Case A26040835

YVETTE R. WHITE · 2026 · Case ID: A26040835

GRANTED

Summary

The Veteran, a Marine Corps Veteran who served from March 1965 to March 1969, appeals the assignment of an effective date for service connection for testicular cancer. The Veteran had previously filed claims for this condition, with the Board denying service connection in December 2017 after finding insufficient new and relevant evidence to reopen the claim. This prior decision became final as the Veteran did not contest it further. On July 18, 2022, the Veteran filed a supplemental claim for service connection for testicular cancer. The RO initially granted service connection with an effective date of August 10, 2022, based on the PACT Act's passage, assuming a presumptive basis for the claim. However, the Board clarified that its prior grant of service connection was based on direct causation, not presumption. The Veteran argued this direct causation finding warranted an earlier effective date. The Board agreed, noting that while the claim was reopened more than a year after the prior final decision, the effective date for a reopened claim is the date entitlement arose or the claim was received, whichever is later. Since the supplemental claim was received on July 18, 2022, and the Board found continuous eligibility, this date was assigned as the correct effective date for service connection. The Board concurred that the RO erred in assigning the PACT Act date.

Rationale

Board found direct causation for testicular cancer.; Prior claims became final after failure to appeal Board's 2017 decision.; Supplemental claim filed July 18, 2022, more than one year after prior final decision.

Service Branch

MARINE CORPS

Special Benefit

NO SPECIAL BENEFIT

Docket No.

250924-587750

Full Decision Text

Citation Nr: A26040835
Decision Date: 04/30/26 Archive Date: 04/30/26

DOCKET NO. 250924-587750
DATE: April 30, 2026

ORDER

Entitlement to an effective date of July 18, 2022, for the award of service connection for testicular cancer status post left orchiectomy, is granted.

FINDING OF FACT

The Veteran's supplemental claim was received on July 18, 2022, and was continuously pursued thereafter.

CONCLUSION OF LAW

The criteria for entitlement to an effective date of July 18, 2022, for the award of service connection of prurigo have been met. 38 U.S.C. § 5110; 38 C.F.R. § 3.114, 3.2500, 3.400.

REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION

The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Marine Corps from March 1965 to March 1969.

This case comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a May 2025 rating decision issued by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). In the September 2024 VA Form 10182, Decision Review Request: Board Appeal (Notice of Disagreement), the Veteran elected the Hearing docket. A Board hearing was held on January 14, 2026, and a transcript of the proceedings has been associated with the claims file.

Therefore, the Board may only consider the evidence of record at the time of the May 2025 agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ) decision on appeal, as well as any evidence submitted by the Veteran, or his representative, at the hearing or within 90 days following the hearing. 38 C.F.R. § 20.302(a). If evidence was submitted either (1) during the period after the AOJ issued the decision on appeal and prior to the Board hearing, or (2) more than 90 days following the hearing, the Board did not consider it in its decision. 38 C.F.R. §§ 20.300, 20.302(a), 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.

Entitlement to an effective date of July 18, 2022, for the award of service connection for testicular cancer status post left orchiectomy, is granted

The Veteran seeks entitlement to an effective date of service connection prior to August 10, 2022. Specifically, the Veteran asserts that the Board granted service connection on a direct basis rather than a presumptive basis. See January 2026 Board Hearing Transcript.

Effective Dates

Except as otherwise provided, the effective date of an evaluation and award of compensation based on an original claim, a claim reopened after final disallowance, or a claim for an increase will be the date of receipt of the claim or the date entitlement arose, whichever is later. 38 U.S.C. § 5110; 38 C.F.R. § 3.400.

If the claim for service connection is received within one year of a veteran's discharge from service, the effective date of an award of service connection will be the day following discharge from service. 38 U.S.C. § 5110(b)(1); 38 C.F.R. § 3.400(b)(2). Otherwise, the effective date will be the later of the date of receipt of claim or the date entitlement arose. 38 U.S.C. § 5110; 38 C.F.R. § 3.400(b)(2). It is a fundamental tenet of Veterans law that the effective date awarded for a service-connected condition corresponds with the date the claim was received, or the date entitlement arose, whichever is later. DeLisio v. Shinseki, 25 Vet. App. 45, 52, 58 (2011); 38 U.S.C. § 5110(a); 38 C.F.R. § 3.400.

Retroactive effective dates are allowed, to a certain extent, in cases where an award or increase of compensation is granted pursuant to a liberalizing law. 38 U.S.C. § 511
0; 38 C.F.R. § 3.400(b)(2). It is a fundamental tenet of Veterans law that the effective date awarded for a service-connected condition corresponds with the date the claim was received, or the date entitlement arose, whichever is later. DeLisio v. Shinseki, 25 Vet. App. 45, 52, 58 (2011); 38 U.S.C. § 5110(a); 38 C.F.R. § 3.400.

Retroactive effective dates are allowed, to a certain extent, in cases where an award or increase of compensation is granted pursuant to a liberalizing law. 38 U.S.C. § 5110 (g); 38 C.F.R. § 3.114(a). Under these provisions, the claimant must have met all eligibility criteria for the liberalized benefit on the effective date of the liberalizing law or VA issue and have been continuously eligible from that date to the date of claim or administrative determination of entitlement. These provisions apply to original and reopened claims, as well as claims for increase. Id.; see also McCay v. Brown, 9 Vet. App. 183, 188 (1996), aff'd, 106 F.3d 1577, 1581 (Fed. Cir. 1997). In such cases, the effective date of the award or increase shall be fixed in accordance with the facts found but shall not be earlier than the effective date of the liberalizing law or VA issue. 38 C.F.R. § 3.114(a).

When there is a prior final decision and a later reopened claim results in a grant of the benefit, the general rule for effective dates for reopened claims applies. In such cases, the effective date cannot be earlier than the subsequent claim to reopen. 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.400(r), 3.400(q)(2); Leonard v. Principi, 17 Vet. App. 447, 452 (2004); Sears v. Principi, 16 Vet. App. 244, 246-50 (2002), aff'd, 349 F.3d 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2003). For supplemental claims received more than one year after the date on which the agency of original jurisdiction issues notice of a decision or the Board of Veterans' Appeals issued notice of a decision, the effective date will be fixed in accordance with the date entitlement arose, but will not be earlier than the date of receipt of the supplemental claim. 38 C.F.R. § 3.2500.

Consistent with the case law aforementioned, a Veteran can attempt to overcome finality of the decision only through a request for revision based on clear and unmistakable error, or by a claim to reopen based upon new and relevant evidence. However, because the proper effective date for an award based on a claim to reopen could be no earlier than the date on which that claim was received, only a request for revision based on clear and unmistakable error (CUE) could result in the assignment of an earlier effective date.

Procedural History

The Veteran originally applied for service connection of testicular cancer in November 1991. See November 1991 VA Form 21-526.

In April 1994, the RO denied the Veteran's claim of entitlement to service connection for testicular cancer. See April 1994 Rating Decision.

The Veteran appealed the RO's decision and in August 1997, the Board denied entitlement to service connection for testicular cancer. See August 1997 Board Decision.

Subsequent denials of service connection were issued by the RO in rating decisions dated February 16, 2006, October 21, 2008, February 25, 2013, and May 29, 2014.

The Veteran appealed the RO's decision and in December 2017, the Board denied the Veteran's claim. The Board concluded that new and relevant evidence had not been received sufficient to reopen the Veteran's claim of entitlement to service connection for testicular cancer. See December 2017 Board Decision.

The Veteran appealed portions of the Board's 2017 decision to the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court) but did not contest the Board's findings with regard to the claim pertaining to testicular cancer. See September 2018 Joint Motion for Partial Remand (JMPR). As the Veteran did not appeal the Board's 2017 decision with respect to testicular cancer, it became final.

On July 18, 2022, the Veteran filed a supplemental claim requesting service connection of testicular cancer. See July 2022 VA Form 20-0995.

This
sufficient to reopen the Veteran's claim of entitlement to service connection for testicular cancer. See December 2017 Board Decision.

On July 18, 2022, the Veteran filed a supplemental claim requesting service connection of testicular cancer. See July 2022 VA Form 20-0995.

This claim was not adjudicated by the AOJ until June 2024. See June 2024 Rating Decision. As explained in the AOJ's decision, the issue of testicular cancer had improperly been characterized in several intervening rating decisions as an increased rating claim which had been combined with his bladder cancer claim. Id. The June 2024 decision denied entitlement to service connection for testicular cancer. Id.

Following the AOJ's June 2024 denial, the Veteran continuously pursued his appeal until entitlement to service connection was granted by the Board in May 2025. See May 2025 Board Decision.

In May 2025, the AOJ issued a decision implementing the Board's grant of service connection for testicular cancer. See May 2025 Rating Decision. The AOJ assigned an effective date of August 10, 2022, based on the date of passage of the Sergeant First Class Heath Robinson Honoring our Promise to Address Comprehensive Toxins Act of 2022 (PACT Act).

In the September 2024 VA Form 10182, the Veteran elected the Hearing docket. A Board hearing was held on January 14, 2026.

Analysis

The Veteran contends that the AOJ's assignment of the date of passage of the PACT Act as the effective date of service connection for testicular cancer was inappropriate. See January 2026 Board Hearing Transcript. Specifically, he asserts that service connection was granted by the Board on a direct basis rather than a presumptive basis thus making him eligible for an earlier effective date for the award of service connection. Id.

As noted above, the AOJ, in a rating decision which implemented the Board's May 2025 grant of service connection, assigned August 10, 2022, as the effective date for the award of service connection for testicular cancer. This date was chosen under the assumption that testicular cancer had been granted on a presumptive basis and because August 10, 2022, was the date of passage of the PACT Act. See May 2025 Rating Decision.

However, the Veteran correctly asserts that the Board's award of service connection was granted on a theory of direct causation. See May 2025 Board Decision. The Board's decision states, in relevant part, that "[w]hile testicular cancer is not subject to presumptive service connection based on exposure to contaminated water at Camp Lejeune or herbicide agents, a veteran is not precluded from establishing service connection with proof of direct causation." Id. The subsequent analysis addressed the criteria for direct service connection and granted the Veteran's claim of entitlement to service connection for testicular cancer. Id.

In light of the foregoing, the Board finds that the AOJ erred by assigning an effective date based on presumptive service connection. Thus, the Board must now determine the appropriate effective date for the award of service connection for testicular cancer.

As stated above, when there is a prior final decision and a later reopened claim results in a grant of the benefit, the general rule for effective dates for reopened claims applies. In such cases, the effective date cannot be earlier than the subsequent claim to reopen. 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.400(r), 3.400(q)(2); Leonard v. Principi, 17 Vet. App. 447, 452 (2004); Sears v. Principi, 16 Vet. App. 244, 246-50 (2002), aff'd, 349 F.3d 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2003). For supplemental claims received more than one year after the date on which the agency of original jurisdiction issues notice of a decision or the Board of Veterans' Appeals issued notice of a decision, the effective date will be fixed in accordance with the date entitlement arose, but will not be earlier than the date of receipt of the supplemental claim. 38 C.F.R. § 3.2500.

As detailed in the procedural history above, there were several prior
Vet. App. 447, 452 (2004); Sears v. Principi, 16 Vet. App. 244, 246-50 (2002), aff'd, 349 F.3d 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2003). For supplemental claims received more than one year after the date on which the agency of original jurisdiction issues notice of a decision or the Board of Veterans' Appeals issued notice of a decision, the effective date will be fixed in accordance with the date entitlement arose, but will not be earlier than the date of receipt of the supplemental claim. 38 C.F.R. § 3.2500.

As detailed in the procedural history above, there were several prior claims for service connection of testicular cancer which had become final. Most recently, the Board's 2017 decision found that new and relevant evidence had not been received and denied reopening the Veteran's claim of entitlement to service connection for testicular cancer. See December 2017 Board Decision. The Veteran did appeal this decision to the Court and did not submit a supplemental claim within one year. Accordingly, the Board's 2017 decision became final.

On July 18, 2022, VA received the Veteran's supplemental claim requesting service connection of testicular cancer. See July 2022 VA Form 20-0995. Thus, as the Veteran's supplemental claim was received more than one year after the date of the Board's decision, the effective date will be fixed in accordance with the date entitlement arose but will not be earlier than the date of receipt of the supplemental claim. 38 C.F.R. § 3.2500.

Here, the Board finds that the Veteran has been continuously eligible for the benefit since the date his supplemental application was received and, therefore, the earliest available date of service connection for testicular cancer is July 18, 2022.

In sum, the Board concurs with the Veteran's assertion that the AOJ erred by assigning an effective date based on presumptive service connection. A review of the evidence as well as the procedural history of the case reveals that the appropriate, and earliest available effective date for the award of service connection for testicular cancer is July 18, 2022, the date the supplemental application to reopen was received by VA. As such, entitlement to an effective date of July 18, 2022, for the award of service connection for testicular cancer status post left orchiectomy, is granted.

YVETTE R. WHITE

Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans' Appeals

Attorney for the Board Zachary J. Ellis, 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