judge_norm: A P SIMPSON

text:
Citation Nr: A26018000
Decision Date: 02/27/26	Archive Date: 02/27/26

DOCKET NO. 210118-134312
DATE: February 27, 2026

ORDER

Entitlement to service connection for bilateral pes planus is denied.

FINDING OF FACT

The evidence of record persuasively weighs against finding that the bilateral pes planus had its onset in service or is otherwise related to service.

CONCLUSION OF LAW

The criteria for entitlement to service connection for bilateral pes planus have not been met. 38 U.S.C. �� 1110, 1131, 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. �� 3.102, 3.303.

REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION

The Veteran served on active duty in the Marine Corps from March 1977 to March 1981 and May 1981 to May 1983.

This appeal comes to the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) from a September 2020 rating decision by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO), which denied service connection for bilateral pes planus.

The Veteran appealed the decision to the Board by submitting a VA Form 10182, Notice of Disagreement, and electing the Hearing docket. Prior to the date of the hearing, the Veteran withdrew his hearing request in August 2024. Therefore, the Board may consider only the evidence of record at the time of the September 2020 decision on appeal, as well as any evidence submitted by the Veteran and/or the representative within 90 days following receipt of the Veteran's request to withdraw his hearing. 38 C.F.R. � 20.302(b). As the request to cancel the hearing was received on August 26, 2024, 90 days from that time would be November 25, 2024. However, November 25, 2024, was a Sunday, so the Veteran had until the next business day, November 26, 2024.

If evidence was associated with the claims file during a period when additional evidence was not allowed, the Board has not considered it in its decision here. 38 C.F.R. � 20.300. If the Veteran would like VA to consider any evidence that was added to the claims file that the Board could not consider, the Veteran may file a Supplemental Claim (VA Form 20-0995) and submit or identify this evidence. 38 C.F.R. � 3.2501. If the evidence is new and relevant, VA will issue another decision on the claim, considering the new evidence in addition to the evidence previously considered. Id. Specific instructions for filing a Supplemental Claim are included with this decision.

During the evidentiary window on appeal, the Veteran submitted copies of VA treatment records, which the Board will consider. The Board appreciates the Veteran's assistance in obtaining evidence.

Service Connection

Service connection may be granted for a disability resulting from a disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by service. See 38 U.S.C. �� 1110, 1131; 38 C.F.R. � 3.303(a). To establish a right to compensation for a present disability, a veteran must show: (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. Service connection may be granted for any disease diagnosed after discharge, when all the evidence, including that pertinent to service, establishes that the disease was incurred in service. 38 C.F.R. � 3.303(d).

Service connection for bilateral pes planus.

The Veteran asserts that he is entitled to service connection for bilateral pes planus because it had its onset while he was in service.

The Board has carefully reviewed the evidence of record and finds that the evidence persuasively weighs against the claim for service connection for bilateral pes planus. The reasons follow.

Regarding the first two elements of a service-connection claim, a current disability and an in-service injury or disease, the RO made favorable findings as to both. These findings are supported by the July 2020 VA examination report that showed a diagnosis of bilateral pes planus by multiple 1978 service treatment records (STRs) showing complaints of foot pain. The Board is bound by these findings in the absence of clear and unmistakable error, and the first two elements of a service-connection claim have been established.

Turning to the third element, a nexus, the Board finds that the evidence of record persuasively weighs against finding a nexus between the current disability and service.

While the Veteran alleges that his bilateral pes planus is related to service, he is not competent to attribute the bilateral pes planus to service, as medical expertise is required. In this regard, the question of causation involves a medical subject concerning an internal physical process extending beyond an immediately observable cause-and-effect relationship. As such, the question of etiology in this case may not be competently addressed by lay evidence, and the Veteran's opinion is nonprobative evidence.

The only medical opinions of record are July and August 2020 VA medical opinions. The July 2020 VA examiner checked yes that there was a nexus but then provided a negative nexus rationale. Accordingly, based on the conflicting nature of that opinion, the Board finds it inadequate and not probative. The RO recognized the same and requested the August 2020 VA medical opinion to clarify the opinion.

In the August 2020 opinion, the VA examiner wrote that the current disability was not related to service. In support, the examiner wrote that entrance and separation examination were both negative for documentation of pes planus. The examiner noted that there were no medical records available from separation to the present showing there was a chronic medical condition caused by his pes planus. The examiner found no objective evidence of a chronic disability.

The Board finds that the August 2020 VA medical opinion is probative, as the examiner reviewed the file and provided a rationale for the opinion that relied on sound medical principles and the specific facts of the case, which facts are accurate. For instance, after 1978 there is no treatment for or complaints of foot pain other than a January 1981 Report of Medical Examination that found that the Veteran's feet were clinically normal and noted pes planus that was not considered disabling. Thereafter, the Veteran's post-service records are silent for any complaint or treatment for the same. The Veteran gave VA permission to obtain treatment records from Canton Family Care. Of record are treatment records from 1998 to 2011. The Veteran underwent physicals and was treated for various medical complaints, which did not include flat feet. He was seen in April 2004 for gout in this left great toe. There was no mention of painful feet.

When the Veteran completed a Medical History Questionnaire in January 2007, he affirmatively denied ever having or having then "Foot Problems." When the Veteran established care at VA in Atlanta in April 2013 and was asked about his past medical history, he reported multiple disabilities, including left hand trauma repair, but made no mention about foot pain. When the examiner performed a review of systems and addressed the Veteran's musculoskeletal system, the Veteran reported shoulder pain and denied other musculoskeletal pain.  When he established care at VA in Dublin in December 2017, he also did not report foot pain as a past medical history, which is more than 30 years following service discharge. This is evidence against a nexus between the current disability and service. To the extent that the Veteran has implied having chronic foot symptoms in the years following service discharge, the Board does not find such allegation credible. There is no competent evidence to weigh against the August 2020 medical opinion. Thus, the Board finds that the evidence persuasively weighs against finding a nexus between the Veteran's current bilateral pes planus and service.

For the above reasons, the evidence is neither evenly balanced nor approximately so with regard to whether service connection for bilateral pes planus is warranted. Rather, the evidence persuasively weighs against service connection for bilateral pes planus. The benefit of the doubt doctrine, see 38?U.S.C. �?5107(b), is therefore not applicable. Lynch v. McDonough, 21 F.4th 776 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (en banc) (only when the evidence persuasively favors one side or another is the benefit of the doubt doctrine not for application). Thus, the claim for service connection for bilateral pes planus is denied.

A. P. SIMPSON

Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans' Appeals

Attorney for the Board	Tarkenton, A.

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: GAYLE STROMMEN

judge_role: Veterans Law Judge

disposition: dismissed

condition: knee

disposition: granted

condition: neck

disposition: remanded

condition: shoulder

text:
Citation Nr: A26019000
Decision Date: 03/03/26	Archive Date: 03/03/26

DOCKET NO. 200612-93130
DATE: March 3, 2026

ORDER

Entitlement to service connection for a right ankle disability, bilateral knee disabilities and bilateral hip disabilities is dismissed.

Entitlement to service connection for neck disability is granted.

REMANDED

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

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. At the March 2024 Board hearing, the Veteran withdrew the pending appeal of the claim of entitlement to service connection for service connection for a right ankle disability, a bilateral knee disability, and a bilateral hip disability with full knowledge of the consequences of such a withdrawal.

2. The Veteran's neck disability is related to his active duty service.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1. The criteria for withdrawal of the pending appeal of the claim of entitlement to service connection for service connection for a right ankle disability, bilateral knee disabilities, and bilateral hip disabilities have been met.  38 U.S.C. � 7105; 38 C.F.R. � 20.205.

2. The criteria for service connection for a neck disability have been met. 38 U.S.C. �� 1131, 5103, 5103A, 5107; 38 C.F.R. �� 3.102, 3.159, 3.303.

REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Navy from February 1981 to August 1986.

On August 23, 2017, the Veterans Appeals Improvement and Modernization Act, Pub. L. No. 115-55(to be codified as amended in scattered sections of 38 U.S.C.), 131 Stat. 1105 (2017), also known as the Appeals Modernization Act (AMA) was signed into law. This law creates a new framework for veterans dissatisfied with VA's decision on their claim to seek review. This decision has been written consistent with the new AMA framework.

The rating decision on appeal was issued in May 2020, the Veteran submitted a June 2020 notice of disagreement (NOD), VA Form 10182, electing the hearing lane.

As explained in the Form 10182, per the "Hearing Lane," the review is based on evidence of record at the time of May 2020 rating decision and submitted within a 90-day window following the date of the Veteran's hearing regardless of if the hearing was held. The Veteran hearing was held in March 2024; a transcript from this proceeding is associated with the claims file. Following this March 2024 hearing and within the 90 day window to submit additional evidence, the Veteran submitted a May 2024 private nexus opinion linking her neck disability to her motor vehicle accident in service.

Service Connection

Service connection may be granted for a disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by active service. 38 U.S.C. � 1110; 38 C.F.R. � 3.303 (a). To establish a right to compensation for a present disability, a Veteran must show: (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-the so-called "nexus" requirement. Holton v. Shinseki, 557 F.3d 1362, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (quoting Shedden v. Principi, 38 F.3d 1163, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2004)). The absence of any one element will result in denial of service connection.

1. Entitlement to service connection for a right ankle disability

2. Entitlement to service connection for bilateral knee disabilities

3. Entitlement to service connection for a bilateral hip disabilities

In March 2024, on the record at his Board hearing, before the undersigned, the Veteran requested that her appeal for entitlement to service connection for a right ankle disability, bilateral knee disabilities, and bilateral hip disabilities be withdrawn.

An appeal may be withdrawn as to any or all issues involved in the appeal at any time before the Board promulgates a decision. 38 C.F.R. � 20.205. Withdrawal may be made by the Veteran or by his authorized representative. 38 C.F.R. � 20.205.

In the present case, the Veteran has withdrawn her appeals for entitlement to for a right ankle disability, bilateral knee disabilities, and bilateral hip disabilities on the record at her March 2024 Board hearing. The consequences of the withdrawal were explained to her at the hearing and acknowledged. Hence, there remain no allegations of errors of fact or law for appellate consideration. Accordingly, the Board does not have jurisdiction to review this appeal, and it is dismissed.

4. Entitlement to service connection for neck disability

At the onset, the Board recognizes that there is no dispute that the Veteran has a current neck disability nor is there any dispute that the Veteran was involved in a motor vehicle accident in service which involved an injury to her neck. The only remaining issue is a matter of nexus between this disability and the injury in service, i.e. a nexus.

On the matter of nexus, the Board notes that the Veteran has provided a private May 2024 medical opinion from his treating physician linking the Veteran's current disability to her in-service motor vehicle accident. This opinion applies valid medical principles and draws sound conclusions and rationale with supporting evidence. Furthermore, the Board finds this evidence especially probative given the unique position the Veteran's private physician is in as a clinical professional that has treated the Veteran over the course of her disability. They are thus able to provide a more insightful opinion on the nature of the Veteran's specific disability and its onset. This unique position coupled with the physician's review of the Veteran's history and medical explanation of how they reached their conclusion bolsters these physician's opinion above all others of record. The probative value of a medical opinion comes from its reasoning, and the Board must be able to conclude that a medical expert has applied valid medical analysis to the significant facts of the particular case in order to reach the conclusion submitted in the medical opinion. See Nieves-Rodriguez v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 295, 304 (2008). The Board thus considers the Veteran's physicians' opinion to be the most probative on the matter of the etiology of the Veteran's neck disability.

As a result, the most persuasive evidence of record establishes a nexus between the Veteran's neck spine, disability and her motor vehicle accident in service.

Given that all elements of service connection have been met, the Board finds that entitlement to service connection for the Veteran's neck, cervical spine disability, is granted.

REASONS FOR REMAND

5. Entitlement to service connection for a right shoulder disability is remanded.

The Board sincerely regrets the additional delay in adjudication but finds a remand is necessary to correct a pre-decisional duty to assist error in failing to obtain an adequate medical opinion.

Under the AMA, the Board must remand a claim to correct an error by the AOJ to satisfy its duty to assist the Veteran under 38 U.S.C. � 5103A if the error occurred prior to the AOJ decision on appeal. 38 U.S.C. � 5103A(f)(2)(A); 38 C.F.R. � 20.802(a).

Regrettably, the Board finds that the December 2019 VA examiner's opinion which accompanied the Veteran's VA examinations for his right shoulder disability is insufficient. The VA examiner's opinion did not directly address the Veteran's lay statement about continued symptoms of a right shoulder pain since her separation from service. The examiner also failed to address the favorable evidence of a May 1992 Report of Medical History wherein the Veteran reported that she had a painful or trick shoulder. As this opinion is inadequate, the Board finds that new VA examination is warranted. The United States Court of Appeal for Veterans Claims has held that that once VA undertakes the effort to provide an examination when developing a claim, even if not statutorily obligated to do so, VA must ensure that the examination provided is adequate. See Barr v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 303, 311-12 (2007).

Accordingly, the Board finds the AOJ erred in not ensuring an adequate pre-decisional opinion was provided and must remand the matter of service connection for a right shoulder disability for such to be provided.

The matters are REMANDED for the following action:

1. Schedule the Veteran for appropriate VA examination. The claims folder (including a copy of this remand) must be provided to and reviewed by the examiner as part of the examination. All tests, studies, and evaluations should be performed as deemed necessary by the examiner, and the results of any testing must be included in the examination report.

(A)	RIGHT SHOULDER:

(i) After considering the pertinent information in the record in its entirety and taking a detailed history from the Veteran regarding onset, the VA examiner should identify any right shoulder disabilities present.

(ii). Then, the examiner is asked to provide an opinion as to whether it is at least as likely as not (likelihood is at least approximately balanced or nearly equal, if not higher) that any right shoulder disabilities identified were incurred or aggravated by his active duty or are otherwise etiologically related to his active service, and if not, why not.

(iii) In providing an opinion, the examiner should comment on the Veteran's June 1986 motor vehicle accident and her May 1992 service treatment record titled Report of Medical History wherein the Veteran reported that she had a painful or trick shoulder.

2. Ensure that the examination report complies with this remand and the questions presented in this request.

3. Then, readjudicate the issue on appeal.

GAYLE STROMMEN

Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans' Appeals

Attorney for the Board	Acosta, 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: S CHARLES NEILL

condition: diabetes

disposition: denied

condition: radiculopathy

benefit: tdiu

benefit: smc

text: 9. Special monthly compensation (SMC) at the housebound rate under 38 U.S.C. § 1114(s) is granted, effective November 27, 2024.

text:
Citation Nr: A26020000
Decision Date: 03/05/26	Archive Date: 03/05/26

DOCKET NO. 250508-548425
DATE: March 5, 2026

ORDER

1. The claim of entitlement to an effective date earlier than November 27, 2024, for the grant of a 70 percent disability rating for a neurocognitive disorder is dismissed.

2. The claim of entitlement to an effective date earlier than November 27, 2024, for the grant of service connection for diabetes mellitus, type II, is dismissed.

3. Entitlement to an earlier effective date than November 27, 2024, for the award of a noncompensable disability rating for limitation of extension in the left knee as a result of a left leg fracture with degenerative arthritis (left knee disorder) is denied.

4. Entitlement to an earlier effective date than November 27, 2024, for the award service connection for left lower extremity neuropathy involving the sciatic nerve is denied.

5. Entitlement to an earlier effective date than November 27, 2024, for the award service connection for left lower extremity neuropathy involving the femoral nerve is denied.

6. Entitlement to an earlier effective date than November 27, 2024, for the award service connection for right lower extremity neuropathy involving the sciatic nerve is denied.

7. Entitlement to an earlier effective date than November 27, 2024, for the award service connection for right lower extremity neuropathy involving the femoral nerve is denied.

8. A total disability rating based on individual unemployability due to service-connected disabilities (TDIU) is granted on and after November 27, 2024.

9. Special monthly compensation (SMC) at the housebound rate under 38 U.S.C. � 1114(s) is granted, effective November 27, 2024.

10. Entitlement to an earlier effective date prior to November 27, 2024, for Dependents' Education Assistance (DEA) under 38 U.S.C. Chapter 35 is denied.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. On October 7, 2025, prior to the promulgation of a decision in the appeal, the Board received notification from the Veteran that he requested a withdrawal of the appeal of entitlement to an effective date earlier than November 27, 2024, for the grant of a 70 percent disability rating for a neurocognitive disorder.

2. On October 7, 2025, prior to the promulgation of a decision in the appeal, the Board received notification from the Veteran that he requested a withdrawal of the appeal of entitlement to an effective date earlier than November 27, 2024, for the grant of a service connection for diabetes mellitus, type II.

3. More than one year following the issuance of a decision that assigned an initial disability rating for the left knee disorder, the Veteran submitted a claim for an increased disability rating on November 27, 2024.

4.-7. More than one year following the issuance of a decision that denied entitlement to service connection for diabetes mellitus, type II, the Veteran submitted a supplemental claim for service connection for diabetes mellitus, type II, on November 27, 2024, resulting in the grant of service connection for diabetic peripheral neuropathy of the lower extremities in both femoral and sciatic nerves.

8. From November 27, 2024, the Veteran's service-connected neurocognitive disorder prevented him from securing or following substantially gainful employment.

9. On and after November 27, 2024, in addition to the Veteran's TDIU due to service-connected neurocognitive disorder, the Veteran has separate additional service-connected disabilities ratable as 60 percent or more.

10. The Veteran did not meet the requirements for DEA prior to November 27, 2024.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1. The criteria for withdrawal of the appeal of entitlement to an effective date earlier than November 27, 2024, for the grant of a 70 percent disability rating for a neurocognitive disorder by the Veteran have been met.  38 U.S.C. � 7105; 38 C.F.R. � 20.205.

2. The criteria for withdrawal of the appeal of entitlement to an effective date earlier than November 27, 2024, for the grant of service connection for diabetes mellitus, type II, by the Veteran have been met.  38 U.S.C. � 7105; 38 C.F.R. � 20.205.

3. The criteria for an effective date earlier than November 27, 2024, for the award of a noncompensable disability rating for limitation of extension in the left knee as a result of a left leg fracture with degenerative arthritis have not been met.  38 U.S.C. � 5110; 38 C.F.R. �� 3.400, 3.2500.

4. The criteria for an effective date earlier than November 27, 2024, for the award of service connection for left lower extremity peripheral neuropathy of the sciatic nerve have not been met.  38 U.S.C. � 5110; 38 C.F.R. �� 3.400, 3.2500.

5. The criteria for an earlier effective date than November 27, 2024, for the award of service connection for left lower extremity peripheral neuropathy of the femoral nerve have not been met.  38 U.S.C. � 5110; 38 C.F.R. �� 3.400, 3.2500.

6. The criteria for an effective date earlier than November 27, 2024, for the award of service connection for right lower extremity peripheral neuropathy of the sciatic nerve have not been met.  38 U.S.C. � 5110; 38 C.F.R. �� 3.400, 3.2500.

7. The criteria for an effective date earlier than November 27, 2024, for the award of service connection for right lower extremity peripheral neuropathy of the femoral nerve have not been met.  38 U.S.C. � 5110; 38 C.F.R. �� 3.400, 3.2500.

8. On and after October 27, 2024, the criteria for a TDIU have been met. 38 U.S.C. � 1155; 38 C.F.R. �� 3.340, 3.341, 4.16.

9. The criteria for SMC at the housebound rate have been met on and after October 27, 2024.  38 U.S.C. � 1114(s); 38 C.F.R. � 3.350.

10. The criteria for an effective date prior to November 27, 2024, for DEA under 38 U.S.C. Chapter 35 have not been met. 38 U.S.C. �� 1155, 3501, 3510, 5107, 5113; 38 C.F.R. �� 3.340, 3.341, 3.400, 3.807(a), 4.3, 21.3021.

REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

The Veteran served on active duty from June 1956 to June 1959 and from July 1959 to April 1977.

This matter comes to the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) from January and February 2025 rating decisions by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO).  In the May 8, 2025, VA Form 10182, Decision Review Request: Board Appeal (Notice of Disagreement), the Veteran elected the Hearing docket.  A Board hearing was held on October 7, 2025 before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge; a hearing transcript has been added to the record.

Therefore, the Board may only consider the evidence of record at the time of the agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ) decisions on appeal, as well as any evidence submitted by the Veteran (or his representative) at the hearing or within 90 days following the hearing.  38 C.F.R. � 20.302(a).  If evidence was submitted either (1) during the period after the AOJ issued the decision on appeal and prior to the Board hearing, or (2) more than 90 days following the hearing, the Board did not consider it in its decision.  38 C.F.R. �� 20.300, 20.302(a), 20.801.

If the Veteran would like VA to consider any evidence that was submitted that the Board could not consider, the Veteran may file a Supplemental Claim (VA Form 20-0995) and submit or identify this evidence.  38 C.F.R. � 3.2501.  If the evidence is new and relevant, VA will issue another decision on the 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.

Withdrawal

1. Entitlement to an effective date earlier than November 27, 2024, for the grant of a 70 percent disability rating for a neurocognitive disorder.

2. Entitlement to an effective date earlier than November 27, 2024, for the grant of service connection for diabetes mellitus, type II.

The Board may dismiss any appeal which fails to identify the specific determination with which the claimant disagrees.  38 U.S.C. � 7105(d).  An appeal may be withdrawn as to any or all issues involved in the appeal at any time before the Board promulgates a decision.  38 C.F.R. � 20.205.  Withdrawal may be made by an appellant or an appellant's authorized representative. Id.

An oral withdrawal of an appeal, such as one made at a hearing, must be (1) explicit, (2) unambiguous, and (3) done with a full understanding of the consequences of such action on the part of the appellant.  Acree v. O'Rourke, 891 F.3d 1009 (Fed. Cir. 2018); DeLisio v. Shinseki, 25 Vet. App. 45, 57 (2011).

At the October 7, 2025, Board hearing, the Veteran and his attorney withdrew the issues of entitlement to earlier effective dates than November 27, 2024, for the grant of an increased disability rating for a neurocognitive disorder and the grant of service connection for diabetes mellitus, type II.  All of the aforementioned requirements have been met.  Accordingly, the Board does not have jurisdiction to review the appeal as to these issues, and they are dismissed.

Effective Date

Under the AMA, an initial claim is a new claim requesting service connection for a disability or grant of a new benefit on a form prescribed by the Secretary.  38 C.F.R. �� 3.1(p)(1), 3.160(b).  A supplemental claim is any complete claim for a VA benefit on an application form prescribed by the Secretary where an initial or supplemental claim for the same or similar benefit on the same or similar basis was previously decided.  38 C.F.R. �� 3.1(p)(2), 3.2501.

Additionally, under the AMA, the effective date will be fixed in accordance with the date of receipt of the initial claim or date entitlement arose, whichever is later, if a claimant continuously pursues an issue by timely filing in succession any of the available review options within one year of the issuance of the decision.  38 C.F.R. � 3.2500(h).  Continuously pursuing a claim occurs where, after notice of a decision on an initial or supplemental claim, the Veteran files a supplemental claim, requests a higher-level review, or appeals to the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board), or after notice of a decision on a higher-level review, the Veteran files a supplemental claim or appeals to the Board.  38 C.F.R. � 3.2500(c).

For supplemental claims received more than one year after the date on which the AOJ or the Board issued notice of a decision, the effective date will be fixed in accordance with the date entitlement arose, but will not be earlier than the date of receipt of the supplemental claim.  38 C.F.R. � 3.2500(h)(2).

Moreover, a claimant and/or his or her duly authorized representative may indicate a claimant's desire to file a claim for benefits by submitting an intent to file a claim.  An intent to file must provide sufficient identifiable or biographical information to identify the claimant.  Upon receipt of the intent to file a claim, VA will furnish the claimant with the appropriate application form. Thereafter, if VA receives a complete application form prescribed by the Secretary, as defined in paragraph (a) of � 3.160, appropriate to the benefit sought, within 1 year of receipt of the intent to file a claim, VA will consider the complete claim filed as of the date the intent to file a claim was received.  38 C.F.R. � 3.155(b).  An intent to file claim can be submitted in one of the following three ways: in a saved electronic application; written intent on prescribed intent to file a claim; and oral intent communicated to designated VA personnel and recorded in writing.  38 C.F.R. � 3.155(b)(1).  Supplemental claims are subject to intent to file provisions.  Military-Veterans Advocacy v. Sec'y of Veterans Affairs, 7 F.4th 1110 (Fed. Cir. 2021).

There is currently no specific prescribed form in the VA regulation for a supplemental claim and, thus, the VA Form 21-526EZ can constitute a supplemental claim when intended to pursue a claim that has been denied before.  Chisholm v. Collins, 38 Vet. App. 140 (2025) (holding that while a supplemental claim needs to be filed on a form prescribed by the Secretary, it does not need to be filed on a specific supplemental claim form. VA's regulations do not limit supplemental claims to only one prescribed form).

Generally, the effective date of an evaluation and award of compensation for an increased rating claim is the later of the date of receipt of the claim or the date entitlement arose. 38 U.S.C. � 5110(a); 38 C.F.R. � 3.400(o)(1).

An exception to the general rule applies where evidence demonstrates that a factually ascertainable increase in disability occurred within the one-year period preceding the date of receipt of the claim for increased compensation.  38 U.S.C. � 5110(b)(2); 38 C.F.R. � 3.400(o)(2); Gaston v. Shinseki, 605 F.3d 979, 983 (Fed. Cir. 2010) ("It is clear from the plain language of [section] 5110(b)(2) that it only permits an earlier effective date for increased disability compensation if that disability increased during the one-year period before the filing of the claim."); Hazan v. Gober, 10 Vet. App. 511, 519 (1997) (stating that an increase for this purpose is one to the next disability level); VAOPGCPREC 12-98 (Sept. 23, 1998).  Under these circumstances, the effective date of the award is the earliest date at which it was ascertainable that an increase occurred.  38 U.S.C. � 5110(b)(2); 38 C.F.R. � 3.400(o)(2); Harper v. Brown, 10 Vet. App. 125, 126 (1997). The question of when an increase in disability is factually ascertainable is based on the evidence in the veteran's claims folder.  Quarles v. Derwinski, 3 Vet. App. 129, 135 (1992).

For claims or appeals filed on or after March 24, 2015, a claim for benefits must be submitted on a standardized form.  Standard Claims and Appeals Forms, 79 Fed. Reg. 57,660, 57,686 (Sept. 25, 2014) (eff. Mar. 24, 2015).  Claims or appeals pending before VA on that date are to be decided based on the regulations as they existed prior to the amendment.  Standard Claims and Appeals Forms, 79 Fed. Reg. 57,660, 57,686.

Prior to March 24, 2015, a claim was "a formal or informal communication in writing requesting a determination of entitlement, or evidencing a belief in entitlement, to a benefit."  38 C.F.R. � 3.1(p).  An informal claim is "[a]ny communication or action indicating intent to apply for one or more benefits."  38 C.F.R. � 3.155(a).  VA must look to all communications from a claimant that may be interpreted as applications or claims - formal and informal - for benefits and is required to identify and act on informal claims for benefits.  Servello v. Derwinski, 3 Vet. App. 196, 198 (1992).  The essential elements for any claim, whether formal or informal, are: (1) an intent to apply for benefits; (2) an identification of the benefits sought; and (3) a communication in writing.  Brokowski v. Shinseki, 23 Vet. App. 79, 84 (2009); MacPhee v. Nicholson, 459 F.3d 1323, 1326-27 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (holding that the plain language of the regulations requires a claimant to have intent to file a claim for VA benefits).

Also, prior to March 24, 2015, in some cases, a report of examination or hospitalization may be accepted as an informal claim for benefits.  38 C.F.R. � 3.157(b).  The date of outpatient or hospital examination or date of admission to a VA hospital will be accepted as the date of receipt of a claim when such reports relate to examination or treatment of a disability for which service-connection has previously been established or when a claim specifying the benefit sought is received within one year from the date of such examination, treatment or hospital admission.  38 C.F.R. � 3.157(b).  A report of examination implies that the medical record describes the results of a specific, particular examination and reflects a worsening of the condition.  Massie v. Shinseki, 25 Vet. App. 123, 133-34 (2011) (noting that a letter from a VA physician generated for a pending social security claim was not a report of examination).

3. Entitlement to an earlier effective date than November 27, 2024, for the award of a noncompensable disability rating for limitation of extension in the left knee as a result of a left leg fracture with degenerative arthritis.

The Veteran's representative asserts that an earlier effective date than November 27, 2024, is warranted for the noncompensable disability rating assigned for limited extension of his left knee.  The Veteran was already in receipt of a 10 percent disability rating for his right knee disorder due to painful motion.  See November 2023 rating decision.

As noted above, the effective date of an evaluation and award for an increased rating claim is the later of the date of receipt of the claim or the date entitlement arose.  For supplemental claims received more than one year after the date on which the AOJ or the Board issued notice of a decision, the effective date will be fixed in accordance with the date entitlement arose, but will not be earlier than the date of receipt of the supplemental claim.  38 C.F.R. � 3.2500(h)(2).

The Veteran submitted the claim for an increased disability rating for his left knee disorder on November 27, 2024.  No pending claim existed prior to that date.  In making this finding, the Board has considered whether the Veteran sought a decision review of the November 2023 rating decision that granted service connection for the left knee disorder.  While the Veteran's representative contested a decision issued in 2023, it was an August 2023 rating decision that addressed increased rating claims for the Veteran's low back disorder and his right lower extremity radiculopathy and service connection claims for his left and right feet.  Therefore, the Veteran did not submit a claim or supplemental claim for an increase within one year following the November 2023 rating decision.  See November 2024 correspondence.

Thus, while entitlement to a noncompensable disability rating for limited left knee extension likely arose prior to November 27, 2024, the earliest date for the award of this rating is the date of the claim.  38 C.F.R. � 3.2500(h)(2).  The appeal must be denied.

In reaching this decision, the Board considered the benefit of the doubt rule; however, as the evidence of record is persuasively against the claim, the doctrine is not for application.  See 38 U.S.C. � 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. � 3.102; Lynch v. McDonough, 21 F.4th 776, 781 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (en banc) (providing that only when the evidence persuasively favors one side or another is the benefit of the doubt doctrine not for application).

4. Entitlement to an earlier effective date than November 27, 2024, for the award service connection for left lower extremity neuropathy involving the sciatic nerve.

5. Entitlement to an earlier effective date than November 27, 2024, for the award service connection for left lower extremity neuropathy involving the femoral nerve.

6. Entitlement to an earlier effective date than November 27, 2024, for the award service connection for right lower extremity neuropathy involving the sciatic nerve.

7. Entitlement to an earlier effective date than November 27, 2024, for the award service connection for right lower extremity neuropathy involving the femoral nerve.

The Veteran's representative asserts that the Veteran is entitled to an effective date in 2021 for the award of service connection for his bilateral lower extremity peripheral neuropathy of the sciatic and femoral nerves.  At the October 2025 Board hearing, the representative noted that the Veteran had been pursuing an increased disability rating for his service connected back disorder in 2021.  Specifically, the Veteran submitted a claim for an increased disability rating for his low back in March 2021.  Later that month, VA provided the Veteran for a back examination.  Then, the examiner found that the Veteran had mild radiculopathy in the right lower extremity.

The representative asserts that the Veteran, unrepresented at the time of the March 2021 VA examination, made an informal claim for benefits that was documented in the March 2021 VA examination report.  Assuming so, this still is on or after March 24, 2015.  As noted above, after this date, a claim for benefits must be submitted on a standardized form.  Standard Claims and Appeals Forms, 79 Fed. Reg. 57,660, 57,686 (Sept. 25, 2014) (eff. Mar. 24, 2015).  The Board is unable to accept any communication document on a VA examination report as an informal claim for benefits.  In any event, the March 2021 VA examination focuses on radiculopathy and does not discuss diabetic peripheral neuropathy.

On November 27, 2024, the Veteran submitted a Supplemental Claim Application for service connection for diabetes mellitus, type II.  At a January 2025 VA examination, the Veteran was diagnosed with bilateral sciatic and femoral diabetic peripheral neuropathy of the lower extremities.  The RO awarded service connection for these four issues, effective the date of receipt of the Supplemental Claim Application.

The RO previously denied service connection for diabetes mellitus, type II, in an April 2010 rating decision.  The Veteran did not appeal this decision.  He did not submit a claim or supplemental claim for service connection for diabetes mellitus (which resulted in the grant of service connection for the diabetic neuropathy) until November 27, 2024.  Prior to March 24, 2015, and after the April 2010 rating decision, the Veteran did not submit an informal claim.

Thus, while entitlement to service connection arose prior to November 27, 2024, the effective date may not be earlier than the date of receipt of the supplemental claim.  38 C.F.R. � 3.2500(h)(2).  The appeal must be denied.

In reaching this decision the Board considered the benefit of the doubt rule; however, as the evidence of record is persuasively against the claim, the doctrine is not for application. Lynch, 21 F.4th at 781.

?

8. Entitlement to a TDIU on and after November 27, 2024.

A TDIU may be assigned, where the schedular rating is less than total, where a veteran is unable to secure or follow a substantially gainful occupation as a result of service-connected disabilities. 38 C.F.R. � 4.16(a).  To qualify for schedular consideration of a TDIU, if there is only one such disability, this disability shall be ratable at 60 percent or more, and, if there are two or more disabilities, there shall be at least one disability ratable at 40 percent or more and sufficient additional disability to bring the combined rating to 70 percent or more. Id.

For the purposes of one 60 percent disability, or one 40 percent disability in combination, the following will be considered as one disability: (1) Disabilities of one or both upper extremities, one or both lower extremities, including the bilateral factor, if applicable; (2) disabilities resulting from common etiology or a single accident; (3) disabilities affecting a single body system, e.g., orthopedic, digestive, respiratory, cardiovascular-renal, neuropsychiatric; (4) multiple injuries incurred in action; or (5) multiple disabilities incurred as a prisoner of war.  38 C.F.R. � 4.16(a); see Moody v. Wilkie, 30 Vet. App. 329, 339 (2018) (combining disabilities as "one disability" to meet the rating threshold of � 4.16(a) requires the use of the combined rating table).

The phrase "unable to secure and follow a substantially gainful occupation" contains both economic and noneconomic components.  See Ray v. Wilkie, 31 Vet. App. 58, 73 (2019).

The economic component refers to an occupation earning more than marginal income (outside of a protected environment) as determined by the U.S. Department of Commerce as the poverty threshold for one person.  Id.

The noneconomic component requires a determination as to a veteran's ability to secure and follow such employment.  Id.  Attention should be given to the veteran's history, education, skills, and training; whether the veteran has the physical ability (both exertional and nonexertional) to perform the types of activities required by the occupation at issue (e.g., lifting, bending, sitting, standing, walking, climbing, as well as auditory and visual limitations); and whether the veteran has the mental ability to perform the activities required by the occupation at issue (e.g., memory, concentration, ability to adapt to change, handle work place stress, get along with coworkers, and demonstrate reliability and productivity).  Id.

An award of TDIU is an individualized determination, specific to a veteran's particular circumstances, e.g., their history, education, skills, and training.  See Todd v. McDonald, 27 Vet. App. 79, 85 (2014).  It does not require a showing of 100 percent unemployability.  Roberson v. Principi, 251 F.3d 1378, 1385 (Fed. Cir. 2001).  The ultimate question is whether they are capable of performing the physical and mental acts required by employment, not whether they can find employment.  Van Hoose v. Brown, 4 Vet. App. 361, 363 (1993).

Here, the Veteran is already in receipt of a 100 percent disability rating on and after November 27, 2024, the claim date for all the disabilities considered herein.  His neurocognitive disorder, rated as 70 percent disabling on and after November 27, 2024, meets the schedular criteria for a TDIU.  The Board finds that this disability renders the Veteran unable to secure or follow substantially gainful employment.

At a February 2025 VA examination, the examiner found that the Veteran's neurocognitive disorder resulted in occupational and social impairment with deficiencies in most areas.  Symptoms identified included depressed mood, anxiety, panic attacks more than once a week, mild memory loss, disturbances of motivation and mood, difficulty in establishing and maintaining effective work and social relationships, difficulty adapting to stressful circumstances like work or a work like setting, and impaired impulse control, such as unprovoked irritability with periods of violence.  The examiner discussed a considerable amount of impairment as a result of the psychiatric disorder.

Given this, the Board finds that a TDIU is warranted as a result of the Veteran's neurocognitive disorder, alone.

?

9. Entitlement to SMC at the housebound rate.

Special monthly compensation is payable where the Veteran has a single service-connected disability rated as 100 percent and (1) has additional service-connected disability or disabilities independently ratable at 60 percent, separate and distinct from the 100 percent service-connected disability and involving different anatomical segments or bodily systems, or (2) is permanently housebound by reason of service-connected disability or disabilities.  This requirement is met when the Veteran is substantially confined as a direct result of service-connected disabilities to his or her dwelling and the immediate premises or, if institutionalized, to the ward or clinical areas and it is reasonably certain that the disability or disabilities and resultant confinement will continue throughout his or her lifetime.  38 U.S.C. � 1114(s); 38 C.F.R. � 3.350(i).

Although no additional disability compensation may be paid when a total schedular disability rating is already in effect, a separate award of TDIU predicated on a single disability may form the basis for an award of SMC.  Bradley v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 280 (2008) (holding that there could be a situation where a veteran has a schedular total rating for a particular service-connected disability, and could establish a TDIU rating for another service-connected disability in order to qualify for SMC under 38 U.S.C. � 1114(s) by having an additional disability of 60 percent or more).  Additionally, where TDIU is based on one service-connected disability and there are service-connected disabilities that constitute the required additional disability under Section 1114(s), SMC may be awarded.  Buie v. Shinseki, 24 Vet. App. 242, 250 (2010).

In this case, the Veteran is assigned a TDIU based solely due to his service-connected neurocognitive disorder on and after November 27, 2024.  Although the Veteran's neurocognitive disorder is not rated as 100 percent, for SMC purposes the TDIU satisfied the requirement of a "service-connected disability rated as total." See Buie, 24 Vet. App. at 251; Bradley, 22 Vet. App. at 293.

?

On and after November 27, 2024, the Veteran is also service connected for many disabilities, several discussed in the instant decision.  Application of their assigned ratings to the combined ratings table yields a combined disability rating in excess of 60 percent.  38 C.F.R. � 4.25.  As such, there are additional service-connected disabilities that are independently ratable as 60 percent, separate and distinct from the TDIU which is based on the service-connected neurocognitive disorder.

Thus, the Veteran has a single service-connected disability rated as 100 percent by way of his TDIU predicated on his service-connected neurocognitive disorder and has additional service-connected disabilities independently ratable at 60 percent, separate and distinct from the 100 percent service-connected disability and involving different anatomical segments or bodily systems.  Therefore, the criteria for special monthly compensation at the housebound rate are met on and after November 27, 2024.

10. Entitlement to an effective date earlier than November 27, 2024, for the award of basic eligibility for Dependents' Education Assistance.

The Veteran claims an earlier effective date for DEA benefits pursuant to 38 U.S.C. Chapter 35.  The Veteran was awarded eligibility to DEA in the February 2025 rating decision, effective November 27, 2024, based upon the RO's finding that he had total service-connected disability that was permanent in nature.

In the case of a veteran who is alive, the conditions for basic eligibility for DEA include: (1) the Veteran's discharge from service under conditions other than dishonorable; and (2) the Veteran has a permanent total service-connected disability.  38 C.F.R. � 3.807(a).

Since the effective date for DEA benefits is directly related to a finding that the Veteran had a total disability that was permanent in nature, an effective date of November 27, 2024, for Chapter 35 benefits is warranted as this is the effective date that the Veteran's total combined disability rating was granted.

Prior to November 27, 2024, the Veteran did not have a combined total disability rating.  Consequently, DEA benefits cannot be established earlier than November 27, 2024.  Therefore, entitlement to an earlier effective date prior to November 27, 2024, is denied.

S. CHARLES NEILL

Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans' Appeals

Attorney for the Board	SG, 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

condition: psychiatric

text:
Citation Nr: A26021000
Decision Date: 03/09/26	Archive Date: 03/09/26

DOCKET NO. 251001-589842
DATE: March 9, 2026

ORDER

Entitlement to service connection for major depressive disorder, persistent depressive disorder, and other specified trauma-and stressor-related disorder is granted.

FINDING OF FACT

There is medical evidence diagnosing and linking major depressive disorder, persistent depressive disorder, and other specified trauma-and stressor-related disorder to in-service events.

CONCLUSION OF LAW

The criteria for entitlement to service connection for major depressive disorder, persistent depressive disorder, and other specified trauma-and stressor-related disorder have been met. 38 U.S.C. �� 1110, 1131, 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. �� 3.102, 3.303, 3.304.

REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION

The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Army from October 1978 to October 1981 and from August 1983 to August 2000. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from an August 2025 rating decision.

In April 2025, the Veteran submitted a VA Form 20-0996, Decision Review Request: Higher-Level Review (HLR), and requested review of an April 2025 decision. In August 2025, the agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ) issued a HLR decision, which denied the claim based on the evidence of record at the time of the April 2025 rating decision.

In the October 2025 VA Form 10182, Decision Review Request: Board Appeal (Notice of Disagreement), the Veteran elected the Direct Review docket. Therefore, the Board may only consider the evidence of record at the time of the April 2025 AOJ decision. 38 C.F.R. � 20.301. Any evidence submitted after the AOJ decision which was subject to higher-level review cannot be considered by the Board. 38 C.F.R. �� 20.300, 20.301, 20.801.

Lastly, in the October 2025 brief, the Veteran's representative maintained that "[t]he Board should also make a determination on the issue of TDIU which is part and parcel to the Veteran's claim." A request for TDIU is an attempt to obtain an appropriate rating for a disability or disabilities. Rice v. Shinseki, 22 Vet. App. 447 (2009). The only issue before the Board in this appeal is entitlement to service connection. See Grantham v. Brown, 114 F.3d 1156, 1158 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (noting that downstream elements, such as the initial rating and effective date, are not part of an appeal of denial of service connection).

1. Entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder.

The Veteran contends that he has an acquired psychiatric disorder due to in-service events. See November 2020 Statement in Support of Claim for PTSD.

Establishing service connection generally requires competent evidence of (1) a current disability; (2) in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) a nexus between the claimed in-service disease or injury and the present disability. Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2004); see Davidson v. Shinseki, 581 F.3d 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2009); Pond v. West, 12 Vet. App. 341 (1999). Regulations also provide that service connection may be granted for any disease diagnosed after discharge, when all the evidence, including that pertinent to service, establishes that the disability was incurred in service. 38 C.F.R. � 3.303(d).

There are particular requirements for establishing PTSD in 38 C.F.R. � 3.304(f), which take precedence over the general requirements for establishing service connection in 38 C.F.R. � 3.303. See Arzio v. Shinseki, 602 F.3d 1343, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2010). Establishment of service connection for PTSD requires: (1) medical evidence diagnosing PTSD; (2) credible supporting evidence that the claimed in-service stressor actually occurred; and (3) medical evidence of a link between current symptomatology and the claimed in-service stressor. 38 C.F.R. � 3.304(f). Diagnoses of mental health disorders must comply with the criteria set forth in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th edition, of the American Psychiatric Association (DSM- 5).

If the positive and negative evidence is in approximate balance, the claimant receives the benefit of the doubt. Lynch v. McDonough, 21 F.4th 776 (Fed. Cir. 2021).

The Veteran's service treatment records show in November 1993, a diagnosis of "adjustment disorder with mixed emotions and conduct," in May 1995, a diagnosis of adjustment disorder with depressed mood, and in December 1995, a complaint of insomnia.

VA Disability Benefits Questionnaire (DBQs) from July 2018 and March 2024 show a diagnosis of PTSD but did not link the condition to service.

An October 2019 private treatment record notes the Veteran has a diagnosis of PTSD. The examiner stated the Veteran's reported traumatic/stressful events while in the military meet the diagnostic criteria.

The Veteran submitted a private opinion from a psychologist in November 2024. Based on a review of the file and evaluation of the Veteran, the psychologist opined with supporting rationale that the Veteran's symptoms meet the DSM-5 diagnostic criteria for major depressive disorder, persistent depressive disorder, and other specified trauma-and stressor-related disorder which are at least as likely as not a direct result of his depression and anxiety/trauma symptoms experienced in the military.

An April 2025 VA examiner opined that the Veteran did have PTSD, but it is less likely than not incurred in or caused by the claimed in-service injury, event, or illness. The rationale was that the Veteran's PTSD did not appear related to, incurred in, or caused by the adjustment disorder diagnosed while in military service.

The record contains favorable and unfavorable medical opinion evidence. When there is an approximate balance of positive and negative evidence regarding any issue material to the determination of a matter, the Board shall give the benefit of the doubt to the claimant. 38 U.S.C. � 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. � 3.102. Resolving all reasonable doubt in his favor, the Board finds there is medical evidence linking an acquired psychiatric disorder to in-service events. Therefore, service connection for major depressive disorder, persistent depressive disorder, and other specified trauma-and stressor-related disorder is warranted.

								(continued on next page)

TANYA SMITH

Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans' Appeals

Attorney for the Board	Fields, Ashley N.

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.