BVA Case 19-6325: Depression

The appellant argues that (1)VA failed to evaluate his conditions on an extraschedular basis;(2)VA failed to consider his headaches condition in relation to his 1999 application for 1 The Board also remanded claims seeking (1)service connection for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD);(2)service connection for left wrist carpal tunnel syndrome;(3)service connection for obstructive sleep apnea;(4)a total disability rating based on individual unemployability (TDIU)effective prior to June 30,2009;and (5)dependents'educational assistance (DEA)effective prior to June 30,2009.

disability benefits;(3)VA failed to read his pro se filings liberally to determine the correct scope of his claims;(4) the Board has jurisdiction over claims for radiculopathy of the bilateral lower extremities and incorrectly referred these claims back to VA;and (5)the Board failed to provide an adequate statement of reasons or bases for denying him a copy of the February 2018 VA examiner's curriculum vitae (CV).

The Secretary concedes that the Board has jurisdiction over the appellant's claim seeking an increased disability rating for bilateral radiculopathy of the lower extremities and that the Board erred by referring,as opposed to remanding,these claims to VA.

In May 2019,the Board denied (1)a disability rating in excess of 10%for headaches, effective prior to April 13, 2017;(2)a disability rating in excess of 50%for headaches, effective since April 13,2017;(3) a disability rating in excess of 70%for depression,effective since April 13,2017;(4)an effective date earlier than May 16, 2003,for the grant of service connection for migraine headaches;and (5)an effective date earlier than June 30,2009,for the grant of service connection for depression.

In reaching this determination,the Board concluded that May 16, 2003,is the date the appellant's claim for headaches was reopened, id.

The Court is not persuaded by the appellant that the Board failed provide an adequate statement of reasons or bases for denying an effective date earlier than June 30, 2009,for the grant of service connection for depression.

The Court is not persuaded that the Board erred when it determined that [t]he first indication of a claim,formal or informal,for depression was received on June 30,2009.

While the Court is grateful for the appellant's service and sympathetic to his depression, the Court will affirm this portion of the decision, because the Board provided an adequate statement of reasons or bases for its determination and the Board's determination is not clearly erroneous.