judge_norm: T REYNOLDS

disposition: remanded

condition: neck

condition: tbi

condition: ptsd

text:
Citation Nr: A26002000
Decision Date: 01/08/26	Archive Date: 01/08/26

DOCKET NO. 250801-570304
DATE: January 8, 2026

ORDER

Entitlement to an initial disability rating in excess of 30 percent for post-concussive headaches is granted.

REMANDED

Entitlement to an initial disability rating in excess of 10 percent for left knee strain with patellofemoral pain syndrome status-post meniscal tear and MCL sprain (based on painful and limited flexion) is remanded.

Entitlement to an initial disability rating in excess of 10 percent for right knee strain with patellofemoral pain syndrome and joint space narrowing (based on painful and limited flexion) is remanded.

Entitlement to an initial compensable disability rating for left knee strain with patellofemoral pain syndrome status-post meniscal tear and MCL sprain (based on limitation of extension) is remanded.

Entitlement to an initial compensable disability rating for right knee strain with patellofemoral pain syndrome and joint space narrowing (based on limitation of extension) is remanded.

Entitlement to an initial disability rating in excess of 10 percent for a cervical strain is remanded.

Entitlement to an initial compensable disability rating for traumatic brain injury (TBI) is remanded.

Entitlement to an initial disability rating in excess of 50 percent for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is remanded.

INTRODUCTION

The Veteran served on active duty in the U.S. Army from October 2009 to April 2010, and from October 2010 to December 2011.

In August 2024, the Regional Office (RO) issued a rating decision which addressed the above-noted issues.  Thereafter, in August 2025, the Veteran submitted a VA Form 10182, Decision Review Request: Board Appeal (Notice of Disagreement) (NOD), wherein he sought to appeal the claims in the Appeals Modernization Act (AMA) System.  He selected the Direct Review option; therefore, the Board may only consider the evidence of record at the time the RO issued the August 2024 rating decision.  38 C.F.R. � 20.301.

FINDING OF FACT

Throughout the period of the claim, the Veteran's headache disorder has been manifested by very frequent, completely prostrating and prolonged attacks productive of severe economic inadaptability.

CONCLUSION OF LAW

The criteria for an initial 50 percent rating for post-concussive headaches have been met throughout the pendency of this claim.  38 U.S.C. � 1155; 38 C.F.R. � 4.124a, Diagnostic Code 8100.

REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION

Duty to Assist

In this decision, the Board grants the Veteran the maximum schedular rating of 50 percent for his headache disorder throughout the entire appeal period.

As this represents a complete grant of the benefits sought on appeal, no discussion of VA's duty to assist is necessary.

Legal Criteria

Disability evaluations are determined by the application of the VA's Schedule for Rating Disabilities (Rating Schedule), 38 C.F.R. Part 4.  The percentage ratings contained in the Rating Schedule represent, as far as can be practicably determined, the average impairment in earning capacity resulting from diseases and injuries incurred or aggravated during military service and their residual conditions in civil occupations.  38 U.S.C. � 1155; 38 C.F.R. �� 3.321 (a), 4.1.  It is not expected, especially with the more fully described grades of disabilities, that all cases will show all the findings specified; findings sufficiently characteristic to identify the disease and the disability therefrom are sufficient; and above all, a coordination of rating with impairment of function will be expected in all cases.  38 C.F.R. � 4.21.

Burden of Proof

Except as otherwise provided by law, a claimant has the responsibility to present and support a claim for benefits under the laws administered by VA.  VA shall consider all information and medical and lay evidence of record.  Where there is an approximate balance of positive and negative evidence regarding any issue material to the determination of a matter, VA shall give the benefit of the doubt to the claimant.  38 U.S.C. � 5107; 38 C.F.R. �� 3.102, 4.3; see also Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49, 53 (1990).

Factual Background and Analysis

The Veteran's service-connected post-concussive headaches are rated under 38 C.F.R. � 4.124a, Diagnostic Code 8100.  He submitted an intent to file a claim in January 2023, followed by a timely claim for service connection for this disability in February 2023.  Thereafter, in a June 2023 rating decision the RO granted service connection, and assigned a 30 percent rating for the disability.  The Veteran then submitted a supplemental claim in March 2024, wherein he sought reconsideration of the assigned disability rating.

Thereafter, in the August 2024 rating decision on appeal, the RO confirmed and continued his previously assigned 30 percent evaluation.

The initial question in this case is whether the maximum, 50 percent rating, is warranted throughout the entire appeal period.  The maximum schedular rating of 50 percent is warranted for tension headaches with very frequent and completely prostrating and prolonged attacks productive of severe economic inadaptability.

The rating criteria do not define "prostrating," nor has the Court.  See Fenderson v. West, 12 Vet. App. 119 (1999) (Diagnostic Code 8100 is quoted verbatim, but the Court does not specifically address the matter of what is a prostrating attack). According to DORLAND'S ILLUSTRATED MEDICAL DICTIONARY 1531 (32nd Ed. 2012), "prostration" is defined as "extreme exhaustion or powerlessness."  Additionally, the term "productive of" in Diagnostic Code 8100 can be construed as either producing or being capable of producing severe economic inadaptability.  See Pierce v. Principi, 19 Vet. App. 400, 445 (2004).

The Veteran underwent VA examinations in June 2023 and April 2024.  During each of those examinations the Veteran reported experiencing headaches more than once a month.  He has reported his headaches manifest as a pulsating or throbbing pain on both sides of his head, which result in nausea, sensitivity to light and sound.  His headaches have a duration of 1-2 days.  He has consistently reported that when his headaches occur, he must lay down and take Sumatriptan and Ibuprophen for relief.  Additionally, each of the above-noted examiners found the Veteran's headache disorder affects his ability to work.

The Board further notes that by way of a March 2024 correspondence, the Veteran reported being hospitalized for his headaches in May 2023, as well as having roughly 20 instances in which he would have missed work if he had not taken his medications, and multiple other occasions in which he did miss work in spite of taking his medications.

Upon review of the evidence as outlined above, the Board finds the Veteran is entitled to the maximum 50 percent rating for his headaches throughout the period of the claim.  The evidence clearly shows that he has experienced very frequent headaches, which caused him to lie down.  Additionally, copious evidence indicates the Veteran's headaches have been productive of severe economic inadaptability, resulting in significant inability to pursue his employment.  Thus, the Board finds that a 50 percent rating is warranted throughout the period of this claim.  Again, 50 percent is the maximum scheduler rating allowable for the Veteran's headache disorder.

REASONS FOR REMAND

Pursuant to 38 C.F.R. � 20.802, unless an issue on appeal can be granted in full, the Board shall remand the appeal to the agency of original jurisdiction for correction of an error on the part of the agency of original jurisdiction to satisfy its duties under 38 U.S.C. � 5103A, if the error occurred prior to the date of the agency of original jurisdiction decision on appeal.  The Board may remand for correction of any other error by the agency of original jurisdiction in satisfying a regulatory or statutory duty, if correction of the error would have a reasonable possibility of aiding in substantiating the appellant's claim.

Under certain circumstances, 38 C.F.R. � 3.159 requires VA to obtain a VA examination or medical opinion.  When VA undertakes to provide a VA examination or obtain a VA opinion, it must ensure that the examination or opinion is adequate.  Barr v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 303, 312 (2007).  The failure to provide the above-noted assistance constitutes a due process violation.

Initially, the Board notes that to be considered adequate, a musculoskeletal examination must include an assessment of the veteran's flare-ups, as well as range of motion measurements in weight bearing, non-weight bearing, and in passive motion.  See Sharp v. Shulkin, 29 Vet. App. 26 (2017); see also Correia v. McDonald, 28 Vet. App. 158 (2016).

The Board also acknowledges a recent decision in which the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court) held applicable diagnostic codes and special regulations pertaining to musculoskeletal disabilities do not explicitly contemplate medication use, and as such, VA must discount the beneficial effects of medication when assigning an evaluation of a musculoskeletal disability.  See Ingram v. Collins, 38 Vet. App. 130 (2025).

In sum, this requires examiners expressly consider and discount the beneficial effects of medication when evaluating musculoskeletal disabilities, to specifically include a discussion of whether a veteran may experience additional functional impairment, to include range of motion loss, without the use of medications.

The Veteran most recently underwent VA neck and knee examinations in June 2024.  A review of these examinations reveals the examiner failed to provide weight bearing and non-weight bearing range of motion assessments.  Additionally, the examiner did not state whether the Veteran would experience additional functional impairment, to include range of motion loss, without the use of his medications.  As such, a remand is necessary to correct these pre-decisional duty to assist errors.

The Board next observes the Veteran submitted a self-report of his psychiatric symptoms in March 2024.  In this report the Veteran indicated he experienced a number of serious manifestations, including anger; confusion; danger of hurting self and others; difficulty with stress, decisions, and thinking; disorientation; distractibility; emotional numbing; hallucinations; obsessive rituals; lack of appetite; low motivation; negative thoughts about self; neglect of chores/tasks; paranoia; communication impairments; difficulty with speech; and trouble navigating places, among other symptoms.  Curiously, the Veteran then underwent a VA examination in June 2024, at which time the examiner did not find any of the above-noted manifestations to be present.  The examiner wholly failed to explain how or why these manifestations were discounted.

Additionally, the examiner found a comorbid manifestations opinion was not required to differentiate which symptoms were attributable to the Veteran's TBI versus his PTSD.  The examiner explained such opinion was not warranted because the June 2024 VA TBI examiner indicated the Veteran was not experiencing symptoms attributable to his TBI.  In this respect, the Board observes the June 2024 TBI examiner did indicate a March 2011 treatment note indicated the Veteran had fully recovered from his TBI without residual symptoms.  This finding is clearly factually erroneous, as the Veteran experienced a long history of TBI manifestations following his March 2011 fall, both in service and during his June 2023 VA examination.

The Board further observes the Veterans Benefits Administration's Training Letter dated in January 2009, which instructs that, "when a mental disorder is present, state, or ask the mental disorders examiner to state, to the extent possible, which emotional/behavioral signs and symptoms are part of a co-morbid mental disorder and which represent residuals of TBI."  See Veterans Benefits Administration Training Letter 09-01 (Jan. 21, 2009).

In addition, the above-noted letter states the TBI examination should be conducted by either a board-certified or board-eligible Physiatrist, Neurologist, or Psychiatrist, or in the alternative, a clinically privileged practitioner under the close supervision of one of the aforementioned specialists.  Here, the Veteran's June 2024 examination was conducted by a Physical Medicine/Rehabilitation Physician.

The Board has also considered the comorbid manifestations opinion provided by the examiner that conducted the Veteran's June 2023 VA PTSD examination; however, that opinion is also significantly lacking.  Specifically, the examiner provided a boilerplate response indicating it would be speculative to comment on the Veteran's comorbid manifestations, because the signs and symptoms of TBI and mental disorder overlap.  In this case, the examiner appears to have effectively utilized a speculative opinion as a "mantra that short circuits the careful consideration" this Veteran's individual manifestations deserve.  See Jones v. Shinseki, 23 Vet. App. at 382, 389 (2010).  For the foregoing reasons, the Board must remand the Veteran's TBI and PTSD claims for additional development.

Accordingly, the case is REMANDED for the following actions:

1.  Schedule the Veteran for an examination by an appropriate clinician to determine the current severity of the Veteran's service-connected PTSD and TBI.  The examiner should provide a full description of the disability and report all signs and symptoms necessary for evaluating the Veteran's disability under the rating criteria.  The examiner must attempt to elicit retrospective and current information regarding the severity, frequency, and duration of symptoms.

Following a comprehensive examination, and consideration of all evidence of record to include the Veteran's own reports, the PTSD examiner is asked to provide a retrospective opinion as to the Veteran's overall occupational and social impairments, for the period from January 2023 to present.  In particular, the examiner is asked to state whether the Veteran's service-connected acquired psychiatric disorder resulted in impairments (deficiencies) in the following areas:

a) work: __________;

b) school: __________;

c) family relations: __________;

d) judgment: __________;

e) thinking: __________; and

f) mood: __________.

With respect to the Veteran's TBI, the PTSD examiner is also asked to provide an opinion addressing whether the Veteran's positively affected facets are attributable to his TBI or PTSD.

The examiner must also comment on all impairments noted in the prior TBI examination conducted in June 2023 to specifically include:

a) impaired memory/concentration _______;

b) inappropriate social interactions _______;

c) irritability _______;

d) insomnia _______;

e) moodiness _______;

f) lack of motivation _______; and

g) difficulty with comprehension/expression _______.

The examiner must address each manifestation individually, and state whether such manifestation is attributable to the Veteran's psychiatric disorder, TBI, or whether attribution to one or the other is impossible.  The examiner must also provide a complete rationale for each attribution made.

If the examiner determines any requested opinions are not possible, or would be speculative, the examiner must state whether this is due to a deficiency in the state of general medical knowledge (no one could respond given medical science and the known facts), a deficiency in the record (additional facts are required), or the examiner (does not have the knowledge or training).

2.  Also, obtain a VA examination by an examiner with sufficient expertise to fully assess the severity of the Veteran's service-connected bilateral knee and cervical spine disabilities.  All pertinent evidence of record should be made available to and reviewed by the examiner.  Any indicated studies should be performed.

Ensure the examiner provides all information required for rating purposes, to specifically include both active and passive range of motion testing, as well as weight-bearing and nonweight-bearing range of motion assessments.

In addition, the examiner must consider and discuss all procurable and assembled data such as the frequency, duration, characteristics, precipitating and alleviating factors, and the severity of the flare-ups, and then provide a retrospective assessment of the functional impairments the Veteran has experienced during flares, throughout the pendency of this appeal.

Further, the examiner is asked to consider and expressly state whether the Veteran would experience additional functional impairment-to include range of motion loss-without his use of medications.  If so, the examiner should provide an estimate of the additional impairment, if possible, in degrees of additional motion loss.  If the examiner is unable to conduct the required testing or concludes that the required testing is not necessary, he or she should be directed to clearly explain why that is so.

T. REYNOLDS

Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans' Appeals

Attorney for the Board	Fraser, Gordon

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.


series: ama

judge_norm: HARVEY P ROBERTS

judge_role: Veterans Law Judge

disposition: granted

disposition: denied

condition: respiratory

text:
Citation Nr: A26003000
Decision Date: 01/13/26	Archive Date: 01/13/26

DOCKET NO. 250217-518391
DATE: January 13, 2026

ORDER

Entitlement to service connection for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is granted.

Entitlement to service connection for constrictive bronchiolitis and obliterative bronchiolitis is denied.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. Incurring a stressor event during inactive duty for training (INACTDUTRA) is an injury that resulted in the disability of PTSD,

2. The greater weight of the evidence is against a finding that the Veteran has constrictive bronchiolitis or obliterative bronchiolitis or other related disability.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1. The criteria for entitlement to service connection for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) have been met.  38 U.S.C. �� 101(24), 1110, 1154(a), 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. �� 3.6, 3.102, 3.303, 3.304(f)(2), 3.309

2. The criteria for entitlement to service connection for constrictive bronchiolitis or obliterative bronchiolitis or related disability have not been met.  38 U.S.C. �� 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. � 3.102, 3.303

REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

The Veteran served on active duty from February 2012 to April 2012, October 2015 to December 2015, April 2016 to September 2016, May 2019 to October 2019, and November 2019 to February 2020 with continued service in the National Guard.  Because the Board finds that the Veteran's injury that resulted in a disability occurred during a period of inactive duty for training (INACTDUTRA), the Board finds that the period from June 2, 2021, to June 6, 2021, was also a period of active duty.

This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from October 2024 and February 2025 rating decisions issued by a Regional Office of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), which is the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ).  The Veteran filed a VA Form 10182, Decision Review Request: Board Appeal (Notice of Disagreement), on February 17, 2025.

The Veteran elected the Direct Review docket.  Because the Veteran elected the direct review docket, the Board may only consider the evidence of record at the time of the August 2024 and February 2025 AOJ rating decisions 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.

1. Entitlement to service connection for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD)

The Veteran asserts that a psychiatric disability is related to service.

Service connection may be established for a disability resulting from a disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by active service.  38 U.S.C. � 1110; 38 C.F.R. �� 3.303, 3.304.  To establish service connection for a current disability, a Veteran must show: (1) the existence of a current disability; (2) incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury in service; and (3) a causal relationship between the present disability and the disease or injury incurred or aggravated during service.  Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163 (Fed. Cir. 2004).

The February 2025 AOJ rating decision contains the favorable finding that the Veteran has been diagnosed with posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD).  The Board is bound by that favorable finding.

The Veteran's service includes active duty for training (ACDUTRA) and inactive duty for training (INACDUTRA) in the National Guard.  Service connection may also be established for a disability resulting from either a disease or an injury incurred during periods of ACDUTRA and injuries incurred during periods of INACDUTRA.  38 U.S.C. �� 101(24).

ACDUTRA is full time duty performed under 32 U.S.C. �� 316, 502, 503, 504, or 505.  38 U.S.C. � 101(22); 38 C.F.R. � 3.6(c).  For VA purposes, ACDUTRA covers the annual training that Reservists perform each year and, if applicable, the initial period of training.  INACDUTRA is duty, other than full-time duty, performed pursuant to 32 U.S.C. �� 316, 502, 503, 504, or 505.  38 U.S.C. � 101; 38 C.F.R. � 3.6(d).

The Veteran's Army National Guard Retirement Point Statement Supplemental Detailed Report prepared on December 12, 2022, indicates that the Veteran was present for both morning and afternoon assemblies for drill on June 2, 2021, through June 6, 2021.  These dates were therefore a period of INACTDUTRA.

On June 5, 2021, another individual was found to have committed suicide.  The individual was in the Veteran's unit, and reports indicate that the two were close.   The Board finds that the suicide of the Veteran's fellow servicemember was a stressor event that was an injury incurred that resulted in disability.  Therefore, the Veteran was disabled due to an injury that occurred during INACTDUTRA.  Therefore, June 2, 2021, to June 6, 2021, a period of INACDUTRA, and the Veteran was disabled from an injury incurred in the line of duty during that INACDUTRA.  That makes June 2, 2021, to June 6, 2021, a period of active duty service.  38 U.S.C. � 101(24)(C)(i); 38 C.F.R. � 3.6(d).

Accordingly, the Board finds that the Veteran incurred an injury during a period of active duty service.  The evidence shows that the Veteran has been diagnosed with PTSD due to that stressor injury incurred during service.

It is the policy of VA to administer the law under a broad interpretation, consistent with the facts in each case, with all reasonable doubt to be resolved in favor of the claimant.  38 C.F.R. � 3.102.  A Veteran need only demonstrate that there is an approximate balance of positive and negative evidence to prevail. To deny a claim on its merits, the weight of the evidence must be against the claim. Alemany v. Brown, 9 Vet. App. 518 (1996); Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49 (1990).

When considering whether there is a causal connection between the service event and any mental disorder, the evidence does not show that the Veteran reported any mental health issues prior to service.

The Veteran is competent to provide testimony concerning factual matters of which he has firsthand knowledge, such as experiencing a physical symptom such as pain.  Barr v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 303 (2007); Washington v. Nicholson, 19 Vet. App. 362 (2005).  Therefore, the Board must assess the competence and credibility of lay statements.  Barr v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 303 (2007).

Competency of evidence differs from weight and credibility. Competency is a legal concept determining whether testimony may be heard and considered by the trier of fact, while weight and credibility are factual determinations going to the probative value of the evidence to be made after the evidence has been admitted.  Rucker v. Brown, 10 Vet. App. 67 (1997).

The Veteran is competent to report experiences during active service.  The Veteran reported that in June 2021, the Veteran and his unit were notified that another servicemember was missing.  The servicemember was someone with whom the Veteran had previously deployed, and they were close.  During the search, the individual was found dead by suicide.  The Veteran knew the individual and had previously served closely with the individual.  The Veteran has reported that after experiencing that stressor, the Veteran began having psychological issues.  The Veteran has consistently described the conditions and circumstances of the service stressor and the impacts of that event on the Veteran.  The evidence of record supports the Veteran's statements.  The Veteran's statements are consistent, detailed, and credible.  The Board therefore assigns the Veteran's lay statements significant probative value.

At a, October 2024 the Veteran was found to have PTSD.  The examiner opined that the Veteran's PTSD was at least as likely as not incurred in or caused by the traumatic events of June 2, 2021, to June 6, 2021.

Accordingly, the Board finds that the weight of the evidence is in favor of a finding that posttraumatic stress disorder is etiologically related to the Veteran's service.  Therefore, service connection for PTSD is granted.

2. Entitlement to service connection for constrictive bronchiolitis and obliterative bronchiolitis

The Veteran contends that service connection is warranted for constrictive or obliterative bronchiolitis.

Service connection may be established for a disability resulting from personal injury suffered or disease contracted in the line of duty in active military service.  38 U.S.C. �� 1110, 1131; 38 C.F.R. � 3.303.  To establish service connection requires evidence of: (1) a current disability; (2) incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury in service; and (3) a causal relationship between the current disability and the disease or injury in service.  Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163 (Fed. Cir. 2004).

The Board notes that an August 2024 AOJ rating decision contains the favorable finding that the Veteran participated in a Toxic Risk Exposure Activity (TERA) while on active duty.  The Board is bound by the findings of the AOJ absent clear and unmistakable evidence to the contrary.  There being no clear and unmistakable evidence to the contrary, the Board is bound by those favorable findings.

The existence of a current disability is the cornerstone of a claim for VA disability compensation.  Degmetich v. Brown, 104 F.3d 1328 (1997).  In the absence of proof of a present disability, there can be no valid claim.  Brammer v. Derwinski, 3 Vet. App. 223 (1992).

Review of the record does not indicate a current diagnosis of constrictive or obliterative bronchiolitis.  Evidence must show that the Veteran currently has the disability for which benefits are being claimed.

At a September 2024 VA examination for potential respiratory conditions, the Veteran was found to not have a respiratory condition, nor had the Veteran ever been diagnosed with a respiratory condition.

The Veteran is competent to provide testimony concerning factual matters of which he has firsthand knowledge, such as experiencing a physical symptom such as pain.  Barr v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 303 (2007); Washington v. Nicholson, 19 Vet. App. 362 (2005).  Therefore, the Board must assess the competence and credibility of lay statements.  Barr v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 303 (2007).

Competency of evidence differs from weight and credibility. Competency is a legal concept determining whether testimony may be heard and considered by the trier of fact, while weight and credibility are factual determinations going to the probative value of the evidence to be made after the evidence has been admitted.  Rucker v. Brown, 10 Vet. App. 67 (1997).

The Board acknowledges the Veteran's belief that constrictive or obliterative bronchiolitis disability is related to service.  However, the Veteran has not been shown to possess the requisite medical expertise or knowledge to provide a medical diagnosis of constrictive or obliterative bronchiolitis.  Although a lay person, such as the Veteran, is competent to describe observable symptoms, such as difficulty breathing or coughing, the diagnosis of a respiratory disability involves a complex medical question and does not lend itself to lay opinion evidence.  The Board finds that the Veteran is not competent to diagnose himself with constrictive or obliterative bronchiolitis.

The Board has considered that service connection can be possible in the absence of a diagnosis when factors such as pain are shown to limit functional ability.  Saunders v. Wilkie, 886 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2018).   To establish the presence of a disability, the veteran must show that pain or other symptomatology reaches the level of functional impairment of earning capacity.   Here, the Veteran has not alleged any functional loss based on the claimed respiratory disability.  Thus, there is no symptomatology that reaches the level of functional impairment of earning capacity.

In addition, the Board recognizes and has considered whether service connection could be warranted for an undiagnosed illness.  However, the Board finds that the evidence does not show objective indications of chronic disability to include both signs, in the medical sense of objective evidence perceptible to an examining physician, and other, non-medical indicators that are capable of independent verification that have existed for six months or more to be considered a disability.  38 C.F.R. � 3.317.  The Board finds that the weight of the evidence is against a finding that an undiagnosed illness manifested as respiratory symptoms is present.

Lacking a current diagnosis for constrictive or obliterative bronchiolitis or showing of pain resulting in disability or any undiagnosed disability, the Veteran does not meet the criteria for entitlement to service connection.

Accordingly, the Board finds that the criteria for entitlement to service connection for constrictive or obliterative bronchiolitis are not met, the evidence is not in approximate balance, and there is no reasonable doubt to resolve in favor of the Veteran.  Therefore, the claim for entitlement to service connection for constrictive bronchiolitis or obliterative bronchiolitis must be denied.  38 U.S.C. � 5107.

Harvey P. Roberts

Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans' Appeals

Attorney for the Board	Linney, J., 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.


judge_norm: W DAKNIS

disposition: dismissed

condition: psychiatric

text:
Citation Nr: A26004000
Decision Date: 01/15/26	Archive Date: 01/15/26

DOCKET NO. 220311-227461
DATE: January 15, 2026

ORDER

Entitlement to an effective date earlier than December 30, 2020 for service connection for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) with major depressive disorder and panic disorder is dismissed.

Entitlement to an initial disability rating of 70 percent, but no higher, for PTSD with major depressive disorder and panic disorder is granted.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. The Veteran testified during his September 17, 2025 Board of Veterans' Appeals hearing that he wanted to withdraw the appeal of entitlement to an earlier effective date for service connection for PTSD with major depressive disorder and panic disorder.

2. The Veteran's PTSD with major depressive disorder and panic disorder manifested in occupational and social impairment, with deficiencies in most areas. It did not manifest in total occupational and social impairment.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1. The criteria for withdrawal of the appeal of entitlement to an earlier effective date for service connection for PTSD with major depressive disorder and panic disorder have been met. 38 U.S.C. � 7105; 38 C.F.R. � 20.205.

2. The criteria for entitlement to an initial disability rating of 70 percent for PTSD with major depressive disorder and panic disorder are met. 38 U.S.C. �� 1155, 5103, 5103A, 5107; 38 C.F.R. �� 3.102, 3.159, 3.321(a), 4.1, 4.3, 4.7, 4.130, Diagnostic Code (DC) 9411.

REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Air Force from February 1987 to December 1989.

This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on an appeal from a March 2022 rating decision by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office, which is the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ).

In the March 2022 VA Form 10182, Decision Review Request: Board Appeal (Notice of Disagreement), the Veteran elected the Board's hearing docket. This restricts the Board's review to the evidence of record at the time of the March 2022 rating decision and evidence submitted with, or within 90 days of, the Veteran's hearing before a Veterans Law Judge (VLJ). 38 C.F.R. � 20.302. The Veteran appeared at a hearing before the undersigned VLJ on September 17, 2025.

During the September 2025 hearing, the Board granted the Veteran's motion to advance his appeal on the docket. See September 2025 Board Hearing Transcript.

In a June 2023 rating decision, the AOJ increased the Veteran's service-connected PTSD from 50 percent to 100 percent, effective February 10, 2023. As this does not constitute a full grant, this issue of entitlement to an increased disability rating for PTSD remains on appeal. AB v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 35, 39 (1993). The Board findings herein do not disrupt the 100 percent PTSD disability rating assigned effective February 10, 2023.

1. Withdrawal of the appeal of entitlement to an effective date earlier than December 30, 2020 for service connection for PTSD with major depressive disorder and panic disorder

The Board may dismiss any appeal which fails to allege specific error of fact or law in the determination being appealed. 38 U.S.C. � 7105. An appeal may be withdrawn as to any or all issues involved in the appeal at any time before the Board promulgates its decision. 38 C.F.R. � 20.205. Withdrawal may be made by the appellant or their representative. Id.

During his September 17, 2025 Board hearing, the Veteran testified that he wanted to withdraw the appeal of entitlement to an earlier effective date for service connection for PTSD and understood that the Board would not issue a decision on that issue if it was withdrawn. He also testified that he understood that he may have other legal means to challenge the PTSD service connection effective date and that withdrawal would not foreclose all means that may be available. Thus, the Veteran explicitly, unambiguously, and with a full understanding of the consequences, withdrew the appeal of entitlement to an earlier effective date for service connection for PTSD. The Veteran's testimony reflects that he understood the consequences of withdrawal. See generally Acree v. O'Rourke, 891 F.3d 1009 (Fed. Cir. 2018).

Thus, there remain no allegations of error of fact or law for appellate consideration. Accordingly, the appeal of entitlement to an earlier effective date for service connection for PTSD is dismissed. 38 U.S.C. � 7105; 38 C.F.R. � 20.205.

Increased Ratings

Disability ratings are determined by applying the criteria set forth in VA's Schedule for Rating Disabilities. Ratings are based on the average impairment of earning capacity. Individual disabilities are assigned separate diagnostic codes. See 38 U.S.C. � 1155; 38 C.F.R. � 4.1.

Where there is a question as to which of two evaluations shall be applied, the higher evaluation will be assigned if the disability picture more nearly approximates the criteria required for that rating; otherwise, the lower rating will be assigned. See 38 C.F.R. � 4.7. Staged ratings are, however, appropriate for an increased rating claim when the factual findings show distinct time periods where the service-connected disability exhibits symptoms that would warrant different ratings.

2. Entitlement to an initial disability rating in excess of 50 percent for PTSD with major depressive disorder and panic disorder

The Veteran contends that the severity of his PTSD warrants a higher rating than the assigned 50 percent rating. He asserts that he has consistently experienced symptoms that warrant a 100 percent rating since approximately 1989. See September 2025 Board Hearing Transcript. Therefore, his attorney argues, that because VA awarded a 100 percent rating for PTSD, effective February 2023, based on the severity of Veteran's symptoms found during a June 2023 VA PTSD examination, his assigned initial 50 percent disability rating should be increased to 100 percent. Id.

Legal Criteria

Under the General Rating Formula for Mental Disorders, a 50 percent rating is warranted for occupational and social impairment with reduced reliability and productivity due to such symptoms as flattened affect; circumstantial, circumlocutory, or stereotyped speech; panic attacks more than once a week; difficulty in understanding complex commands; impairment of short-term and long-term memory (e.g., retention of only highly learned material, forgetting to complete tasks); impaired judgment; impaired abstract thinking; disturbances of motivation and mood; difficulty in establishing and maintaining effective work and social relationships. 38 C.F.R. � 4.130, DC 9411.

A 70 percent rating is warranted for occupational and social impairment, with deficiencies in most areas, such as work, school, family relations, judgment, thinking, or mood, due to such symptoms as suicidal ideation; obsessional rituals which interfere with routine activities; speech intermittently illogical, obscure, or irrelevant; near-continuous panic or depression affecting the ability to function independently, appropriately and effectively; impaired impulse control (such as unprovoked irritability with periods of violence); spatial disorientation; neglect of personal appearance and hygiene; difficulty in adapting to stressful circumstances (including work or a worklike setting); inability to establish and maintain effective relationships. Id.

The maximum 100 percent rating is warranted for total occupational and social impairment, due to such symptoms as gross impairment in thought processes or communication; persistent delusions or hallucinations; grossly inappropriate behavior; persistent danger of hurting self or others; intermittent inability to perform activities of daily living (including maintenance of minimal personal hygiene); disorientation to time or place; memory loss for names of close relatives, own occupation, or own name. Id.

Under the General Formula for Mental Disorders, the Board must conduct a "holistic analysis" that considers all associated symptoms, regardless of whether they are listed as criteria in the rating schedule. Bankhead v. Shulkin, 29 Vet. App. 10, 22 (2017); 38 C.F.R. � 4.130. The Board then quantifies the level of occupational and social impairment of the symptoms based on severity, frequency, and duration and assigns an evaluation that "most nearly approximates that level of occupational and social impairment." Id.

The symptoms listed in the rating criteria are not exhaustive, but rather "serve as examples of the type and degree of symptoms, or their effects, that would justify a particular rating." Mauerhan v. Principi, 16 Vet. App. 436, 442 (2002). The analysis requires considering "not only the presence of certain symptoms but also that those symptoms have caused occupational and social impairment in most of the referenced areas" - i.e., "the regulation...requires an ultimate factual conclusion as to the Veteran's level of impairment in 'most areas.'" Vazquez-Claudio v. Shinseki, 713 F.3d 112, 114-118 (Fed. Cir. 2013); 38C.F.R. �4.130, DC 9411. However, the Court has held that because suicidal ideation only appears in the 70 percent evaluation criteria, its presence alone may warrant the higher rating, irrespective of frequency, severity, and duration. See Bankhead v. Shulkin, 29 Vet. App. 10, 18-19 (2017).

As this is an appeal for an increased initial disability rating, the earliest possible effective date for an increased rating for PTSD is December 30, 2020, the effective date of service connection and date that VA received the Veteran's intent to file a claim.

Factual Background

In July 2021, the Veteran underwent a VA PTSD examination. The examiner diagnosed the Veteran with PTSD, major depressive disorder (recurrent, mild), and panic disorder. The Veteran reported that he had had friends but then teared up and did not elaborate further. He reported being active in his church and said he finds it supportive. He stated that he had been married for 32 years, he would be a "wreck" without his spouse, and that she is "everything" to him. He stated that he was doing well because of the support provided by his church and wife. He also reported running his own farm on which he "mostly raise[d] protein." He stated that his mental health issues started right after his separation from active duty, around 1989. He had received mental health treatment for many years since 1989. He reported taking several mediations to treat his psychiatric symptoms.

The Veteran's symptoms included depressed mood, anxiety, panic attacks that occur weekly or less often, mild memory loss, such as forgetting names, directions, or recent events, flattened affect, disturbances of motivation and mood, and difficulty in establishing and maintaining effective work and social relationships. The examiner noted that the Veteran reported experiencing significant social anxiety. He had difficulty shopping or being around any crowds. When in a restaurant, he must sit with his back to the wall and ceiling exit. He cannot ride in someone else's car unless he is driving. He also described severe panic attacks. He denied suicidal and homicidal ideation. There was no evidence of psychosis.

The examiner opined that the Veteran's psychiatric symptoms manifested in occupational and social impairment with occasional decrease in work efficiency and intermittent periods of inability to perform occupational tasks, although generally functioning satisfactorily, with normal routine behavior, self-care and conversation.

In July 2021, the Veteran submitted a statement that around 1989 when he got married his anger issues were coming out from somewhere deep inside. The evil would rise to the top like a volcano, and he would explode in a furniture breaking rage. He then sought counseling and had been taking medication and seeing a psychiatrist since 2007.

At a September 2025 Board hearing, the Veteran testified that the severity of his PTSD symptoms has remained relatively consistent since about 1989. He testified that he experiences anxiety, chronic sleep impairment, depressed mood, and difficulty in establishing and maintaining effective work and social relationships. He has difficulty with relationships with strangers, acquaintances, and friends. Also, his relationship with his children was "off" and he tends not to get along with them. He tries to get along with his children, but it does not seem to work out too well and the relationship is "on and off." He has disturbances of motivation and mood. His affect is flattened. He forgets directions, names, and recent events. He has impaired impulse control. He neglects personal appearance and hygiene. He also experiences panic attacks more than once a week, as well as suspiciousness.

The Veteran's spouse testified that the Veteran does not feel safe going into appointments alone. He does not want to go anywhere and wants to stay home. It takes quite a bit for him to go out and do things. His spouse also testified that she has known the Veteran since high school and his personality, social activity, and friendships changed around December of 1989, when they got married. That was when he stopped being social, was unable to make and maintain relationships, and started feeling suspicious that people were mad at him.

Analysis

Affording the Veteran the benefit of the doubt, a 70 percent rating for the Veteran's PTSD is warranted because his symptoms more nearly approximate occupational and social impairment with deficiencies in most areas, and not the assigned 50 percent rating. 38 C.F.R. � 4.130, DC 9411.

The medical and lay evidence demonstrate that throughout the review period, the Veteran has experienced the same level of symptoms. He has difficulty with establishing and maintaining effective relationships. His relationship with his two children is strained and he does not get along with them. Also, the Veteran does not have friends. He has severe social anxiety, does not usually go out to do things and prefers to be home. He has difficulty being around any crowds, eating in a restaurant, and riding in someone else's vehicle. He has severe panic attacks that occur at least once a week. He is hypervigilant and experiences suspiciousness. He has disturbances of motivation and mood. He forgets directions, names, and recent events. Furthermore, lay evidence shows that that he neglects personal appearance and hygiene without reminders from his spouse, he has impaired impulse control, and chronic sleep impairment.

The Board assigns probative weight regarding the Veteran's PTSD symptoms to his and his spouse's September 2025 Board hearing testimony. Both the Veteran and his spouse are competent to report observable symptoms of the Veteran's PTSD because they are, in fact, observable and describable by lay persons. 38 C.F.R. � 3.159(a)(2); Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372, 1376-77 (Fed. Cir. 2007). The evidence shows that the Veteran and his spouse live together, so his spouse is a firsthand witness to his psychiatric symptoms, including impaired impulse control, social anxiety and anxiety in crowds, sleep impairment, and neglect of daily hygiene habits. The July 2021 VA examiner did not indicate that these symptoms were considered when rendering their opinion that the Veteran's PTSD symptoms manifested in occupational and social impairment with occasional decrease in work efficiency and intermittent periods of inability to perform occupational tasks, although generally functioning satisfactorily, with normal routine behavior, self-care and conversation.

Based on this, the Board finds that during the entire review period, the Veteran's PTSD symptoms more nearly approximated occupational and social impairment with deficiencies in most areas, including family relations, mood, and thinking, thereby warranting a 70 percent disability rating.

Furthermore, based on a review of the evidence, the Veteran's PTSD symptoms do not more nearly approximate total occupational and social impairment. 38 C.F.R. � 4.130, DC 9411. The evidence demonstrates that the Veteran was oriented to time and place. There is no evidence that he forgot his name or occupation. Nor is there evidence that he ever experienced delusions or hallucinations. The evidence does not show that he had gross impairment in thought processes or communication. There is no evidence that he was a persistent danger to himself or others. He did not experience suicidal ideation. Although he was unable to maintain relationships with his children, he was able to maintain his marital relationship with his spouse. He also regularly attends church. He also maintains a farm. Thus, his PTSD symptoms do not totally manifest in total occupational and social impairment. While he sometimes neglects personal hygiene, the evidence does not show that he has an intermittent inability to perform activities of daily living. As a result, a disability rating in excess of 70 percent is not warranted.

(continued on next page)

?

Neither the Veteran nor his representative have raised any other issues, nor have any other issues been reasonably raised by the record. See Doucette v. Shulkin, 28 Vet. App. 366 (2017). Additionally, the Board is cognizant of the ruling of the Court in Rice v. Shinseki, 22 Vet. App. 447 (2009). In the present case, the Veteran has not specifically argued, and the record does not otherwise reflect, that his service-connected PTSD renders him unable to secure or follow a substantially gainful occupation. The record shows that he was self-employed throughout the appeal period as a farmer. Accordingly, the Board concludes that a claim for a total disability rating has not been raised.

W. Daknis

Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans' Appeals

Attorney for the Board	Heely, J.

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.


judge_norm: MATTHEW W BLACKWELDER

condition: back

text:
Citation Nr: A26005000
Decision Date: 01/20/26	Archive Date: 01/20/26

DOCKET NO. 200311-75779
DATE: January 20, 2026

ORDER

Service connection for a low back condition is granted.

REMANDED

The claim for service connection for sleep apnea is remanded.

FINDING OF FACT

The evidence of record is in relative equipoise as to whether the Veteran's low back condition was the result of his active service.

CONCLUSION OF LAW

The criteria for service connection for a low back condition have been met. 38 U.S.C.�� 1110, 5107; 38 C.F.R. �� 3.102, 3.303, 3.304, 3.307, 3.309.

REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION

The Veteran had actives service from November 1996 to June 1997.

A rating decision in January 2020 denied service connection for a low back disability and sleep apnea.  In March 2020, the Veteran timely appealed to the Board by filing a VA Form 10182 and selecting the Hearing Docket, a process allowing the Board to review the evidence up to the January 2020 rating decision, plus any evidence submitted within 90 days from the Board hearing (Permitted Evidentiary Window).  A Board hearing was held on April 15, 2024. Outside of the Permitted Evidentiary Window, additional evidence (to include VA examinations and VA treatment records) was associated with the claim's file which the Board is not legally allowed to consider in the adjudication of this appeal. If the Veteran would like the VA to review additional evidence, he may file a supplemental claim.

Service connection

Service connection will be granted if the evidence demonstrates that a current disability resulted from an injury or disease incurred in or aggravated by active military service. 38 U.S.C. � 1110; 38 C.F.R.� 3.303. Service connection requires competent evidence showing: (1) the existence of a present disability; (2) in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) a causal relationship between the present disability and the disease or injury incurred or aggravated during service (nexus). Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2004).

The nexus requirement, in pertinent part, can be established through objective medical evidence; the application of statutory presumptions for chronic diseases like sensorineural hearing loss, when manifested to a compensable degree within a year of separation from service; or based on a continuity of symptomatology. 38 U.S.C. �� 1101, 1112; 38 C.F.R. �� 3.307, 3.309; Walker v. Shinseki, 708 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2013).

1. Low back

The Veteran is seeking service connection for a low back disability.

At his Board hearing in April 2024, he testified that while he was on crutches for his ankle injury during service, he stepped in a hole and jarred his back.

Service treatment records (STRs) show that in May 1997, the Veteran complained of back pain. He reported that he stepped into a hole while walking on grass and jammed his back. A history of chronic back pain was also noted. X-rays of L-S spine in May 1997 showed normal alignment of vertebral bodies, no spondylolysis nor spondyloschisis, no disk disease. STRs in June 1997 show that he was seen again for low back pain lasting for 10 days.

In June 1997, several days after he separated from service, the Veteran filed a service connection claim for low back pain which was denied by a November 1997 rating decision.  Since then, the Veteran has filed the same claim several times.

A VA examination in July 2013 diagnosed the Veteran with low back strain. X-rays at that time showed pars defects suspected at L5, and an older fracture deformity to the sacrococcygeal region. The examiner opined that it is less likely than not that the Veteran's low back condition was the result of his military service, noting that the X-rays of lumbar spine were grossly normal and it had been 17 years after the Veteran separated from service and no back procedures or surgeries were required to treat his back condition.

VA treatment records show that the Veteran was seen for back pain in September 2007. X-rays at that time showed slight narrowing at L5-S1, but were otherwise normal condition. The Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ) indicated that June 2007 was the earliest date of VA treatment records.

The evidence shows that the Veteran experienced back pain during service. He filed service connection claim right after he separated from service. He also filed the same claim several times since then. The Board finds that it is likely that the Veteran has continuously experienced back pain since service. As such, the evidence of record is in relative equipoise as to whether his current low back condition was the result of his active service.

Service connection for a low back condition is granted.

REASONS FOR REMAND

The Veteran is seeking serviced connection for sleep apnea which he believes is the result of his service connected sinusitis.  Here no medical opinion was obtained, which is considered a pre-decisional duty to assist error.

The matters are REMANDED for the following action:

1. Schedule the Veteran for a VA examination to determine the etiology of his sleep apnea.  The examiner should answer the following questions:

a)	Is it at least as likely as not (approximate balance or nearly equal) that the Veteran's sleep apnea was caused by his sinusitis?  Why or why not?

b)	Is it at least as likely as not (approximate balance or nearly equal) that the Veteran's sleep apnea was aggravated (made worse) by his sinusitis?  Why or why not?

MATTHEW W. BLACKWELDER

Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans' Appeals

Attorney for the Board	Q. Wang, 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.


judge_norm: M C WILSON

condition: headache

condition: tinnitus

condition: knee

condition: skin

text:
Citation Nr: A26006000
Decision Date: 01/22/26	Archive Date: 01/22/26

DOCKET NO. 250826-578415
DATE: January 22, 2026

ORDER

Entitlement to service connection for chronic migraines was granted in a January 2026 rating decision, and the current appeal for service connection for chronic migraines is dismissed as moot.

REMANDED

Entitlement to a disability rating in excess of 50 percent for a service-connected neurocognitive disorder due to traumatic brain injury (TBI) is remanded.

Entitlement to service connection for a mental health disorder (other than the Veteran's service-connected neurocognitive disorder due to TBI) is remanded.

Entitlement to service connection for tinnitus is remanded.

Entitlement to service connection for a low back disability is remanded.

Entitlement to service connection for a right knee disability is remanded.

Entitlement to service connection for a painful scar due to TBI is remanded.

?

FINDING OF FACT

Service connection for chronic migraines was granted from the date the intent to file a claim for compensation was received on April 3, 2024, constituting a full grant of the benefit sought by the Veteran.

CONCLUSION OF LAW

Service connection for chronic migraines was granted from the date the intent to file a claim for compensation was received on April 3, 2024, constituting a full grant of the benefit sought, and the current appeal for service connection for chronic migraines is dismissed as moot.  38 U.S.C. � 7105; 38 C.F.R. � 20.104.

REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION

The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Army from November 1987 to April 1991.

These matters come before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from decisions issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO).

In the August 26, 2025, VA Form 10182, Decision Review Request: Board Appeal (Notice of Disagreement), the Veteran elected the Evidence Submission docket.  The Veteran requested review of a November 2024 decision to the extent that it (1) denied a disability rating in excess of 50 percent for a service-connected neurocognitive disorder due to TBI; (2) service connection for a mental disorder (other than a neurocognitive disorder due to TBI); (3) service connection for tinnitus; (4) service connection for a migraine disorder; (5) service connection for a low back disability; and (6) service connection for a right knee disability.  Additionally, the Veteran requested review of a December 2024 decision to the extent that it denied service connection for a painful scar due to TBI.

Therefore, the Board may only consider the evidence of record at the time of the respective agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ) decisions on appeal, as well as any evidence submitted by the Veteran or his representative with, or within 90 days from receipt of, the VA Form 10182.  38 C.F.R. � 20.303.  If evidence was submitted either (1) during the period after the AOJ issued the respective decisions on appeal and prior to the date the Board received the VA Form 10182, or (2) more than 90 days following the date the Board received the VA Form 10182, the Board did not consider it in its decision.  38 C.F.R. �� 20.300, 20.303, 20.801.

However, because the Board is remanding all of the claims currently on appeal with the exception of the claim for service connection for migraines, any evidence the Board could not consider will be considered by the AOJ in the adjudication of those claims.  38 C.F.R. � 3.103(c)(2)(ii).

Migraines

The Board finds that a review of the procedural history is helpful with respect to the reasons for the dismissal of the appeal for service connection for chronic migraines in the decision herein.

In April 2024, the Veteran filed an intent to file, followed by a May 2024 claim for service connection claim for chronic migraines.  In relevant part, the claim for entitlement to service connection was denied in a November 2024 decision, which was appealed to the Board in August 2025.  Thereafter, in January 2026, the AOJ issued a rating decision in which it granted the claim.  See generally Green v. McDonough, 37 Vet. App. 127 (2024).  The January 2026 decision established service connection from April 3, 2024, the date that VA received the Veteran's intent to file a claim for compensation.  See 38 C.F.R. � 3.155(b).

In this case, the award of service connection for chronic migraines from the date the intent to file a claim for compensation was received on April 3, 2024, constitutes a full grant of the benefit sought on appeal.  As such, the Board finds that there remains no case or controversy to resolve concerning the matter of service connection for chronic migraines, and the appeal must be dismissed as moot.

REASONS FOR REMAND

Unless the issue or issues can be granted in full, the Board shall remand the appeal to the agency of original jurisdiction for correction of an error on the part of the agency of original jurisdiction to satisfy its duties under 38 U.S.C. � 5103A, if the error occurred prior to the date of the agency of original jurisdiction decision on appeal.  38 C.F.R. � 20.802(a).  The Board may remand for correction of any other error by the agency of original jurisdiction in satisfying a regulatory or statutory duty, if correction of the error would have a reasonable possibility of aiding in substantiating the appellant's claim.  Id.  The remand must specify the action to be taken by the agency of original jurisdiction.  Id.

Mental Disorder

In this case, the Board finds that the Veteran's increased rating claim for his service-connected neurocognitive disorder due to TBI, and his service connection claim for a mental disorder are intertwined.  As such, these matters will be discussed together.

Regarding the history of the Veteran's mental condition, service treatment records document that he fell from a third story window in October 1990.  He was diagnosed with post-concussive organic brain syndrome due to traumatic right temporal calvarial fracture from the fall.  The Veteran underwent a physical examination in December 1990, at which time he denied headache, visual symptoms, rhinorrhea, otorrhea, weakness, clumsiness, numbness, paresthesias, difficulty with gait, bowel or bladder dysfunction, loss of consciousness, or associated injuries.  The provider noted that the Veteran underwent extensive neuropsychological testing in November 1990, which demonstrated a good recovery from a significant traumatic brain injury.  However, the provider indicated that neuropsychological testing showed a loss of general intellectual efficiency from the average levels estimated from premorbid functioning, and residual deficits in memory, attention, and executive functions sensitive to the effects of organic brain dysfunction.  The provider further noted that the Veteran was vulnerable to the effects of fatigue, time pressure, urgency, and distraction.

Following his separation from service, the Veteran was awarded service connection for post-concussive organic brain syndrome evaluated based on the rating criteria for mental disorders under 38 C.F.R. � 4.130, Diagnostic Code 9304 (major or mild neurocognitive disorder due to TBI).  As it pertains to the current appeal, the Veteran submitted an increased rating claim in May 2024, which the Board liberally construes as an increased rating claim for manifestations of his TBI, to specifically include entitlement to service connection for any mental disorder(s) (other than his service-connected neurocognitive disorder) due to his TBI.  See Clemons v. Shinseki, 23 Vet. App. 1, 5 (2009) (stating that the Board must consider the claimant's description of the claim, symptoms described, and the information submitted or developed in support of the claim); see also Bailey v. Wilkie, 33 Vet. App. 188, 201 (2021) (VA is obligated to develop and adjudicate claims for secondary service connection that are reasonably raised during the processing of a properly initiated claim as to the primary service-connected disability's evaluation level).

Here, the Veteran was afforded a VA mental disorders examination in June 2024.  The examiner stated the Veteran was diagnosed with post-concussive brain syndrome (based on current DSM-5 terminology, post-concussive brain syndrome is now referred to as neurocognitive disorder), bipolar II disorder, and TBI.  See also October 2024 VA mental disorders examination.  The June 2024 VA examiner stated that the Veteran's VA mental health treatment provider seemed to suggest that some of his bipolar symptoms may be related to his TBI.  The June 2024 VA examiner recommended that the Veteran undergo a neuropsychological assessment to determine the current severity of his TBI.

The Board notes that, pursuant to 38 C.F.R. � 4.124a, Diagnostic Code 8045, there are three main areas of dysfunction that may result from TBI and have profound effects on functioning: (1) cognitive; (2) emotional and/or behavioral; and (3) physical.  Each of those areas of dysfunction may require evaluation.  Under 38 C.F.R. � 4.124a, Diagnostic Code 8045, Note (1), if the manifestations of two or more conditions cannot be clearly separated, a single evaluation is assigned under whichever set of diagnostic criteria allows the better assessment of overall impaired functioning due to both conditions.  However, if the manifestations are clearly separable, a separate evaluation is assigned for each condition.

The Board observes that the November 2024 decision on appeal increased the evaluation of the Veteran's service-connected residuals of TBI to 50 percent based on the rating criteria for mental disorders.  See Amberman v. Shinseki, 570 F.3d 1377, 1380-81 (Fed, Cir. 2009) (although different diagnostic codes are used for different disorders, almost all psychiatric disorders are rated based on the same criteria).  However, while the Veteran was afforded a VA mental disorders examination in June and October 2024, he was not given a VA examination to assess the severity of his TBI prior to issuing the November 2024 decision on appeal.  As the Veteran was not afforded a TBI examination, and the evidence allowed during the period under review does not otherwise provide sufficient information, the Board is unable to determine if manifestations of the Veteran's TBI based on the diagnostic criteria under 38 C.F.R. � 4.124a, Diagnostic Code 8045, would allow for a better assessment of overall impaired functioning than his current evaluation based on the diagnostic criteria for mental disorders under 38 C.F.R. � 4.130.  Therefore, the Board finds that remand is required to obtain a VA TBI examination to correct this pre-decisional duty to assist error.

Tinnitus, Back Disability, Right Knee Disability, and Scar

In relevant part, the November 2024 decision on appeal denied the Veteran's service connection claims for tinnitus, a back disability, and a right knee disability, on the grounds that service treatment records do not contain complaints, treatment, or diagnosis for the claimed condition(s).  While the Veteran submitted a private Report of Consultation and Examination in support of his service connection claims, the Board finds that such evidence is not supported with an adequate rationale.  See Nieves-Rodriguez v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 295, 304 (2008) (the probative value of a medical opinion comes from when it is factually accurate, fully articulated, and sound reasoning for the conclusion).  Notwithstanding the lack of complaints, treatment, or diagnosis for the claimed conditions in service treatment records, the Board finds that the matter of whether these conditions are related to the Veteran's fall from the third floor of a building and/or residuals of his TBI was raised by the record prior to issuing the decision on appeal.  The Board finds that failure to afford the Veteran a VA examination to address these claims prior to issuing the decision on appeal is a duty to assist error requiring remand.

Regarding the Veteran's service connection claim for a painful scar related to his TBI, the Board observes that the Veteran was scheduled for a VA examination in December 2024.  Prior to issuing the December 2024 decision on appeal, the Veteran contacted VA and provided good cause for missing the VA examination, and he requested that it be rescheduled.  See December 2024 VA Form 27-0820.  The Veteran was not afforded a VA examination prior to issuing notice of the December 2024 decision on appeal.  The Board finds that remand is required to correct this pre-decisional duty to assist error.

The matters are REMANDED for the following action:

1. Schedule the Veteran for a TBI examination.  The examiner should provide a full description of the Veteran's residuals of TBI and report all signs and symptoms necessary for evaluating the disability under the rating criteria.  To the extent possible, the examiner should identify clearly separable manifestations of TBI affecting (1) cognitive functioning, (2) emotional and/or behavioral functioning, and (3) physical functioning.

As discussed above, if the manifestations of two or more conditions cannot be clearly separated, a single evaluation is assigned under whichever set of diagnostic criteria allows the better assessment of overall impaired functioning due to both conditions.  See 38 C.F.R. � 4.124a, Diagnostic Code 8045, Note (1).  However, if the manifestations are clearly separable, a separate evaluation is assigned for each condition.

2. Schedule the Veteran for a VA examination to address the nature and etiology of his tinnitus.  The examiner should take a history from the Veteran as to his tinnitus.  Based on a review of the record, interview, and examination of the Veteran, the examiner is asked to respond to the following:

(a.) Is it at least as likely as not (likelihood is at least approximately balanced or nearly equal, if not higher) that the Veteran's tinnitus had onset in service?

(b.) Is it at least as likely as not (likelihood is at least approximately balanced or nearly equal, if not higher) that the Veteran's tinnitus was caused by or resulted from his service-connected mental disorder/TBI?

(c.) Is it at least as likely as not (likelihood is at least approximately balanced or nearly equal, if not higher) that the Veteran's tinnitus was aggravated by his service-connected mental disorder/TBI?

3. Schedule the Veteran for a VA examination to address the nature and etiology of his claimed low back disability.  The examiner should take a history from the Veteran as to his claimed low back disability.  Based on a review of the record, interview, and examination of the Veteran, the examiner is whether it is at least as likely as not (likelihood is at least approximately balanced or nearly equal, if not higher) that the Veteran's claimed low back disability had onset in or is related service, to specifically include as a result of falling from the third floor of a building?

4. Schedule the Veteran for a VA examination to address the nature and etiology of his claimed right knee disability.  The examiner should take a history from the Veteran as to his claimed right knee disability.  Based on a review of the record, interview, and examination of the Veteran, the examiner is whether it is at least as likely as not (likelihood is at least approximately balanced or nearly equal, if not higher) that the Veteran's claimed right knee disability had onset in or is related to service, to specifically include as a result of falling from the third floor of a building?

5. Schedule the Veteran for a VA examination to address the nature and etiology of his claimed scar due to TBI.  Based on a review of the record, interview, and examination of the Veteran, the examiner is whether it is at least as likely as not (likelihood is at least approximately balanced or nearly equal, if not higher) that the Veteran's claimed scar is a result of falling from the third floor a building and/or traumatic right temporal calvarial fracture?

M. C. WILSON

Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans' Appeals

Attorney for the Board	B. Mask, 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.


judge_norm: TANYA SMITH

benefit: caregiver

text:
Citation Nr: A26007000
Decision Date: 01/26/26	Archive Date: 01/26/26

DOCKET NO. 250827-576749
DATE: January 26, 2026

ORDER

As revocation of the Primary Family Caregiver from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA's) Program of Comprehensive Assistance for Family Caregivers (PCAFC) was proper, the appeal is denied.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. The initial Primary Family Caregiver does not reside with the Veteran and has not provided in-person care for more than one month.

2. A new Primary Family Caregiver was approved and designated on

August 20, 2025.

CONCLUSION OF LAW

The revocation of the Primary Family Caregiver from VA's Program of Comprehensive Assistance for Family Caregivers (PCAFC) was proper.  38 U.S.C. � 1720G; 38 C.F.R. �� 71.15, 71.20, 71.45.

REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION

The first party to this matter is the Veteran, who served on active duty from

August 1966 to August 1969.  The second party to the matter is his adult daughter-in-law, A.B., who was previously designated and approved as his Primary Family Caregiver.

The case is on appeal from a May 2025 decision of the Veterans Health Administration (VHA), which is the agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ).

In the August 2025 VA Form 10182, Decision Review Request: Board Appeal (Notice of Disagreement), the initial Primary Family Caregiver elected the Evidence Submission docket.  Therefore, the Board may only consider the evidence of record at the time of the May 2025 AOJ decision on appeal, as well as any evidence submitted by the Veteran, the initial Primary Family Caregiver, or the Veteran's representative with, or within 90 days from receipt of, the VA Form 10182.  38 C.F.R. � 20.303.  If evidence was submitted either (1) during the period after the AOJ issued the decision on appeal and prior to the date the Board received the VA Form 10182, or (2) more than 90 days following the date the Board received the VA Form 10182, the Board did not consider it in its decision.  38 C.F.R. �� 20.300, 20.303, 20.801.

If the initial Primary Family Caregiver would like VA to consider any evidence that was submitted that the Board could not consider, she 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.

Whether revocation of the Primary Family Caregiver from VA's PCAFC was proper.

Applicable Law

The PCAFC provides certain benefits to eligible veterans who have incurred or aggravated serious injuries during military service, and to their caregivers.

38 C.F.R. � 71.10(a).

To remain eligible for the program, the PCAFC requires that the personal care services that would be provided by the Family Caregiver will not be simultaneously and regularly provided by or through another individual or entity.  38 C.F.R. � 71.20(a)(5).  Only one individual at a time may serve as the Primary Family Caregiver.  38 C.F.R. � 71.25(a)(1).

VA will revoke the designation of a Family Caregiver for noncompliance with PCAFC requirements, to include situations in which the Family Caregiver or eligible veteran does not meet the requirements of 38 C.F.R. � 71.20(a)(5).

In the case of revocation based on noncompliance, where the personal care services that would be provided by the Family Caregiver will not be simultaneously and regularly provided by or through another individual or entity, the effective date of revocation will be no earlier than 60 days after VA provides advanced notice of its findings to the eligible veteran and Family Caregiver.  38 C.F.R. � 71.45(a)(2)(iii).

Discussion

The Veteran in this case was initially found eligible for the PCAFC in

February 2024.  His daughter-in-law, A.B., was approved and designated as the Primary Family Caregiver.

At a February 2025 Caregiver Support Program (CSP) wellness contact, the Caregiver Support Coordinator observed that A.B. repeatedly had to get updates from the Veteran's son regarding equipment that had been ordered for the Veteran.  A.B. and the Veteran's son argued during the assessment, and A.B. left the home.  In a follow-up conversation with the Caregiver Support Coordinator, A.B. stated that she had not been in the home for a month, and was not receiving regular communication from the Veteran's son regarding the Veteran's care.  A.B. was advised that she could be removed from the PCAFC if she was not providing the required care for the Veteran.

A February 21, 2025 CSP continued eligibility note indicates that A.B. was advised that the Veteran remained eligible for the PCAFC as he continued to require personal care services due to an inability to perform an Activity of Daily Living and a need for supervision, protection or instruction.  A.B. was again advised of the requirement that she provide care to the Veteran to remain eligible for the PCAFC.  A Centralized Eligibility and Appeals Team (CEAT) consult was requested, as per A.B.'s self-report, she had not been in the home for over a month.  It was noted that the Veteran's son was providing care to the Veteran.

In a February 2025 phone call, A.B. reported that she was unable to access the Veteran's home to provide care, as the locks to his home were changed and law enforcement was called when she attempted to enter the home.  A.B. was notified that a CEAT review was pending regarding continued eligibility for the PCAFC.

In a March 20, 2025 CEAT Review Consult, the CEAT determined that A.B. was revoked for non-compliance with the PCAFC program requirements, as personal care services were being simultaneously and regularly provided by or through another individual or entity.  Specifically, the CEAT found that A.B. did not reside with the Veteran and had not provided in-person care in greater than one month.  The CEAT noted that to become compliant, A.B. would need to resume in-home, in-person care of the Veteran.  The CEAT also found that due to severe cognitive impairment the Veteran did not have capacity to make an informed decision regarding the persons providing his care.  The CEAT noted that the Veteran's son, the primary healthcare agent and medical power of attorney, had not given consent for A.B. to resume care of the Veteran.  The CEAT noted that notice would be issued to A.B. and the Veteran.

In an April 2025 CSP telephone note, the Veteran's son and a new Primary Family Caregiver applicant were informed that a new PCAFC application could not be processed until the revocation of current Primary Family Caregiver, A.B., became effective on May 20, 2025.  A new PCAFC application was received on

May 25, 2025.  A new Primary Family Caregiver was approved and designated on August 20, 2025.

The Board finds that the revocation of the Primary Family Caregiver, A.B., from the PCAFC was proper.  Based on the evidentiary record as discussed above, A.B. was not providing in-person care for the Veteran for more than a month as of February 2025.  The Veteran's son was providing care, and as the Veteran's primary healthcare agent and medical power of attorney, did not consent for A.B. to resume providing care for the Veteran.  The Veteran and A.B. were provided advanced notice of the revocation.  Although the notice has not been associated with the record, the record indicates that advanced notice was mailed on March 20, 2025.  The revocation was effectuated on May 20, 2025, 60 days after the advanced notice.  A new PCAFC application was received on May 25, 2025, and a new Primary Family Caregiver was approved and designated on August 20, 2025.

The Board notes A.B.'s indication of her desire to continue to provide care for the Veteran, and her belief that she is the best person to care for the Veteran.  The Board has considered her assertion that she remains the power of attorney (POA) for the Veteran.  However, the Board notes that CSP has recognized the Veteran's son as the primary POA since 2015.  See February 27, 2025 CSP Telephone Note.  The Veteran's son has not consented for A.B. to continue providing care for the Veteran, and a new Primary Family Caregiver has been approved and designated.  A.B.'s revocation from the PCAFC was proper.  If the Veteran and A.B. wish to have A.B. reinstated as the Primary Family Caregiver, they may re-apply.

For these reasons, the appeal is denied.

								(continued on next page)

TANYA SMITH

Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans' Appeals

Attorney for the Board	Bynum, Tamara L.

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.


judge_norm: TIFFANY DAWSON

benefit: tdiu

text:
Citation Nr: A26008000
Decision Date: 01/28/26	Archive Date: 01/28/26

DOCKET NO. 250710-554969
DATE: January 28, 2026

ORDER

Entitlement to an effective date prior to July 25, 2022, for the grant of a total disability rating based on individual unemployability (TDIU) is denied.

Entitlement to an effective date prior to July 25, 2022, for the grant of Dependents' Educational Assistance (DEA) under 38 U.S.C. Chapter 35 is denied.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. The Veteran initially filed claims of entitlement to service connection for hearing loss and tinnitus in September 2021, which were granted with an effective date of September 21, 2021, in a November 2021 rating decision; the Veteran did not appeal the initial ratings assigned within one year of issuance of the November 2023 rating decision notification letter.

2. On January 18, 2023, the Veteran filed his TDIU claim, alleging that he was prevented from securing or following any substantially gainful occupation due to hearing loss, chronic back pain, depression, lumbar radiculopathy, neuritis of the back, and neuropathy; it was not factually ascertainable that his unemployability due to service-connected disabilities had is onset in the year prior to January 18, 2023, and there was no continuous pursuit of an increased rating claim or TDIU claim prior to January 18, 2023.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1. The criteria for an effective date prior to July 25, 2022, for the grant of a TDIU have not been met. 38 U.S.C. � 5110; 38 C.F.R. � 3.400.

2. The criteria for an effective date prior to July 25, 2022, for the grant of DEA under 38 U.S.C. Chapter 35 have not been met. 38 U.S.C. � 5110; 38 C.F.R. � 3.400.

REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

The Veteran served on active duty from April 1969 to August 1969.

The Rating Decision on appeal was issued in July 2024 and constitutes an initial decision; therefore, the modernized review system, also known as the Appeals Modernization Act (AMA), applies.

In his July 10, 2025, VA Form 10182, Decision Review Request: Board Appeal (Notice of Disagreement), the Veteran elected the Evidence Submission docket.  Therefore, the Board may only consider the evidence of record at the time of the July 2024 Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ) decision on appeal, as well as any evidence submitted by the Veteran or his attorney with, or within 90 days from receipt of, the VA Form 10182. 38 C.F.R. � 20.303. If evidence was submitted either (1) during the period after the AOJ issued the decision on appeal and prior to the date the Board received the VA Form 10182, or (2) more than 90 days following the date the Board received the VA Form 10182, then the Board did not consider it in its decision. 38 C.F.R. �� 20.300, 20.303, 20.801.

If the Veteran would like VA to consider any evidence that was submitted that the Board could not consider, then 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, then VA will issue another decision on the claims, considering the new evidence in addition to the evidence previously considered. Id. Specific instructions for filing a Supplemental Claim are included with this decision.

The Veteran seeks entitlement to effective dates prior to July 25, 2022, for the grant of entitlement to a TDIU and eligibility for DEA benefits under 38 U.S.C. Chapter 35.

Generally, the effective date of an award of compensation based on an original claim, a claim reopened after final disallowance, or a claim for increase shall be fixed in accordance with the facts found, but shall be no earlier than the date of receipt of the application therefor. 38 U.S.C. � 5110 (a). The statutory provision is implemented by regulation which provides that the effective date for an evaluation and award of compensation based on an original claim, a claim reopened after final disallowance, or a claim for increase will be the date of receipt of the claim or the date entitlement arose, whichever is the later. 38 C.F.R. � 3.400.

The instant appeal pertains to the effective date assigned to an award of a TDIU, and the ancillary benefit of basic eligibility to DEA benefits. For effective date purposes, TDIU is considered as a form of increased rating claim and hence the effective date rules for increased compensation apply. See Norris v. West, 12 Vet. App. 413, 420 (1999); Hurd v. West, 13 Vet. App. 449 (2000).

Ordinarily, the effective date for an award of increased compensation is the date of claim or the date entitlement arose whichever is later. 38 C.F.R. � 3.400 (o)(1). However, in certain circumstances, the effective date of an award of increased compensation, including TDIU, may be the earliest date as of which it is ascertainable that an increase in disability had occurred, if an application for an increase in compensation is received within one year from such date. 38 U.S.C. � 5110 (b)(3); 38 C.F.R. � 3.400 (o)(2); Harper v. Brown, 10 Vet. App. 125 (1997). Such increase in severity must occur during the one-year period prior to the claim for increase for an earlier effective date to be assigned. Gaston v. Shinseki, 605 F.3d 979, 98384 (Fed. Cir. 2010). Otherwise, the effective date will be the date of receipt of the claim. 38 C.F.R. � 3.400 (o)(2).

Under AMA claims processing rules, applicable to this case, an effective date based on an initial claim can be preserved if the claim is continuously pursued. 38 C.F.R. � 3.2500 (c), (h).  A claim is a written communication requesting a determination of entitlement or evidencing a belief in entitlement, to a specific benefit under the laws administered by the Department of Veterans Affairs submitted on an application form prescribed by the Secretary. 38 C.F.R. � 3.1(p).

If VA receives a complete claim within 1 year of the filing of an intent to file a claim, it will be considered filed as of the date of receipt of the intent to file a claim. Only one complete claim for a benefit (e.g., compensation, pension) may be associated with each intent to file a claim for that benefit, though multiple issues may be contained within a complete claim. In the event multiple complete claims for a benefit are filed within 1 year of an intent to file a claim for that benefit, only the first claim filed will be associated with the intent to file a claim.  38 C.F.R. � 3.155(d)(1)(ii).

Here, by way of history, the Veteran initially filed claims of entitlement to service connection for hearing loss and tinnitus in September 2021.  These claims were granted with an effective date of September 21, 2021, in a November 2021 Rating Decision.  The Veteran did not appeal this decision within one year of issuance of the November 2021 rating decision notification letter.

Thereafter, on July 7, 2022, the Veteran filed a claim of entitlement to service connection for a lumbar spine disability.  He subsequently submitted a VA Form 21-0966, Intent to File, on July 25, 2022, followed by a formal claim of entitlement to service connection for depression secondary to his lumbar spine disability on August 4, 2022.

On January 18, 2023, the Veteran filed his TDIU claim.  Significantly, on his January 2023 VA Form 21-8940, he specified that he last worked full time in May 2004, and was prevented from securing or following any substantially gainful occupation due to hearing loss, chronic back pain, depression, lumbar radiculopathy, neuritis of the back, and neuropathy.  Thereafter, in a May 2023 rating decision, the AOJ granted entitlement to a TDIU and entitlement to basic eligibility to DEA based on permanent and total disability status, both effective January 18, 2023 (the date the Veteran's TDIU claim was received). In response, in June 2023, the Veteran filed a VA Form 20-0996, Decision Review Request: Higher-Level Review, in which he sought earlier effective dates for grants of entitlement to TDIU and basic eligibility to DEA.  Specifically, at his July 2023 Higher-Level Review Informal Conference, the Veteran indicated that he wanted an effective date of July 2022 to account for the Intent to File that applied to the TDIU claim, and requested de novo review regarding TDIU and all associated downstream issues.  In a July 2023 Higher-Level Review rating decision, the AOJ found that a difference of opinion had been asserted during the Higher-Level Review for the TDIU claim and returned the matter due to the need to obtain additional evidence to substantiate the claim.

Meanwhile, in a June 2023 rating decision, the AOJ granted the Veteran's claim of entitlement to service connection for adjustment disorder with anxiety and depressed mood, assigning an evaluation of 70 percent effective July 25, 2022 (the date the Veteran's Intent to File was received).  As a result, in a July 2024 rating decision, the AOJ granted an effective date of July 25, 2022, for the grants of entitlement to a TDIU and basic eligibility to DEA on the basis that, even though the Veteran was not service connected for adjustment disorder with anxiety and depressed mood during the adjudication of his claim for a TDIU, the June 2023 rating decision granted service connection for this condition with an effective date of July 25, 2022, and the disability would have met the scheduler requirements for a grant of a TDIU on that date.

Later, in a June 2025 rating decision, the AOJ granted entitlement to service connection for (1) lumbar degenerative disc and herniation, assigning a 20 percent rating effective July 7, 2022; (2) radiculopathy of the left lower extremity (femoral), assigning a 10 percent disability rating effective July 7, 2022; (3) radiculopathy of the right lower extremity (femoral), assigning a 10 percent disability rating effective July 7, 2022; (4) radiculopathy of the left lower extremity (sciatic), assigning a 10 percent disability rating effective July 7, 2022; and (5) radiculopathy of the right lower extremity (sciatic), assigning a 10 percent disability rating effective July 7, 2022.  As such, the Veteran's combined evaluation for compensation was increased to 90 percent effective July 7, 2022.

In adjudicating increased rating claims, the Board will generally review evidence from the date of claim including a one year "look back period" preceding the submission of the claim. See 38 U.S.C. � 5110 (b); 38 C.F.R. � 3.400 (o)(2); Gaston v. Shinseki, 605 F.3d 979, 982 (Fed. Cir. 2010). TDIU claims are not standalone issues and must attach to a particular increased rating claim or initial service connection claim. See Phillips v. McDonough, 37 Vet. App. 394 (2024); see also Rice v. Shinseki, 22 Vet. App. 447, 452 (2009).  Therefore, the current appeal period before the Board spans from January 18, 2023, the date VA received the TDIU claim, as the Veteran has continuously pursued that issue with supplemental claims in accordance with 38 C.F.R. � 3.2500, in addition to the one year look back period (i.e., from January 18, 2022).

Regarding this determination, the Board finds that the Court's holding in Phillips is applicable in this case. In Phillips, the Court held that in assigning effective dates for TDIU awards, the effective date is either the date of the underlying service connection claim or the effective date of the increased rating claim. Phillips v. McDonough, 37 Vet. App. 394 (2024). Because TDIU claims are not standalone claims, the appropriate effective date is the date VA received the underlying application from which the appeal stems. Id.

Here, however, as to entitlement to a TDIU prior to July 25, 2022, during the one-year lookback period, the Board finds that it is not factually ascertainable that his unemployability due to service-connected disabilities had is onset in the year prior July 25, 2022.  To the contrary, on the Veteran's January 2023 VA Form 21-8940, he indicated that he became too disabled to work in January 2004 and last worked fulltime in May 2004.  As such, effective dates prior to July 25, 2022, are not warranted on the basis.

Moreover, the Board finds that the VA Form 21-0966, Intent to File, received on July 25, 2022, was extinguished upon the subsequent receipt of the formal claim of entitlement to service connection for depression secondary to his lumbar spine disability on August 4, 2022.  38 C.F.R. � 3.155(d)(1)(ii).  Thereafter, an October 2022 rating decision denied both the claim of entitlement to depression as well as the claim of entitlement to a lumbar spine disability which was received on July 7, 2022.  Although the Veteran filed his January 2023 TDIU claim within one year of the October 2022 rating decision, the Board does not find that it was a supplemental claim related to the issues adjudicated in the October 2022 rating decision, as that rating decision pertained to denials of service connection rather than initial rating claims stemming from grants of service connection.  See Chisholm v. Collins, 38 Vet. App. 140 (2025) (holding that the Veteran's submission of a VA Form 21-8940 may constitute a valid supplemental claim).  As such, there was no continuous pursuit of a TDIU claim or an increased rating claim underlying the TDIU claim prior to the Veteran's January 2023 VA Form 21-8940.

Therefore, the Board finds that entitlement to effective dates prior to July 25, 2022, for the grant of a TDIU and for the grant of DEA under 38 U.S.C. Chapter 35 is not warranted.  In reaching this conclusion, the benefit of the doubt has been considered; however, the most competent evidence weighs against the Veteran's claims. See Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49, 55 (1990).

To the extent that the Veteran seeks entitlement to a TDIU effective July 7, 2022, based on the later grants of entitlement to service connection for lumbar degenerative disc and herniation and associated radiculopathy made effective that date, he should consult with his representative about initiating an appeal of the June 2025 rating decision which granted service connection and assigned initial ratings for those disabilities.

Tiffany Dawson

Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans' Appeals

Attorney for the Board	Flamini, Anthony

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.