BVA Case 23-3225: Back

In February 2020,the Board determined that based on the evidence of record,an effective date earlier than November 1,2016, is not warranted.

In a May 2021 joint motion for remand (JMR),the parties agreed that the Board provided an inadequate statement of reasons or bases for its decision because it failed to address the August 12,2013,rating decision that granted entitlement to DIC pursuant to 38 U.

In a September 2021 decision,the Board determined that the April 2013 application for burial benefits could not be interpreted to be an unnamed claimant's claim for DIC benefits.

Thus the Board determined that the August 2013 rating decision was generated erroneously,did not convey any benefits,and was directed to the Veteran's daughter and not his spouse.

In the February 2023 decision,the Board determined that the criteria for entitlement to an effective date earlier than November 1, 2016,for DIC benefits are not met.

To comply with this requirement,the Board must analyze the credibility and probative value of the evidence,account for the evidence that it finds persuasiveor unpersuasive and provide its reasons for rejecting any material evidence favorable to the claimant.

The Board found that because the appellant submitted an initial claim for DIC benefits on November 3,2016, which was more than one year after the Veteran's death, the proper effective date is the date of the receipt of the claim,which was November 1,2016.

But the Board found that the laws and regulations that pertain to the assignment of effective dates cannot be ignored,and these do not allow for an effective date before November 1,2016.