's PTSD stressor and were the basis for an award of service connection for PTSD by a rating decision of December 2022.

CONCLUSION OF LAW

The criteria for an effective date of September 28, 1998, for the award of service connection for PTSD have been met. 38 U.S.C. § 5110; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.156(c), 3.400.

REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION

The Veteran served on active duty in the Air Force from October 1988 to October 1992.

This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a December 2024 rating decision issued by a Regional Office of the United States Department of Veterans Affairs (VA).

In the March 2025 VA Form 10182, Decision Review Request: Board Appeal (Notice of Disagreement), the Veteran elected the Direct Review docket.

Therefore, the Board may only consider the evidence of record at the time of the December 2024 agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ) decision on appeal. 38 C.F.R. § 20.301. Any evidence submitted after the AOJ decision on appeal 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.

Because the Board is remanding the claim for entitlement to an increased initial rating for PTSD, any evidence the Board could not consider will be considered by the AOJ in the adjudication of the claim.

Evidentiary Standards

In deciding claims, it is the Board's responsibility to evaluate the entire record on appeal. VA is required to give due consideration to all pertinent medical and lay evidence in evaluating a claim for disability benefits.

When there is an approximate balance of positive and negative evidence regarding any issue material to the determination of a matter, VA shall give the benefit of the doubt to the claimant. 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b). It follows that when the evidence persuasively favors one side or the other, the benefit-of-the-doubt rule is not applied. Lynch v. McDonough, 21 F.4th, 776 (Fed. Cir. 2021).

The law requires the Board address its reasons for rejecting evidence favorable to the Veteran. Timberlake v. Gober, 14 Vet. App. 122, 128-29 (2000). The Board must review the entire record but does not have to discuss each piece of evidence. Gonzales v. West, 218 F.3d 1378, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2000). The analysis below focuses on the most salient and relevant evidence of record, and on what this evidence shows, or fails to show, on the claim.

Any findings favorable to the Veteran made by the VA Regional Office in notification of a decision are binding on the Board unless rebutted by evidence that identifies a clear and unmistakable error in the favorable finding. 38 C.F.R. §?20.810(a). "Findings" means "conclusions on questions of fact and application of law to facts made by an adjudicator concerning the issue under review." Id.

Effective Dates

38 U.S.C. § 5110, which governs the assignment of an effective date for an award
2000). The analysis below focuses on the most salient and relevant evidence of record, and on what this evidence shows, or fails to show, on the claim.

Effective Dates

38 U.S.C. § 5110, which governs the assignment of an effective date for an award of benefits provides:

Unless specifically provided otherwise in this chapter, the effective date of an award based on an initial claim, or a supplemental claim, of compensation, dependency and indemnity compensation, or pension shall be fixed in accordance with the facts found, but shall not be earlier than the date of receipt of application therefor.

38 U.S.C. § 5110(a)(1). The implementing regulations similarly provides that the effective date generally "will be the date of receipt of the claim or the date entitlement arose, whichever is later." 38 C.F.R. § 3.400. "Date of receipt" means the date on which a claim, information, or evidence was received by VA. 38 C.F.R. § 31(r). Exceptions to the general rule exist.

"Claim" is defined broadly to include a formal or informal communication in writing requesting a determination of entitlement or evidencing a belief in entitlement to a benefit. 38 C.F.R. § 3.1(p); Brannon v. West, 12 Vet. App. 32, 34-5 (1998); Servello v. Derwinski, 3Vet. App. 196, 199. VA amended its regulations on March 24, 2015, to require that all claims governed by VA's adjudication regulations be filed on standard forms prescribed by the Secretary, regardless of the type of claim or posture in which the claim arises. See 79 Fed. Reg. 57660 (Sept. 25, 2014).

1. Entitlement to an effective date prior to September 24, 2021, for the award of service connection for PTSD

In a December 2022 rating decision, the Veteran was awarded service connection for PTSD with an evaluation of 70 percent and an effective date of September 24, 2021. The Veteran asserts entitlement to an effective date prior to September 24, 2021. Specifically, the Veteran seeks an effective date of September 28, 1998.

The Veteran separated from service in October 1992. A claim for service connection was not received within one year of the date of discharge.

On September 28, 1998, VA received a VA Form 21-526, Veteran's Application for Compensation or Pension, in which the Veteran requested service connection for PTSD.

In an August 1999 rating decision, the Regional Office denied the Veteran's claim; however, noted that the Veteran's original service treatment records were unavailable for review and if such records were located at a later date, the decision would be reconsidered. The Veteran was notified of the rating decision and advised of his appellate rights in a letter dated August 24, 1999. He did not appeal that decision, nor was any new and material evidence obtained so the August 1999 rating decision.

Following the August 1999 denial, the Veteran filed VA Form 21-526EZ, Application for Disability Compensation and Related Compensation Benefits seeking service connection for PTSD, depression, and mood swings in July 2020.

In August 2020, the Veteran was sent a letter notifying him that his claim for PTSD had been previously denied and the July 2020 claim would not be processed unless he filed a supplemental claim.

In October and November 2020, the Veteran's service medical records and military personnel records were incorporated with the Veteran's claims file.

A February 2021 rating decision denied the Veteran's claim for depression (claimed as mood swings, depression, and mental disorder) because the medical evidence of record failed to show a currently diagnosed disability. The RO acknowledged that review of personnel records confirmed a deployment to Panama and that the Veteran provided security assistance for a helicopter crash.

On September 24, 2021, the Veteran filed an Intent to File a claim for compensation. On April 5, 2022, the Veteran filed VA Form 20-0995, Decision Review Request: Supplemental Claim seeking service connection for PTSD. A December 2022 rating decision granted the Veteran's claim and assigned a
personnel records were incorporated with the Veteran's claims file.

On September 24, 2021, the Veteran filed an Intent to File a claim for compensation. On April 5, 2022, the Veteran filed VA Form 20-0995, Decision Review Request: Supplemental Claim seeking service connection for PTSD. A December 2022 rating decision granted the Veteran's claim and assigned a 70 percent rating with an effective date of September 24, 2021, the date of his Intent to File.

The Veteran asserts that an effective date should be awarded back to the filing of the original claim in September 1998 due to the receipt of service treatment records and service personnel records that were received after the 1999 rating decision and that formed the basis of the grant for service connection for PTSD.

38 C.F.R. § 3.156(c)(1) provides that "if VA receives or associates with the claims file relevant official service department records that existed and had not been associated with the claims file when VA first decided the claim, VA will reconsider the claim." And when VA reconsiders a previously decided initial claim under 38 C.F.R. § 3.156(c)(1) and thereafter grants benefits, 38 C.F.R. § 3.156(c)(3) provides that an earlier effective date may be warranted as early as the date VA received the previously decided claim if the award is made "based all or in part on the records identified by" 38 C.F.R. § 3.156(c)(1).

The purpose of § 3.156(c) is "to place a veteran in the position he [or she] would have been [in] had... VA considered the relevant service department record before the disposition of [the] earlier claim." Blubaugh v. McDonald, 773 F.3d 1310, 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2014). "In this sense," the Court has said of the operation of § 3.156(c), "the original claim is not just reopened, it is reconsidered and serves as the date of the claim and the earliest date for which benefits may be granted." Vigil v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 63, 66-67 (2008).

The Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (the Court) has recently addressed this issue in a precedential opinion. The issue before the Court was the meaning of "based all or in part" in 38 C.F.R. § 3.156(c)(3). The Court held that an earlier effective date under 38 C.F.R. § 3.156(c)(3) may be warranted when the service records triggering reconsideration under 38 C.F.R. § 3.156(c)(1) are linked, even in a supportive way, to the ultimate award of benefits. See Reynolds v. Collins, U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (No. 23-6336).

The Court rejected the Secretary's argument that the phrase "based all or in part on" in 38 C.F.R. § 3.156(c)(3) means that the face of the decision must show that the adjudicator substantially relied on the records to award the benefit sought. However, (c)(3) requires more than strict but-for causation between the records submitted under (c)(1) and the benefit granted. The Court concluded that an earlier effective date is possible under subsection (c)(3) if there is a causal link between the new service records and the ultimate award of benefits, so long as the link is something more than merely causing reconsideration under § 3.156(c)(1). The Court set out a non-exhaustive list of factors that may be considered when determining whether the records submitted under (c)(1) satisfy the "based all or in part on" requirement of (c)(3): 1) The reasoning behind the award, as set out in the decision; 2) How the adjudicator used the new records even if they are not cited in the decision; and, 3) the nature of any evidence developed when compared with the contents of the new records. See Reynolds, supra.

The additional service department records referenced in the December 2022 rating decision granting service connection and had not been associated with the claims file when VA first decided the claim. These records were, in part, the basis for the grant of service connection by the December
that may be considered when determining whether the records submitted under (c)(1) satisfy the "based all or in part on" requirement of (c)(3): 1) The reasoning behind the award, as set out in the decision; 2) How the adjudicator used the new records even if they are not cited in the decision; and, 3) the nature of any evidence developed when compared with the contents of the new records. See Reynolds, supra.

The additional service department records referenced in the December 2022 rating decision granting service connection and had not been associated with the claims file when VA first decided the claim. These records were, in part, the basis for the grant of service connection by the December 2022 rating decision, as they provided corroboration of the Veteran's claimed stressor during his deployment as a security specialist. The newly associated service department records therefore formed a link in the chain of reasoning that supported an award of benefits. Therefore, under 38 C.F.R. § 3.156(c)(3), the Veteran is entitled to service connection from September 28, 1998, the date that VA received previously decided claim. See Reynolds, supra.

The Board notes that although a claim for service connection for depression was denied in 2021, with consideration of the newly-received service treatment and personnel records, a claim for PTSD was rejected for not being filed on the proper form. However, given the receipt of service records following the 1999 rating decision, the fact that the claim for PTSD was filed on the wrong form is irrelevant as readjudication was required under 38 C.F.R. § 3.156(c), regardless of the form used. The matter of service connection for PTSD, specifically, was not readjudicated until the 2022 rating decision on appeal.

The Board acknowledges that had the records been associated with the claims file during the pendency of the original claim, there is no indication that the claim would have been granted based solely on these records. Additional development, however, including obtaining an examination to determine the nature of any present psychiatric disability, may have been taken, and given the findings in Reynolds v. Collins, the Board finds that 3.156(c)(3) applies in this case. Moreover Given the Veteran's filing of a claim in 1998, and reported long history of psychiatric difficulties, which were subsequently attributed to PTSD and linked to service, the Board resolves any doubt in the Veteran's favor as to the date entitlement arose. Accordingly, the Board finds that the appropriate effective date in this case is the September 28, 1998, date of claim.

The Board notes that the Veteran does not contend, nor does the record reflect, that an earlier claim was filed. Accordingly, an effective date of September 28, 1998, and no earlier, is granted.

REASONS FOR REMAND

1. Entitlement to an increased rating for PTSD

By law, the AOJ, acting on behalf of the Secretary, makes the initial review or determination of a disability claim. That decision is then "subject to one review on appeal" by the Board. 38 U.S.C. § 7104(a). This basic framework is colloquially known as the "two bites at the apple" rule. Given the Board's decision to grant an earlier effective date of September 28, 1998, for the award of service connection for PTSD, there is now an unrated period between the new effective date and the previous effective date.

The assignment of the initial rating is a downstream issue and should be assigned by the AOJ in the first instance upon issuance of a decision implementing the Board decision. See Grantham v. Brown, 114 F.3d 1156, 1158-59 (Fed. Cir. 1997). If the Board assigns this rating for a newly service-connected period in the first instance, it will deprive the Veteran of his right to appellate review. See 38 U.S.C. § 7104(a). Moreover, and in order to avoid piecemeal adjudication of this issue, and given that any development on the assignment of an initial rating for the period from 1998-2021 may be relevant to the period from 2021, remand of the entire rating period is warranted.

(Continued on the next page)

The matter is REMANDED for the following action:

1. Implement the Board's grant of an earlier effective date for service connection for PTSD and assign the initial rating for scleroderma disability from September 28, 1998, undertaking any additional development deemed warranted in the assignment of the initial rating.

G. E. Wilkerson

Acting Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans' Appeals

Attorney for the Board Lee, P. M., Associate
, and given that any development on the assignment of an initial rating for the period from 1998-2021 may be relevant to the period from 2021, remand of the entire rating period is warranted.

(Continued on the next page)

The matter is REMANDED for the following action:

G. E. Wilkerson

Acting Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans' Appeals

Attorney for the Board Lee, P. M., 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