Case A26039940

L. M. BARNARD · 2026 · Case ID: A26039940

DENIED

Summary

The veteran, who served from January 1982 to May 1990, appeals the denial of an earlier effective date for service connection for Reiter's arthritis of the bilateral ankles and for Dependents' Educational Assistance (DEA) benefits. The veteran's claim for service connection for Reiter's arthritis of the bilateral ankles was filed in December 2021, with an intent to file received on October 13, 2021. The veteran contended that this claim should be construed as one for an increased rating for already service-connected conditions affecting his feet, shoulders, and hands, thereby seeking an earlier effective date. The Board reviewed the history of the veteran's claims, noting initial claims for Reiter's syndrome in 1990 and increased ratings in 2007, which were either granted with specific diagnoses (like hallux valgus) or denied due to failure to attend examinations or lack of clear intent. The Board found that the veteran's January 2011 claim, which mentioned ankle pain in the context of Reiter's arthritis, did not reasonably raise a claim for service connection for a separate ankle disability. The Board also noted that the veteran did not report ankle symptoms during subsequent examinations or appeal the final decisions regarding his feet and shoulder conditions. The Board concluded that the veteran's claims did not establish entitlement to an earlier effective date for the ankle condition or DEA benefits, as the intent to file in October 2021 represented the earliest possible date for these claims. The Board denied both appeals.

Rationale

No clear intent to claim separate ankle disability before October 13, 2021; January 2011 claim not considered an informal claim for ankle disability; Veteran did not report ankle symptoms or appeal final decisions regarding feet/shoulders

Special Benefit

NO SPECIAL BENEFIT

Docket No.

260127-632853

Full Decision Text

Citation Nr: A26039940
Decision Date: 04/29/26 Archive Date: 04/29/26

DOCKET NO. 260127-632853
DATE: April 29, 2026

ORDER

An effective date earlier than October 13, 2021, for the award of service connection for Reiter's arthritis of the bilateral ankles is denied.

An effective date earlier than October 13, 2021, for the award of Dependents' Educational Assistance ("DEA") benefits is denied.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. VA received the Veteran's intent to file a claim for service connection for Reiter's arthritis of the bilateral ankles on October 13, 2021.

2. There was no formal or informal claim for service connection for Reiter's arthritis of the ankles pending prior to October 13, 2021.

3. Accordingly, October 13, 2021, is the "date of claim" for purposes of establishing the effective date of the award of service connection for Reiter's arthritis of the bilateral ankles, and the earliest effective date allowed by law.

4. Before October 13, 2021, the Veteran did not have a single disability rated totally disabling and his combined disability rating was 90 percent (or lower).

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1. The criteria for an effective date earlier than October 13, 2021, for the award of service connection for Reiter's arthritis of the bilateral ankles have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 5107, 5110; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.155, 3.400.

2. The criteria for an effective date earlier than October 13, 2021, for the award of DEA benefits have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 5107, 5110; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.155, 3.400.

REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

The Veteran had active service from January 1982 to May 1990.

This matter is on appeal from a February 2025 rating decision by a VA Regional Office ("RO"). The Veteran filed a timely notice of disagreement (VA Form 10182 or "NOD") and selected the direct review docket.

Under the direct review docket, the Board may only consider the evidence of record at the time of the February 2025 decision on appeal. The Board cannot consider evidence submitted after the RO issued the decision on appeal. 38 C.F.R. § 20.301.

If evidence was associated with the claim file during a period when additional evidence was not allowed, the Board did not consider it in its decision. If the Veteran would like VA to consider any evidence that was added to the claims file 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 considering the new evidence in addition to the evidence previously considered. Specific instructions for filing a Supplemental Claim are included with this decision.

EFFECTIVE DATES

Generally, the effective date of an evaluation and award of pension, compensation, or dependency and indemnity compensation based on an original claim, a claim reopened after final disallowance, or a claim for increase will be the date the claim was received (i.e., the "date of claim"), or the date entitlement arose, whichever is later. 38 U.S.C. § 5110 (a); 38 C.F.R. § 3.400 (b)(2)(i) (italics added).

The "date entitlement arose" is generally the date when the claimant met the requirements for the benefit sought. See 38 U.S.C. § 5110 (a); McGrath v. Gober, 14 Vet. App. 28, 35 (2000).

The effective date of an award of service connection is not based on the earliest medical evidence showing a causal connection, but on the date that the application upon which service connection was eventually awarded was filed with VA. Lalonde v. West, 12 Vet. App. 377, 382 (1999).

When service connection is granted on a secondary basis, the effective date can be no earlier than the date of the claim for secondary service connection. Ellington v. Nicholson, 22 Vet. App. 141, 145 (2007); see also Ross v. Peake, 21 Vet. App. 528, 532-33 (2008) (holding that the effective date for a grant of secondary service connection for depression with anxiety was the date of the
connection is not based on the earliest medical evidence showing a causal connection, but on the date that the application upon which service connection was eventually awarded was filed with VA. Lalonde v. West, 12 Vet. App. 377, 382 (1999).

When service connection is granted on a secondary basis, the effective date can be no earlier than the date of the claim for secondary service connection. Ellington v. Nicholson, 22 Vet. App. 141, 145 (2007); see also Ross v. Peake, 21 Vet. App. 528, 532-33 (2008) (holding that the effective date for a grant of secondary service connection for depression with anxiety was the date of the secondary service connection claim, not the date of the claim for service connection for the primary heart condition).

VA may recognize the receipt date of the intent to file a claim as the "date of claim" for effective date purposes if VA receives the successfully completed claim form within one year of receipt of the intent to file. An intent to file must identify the general benefit (e.g., compensation, pension) but need not identify the specific benefit claimed or any medical condition(s) on which the claim is based. See C.F.R. § 3.155(b).

When a claim is denied by VA, the claimant has one year from the date of mailing of notice of the denial to file an appeal or submit additional relevant evidence. If the claimant does not, the denial is "final." Essentially, for the claimant to have the finally denied claim reexamined by VA to determine whether additional development and readjudication should occur, the claimant must submit "new and material" evidence. 38 C.F.R. § 3.156(a).

For claims filed before March 24, 2015, the term "claim" or "application" meant 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). Any communication or action indicating intent to apply for one or more benefits under the laws administered by VA, from a veteran or his representative, may be considered an informal claim. Such informal claim must identify the benefit sought. See also Rodriguez v. West, 189 F.3d 1351, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (noting that even an informal claim for benefits must be in writing).

All claims filed on or after March 24, 2015, must be filed on a standard form. 38 C.F.R. § 3.155. The informal claims codified in 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.155 and 3.157 prior to that date were eliminated.

1. An effective date earlier than October 13, 2021, for the award of service connection for Reiter's arthritis of the bilateral ankles is denied.

The current effective date of the award of service connection for Reiter's arthritis of the bilateral ankles is October 13, 2021, the date VA received the Veteran's intent to file.

For the reasons below, an effective date earlier than October 13, 2021 will be denied.

In July 1990, the Veteran filed a claim for service connection for "Reiter's syndrome" which he described as joint pain in his "feet, hands, hips, shoulders." See Veterans Application for Compensation or Pension ("VA 21-526"), received July 27, 1990.

At an October 1990 compensation and pension examination, the Veteran endorsed pain in his "toes" and "metatarsal regions." Physical examination showed no pain or crepitus in the ankles.

In a November 1990 rating decision, a VA RO granted service connection for Reiter's syndrome of the "sacroiliac joints," bilateral shoulders, and bilateral feet, and assigned noncompensable (zero percent) ratings for each of those joints.

In January 2007, the Veteran filed a claim for increased rating for "Reiter's syndrome." See Veterans Application for Compensation or Pension ("VA 21-526"), received January 26, 2007.

In March 2007, the RO requested that the Veteran resubmit his January 2007 claim application and "describe the conditions" he was claiming. See "Notification Letter (e.g. VA 20-8993, VA 21-0290, PCGL)," received March 28, 2007.

In June 2007, the Veteran asserted that his Reiter's syndrome worsened, with "severe pain in hands, fingers, wrist, knees, heels... [and] SI joints along with [his] lower spine." See Statement in Support of Claim ("VA 21-4138") received June
Compensation or Pension ("VA 21-526"), received January 26, 2007.

In April 2008, the Veteran asserted that his Reiter's arthritis also affected his hands and fingers. He further endorsed worsening pain in his feet/toes, specifically "the large joints are swollen, numb, and painful to walk." See Statement in Support of Claim ("VA 21-4138") received April 19, 2008.

Later in April 2008, the RO issued a rating decision denying the January 2007 claim for increased ratings for the Veteran's service-connected Reiter's arthritis in his sacroiliac joints, bilateral shoulders, and bilateral feet. The RO denied the claims because the Veteran did not appear at a scheduled VA medical examination.

However, the RO rescheduled a medical examination in May 2008, which the Veteran attended. At the examination, the Veteran endorsed intermittent pain and stiffness in his "feet" while standing, walking, and at rest. Physical examination of his lower extremities showed hallux valgus (bunions) in both feet and tenderness in all toes. He had normal range of motion ("ROM") in his ankles, but the examiner opined that the Veteran was additionally limited by pain, fatigue, weakness, and lack of endurance after repetitive use.

In a July 2008 rating decision, the RO recharacterized the Veteran's service-connected Reiter's arthritis of the feet as "hallux valgus" of the bilateral feet and assigned 10 percent increased ratings for each foot. The Veteran was notified of the decision on did not appeal the July 2008 rating decision or submit new and material evidence within one year. See 'Notification Letter (e.g. VA 20-8993, VA 21-0290, PCGL)" dated July 29, 2008. Accordingly, the July 2008 rating decision is final.

In April 2009, the Veteran requested to reopen a previously denied claim of service connection for Reiter's arthritis in his bilateral hands. See Statement in Support of Claim ("VA 21-4138") received April 15, 2009.

In a March 2010 rating decision, the RO denied the Veteran's April 2009 claim for service connection for Reiter's arthritis of the hands.

In January 2011, VA received a pro se notice of disagreement ("NOD") which the Veteran described as "an appeal for claim of additional VA medical benefits compensation...." "...to be addition to the existing rating of hallux valgus of both feet and the degenerative disc disease of the spine and the rating decision in appeal of Reiter's Arthritis in feet ankles, hands, wrists and spine." See NOD received January 4, 2011. However, at the time of filing the January 2011 NOD, there was no active appeal of the ratings assigned for the Veteran's already service-connected Reiter's arthritis of the sacroiliac joints, bilateral hallux valgus (feet), or shoulders.

In the January 2011 NOD, the Veteran indicated that he disagreed with the "decision of denial of Reiter's arthritis of the bilateral hands." He further stated that "consideration must be given to an increased evaluation..." but did not identify a specific service-connected disability. The Veteran asserted that "clarification is needed as to diagnosis of Reiter's of feet..." without further explanation.

In April 2011, the RO informed the Veteran that it interpreted his January 2011 NOD as initiating an appeal of the March 2010 rating decision denying service connection for Reiter's arthritis of the bilateral hands. The RO further stated: "... you mentioned other issues in connection with the appealed issue... [p]lease clarify in writing if it was your intention to file any reopened or new claims." See 'Notification Letter (e.g. VA 20-8993, VA 21-0290, PCGL)" dated April 15, 2011.

In a May 2011 statement, the Veteran requested a "review of Reiter's syndrome symptoms," to include: blood spots on feet, swollen toes, fingers, S
2011, the RO informed the Veteran that it interpreted his January 2011 NOD as initiating an appeal of the March 2010 rating decision denying service connection for Reiter's arthritis of the bilateral hands. The RO further stated: "... you mentioned other issues in connection with the appealed issue... [p]lease clarify in writing if it was your intention to file any reopened or new claims." See 'Notification Letter (e.g. VA 20-8993, VA 21-0290, PCGL)" dated April 15, 2011.

In a May 2011 statement, the Veteran requested a "review of Reiter's syndrome symptoms," to include: blood spots on feet, swollen toes, fingers, S1 joint, spine & neck, [and] ankylosing spondylitis..." but did not reference ankle symptoms. See Statement in Support of Claim ("VA 21-4138") received May 17, 2011.

In January 2013, a VA employee contacted the Veteran by telephone to clarify "exactly what he [was] claiming" in the January 2011 NOD and May 2011 statement (both above). The employee discussed the dates of previous decisions and explained to the Veteran that the only "valid" and timely appeal pending at that time was for his bilateral hands. The employee advised the Veteran that he "could request" to reopen the previously denied claim of service connection for ankylosing spondylitis and/or request an increase for his service-connected degenerative disc disease, bilateral hallux valgus/Reiter's arthritis of the feet, and Reiter's arthritis of the shoulders. The employee advised the Veteran to contact a Veterans Service Organization ("VSO") who could "explain in detail the avenue he needs to pursue to obtain the benefits he desires." See Report of General Information ("VA 21-0820") dated January 9, 2013.

In a letter mailed the same day (January 9, 2013), the RO informed the Veteran that it was processing his claim for increased ratings for his service-connected degenerative disc disease, bilateral hallux valgus (previously characterized as Reiter's arthritis of the feet), and Reiter's arthritis of the shoulders.

In February 2013, the RO scheduled medical examinations for the Veteran's lower back, feet, and shoulders. The Veteran did not report, and the examiner did not record any bilateral ankle symptoms.

In a February 2013 rating decision, the RO granted increased ratings for the Veteran's bilateral hallux valgus and Reiter's arthritis of the bilateral shoulders, and granted service connection for bilateral lower extremity radiculopathy secondary to service-connected Reiter's arthritis of the sacroiliac joint. The Veteran was notified of the February 2013 decision and did not file a NOD or submit new and material evidence within one year. See 'Notification Letter (e.g. VA 20-8993, VA 21-0290, PCGL)" dated March 1, 2013. Accordingly, the February 2013 rating decision is final.

In April 2014, the Veteran filed a claim for service connection for "arthritis, degenerative, Reactive, cervical spine C1 through C7."

In May 2015, the Veteran filed a claim for service connection for Reiter's arthritis of the right elbow, costochondritis secondary to Reiter's arthritis, and peripheral neuropathy.

VA received the Veteran's claim for "Service connection for Reiter's Arthritis in the bilateral ankles" in December 2021. See Fully Developed Claim ("VA 21-526EZ), received December 23, 2021.

The Veteran contends that his December 2021 claim should be construed as one for an increased rating for his already service-connected Reiter's arthritis of the bilateral feet (rated as bilateral hallux valgus), bilateral shoulders, and bilateral hands/fingers. See "Third Party Correspondence" received October 25, 2024 and Notice of Disagreement received January 27, 2026. Based on this premise, he asserts that an effective date for service connection for Reiter's arthritis of the bilateral ankles should be awarded as early as one year before his intent to file was received (i.e., one year before October 13, 2021.).

The Veteran's argument is without merit. The Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims ("Court") has held that "The law is clear that claims for secondary service connection are not claims for increased compensation and are not part and parcel of a claim for increased compensation for the primary condition." See Gudinas v. McDonough, 34 Vet. App. 25, 37 (2021), aff'd 54 F.4th 716 (Fed. Cir. 2022). The Court cited Manzanares v. Shulkin, 863 F.3d 1374, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2017), as concluding that a claim for secondary service connection was not part of a pending claim for an increased rating of the primary condition and thus was not entitled to the same effective date as the primary condition, and Ross v. Peake, 21 Vet. App. 528, 532 (2008), as holding that an award of secondary service connection is not an award of increased compensation because it requires the incurrence of an additional disability. Gudinas, 34 Vet. App. at 38.

The Board further finds that a claim (informal or otherwise) for service connection for Reiter's arthritis of the bilateral ankles was not reasonably raised before October 13, 2021.

The January 2011 NOD/increased rating claim (hereafter referred to as the "January 2011 claim") was not an informal claim for service connection for Reiter's arthritis of the bilateral ankles. Even construing the January 2011 claim liberally (and considering the Veteran's pro se status at the time), a reasonable person would not infer an intent to file a claim for service connection for a separate ankle disability associated with Reiter's arthritis.

At minimum, a claim for VA benefits requires (1) an intent to apply for benefits, (2) an identification of the benefits sought, and (3) a communication in writing.' Brokowski v. Shinseki, 23 Vet. App. 79, 84 (2009). However, a claimant is not required in filing a claim for benefits to identify a precise medical diagnosis or the medical cause of his condition; rather, he sufficiently files a claim for benefits 'by referring to a body part or system that is disabled or by describing symptoms of the disability.' Id. at 86.

Although the January 2011 claim referenced ankle pain in the context of the onset/history of the Veteran's Reiter's arthritis and his mistaken belief that there was then a pending appeal for Reiter's arthritis in "feet ankles[sic]," it is not clear that the Veteran intended to file a claim for service connection for an ankle disability separate from his already service-connected hallux valgus.

Importantly, when asked to clarify his January 2011 claim, the Veteran did not reference ankle pain or an ankle disability. See May 2011 statement, above. Nor did he disagree with RO's framing the January 2011 claim as one for increased ratings for his already service-connected Reiter's arthritis of the sacroiliac joints, feet (bilateral hallux valgus), and shoulders.

As noted above, the Veteran did not report ankle symptoms during February 2013 VA medical examinations and did not appeal the ratings assigned for his bilateral feet in the final February 2013 rating decision.

The Board considered the medical complexity of Reiter's arthritis and the Veteran's lack of medical expertise. See generally Delisio v. Shinseki, 25 Vet. App. 45 (2011). However, the case history outlined above shows that the Veteran consistently filed separate claims for the joints/body parts he believed were affected by his Reiter's arthritis (e.g., filing separate claims for Reiter's arthritis of the neck, elbow, and hands). This pattern suggests that, if the Veteran intended to file a claim for a separate ankle disability associated with Reiter's, he would have done so.

The Board also considered the existence of medical records showing reports of ankle pain associated with Reiter's before October 13, 2021. However, the mere existence in the medical records of a diagnosis or symptoms of a disorder is not sufficient to raise a claim of service connection for that disorder. See Brannon v. West, 12 Vet. App. 32, 35 (1998) ("The mere presence of the medical evidence does not establish an intent on the part of the veteran to seek service connection[.]").

For the reasons above, the Board finds that there was no claim (formal or informal
Veteran intended to file a claim for a separate ankle disability associated with Reiter's, he would have done so.

For the reasons above, the Board finds that there was no claim (formal or informal) for service connection for Reiter's arthritis of the bilateral ankles before the Veteran's December 2021 claim. Additionally, the December 2021 claim is one for service connection and not an increased rating, and therefore the one-year "look back" provisions in increased rating claims do not apply. See Gudinas, above.

Accordingly, the October 13, 2021 intent to file is the "date of claim" and earliest effective date allowed by law. Even if entitlement arose prior to the date of claim, the effective date will be the latter of those two dates. 38 U.S.C. § 5110 (a); 38 C.F.R. § 3.400.

The evidence outlined above weighs heavily against assigning an effective date earlier than October 13, 2021 and is not approximately balanced. There is no reasonable doubt to resolve. Lynch v. McDonough, 999 F.3rd 1391 (2021).

2. An effective date earlier than October 13, 2021, for the award of DEA benefits is denied.

VA may award DEA to veterans discharged from service under conditions other than dishonorable, or died in service, that either (1) have a permanent total service-connected disability, or (2) a permanent total service-connected disability was in existence at the date of the veteran's death, or (3) died as a result of a service-connected disability, or, if a service member (4) is on active duty as a member of the Armed Forces and, for a period of more than 90 days, has been listed by VA concerned as missing in action, captured in line of duty by a hostile force, or forcibly detained or interned in the line of duty by a foreign government or power. 38 C.F.R. § 3.807.

To the extent feasible, the effective date for DEA benefits corresponds to effective dates relating to awards of disability compensation. 38 U.S.C. § 5113.

The Veteran was granted DEA based on his combined 100 percent disability rating, effective October 13, 2021. As outlined above, there is no basis to grant an earlier effective date for the Veteran's service-connected bilateral ankle disability.

Before October 13, 2021, the Veteran did not have a single disability rated totally disabling and his combined disability rating was 90 percent (or lower). Accordingly, October 13, 2021 is the earliest possible date for the award of DEA benefits and an earlier effective date is denied.

L. M. BARNARD

Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans' Appeals

Attorney for the Board B. Hiaasen

The Board's action is only binding on this case. 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