Case A26040192

MICHELLE L. KANE · 2026 · Case ID: A26040192

MIXED

Summary

The Veteran, who served in the Army from September 1991 to February 1992 and February 2003 to June 2003, with additional service in the Virginia Army National Guard, appeals the denial of an earlier effective date for service connection for Major Depressive Disorder (MDD) and the effective date assigned for service connection for a low back disability. The Board granted an earlier effective date of January 9, 2018, for the low back disability. The Veteran argued she continuously pursued her claim for the low back disability since her initial January 2018 claim, and the Board found her claim was continuously pursued through various review requests, ultimately leading to the RO awarding service connection in April 2021. The Board waived procedural filing rules due to the confusing procedural history and misleading communications from the VA, finding the Veteran had a current low back disability by January 9, 2018, and resolving reasonable doubt in her favor for the effective date. For the MDD claim, the Veteran sought an earlier effective date, contending it should extend back to 2003 or at least 2018. The Board denied this request, finding no informal or formal claim for MDD was filed prior to June 7, 2019. Her attempts to seek help in 2003 and her intent to file in January 2018 were not considered claims for MDD service connection as they lacked specific intent to apply for that benefit or were filed outside the one-year window. The Board found the evidence persuasively against an earlier effective date for MDD, thus denying the claim.

Rationale

Continuous pursuit of claim; Waiver of procedural rules due to confusing history; Reasonable doubt resolved in favor

Service Branch

ARMY

Special Benefit

NO SPECIAL BENEFIT

Docket No.

210715-172633

Full Decision Text

Citation Nr: A26040192
Decision Date: 04/29/26 Archive Date: 04/29/26

DOCKET NO. 210715-172633
DATE: April 29, 2026

ORDER

Entitlement to an effective date of January 9, 2018 for the award of service connection for a low back disability is granted.

Entitlement to an effective date earlier than June 7, 2019 for the award of service connection for major depressive disorder (MDD) is denied.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. Due to the unique circumstances of the instant case, the Board waives the claims-processing rules as to the 60 day filing period for opting a legacy appeal into the modernized review system following issuance of a Statement of the Case, and the Board accepts the Veteran's November 21, 2019 VA Form 20-0996 as a valid and timely opt-in of the April 26, 2019 Statement of the Case.

2. Resolving reasonable doubt in favor of the Veteran, she continuously pursued her initial January 9, 2018 claim of service connection for a low back disability through to the instant appeal, and she had a current low back disability at the time her claim was filed.

3. The Veteran did not formally or informally seek service connection for MDD prior to March 24, 2015, did not timely follow her January 12, 2018 intent to file with a claim of service connection for MDD, and did not formally seek service connection for MDD until June 7, 2019.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1. The criteria for entitlement to an effective date of January 9, 2018 for the award of service connection for a low back disability have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 5107, 5110, 7105 (2016); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.155, 3.400, 3.2400, 3.2500, 3.2501, 19.52.

2. The criteria for entitlement to an effective date earlier than June 7, 2019 for the award of service connection for MDD have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 5107, 5110; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.1, 3.155, 3.400.

REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

The Veteran served on active duty from September 1991 to February 1992 and from February 2003 to June 2003, and she had additional service in the Virginia Army National Guard.

This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal of March 2021 and June 2021 rating decisions issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). The portion of the March 2021 rating decision on appeal pertains to an earlier effective date of service connection for the Veteran's MDD, and that rating decision was issued in response to the Veteran's November 2020 VA Form 20-0996, Decision Review Request: Higher-Level Review, which she filed as to a September 2020 rating decision. In July 2021, the Veteran submitted VA Form 10182, Decision Review Request: Board Appeal (Notice of Disagreement), appealing the March 2021 and June 2021 rating decisions to the Board. She elected the Hearing option; therefore, the Board may only consider the evidence of record at the time of the September 2020 rating decision as to the MDD issue on appeal, the evidence of record at the time of the June 2021 rating decision as to the low back disability issue on appeal, and any evidence that either she or her representative submitted at the hearing, which was held by the undersigned in April 2025, or within 90 days thereafter. 38 C.F.R. § 20.302(a).

After issuance of the September 2020 and June 2021 rating decisions, VA associated additional evidence with the claims file, which the Board is unable to consider as to the respective issues adjudicated in the September 2020 and June 2021 rating decisions. Similarly, after issuance of these rating decisions and outside of the 90-day evidentiary window following the April 2025 Board hearing, the Veteran submitted additional evidence, which the Board is also unable to consider. 38 C.F.R. § 20.302; see also Cook v. McDonough, 36 Vet. App. 175 (2023). To the extent that this evidence may relate to the issues adjudicated below, the Veteran is advised to submit a Supplemental Claim. Instructions for doing so are attached to this decision.

Earlier Effective
associated additional evidence with the claims file, which the Board is unable to consider as to the respective issues adjudicated in the September 2020 and June 2021 rating decisions. Similarly, after issuance of these rating decisions and outside of the 90-day evidentiary window following the April 2025 Board hearing, the Veteran submitted additional evidence, which the Board is also unable to consider. 38 C.F.R. § 20.302; see also Cook v. McDonough, 36 Vet. App. 175 (2023). To the extent that this evidence may relate to the issues adjudicated below, the Veteran is advised to submit a Supplemental Claim. Instructions for doing so are attached to this decision.

Earlier Effective Date

Unless otherwise provided, the effective date for an award of compensation for service-connected disability shall be fixed in accordance with the facts found but shall not be earlier than the date of receipt of application therefor. The effective date will be 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. The date of receipt of a claim is the date on which a claim, information, or evidence is received by VA. 38 C.F.R. § 3.1(r). A "claim" is defined as a formal or informal communication in writing requesting a determination of entitlement or evidencing a belief in entitlement to a benefit. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.1(p).

As to what constitutes a claim, a claim is defined as 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); 3.155 (2015). Any communication or action from a claimant indicating an intent to apply for one or more benefits under the laws administered by VA and which identifies the benefit sought, may be considered an informal claim. 38 C.F.R. § 3.155(a). Upon receipt of an informal claim, if a formal claim has not been filed, an application form will be forwarded to the claimant for execution. If received within one year from the date it was sent to a veteran, it will be considered filed as of the date of receipt of the informal claim. 38 C.F.R. § 3.155; see also Norris v. West, 12 Vet. App. 413, 421 (1999).

Thus, the essential elements for any claim, whether formal or informal, are "(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); see also MacPhee v. Nicholson, 459 F.3d 1323, 1326-27 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (holding that the plain language of the regulations requires a claimant to have an intent to file a claim for VA benefits).

Under the law in effect prior to March 24, 2015, a "claim" was 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, 3 Vet. App. 196, 199 (1992). Effective March 24, 2015, VA amended its regulations to require that all claims governed by VA's adjudication regulations be filed on a standard form. The amendments implement the concept of an intent to file a claim for benefits, which operates similarly to the informal claim process, but requires that the submission establishing a claimant's effective date of benefits must be received in one of three specified formats. 38 C.F.R. § 3.157; 79 Fed. Reg. 57,660 (Sept. 25, 2014).

1. Entitlement to an effective date of January 9, 2018 for the award of service connection for a low back disability is granted.

The Veteran seeks an earlier effective date for the award of service connection for her low back disability, contending that she has continuously pursued her initial claim of service connection through to the date she was awarded service connection for such. See May 2021 Statement in Support of Claim; April 2025 Board Hearing Transcript.

1. Entitlement to an effective date of January 9, 2018 for the award of service connection for a low back disability is granted.

As an initial matter, the Board notes that the June 2021 rating decision on appeal as to this issue solely addressed the rating assigned for the Veteran's service-connected low back disability rather than entitlement to an earlier effective date for such; however, this rating decision was issued following her express higher-level review request as to the effective date assigned for the award of service connection for this disability and identification of a duty to assist error in the higher-level review process therefor. See November 2020 VA Form 20-0996; March 2021 Rating Decision. As such, although the rating decision on appeal did not expressly adjudicate the issue of entitlement to an earlier effective date for the low back disability, the Board nonetheless treats this issue as properly on appeal.

Where a claim is subject to the modernized review system under the Appeals Modernization Act (AMA) based on date of initial claim or by election of the veteran, provisions exist that permit an effective date based on date of claim to be "preserved" following issuance of a decision. See 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.2400, 3.2500. In particular, a veteran "may continuously pursue a claim or an issue by timely and properly filing [an enumerated] administrative review [option]" following issuance of a decision by an RO, the Board, or the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court). 38 C.F.R. § 3.2500(c), (h). An effective date will be preserved if a veteran files for administrative review within one year of any decision. 38 C.F.R. § 3.2500(h). However, while the date of claim is preserved when a claim is continuously pursued, the proper effective date is still subject to a finding regarding when entitlement to the benefit sought arose. "[T]he date entitlement arose" is not defined in the current statute or regulation. The Court has interpreted it as the date when the claimant met the requirements for the benefits sought; this is determined on a "facts found" basis. See 38 U.S.C. § 5110 (a); see also McGrath v. Gober, 14 Vet. App. 28, 35 (2000).

By way of background, the Veteran filed an initial formal claim of service connection for a low back disability on January 9, 2018, which the RO denied in an April 9, 2018 rating decision. (As an aside, the Board notes that, while this rating decision was issued on April 9, 2018, the RO did not mail her notice of such until April 16, 2018). The Veteran timely disagreed with this denial by filing VA Form 21-0958, Notice of Disagreement (NOD) in September 2018. In December 2018 and January 2019, the RO invited her to opt her appeal into Rapid Appeals Modernization Program (RAMP), which was a temporary program allowing early participation in the AMA before it became effective in February 2019. The RO advised her that, if she desired to participate in RAMP, she had to respond within 60 days of the date of either letter. See December 2018 & January 2019 RAMP Opt-In Notices. On February 26, 2019, less than 60 days following the date of the January 2019 letter, she completed and returned a RAMP opt-in form, electing to opt her appeal into the supplemental claim lane. See February 2019 RAMP Opt-In Election. On April 5, 2019, however, the RO notified her that RAMP opt-in could not be processed because RAMP had closed but her appeal would continue to be processed in the legacy appeals system. See April 2019 Correspondence. On April 24, 2019, only a year and a few days after she was notified of the April 2018 rating decision, she submitted VA Form 20-0995, Decision Review Request: Supplemental Claim seeking review of the denial of service connection for a low back disability in the April 2018 rating decision. The RO did not acknowledge this filing but instead, on April 26, 2019, issued a SOC in response to her September 2018 NOD. Thereafter, she did not submit VA Form
RO notified her that RAMP opt-in could not be processed because RAMP had closed but her appeal would continue to be processed in the legacy appeals system. See April 2019 Correspondence. On April 24, 2019, only a year and a few days after she was notified of the April 2018 rating decision, she submitted VA Form 20-0995, Decision Review Request: Supplemental Claim seeking review of the denial of service connection for a low back disability in the April 2018 rating decision. The RO did not acknowledge this filing but instead, on April 26, 2019, issued a SOC in response to her September 2018 NOD. Thereafter, she did not submit VA Form 9 within 60 days of issuance of the April 2019 SOC to timely perfect an appeal.

On November 13, 2019, the Veteran filed VA Form 20-0995 and listed that she sought review of a June 2019 rating decision as to her service-connected MDD. She did not list that she sought review of any rating decision that adjudicated her low back disability claim therein; however, she noted that her claim of service connection for her lower back was denied in 2018. On November 21, 2019, she filed VA Form 20-0996, Decision Review Request: Higher-Level Review and listed, in part, that she sought higher-level review of service connection for her low back disability, with reference to the April 2019 SOC, but on December 6, 2019, the RO notified her that "we are already processing a pending appeal for... Service Connection Lower Back, which we received on November 13th, 2019"-seemingly referring to her November 13, 2019 VA Form 20-0995. See December 2019 Correspondence. In March 2020, her representative submitted a statement noting that VA appeals systems showed her appeals as dropped or cancelled but, per the December 2019 Correspondence, she already had issues on appeal, and so the representative requested that the issues on appeal be restarted as soon as possible. See March 2020 Statement in Support of Claim. The RO did not acknowledge the representative's statement thereafter and, in July 2020, the Veteran submitted a VA Form 20-0995 listing, in part, that she sought review of the prior denial of service connection for a low back disability, with reference to the April 2019 SOC. Later in July 2020, the RO noted that she filed both VA Form 20-0995 and VA Form 20-0996 for the same issues and requested that she clarify which review option she preferred. See July 2020 Subsequent Development Letter. She did not respond with clarification thereafter and, in a September 2020 rating decision, the RO adjudicated her July 2020 VA Form 20-0995 and again denied service connection for a low back disability. In November 2020, she filed VA Form 20-0996 and sought, in part, higher-level review of the denial of service connection for her low back disability in the September 2020 rating decision. In a responsive April 2021 rating decision issued following correction of a duty to assist error, the RO awarded service connection for her low back disability, effective July 2, 2020-the date of receipt of her July 2020 VA Form 20-0995.

The Board notes that, as shown by the above-detailed procedural history, the Veteran was somewhat misled and/or confusingly directed on the status of her attempted appeal of the original denial of service connection for a low back disability in the April 2018 rating decision. First, when she was again invited to opt her appeal into RAMP in January 2019, she was advised that she had 60 days to do so, but when she attempted to opt her appeal into RAMP less than 60 days thereafter, she was informed that RAMP had closed. Second, while the RO issued an SOC on April 26, 2019, the RO neither acknowledged the VA Form 20-0995 she submitted just prior to the date of issuance of the SOC nor advised her that it was improper and would not be processed. Third, the RO informed her, on December 6, 2019, that a pending appeal was already being processed for, in part, her claim of service connection for a low back disability, and while the RO referenced a filing date of November 13, 2019, her VA Form 20-0995 filed on November 13, 2019 did not include a supplemental claim as to her low back disability. Fourth, while her representative expressly noted conflicting indications as to the existence of a pending appeal and requested that the appeal be restarted in March 2020, the RO
Form 20-0995 she submitted just prior to the date of issuance of the SOC nor advised her that it was improper and would not be processed. Third, the RO informed her, on December 6, 2019, that a pending appeal was already being processed for, in part, her claim of service connection for a low back disability, and while the RO referenced a filing date of November 13, 2019, her VA Form 20-0995 filed on November 13, 2019 did not include a supplemental claim as to her low back disability. Fourth, while her representative expressly noted conflicting indications as to the existence of a pending appeal and requested that the appeal be restarted in March 2020, the RO did not acknowledge or otherwise respond to this statement.

Notably, the Veteran timely disagreed with the April 2018 original denial of her claim in September 2018, timely and properly attempted to opt into RAMP in February 2019, filed an unacknowledged VA Form 20-0995 as to service connection for her low back disability just slightly more than one year after issuance of the April 2018 rating decision and just prior to issuance of the SOC in April 2019, and continued attempting to seek further review and to opt the SOC into the AMA in November 2019 and July 2020. Then, after the RO finally accepted, adjudicated, and denied her July 2020 supplemental claim in September 2020, she timely sought further review of that denial, which, after further development, resulted in the RO awarding service connection for her low back disability in April 2021. Thereafter, she timely disagreed with the effective date assigned for the award of service connection for her low back disability, which gave rise to the instant appeal.

With the above background, the Board accepts the Veteran's November 21, 2019 VA Form 20-0996 as a valid opt-in of the April 2019 SOC as to her claim of service connection for a low back disability into the AMA, as explained below.

Together, 38 C.F.R. § 3.2400(c) and § 19.52(b) (the implementing regulation of 38 U.S.C. § 7105(d)(3) (2016)) contain the relevant claims-processing rules for the filing period to opt a legacy appeal into the AMA following issuance of a SOC. Section 3.2400(c) provides that a claimant may elect their legacy appeal into the modernized review system following issuance of a SOC by filing for a review option under the new system in accordance with § 3.2500 within the time allowed for filling a substantive appeal under § 19.52(b). Section 19.52(b) provides that a substantive appeal must be filed within 60 days from the date the agency of original jurisdiction mails the SOC to the appellant or within the remainder of the one-year period from the mailing date of the decision to be appealed, whichever is later.

Here, the Board recognizes that the Veteran neither filed a VA Form 9 to perfect an appeal of the issue of service connection for her low back disability nor filed her November 21, 2019 VA Form 20-0996, per which she marked that she wanted to opt into the AMA, within 60 days of issuance of the April 26, 2019 SOC. Consequently, she did not comply with the claims processing rules set out under 38 C.F.R. § 3.2400(c) and § 19.52(b). However, the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court) has stated that 38 U.S.C. § 7105(d)(3) (2016), the statute implemented by 38 C.F.R. § 19.52(b), is akin to claims-processing rules, and because the 60 day filing period under § 7105(d)(3) is not jurisdictional, VA may waive any issue of timeliness in the filing of a substantive appeal, either explicitly or implicitly. Percy v. Shinseki, 23 Vet. App. 37, 45 (2009). As § 7105(d)(3), implemented by § 19.52(b), is a claims-processing rule that may be explicitly waived, in light of the unique and confusing procedural history of this case, the Board waives the claims-processing rules as to the 60 day filing period for opting a legacy appeal into the AMA following issuance of a SOC. More specifically, the Board finds that waiver of the 60-day filing period is warranted not only due to the misleading communications VA sent to the Veteran and the non-response to multiple of her filings, but also because of the existing statutory and extensive judicial precedent repeatedly characterizing the veterans' benefits system as "uniquely pro-claimant" and even paternal
, 45 (2009). As § 7105(d)(3), implemented by § 19.52(b), is a claims-processing rule that may be explicitly waived, in light of the unique and confusing procedural history of this case, the Board waives the claims-processing rules as to the 60 day filing period for opting a legacy appeal into the AMA following issuance of a SOC. More specifically, the Board finds that waiver of the 60-day filing period is warranted not only due to the misleading communications VA sent to the Veteran and the non-response to multiple of her filings, but also because of the existing statutory and extensive judicial precedent repeatedly characterizing the veterans' benefits system as "uniquely pro-claimant" and even paternalistic. See Evans v. Shinseki, 25 Vet. App. 7, 16 (2011) ("The entire veterans claims adjudication process reflects the clear congressional intent to create an Agency environment in which VA is actually engaged in a continuing dialog with claimants in a paternalistic, collaborative effort to provide every benefit to which the claimant is entitled."); Comer v. Peake, 552 F.3d 1362, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2009) ("The VA disability compensation system is not meant to be a trap for the unwary, or a stratagem to deny compensation to a veteran who has a valid claim.") (internal quotations omitted); Hodge v. West, 155 F.3d 1356, 1362-63 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (emphasizing that the courts "have long recognized that the character of the veterans' benefit statutes is strongly and uniquely pro-claimant," and noting "Congress itself has recognized and preserved the unique character and structure of the veterans' benefits system," highlighting legislative history reflecting Congressional intent to maintain "historically non-adversarial system of awarding benefits to veterans"); Kelly v. Nicholson, 463 F.3d 1349, 1353 (2006) (referring to veterans' benefits system as "uniquely pro-claimant").

Thus, with the Board accepting her November 21, 2019 VA Form 20-0996 as a valid and timely opt-in of the April 26, 2019 SOC into the AMA, there is an unbroken chain of pursuit of service connection from her initial January 9, 2018 claim, to her timely September 2018 NOD, to issuance of the April 2019 SOC and her November 2019 opt-in, to the RO's continued denial in the September 2020 rating decision, to her November 2020 request for higher-level review of such, to the RO's identification of a duty to assist error in the prior decision, and to the RO's award of service connection in the April 2021 rating decision. 38 U.S.C. § 5110(a)(2); 38 C.F.R. § 3.2500(c).

As the Veteran has continuously pursued entitlement to service connection for a low back disability from her initial claim of service connection on January 9, 2018 through to the award of service connection for such in the April 2021 rating decision, so long as she met the requirements for such as of January 9, 2018, the proper effective date for this award is the date of her initial claim.

At an April 2018 VA back examination order in connection with her initial claim, the Veteran reported experiencing various back-related symptoms and exhibited objective abnormalities in her range of motion, but the examiner did not render a diagnosis. However, less than two weeks later, she underwent MRI imaging, which revealed, in part, degenerative changes and neural foraminal narrowing. See April 2018 History & Physical Addendum. The Board recognizes that, due to the nature of degenerative changes of the spine and the fact that she exhibited objective abnormalities at the April 2018 VA examination, she certainly had a current low back disability prior to or at the time of filing her January 9, 2018 initial claim, regardless of the April 2018 VA examiner's marking otherwise.

Accordingly, as a current low back disability was almost certainly present at the time of the Veteran's initial claim of service connection for such, resolving reasonable doubt in her favor as to the date entitlement for this disability arose, the proper effective date for the award of service connection is the date of receipt of her initial claim-January 9, 2018. 38 U.S.C. § 5110(a); 38 C.F.R. § 3.400. The Veteran does not contend, and the record does not demonstrate, that any formal or informal claim as to this disability was received prior to her January 9, 2018 claim, and so an effective date earlier than January
2018 VA examiner's marking otherwise.

2. Entitlement to an effective date earlier than June 7, 2019 for the award of service connection for MDD is denied.

The Veteran seeks an earlier effective date in 2003, or at least in 2018, for her award of service connection for MDD, which she contends should extend back to the date in which she feels a doctor failed to provide her treatment or recommendations during service. See November 2019 VA Form 20-0995.

By way of background, the Veteran filed an initial formal claim of service connection for depression on June 7, 2019, which the RO granted, effective June 7, 2019, in a July 2019 rating decision. See June 2019 VA Form 21-526EZ. She has continuously pursued an earlier effective for the award of service connection for her MDD since issuance of the July 2019 rating decision through to the instant appeal. See November 2019 & July 2020 VA Forms 20-0995; September 2020 Rating Decision; November 2020 VA Form 20-0996; March 2021 Rating Decision; July 2021 VA Form 10182; see also 38 C.F.R. § 3.2500.

Upon careful review of the record, the Board finds that, prior to March 24, 2015 (the effective date of the revised regulation requiring claims to be filed on a standard form), there is no communication received from the Veteran that could reasonably be construed as a request for a determination of entitlement or evidence a belief in entitlement to service connection for MDD (or any other psychiatric disability). The Board recognizes her contention that the effective date for her service-connected MDD should extend back to 2003, when she expressed being interested in receiving help for a stress, emotional, alcohol, or family problem during the demobilization process at the end of her active service. See April 2025 Board Hearing Transcript; see also May 2003 Post-Deployment Health Assessment (examiner also documenting Veteran's request for evaluation for depression/frustration). The Board finds, however, that these notations in her service treatment records made in the course of her demobilization process did not represent an informal claim of service connection for MDD. Here, these notations did not include any request for a determination as to entitlement to service connection for any psychiatric disability and did not evidence a belief by the Veteran that she was entitled to service connection for MDD or any other psychiatric disability. "The mere existence of medical records generally cannot be construed as an informal claim; rather, there must be some intent by the claimant to apply for a benefit." Criswell v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 501, 504 (2006); see also MacPhee v. Nicholson, 459 F.3d 1323, 1326-27 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (holding that the plain language of the regulations requires a claimant to have an intent to file a claim for VA benefits). Consequently, the notations in her May 2003 post-deployment health assessment did not represent an informal claim pursuant to 38 C.F.R. § 3.1(p) (2015).

Additionally, the Veteran alternatively contends that an earlier effective is warranted as she attempted to establish treatment at a VA hospital in Salem, Virginia but was told she was not qualified in 2003 or 2004. See April 2025 Board Hearing Transcript. The Board finds, however, that her mere attempt to establish treatment with a VA facility in 2003 or 2004 cannot represent an informal claim of service connection for MDD, as there is no indication that she, in writing, requested a determination as to entitlement to service connection or evidenced a belief that she was entitled to service connection in doing so. Similarly, the Board recognizes that there are provisions allowing for an effective date of the day following separation from active service, and such provisions are applicable where the claim of service connection was filed within a year of a veteran's separation from
at a VA hospital in Salem, Virginia but was told she was not qualified in 2003 or 2004. See April 2025 Board Hearing Transcript. The Board finds, however, that her mere attempt to establish treatment with a VA facility in 2003 or 2004 cannot represent an informal claim of service connection for MDD, as there is no indication that she, in writing, requested a determination as to entitlement to service connection or evidenced a belief that she was entitled to service connection in doing so. Similarly, the Board recognizes that there are provisions allowing for an effective date of the day following separation from active service, and such provisions are applicable where the claim of service connection was filed within a year of a veteran's separation from service. 38 C.F.R. § 3.400(b)(2)(i). Here, again, the Veteran did not file an informal or formal claim of service connection for any psychiatric disability within one year of her separation from active service in June 2003.

After March 24, 2015, the Veteran did not file a claim of service connection for MDD or any other psychiatric disability on a standardized form until June 7, 2019, when she filed the aforementioned VA Form 21-526EZ as to such. While she has contended that the effective date for her MDD should extend back to at least 2018 based on evidence she provided as part of her claim of service connection for her low back disability in 2018, as noted above, effective March 24, 2015, VA amended its regulations to require that all claims governed by VA's adjudication regulations be filed on a standard form. See February 2019 Correspondence; November 2019 VA Form 20-0995; see also 38 C.F.R. § 3.157; 79 Fed. Reg. 57,660 (Sept. 25, 2014). Consequently, her mere mention of in-service psychiatric symptoms in filings related to her low back disability claim prior to June 7, 2019, without her filing of a formal claim of service connection for her MDD prior to June 7, 2019, cannot warrant an effective date earlier than June 7, 2019.

Finally, the Board recognizes that the Veteran expressed an intent to file a claim for benefits on January 12, 2018. See January 2018 Notification Letter. To the extent that she seeks an earlier effective date of January 12, 2018, based on the date of this intent to file, the Board notes that the intent to file was received more than one year prior to receipt of her formal claim of service connection for depression. Where a claimant indicates an intent to file, by filing VA Form 21-0966 or otherwise, and a complete claim is not filed within one year of the receipt of the intent to file, VA will not take further action unless a new claim or a new intent to file a claim is received. 38 C.F.R. § 3.155(b)(4). Because the Veteran did not file a formal claim of service connection for MDD or any other psychiatric disability within one year of notifying VA of her intent to file benefits on January 12, 2018, an effective date based on her January 12, 2018 intent to file is not warranted.

In sum, there are no communications received prior to March 24, 2015 that may be interpreted as an informal claim for service connection for MDD, and the record does not contain a formal claim of service for MDD received at any point prior to June 7, 2019, the assigned effective date for the award of service connection for MDD. Further, although the Veteran notified VA of her intent to file a claim for benefits in January 2018, she did not timely follow such with a formal claim of service connection for MDD within the year thereafter. As such, under the applicable regulations, the earliest possible effective date for the award of service connection for MDD is the date the Veteran's formal claim was received-June 7, 2019. See 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.400(b)(2).

The evidence is not in approximate balance but is persuasively against the claim; therefore, there is no reasonable doubt to be resolved in favor of the Veteran. Entitlement to an effective date earlier than June 7, 2019 for the award of service connection for MDD is denied.

MICHELLE L. KANE

Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans' Appeals

Attorney for the Board A. Tierno

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. §
See 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.400(b)(2).

MICHELLE L. KANE

Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans' Appeals

Attorney for the Board A. Tierno

Analyze in VA Law Explorer