Case A26040446

MATTHEW W. BLACKWELDER · 2026 · Case ID: A26040446

DENIED

Summary

The Veteran, an Air Force Veteran who served from November 1984 to December 1997, sought an earlier effective date for his service-connected sleep apnea. The primary issue was whether his June 4, 2003 claim for chronic fatigue and insomnia reasonably raised a claim for sleep apnea. The Board reviewed the Veteran's June 2003 claim, which listed chronic fatigue and insomnia among other conditions, but did not explicitly mention sleep apnea. The Veteran's lay statement described fatigue and insomnia, attributing them to his Gulf War service and PTSD, but did not detail specific sleep apnea symptoms like snoring or choking. His wife's statement also described fatigue and insomnia without mentioning these specific sleep apnea symptoms. A March 2004 VA examination noted the Veteran's sleep issues, including insomnia and fatigue, and suggested a sleep study, but did not explicitly infer a sleep apnea claim. The Board found that chronic fatigue and insomnia, while potentially related to sleep apnea, do not inherently raise a claim for it without more specific symptoms being described. The Board concluded that the June 2003 claim did not reasonably raise a claim for sleep apnea, and the earliest explicit claim for sleep apnea was filed on July 27, 2019. Therefore, the Board denied the Veteran's request for an earlier effective date, upholding the July 27, 2019 effective date.

Rationale

June 2003 claim did not explicitly or implicitly raise sleep apnea.; Chronic fatigue and insomnia alone do not reasonably infer sleep apnea.; No specific sleep apnea symptoms (snoring, choking) were described.

Service Branch

AIR FORCE

Special Benefit

EARLIER EFFECTIVE DATE

Docket No.

220729-264111

Full Decision Text

Citation Nr: A26040446
Decision Date: 04/29/26 Archive Date: 04/29/26

DOCKET NO. 220729-264111
DATE: April 29, 2026

ORDER

An effective date earlier than July 27, 2019 for the award of service connection for sleep apnea is denied.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. The Veteran first filed a claim for service connection for sleep apnea on July 27, 2019.

2. The Veteran's June 2003 claim for service connection for insomnia and chronic fatigue did not reasonably raise a claim for service connection for sleep apnea.

CONCLUSION OF LAW

The criteria for an earlier effective date for sleep apnea have not been met. 38 U.S.C. § 5110; 38 C.F.R. § 3.400.

REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION

The Veteran served on active duty from November 1984 to December 1997.

In the July 2022 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 June 2022 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 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.

In October 2024, the Board denied the Veteran's claim. In turn, he appealed this decision to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court). In a December 2025 order, the Court granted a Joint Motion for Remand (JMR) agreed to by the Veteran and the Secretary of VA and vacated the October 2024 Board decision. The parties to the JMR agreed that the Board erred in failing to provide an adequate explanation of its conclusion in regard to whether there was a reasonably raised claim or an informal claim for sleep apnea, so as to justify the assignment of an earlier effective date. Specifically, the JMR states, "[t]he Board failed to clearly differentiate its application and use of the terms informal claim and reasonably raised claim. The Board stated that "[t]he ultimate question in this case is whether the Veteran filed an informal claim for service connection for sleep apnea in 2003." However, the Board ultimately concluded "sleep apnea was [not] reasonably raised by the record." The JMR found that the Board went back and forth with its use of informal claim and reasonably raised claim. However, it was maintained that it was unclear whether the Board was conducting an analysis of informal claim and reasonably raised claim separately or intermingling the two concepts. Therefore, the parties agree that, upon remand, the Board must clarify its use and application of the terms reasonably raised claim and informal claim as part of an adequate statement of reasons or bases.

Having reviewed the JMR, the Veteran's attorney's arguments, and the record, the Board finds that the issue before it is not whether the Veteran filed an informal claim for service connection for sleep apnea in 2003. Rather, the issue is whether the Veteran's formal claim, filed on June 4, 2003, reasonably raised a claim for sleep apnea. For the reasons detailed below, the Board finds that a claim for sleep apnea was not reasonably raised.

An effective date earlier than July 27, 2019 for the award of service connection for sleep apnea is denied.

The Veteran is seeking an earlier effective date for his service-connected sleep apnea. The Board will recount the most relevant procedural history below.

On June 4, 2003, the Veteran filed a claim for service connection for anxiousness and irritability, chronic fatigue, insomnia, and various other disabilities. In a June 2004 rating decision, the AOJ granted service connection for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Referencing a March 2004 VA examination, the AOJ specifically noted that the Veteran's complaints of fatigue and insomnia were found to be symptoms of his mental health disorder. Notably, the AOJ evaluated the Veteran's disability as 30 percent disabling
the award of service connection for sleep apnea is denied.

The Veteran is seeking an earlier effective date for his service-connected sleep apnea. The Board will recount the most relevant procedural history below.

On June 4, 2003, the Veteran filed a claim for service connection for anxiousness and irritability, chronic fatigue, insomnia, and various other disabilities. In a June 2004 rating decision, the AOJ granted service connection for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Referencing a March 2004 VA examination, the AOJ specifically noted that the Veteran's complaints of fatigue and insomnia were found to be symptoms of his mental health disorder. Notably, the AOJ evaluated the Veteran's disability as 30 percent disabling which accounted for chronic sleep impairment. The Veteran did not appeal this decision, and it became final.

On July 27, 2019, the Veteran filed a claim for chronic fatigue and sleep apnea. Regarding his sleep apnea, the Veteran stated that it was caused by "exposure" and PTSD. He later asserted that it was secondary to his service-connected gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). After multiple denials, in January 2022, the AOJ granted service connection for the Veteran's sleep apnea as secondary to his GERD. The AOJ also granted service connection for chronic fatigue. The Veteran later sought higher-level review for earlier effective dates for both claims.

In the June 2022 rating decision on appeal, the AOJ granted an earlier effective date of July 27, 2019 for the Veteran's sleep apnea. With respect to his chronic fatigue claim, the AOJ found that his claim was "never formerly adjudicated" and had been "continuously prosecuted." As such, the AOJ granted an earlier effective date of June 3, 2003.

The Veteran filed the July 2022 Notice of Disagreement requesting an earlier effective date for the grant of service connection for his sleep apnea.

"[T]he essential requirements of any claim, whether formal or informal" are: "(1) an intent to apply for benefits, (2) an indication of the benefits sought, and (3) a communication in writing." Brokowski v. Shinseki, 23 Vet. App. 79, 84 (2009).

In Shea v. Wilkie, the Federal Circuit Court explained that, "while a pro se claimant's "claim must identify the benefit sought," the identification need not be explicit in the claim-stating documents[] but can also be found indirectly through examination of evidence to which those documents themselves point when sympathetically read (internal citations omitted)."" Shea v. Wilkie, 926 F.3d 1362, 1368. In Shea, the Federal Circuit Court further explained that the Veteran's Court must look at all of the evidence in the record to determine whether it supports related claims for a service-connected disability even though the specific claim was not raised by the veteran. Id. at 1369.

However, as explained in Sellers v. Wilkie, 965 F.3d 1328 (Fed. Cir. 2020), VA's "duty to assist is not untethered." Id. at 1338. In Sellers, the Federal Circuit explained that "the Secretary's duty to assist was triggered by receipt of a legally sufficient claim . . . [and] the Secretary's duty to assist begins upon receipt of a formal claim that identifies the medical condition for which benefits are sought. This triggers the Secretary's duty to obtain the veteran's medical records, and then to develop fully the stated claim. Until the Secretary comprehends the current condition on which the claim is based, the Secretary does not know where to begin to develop the claim to its optimum (internal citations omitted)." Id.

In 2022, the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims held that "VA must determine the total number and type of claims raised in a claim-stating document and referenced evidence before addressing the scope of each individually raised claim. Moreover, even if a claim-stating document only explicitly identifies one claim, VA must search that document liberally for other less explicitly stated claims." Bonds v. McDonough, 35 Vet. App. 445, 452 (U.S. 2022).

The effective date of an evaluation and award of pension, compensation, or dependency and indemnity compensation based on an initial claim or supplemental claim will be the date of receipt of the claim or the date entitlement arose, whichever is later. 38 U.S.C. § 5110 (a) (1); 38 C.F.R. § 3.400.

The Board will now summarize the relevant evidence of record and the Veteran's attorney's arguments.

In conjunction with the Veteran's June 2003 claim for service connection, he provided the following statement:

While on
ally for other less explicitly stated claims." Bonds v. McDonough, 35 Vet. App. 445, 452 (U.S. 2022).

The Board will now summarize the relevant evidence of record and the Veteran's attorney's arguments.

In conjunction with the Veteran's June 2003 claim for service connection, he provided the following statement:

While on active duty I experienced chronic knee pain as a result of stringent physical requirements - - to help alleviate the problem, I have since undergone surgery, however I continue to experience pain and fatigue in the knee which has limited my ability to perform extreme physical activities in my current life and employment (i.e. bending, lifting, walking long distances, standing for extended periods of time etc.) Moreover, prior to entering active duty with the Air Force, I had never experienced digestive [abnormalities] or difficulties, while on active duty (overseas), I developed severe and chronic upset stomach, heart burn, [esophagal] pain and burning - - the condition [worsened] after my tour of duty in the Gulf War. While serving in the Gulf War and after my return, I experienced several episodes of fear, anxiety, nightmares, sleeplessness fatigue, bleeding gums, restlessness, irritability, . . . and overall joint pain. Prior to serving in the Gulf War and prior to entering active duty, I had never experienced such personality and emotional disorders/problems. The problems continue to exist and cause interference in my ability to concentrate for extended periods of time at work as well as at home - - the problems have also created disagreements/incompatibility and extreme disorder in my ability to effectively maintain personal relationships which I believe significantly contributed to my first divorce, moreover, the problems at times [interfere] with the performance of my work."

In February 2004, the Veteran's wife submitted a detailed statement describing his various conditions. Of note, each condition was separated by heading. Under the heading, "CHRONIC FATIGUE," she stated, "Unlike most people, [the Veteran's] fatigue never seems to end. Every night before going to bed he must stand in soaking hot shower anywhere between 20-30 minutes in an attempt to relax the muscles surrounding his neck, shoulders and both upper and lower back. The tension is very apparent, and doesn't seem to dissipate regardless of the amount activity he engages in throughout the day. This fatigue persists in vacation settings, on weekends and even in environments when he's forced to relax. Despite attempts to exercise regularly, sleep as much as possible, massage therapy, physical therapy and stress-reducing techniques his fatigue continues."

Under the heading, "INSOMNIA," she stated, "For as long as I've known [the Veteran] he's told me that he only sleeps 3-4 hours a night, despite his rigorous daily schedule. Since living with him, more than 3 years now, I have witnessed firsthand this non-sleeping activity. Most nights he will come to bed between 3am and 4 am and will wake up between 6am and 7am. Normally, he wakes up not because he has to, but more so, because he can't sleep any longer. He spends the first 1-2 hours in what appears to me to be asleep-deprivation mode. But I know he's not able to sleep anymore, because he physically can't. This is not normal. I've spoken to his parents and grand-parents and they've told me that he didn't use to be this way. We've tried sleep-aids in attempt to help him, even natural hormones like melatonin. But they only gave him, excruciating headaches."

In March 2004, the Veteran attended a VA examination. Although the claims file indicates that the examination report was received on March 23, 2004, the record reflects that he only attended the examination on this date. The actual report was finalized and printed on June 15, 2004 (as indicated on the bottom of each page). Therein, the examiner noted that the Veteran had a "constellation of syndromes, including anxiousness, irritability, insomnia, chronic fatigue, and body and joint pain." His history was described as follows:

The patient notes problems since his return from the Persian Gulf including memory problems that others initially noted but that were not obvious to him until around 1992-3. He may [not] recall conversations discussion and this has caused him problems both at work and at home. He also notes that while in the military in the Gulf his sleep was very disrupted slept inconsistently was disrupted ie by scud missiles. His sleep pattern never returned to normal and may have rather worsened over the years. He goes to sleep now about 1-2 am (if he goes to sleep earlier he will have trouble falling asleep and only wake up earlier). By 1 or 2 am he actually is able to fall asleep and sleeps for about 4 hours - waking up at about 5:30 to 6am. He is easily awakened and in fact is also during the day on edge and easily startled. He used to have nightmare re his experiences in the gulf but these are not common now and he denies daytime flashbacks. He does not snore nor does he have other unusual behavior witnessed [by] his wife at night. When he initially wakes up in the morning he feels rested but by the afternoon becomes very sleepy and today on his Epworth sleepiness score he is in the pathologic range (12) He is able to work and currently produces educational movies (working freelance so he can make his own schedule) (emphasis added).

In the diagnosis section of the report, the examiner noted the following: "Insomnia - contributed to by GERD and possibly an element of PTSD. Will assess for additional primary sleep disorder with sleep study. This is likely related to his chronic fatigue as well."

Also in March 2004, the Veteran attended a VA examination with a psychiatrist to assess his mental health. The Board notes the following, pertinent historical information:

[The Veteran] was in the Air Force from 1984 to 1997 . . . He acknowledges combat exposure and experience in the Gulf War. Was there from 1990 to 1991 for approximately six months. Was a reporter. States he was afraid for his life while he was there. Was shot at in planes and on the ground. Was with infantry and ground troops. Saw people killed and blown up. Saw a tank commander's head with his boots as he had been blown up. States the experience was "memorable". Was involved with and heard multiple SCUD missile attacks. Slept through a SCUD missile attack, everyone else left the barracks and, when he woke up, did not know what happened. Has been afraid to

sleep since. Remains hypervigilant, easily awakened by noises and tries to stay on guard. Afraid he is going to miss something. He has difficulty with nightmares that wake him up. Has been unable to sleep more than

four hours. No matter when he goes to sleep, will wake up within four hours due to nightmare, bad dreams. Was also in [Rwanda] and saw many children killed and in poor condition. Recalls those in his nightmares.

The mental status examination section of the report notes,

His energy comes and goes. It is better in the morning. He is tired in the afternoon and may nap. Sleep is poor. He has difficulty falling asleep and, no matter when he goes to sleep, he can only sleep for four hours. He usually goes to bed around 2, wakes up after four hours. He is awakened by nightmares of things he saw and witnessed in the Gulf War, and the sleep problem has occurred since the Gulf War. Also has nightmares of when he was in Spain of getting lost. Was there for four years playing professional ball. Also has nightmares of the Gulf War. Saw people killed, dismembered. Had nightmares of being in [Rwanda]. Saw children dying and has powerful images of the devastation that he witnessed there . . . Sleep is also disturbed due to trying to remain vigilant. Afraid to sleep too soundly and miss something. Had difficulty when living near national airport and hearing planes. Reminded him of planes in the Persian Gulf that would be involved in attacking and shooting, bombing. In Behran, did not wake up during a SCUD attack and is afraid to sleep [too] soundly . . . Has had difficulty with concentration at times. Loses focus. May be related to fatigue from poor sleep (emphasis added).

The examiner noted, "Global assessment of functioning
Gulf War. Saw people killed, dismembered. Had nightmares of being in [Rwanda]. Saw children dying and has powerful images of the devastation that he witnessed there . . . Sleep is also disturbed due to trying to remain vigilant. Afraid to sleep too soundly and miss something. Had difficulty when living near national airport and hearing planes. Reminded him of planes in the Persian Gulf that would be involved in attacking and shooting, bombing. In Behran, did not wake up during a SCUD attack and is afraid to sleep [too] soundly . . . Has had difficulty with concentration at times. Loses focus. May be related to fatigue from poor sleep (emphasis added).

The examiner noted, "Global assessment of functioning due to current PTSD symptoms is 58, complaints of insomnia, irritability, anxiety, fatigue, best fit and are consistent with diagnoses of PTSD."

In May 2004, the Veteran attended a sleep study at which he was diagnosed with mild sleep apnea; the record reveals that this is the earliest indication of a sleep apnea diagnosis. An associated report notes that the clinician recommended weight loss and "perhaps ENT referral." The report also notes that the results of the study were discussed with the Veteran.

Shortly thereafter, the Veteran underwent a Multiple Sleep Latency Test (MSLT). An associated report notes the following impression: "Abnormal with moderate excess sleepiness (see sleep study)."

Turning back to the June 2004 VA examination report, the examiner added the abovementioned findings into the insomnia diagnosis section noting, "Mild obstructive apnea is seen on his sleep study as is excess daytime sleepiness on his MSLT."

In an August 2022 brief, the Veteran's attorney argued that he reasonably raised a claim for sleep apnea in June 2003 when he filed his claim for insomnia and chronic fatigue syndrome and later presented evidence of a sleep apnea diagnosis. He noted that the June 2004 rating decision was "silent" as to service connection for chronic fatigue syndrome and insomnia and made no mention of sleep apnea. Citing Norris v. West, 12 Vet. App. 413, 422 (1999), the attorney noted that a reasonably raised claim remains pending until there is either recognition of the substance of the claim in an AOJ decision from which a claimant could deduce that the claim was adjudicated or an explicit adjudication of a subsequent claim for the same disability. Further, the attorney argued that VA has a duty to sympathetically read a claim and develop it to its fullest by determining all potential claims raised by the evidence and applying all relevant law and regulations. Referencing Clemons v. Shinseki, 23 Vet. App. 1 (2009), the attorney stated, "VA should not be limited to merely the diagnoses the Veteran is applying for, but other diagnoses that have similar manifestations." In that regard, the attorney noted that VA received evidence of the Veteran's sleep apnea diagnosis in June 2003, prior to issuing the June 2004 rating decision. He argued that because the Veteran's claims were sleep-related, the AOJ should have adjudicated the matter of sleep apnea, and because it failed to do so, the matter remained pending.

In an April 2026 brief, the Veteran's attorney stated, "This appeal comes down to the issue of what the scope was of [the Veteran's] June 4, 2003 claim and whether his OSA, for which he'd been diagnosed at the time, by the VA, which diagnosis was of record and before the agency, reasonably raised in light of his claim at the time, remained unadjudicated thus entitling him to an earlier effective date of his OSA." This statement is somewhat unclear; however, having read the entirety of the attorney's brief, the Board interprets his core argument as follows: The Veteran was diagnosed with sleep apnea (OSA) at the time he filed his claim on June 4, 2003, this was known to VA because it diagnosed said condition, and as such, the Veteran's formal claim chronic fatigue and insomnia included a reasonably raised claim for service connection for OSA that remained unadjudicated. The Board disagrees.

The above evidence is largely what the AOJ used to determine the Veteran's June 2003 claim as it relates to chronic fatigue and insomnia (as well as a mental health disorder). The Board will now discuss whether said evidence reasonably raised a claim for service connection for sleep apnea.

To begin, the Board will first address the June 2003 claim document. Again, as held in Bonds, the Board must first determine the total number and type of claims raised in a claim-stating document and referenced evidence before addressing the scope of each claim individually raised. It then must search the document liberally for other less explicitly stated claims.
a reasonably raised claim for service connection for OSA that remained unadjudicated. The Board disagrees.

The June 2003 formal claim listed nine disabilities:

1. Skin disfigurement (pseudofolliculitis barbae)

2. Chronic severe knee pain

3. Arthritis and joint pain

4. Esophageal reflux

5. Joint and body pains

6. Chronic fatigue

7. Bleeding gums

8. Insomnia

9. Anxiousness and irritability

Regarding evidence, the Veteran referenced "MILITARY FACILITIES" and listed dates of treatment during active duty, thus indicating that the evidence associated with his claims were his service treatment records.

With respect to chronic fatigue, the Veteran explicitly noted fatigue in his knee joint. He also stated that, while serving in the Gulf War and after his return, he had "experienced several episodes of fear, anxiety, nightmares, sleeplessness, fatigue, bleeding gums, restlessness, irritability, [] and overall joint pain." Read on its face, the Veteran described a chronic multi-symptom illness (commonly referred to as Gulf War syndrome). Regarding claim type, his claims could reasonably be characterized as skin, musculoskeletal, gastrointestinal, neurological, oral health, and psychological/psychiatric claims. Although he listed chronic fatigue and insomnia, symptoms associated with sleep apnea, the Board finds that these symptoms alone do not reasonably infer a claim for service connection for sleep apnea. Chronic fatigue can result from a wide range of medical, psychological, and lifestyle factors. Similarly, insomnia can be associated with various mental health disorders, physical health conditions, or other sleep disorders. Had the Veteran described symptoms such as choking, loud snoring, cessation of breathing during sleep, or comments from others regarding same, a sleep apnea claim might have been a logical inference. However, to suggest that the AOJ should have extrapolated a claim for sleep apnea from these two symptoms/conditions is irrational.

Turning to the Veteran's wife's personal statement, the Board also finds that her statement did not reasonably raise a claim for service connection for sleep apnea. Regarding his chronic fatigue, she described an inability to "relax the muscles." She also explained that, despite all attempts, his fatigue never ended. With respect to his insomnia, she stated, "I have witnessed first hand this non-sleeping activity." She then proceeded to describe his inability to sleep for more than a few hours. She did not describe loud snoring, choking, or witnessing apneas. In sum, her statements do not reasonably infer a claim for service connection for sleep apnea.

Finally, the Board finds that the March 2004 VA examination reports did not reasonably raise a claim for service connection for sleep apnea. As extensively detailed above, the Veteran's statements overwhelmingly focused on his inability to sleep or stay asleep for long due to his nightmares of the war and hypervigilance (e.g., his fear of sleeping too soundly and missing something). Although an examiner recommended a sleep study to potentially identify a primary sleep condition, the fact remains that the Veteran's lay statements do not reasonably infer a claim for sleep apnea. This is evidenced by his denial of snoring or unusual behavior during his sleep. Again, chronic fatigue and insomnia are not exclusively related to sleep apnea, and there is nothing in the report to suggest that the VA examiner recommended a sleep study because he suspected sleep apnea.

The Board has considered the Veteran's attorney's April 2026 brief which primarily focused on his disagreement with the October 2024 Board decision. Those arguments are now moot as the decision has since been vacated. However, the Board notes his comment regarding the AOJ's June 2022 finding that the Veteran's chronic fatigue claim was "never formerly adjudicated" and had been "continuously prosecuted." The attorney noted that the Board did not explain why this was not a "binding, favorable finding within the meaning of 38 C.F.R. § 3.104 (c) with respect to the pendency of [the Veteran's] entitlement to OSA from the same date." To address the attorney's inquiry, the Board does not consider this to be a favorable finding in relation to this
6 brief which primarily focused on his disagreement with the October 2024 Board decision. Those arguments are now moot as the decision has since been vacated. However, the Board notes his comment regarding the AOJ's June 2022 finding that the Veteran's chronic fatigue claim was "never formerly adjudicated" and had been "continuously prosecuted." The attorney noted that the Board did not explain why this was not a "binding, favorable finding within the meaning of 38 C.F.R. § 3.104 (c) with respect to the pendency of [the Veteran's] entitlement to OSA from the same date." To address the attorney's inquiry, the Board does not consider this to be a favorable finding in relation to this claim. In the June 2003 formal claim, the Veteran explicitly listed chronic fatigue as a disability for which he was seeking service connection. He did not do the same for sleep apnea. In fact, he had yet to be diagnosed with sleep apnea (which was diagnosed following a May 2004 sleep study) , and as thoroughly explained above, his formal claim did not reasonably raise a claim for service connection for sleep apnea. Thus, the AOJ's June 2022 finding cannot serve as a "favorable finding" with respect to "the pendency of [the Veteran's] entitlement to OSA" because he had no pending claim.

In sum, the Board finds that the June 2003 formal claim clearly identified claims for service connection for chronic fatigue, insomnia, and a mental health disorder (and collectively, the claim document raised a claim for Gulf War syndrome). This was made evident by the Veteran's detailed statements. Sleep apnea was neither explicitly nor implicitly raised. Based on the information provided, the AOJ reasonably developed the claims which incidentally uncovered a diagnosis of mild obstructive sleep apnea. The Veteran was notified of this diagnosis in May 2004, yet he made no effort to identify it as an additional claim for purposes of service connection, and VA is not obligated to assume otherwise.

(Continued on next page)

Therefore, the appropriate effective date for the Veteran's disability is July 27, 2019, the date he filed his claim for service connection. Accordingly, the claim is denied.

MATTHEW W. BLACKWELDER

Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans' Appeals

Attorney for the Board Graison-McBride, Kimberly F.

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