Entitlement to an effective date prior to March 4, 2022, for the grant of service connection for fibromyalgia, to include as due to clear and unmistakable error (CUE), is denied.

Citation Nr: A26069985 Decision Date: 07/30/26 Archive Date: 07/30/26 DOCKET NO. 220826-272417 DATE: July 30, 2026 ORDER Entitlement to an effective date prior to March 4, 2022, for the grant of service connection for fibromyalgia, to include as due to clear and unmistakable error (CUE), is denied. Entitlement to an effective date prior to March 4, 2022, for the grant of service connection for urinary frequency is denied. Entitlement to an effective date prior to March 4, 2022, for the grant of service connection for dermatitis is denied. FINDING OF FACT The date of March 4, 2022, is the date of claim for service connection for fatigue, a urinary disorder, and a skin disorder based on an intent to file compensation; and March 4, 2022, is the later of the date of claim and date entitlement arose for service connection for fatigue, a urinary disorder, and a skin disorder. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The criteria for an effective date prior to March 4, 2022, for the grant of service connection for fibromyalgia, are not met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 5101, 5110; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.155, 3.400. 2. The criteria for an effective date prior to March 4, 2022, for the grant of service connection for urinary frequency, are not met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 5101, 5110; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.155, 3.400. 3. The criteria for an effective date prior to March 4, 2022, for the grant of service connection for dermatitis, are not met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 5101, 5110; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.155, 3.400. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSIONS The Veteran served on active duty from September 1989 to March 1992. He is a Persian Gulf veteran who served in the Southwest Asia Theater of Operations from January 1991 to April 1991. See Military Personnel Record (April 2015); 38 C.F.R. § 3.317(e)(1). The rating decision on appeal was issued in August 2022; therefore, the modernized review system, also known as the Appeals Modernization Act (AMA), applies. See Rating Decision (August 2022). The AMA automatically applies to all claims for which VA issues notice of an initial decision on or after February 19, 2019. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.2400(a)(1). In March 2022, the Veteran submitted a VA Form 20-0995, Decision Review Request: Supplemental Claim, and requested readjudication of the issues of entitlement to service connection for joint pain, a skin disorder, and frequent urination, most recently addressed in August 2012 and January 2010 rating decisions. See VA Form 20-0995 Supplemental Claim Application (March 2022). In June 2022, the agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ) granted service connection for fibromyalgia, effective March 4, 2022. See Rating Decision (June 2022). The Veteran requested an earlier effective date. See VA Form 20-0996 Request for Higher-Level Review (June 2022); Rating Decision (June 2022); Fully Developed Claim (June 2022); Rating Decision (July 2022); VA Form 20-0995 Supplemental Claim Application (July 2022); Rating Decision (August 2022). In August 2022, the agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ) issued the supplemental claim decision on appeal, which found that new and relevant evidence had been received and granted service connection for dermatitis and urinary frequency, based on the evidence of record at the time of that decision. See Rating Decision (August 2022). The AOJ also denied entitlement to an earlier effective date for the grant of service connection for fibromyalgia, based on clear and unmistakable error (CUE). See Rating Decision (August 2022). In an August 2022, VA Form 10182, Decision Review Request: Board Appeal (Notice of Disagreement), the Veteran elected the Hearing docket. See VA Form 10182 Notice of Disagreement (August 2022). A Board hearing was held on March 8, 2023. See Hearing Transcript (March 2023). Therefore, the Board may only consider the evidence of record at the time of the August 9, 2022, AOJ supplemental claim decision on appeal, as well as any evidence submitted by the Veteran or his representative at the hearing or within 90 days following the hearing. 38 C.F.R. §?20.302. If evidence was submitted either (1) during the period after the AOJ issued the supplemental claim 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. Effective Dates and Clear and Unmistakable Error Generally, the effective date of an award of disability compensation based on an original claim shall be the date of receipt of the claim or the date entitlement arose, whichever is later. 38 U.S.C. § 5110(a); 38 C.F.R. § 3.400. Unless otherwise provided, the effective date of compensation will be fixed in accordance with the facts found, but will not be earlier than the date of receipt of the claimant's application. 38 U.S.C. § 5110(a). If a claim is filed within one year after separation from service, service connection will be effective as of the day after separation. 38 C.F.R. § 3.400(b)(2). 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). 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. With regard to the date of entitlement, the term date entitlement arose is the date when the claimant met the requirements for the benefits sought, on a facts found basis. 38 U.S.C. § 5110(a); McGrath v. Gober, 14 Vet. App. 28, 35 (2000). These facts found include the date the disability first manifested and the date entitlement to benefits was authorized by law and regulation. See generally 38 C.F.R. § 3.400. For instance, if a claimant filed a claim for benefits for a disability before he actually had the disability, the effective date for benefits can be no earlier than the date the disability first manifested. Ellington v. Peake, 541 F.3d 1364, 1369-70 (Fed. Cir. 2008). However, the date entitlement arose is not the date that the RO receives the evidence, but the date to which that evidence refers. McGrath, 14 Vet. App. at 35. 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. 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). 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). Once a decision becomes final, it can only be revised through a successful claim of CUE. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.105 (2018); see also Cook v. Principi, 318 F.3d 1334, 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2002). There is a three-part test to determine whether a prior decision was based on CUE: (1) either the correct facts, as they were known at the time, were not before the adjudicator (i.e., more than a simple disagreement as to how the facts were weighed or evaluated) or the statutory or regulatory provisions extant at that time were incorrectly applied; (2) the error must be undebatable and of the sort which, had it not been made, would have manifestly changed the outcome at the time it was made; and (3) a determination that there was CUE must be made on the record and law that existed at the time of the prior adjudication in question. See Damrel v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 242, 245 (1994); Russell v. Principi, 3 Vet. App. 310, 313-14 (1992) (en banc). 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, 1131; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a). Establishing service connection generally requires the following: (1) evidence of a current disability; (2) evidence of in- service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) evidence of a nexus between the claimed in-service disease or injury and the present disability. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a), (d); Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2004); Holton v. Shinseki, 557 F.3d 1363, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2009). Service connection may be granted for any disease initially diagnosed after discharge when all of the evidence, including that pertinent to service, establishes that the disease was incurred in service. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(d). In addition, service connection is granted for Persian Gulf Veterans with a chronic disability resulting from an undiagnosed illness or medically unexplained chronic multisymptom illness (MUCMI) that became manifest during active duty in the Southwest Asia theater of operations or became manifest to a compensable degree within the prescribed presumptive period. 38 U.S.C. § 1117; 38 C.F.R. § 3.317(a)(1)(i). The term qualifying chronic disability means a chronic disability resulting from any of the following (or any combination of the following): (A) an undiagnosed illness; or (B) a MUCMI that is defined by a cluster of signs or symptoms, such as: (1) chronic fatigue syndrome; (2) fibromyalgia; (3) functional gastrointestinal disorders (excluding structural gastrointestinal diseases). 38 U.S.C. §§ 1117, 1118 (2012); 38 C.F.R. § 3.317(a)(2)(i). An undiagnosed illness is a condition that by history, physical examination and laboratory tests cannot be attributed to a known clinical diagnosis. 38 C.F.R. § 3.317(a)(1). Objective indications of chronic disability 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. 38 C.F.R. § 3.317(a)(3). Signs or symptoms that may be manifestations of undiagnosed illness or MUCMI include, but are not limited to, the following: (1) fatigue; (2) signs or symptoms involving skin; (3) headache; (4) muscle pain; (5) joint pain; (6) neurologic signs or symptoms; (7) neuropsychological signs or symptoms; (8) signs or symptoms involving the respiratory system (upper or lower); (9) sleep disturbances; (10) gastrointestinal signs or symptoms; (11) cardiovascular signs or symptoms; (12) abnormal weight loss; and (13) menstrual disorders. 38 C.F.R. § 3.317(b). A MUCMI is defined by a cluster of signs or symptoms and specifically includes chronic fatigue syndrome, fibromyalgia, and functional gastrointestinal disorders (excluding structural gastrointestinal diseases), as well as any other illness that VA determines meets the criteria in paragraph 3.317(a)(2)(ii) of this section for a medically unexplained chronic multisymptom illness. A MUCMI means a diagnosed illness without conclusive pathophysiology or etiology that is characterized by overlapping symptoms and signs and has features such as fatigue, pain, disability out of proportion to physical findings, and inconsistent demonstration of laboratory abnormalities. Chronic multisymptom illnesses of partially understood etiology and pathophysiology will not be considered medically unexplained. 38 C.F.R. § 3.317(a)(2)(ii). 1. Entitlement to an effective date prior to March 4, 2022, for the grant of service connection for fibromyalgia, to include as due to CUE. The Veteran contends that the effective date for the grant of service connection for fibromyalgia should be in 2012, the date of a Gulf War General Medical examination because if it had been properly done, it would have supported a grant of service connection. See Hearing Transcript at 4-5 (March 2023). Additionally, he asserts that he is entitled to earlier effective date due as he was granted service connection on a presumptive basis. See Hearing Transcript at 5 (March 2023). Finally, the Veteran asserts that the AOJ erred in its August 2022 rating decision granting service connection because it did not list the Gulf War examination as evidence that it considered. See Hearing Transcript at 6 (March 2023). The Board concludes that the criteria for the assignment of an effective date prior to March 4, 2022, for the grant of service connection for fibromyalgia are not met. 38 U.S.C. § 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.400. Here, the procedural history is relevant. In October 2005, the AOJ received an informal claim for entitlement to service connection for joint pain and fatigue. See Correspondence (October 2005). An August 2006 rating decision denied service connection for both fatigue and joint pain. In March 2010, the AOJ received an informal claim for service connection for joint pain and fatigue. See VA 21-4138 Statement In Support of Claim (March 2010). An April 2010 rating decision denied service connection for fatigue. In May 2010, the AOJ received an informal claim for fatigue due to Gulf War exposures. See VA 21-0820 Report of General Information (May 2010). In March 2012, the AOJ denied service connection for fatigue. See Notification Letter (March 2012). In August 2012, the AOJ again denied service connection for joint pain. See Notification Letter (August 2012) (including notice of how to appeal the decision to the Board). VA received no new and material evidence prior to expiration of the appeal period, and no appeal to the Board. A March 4, 2022, VA letter from the AOJ to the Veteran reflects receipt of his intent to file a claim for compensation on March 4, 2022.. See Notification Letter (March 2022). On March 5, 2022, the AOJ received a supplemental claim for multiple disabilities, including joint pain. See VA Form 20-0995 Supplemental Claim Application (March 2022). A June 2022 rating decision granted service connection for fibromyalgia, effective March 4, 2022. See Rating Decision at 2-3 (June 2022). This appeal arises from the Veteran's disagreement with the assigned effective date. See VA Form 20-0996 Request for Higher-Level Review (June 2022); Rating Decision (June 2022); Fully Developed Claim (June 2022); Rating Decision (July 2022); VA Form 20-0995 Supplemental Claim Application (July 2022); Rating Decision (August 2022). An August 2022 rating decision reflect that the AOJ denied an earlier effective date for fibromyalgia, to include on the basis CUE in a prior VA decision. See Rating Decision (August 2022). First, the Board finds that the date of claim is March 4, 2022. After the August 2012 rating decision that denied service connection for joint pain, the Veteran did not appeal nor submit new and material evidence within one year. See also 38 U.S.C. § 7105(c); 38 C.F.R. § 20.1103. Although VA treatment records were associated with the claims file within the appeal period, the records did not address fibromyalgia. See Medical Treatment Record - Government Facility (August 2012). Hence, the rating decision became final. After that rating decision, and prior to March 4, 2022, there was no claim for service connection for fibromyalgia submitted under either the legacy or modernized appeals systems. 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.1(p), 3.155(a) (2018); Brokowski v. Shinseki, 23 Vet. App. 79, 84 (2009); Standard Claims and Appeals Forms, 79 Fed. Reg. 57,660, 57,686 (Sept. 25, 2014) (eff. Mar. 24, 2015); 38 C.F.R. § 3.151(a) (2020). March 4, 2022, is the date of the original intent to file received by the AOJ. A claim for service connection was submitted the following day. The March 4, 2022, intent to file thus attaches to that March 5, 2022, claim. The Board, therefore, concludes that the date of claim is March 4, 2022. Second, the Board finds that the date of entitlement to service connection for fibromyalgia is prior to March 4, 2022. Fibromyalgia was diagnosed on an April 2022 VA-obtained Fibromyalgia Disability Benefits Questionnaire (DBQ), noting onset was 1991. See C&P Exam at 2 (April 2022). The AOJ granted presumptive service connection based on this diagnosis and the Veteran's service in the Persian Gulf. See Rating Decision at 3 (June 2022). Although a diagnosis of fibromyalgia was not provided until this April 2022 VA-obtained examination report, it placed onset of this disability during service. See Medical Treatment Record - Government Facility at 4 (April 2012). Thus, the date of entitlement is during active duty. See McGrath, 14 Vet. App. at 35; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. The later of the date of claim (March 4, 2022) and the date of entitlement (during active duty) is March 4, 2022. Given the above, there is no legal basis for the assignment of an effective date prior to March 4, 2022. 38 U.S.C. §§ 5107, 5110; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.400, 3.2500. Based on this conclusion, an earlier effective date is not warranted. The Veteran argues that an earlier effective date is warranted due to CUE in prior rating decisions. The Board may adjudicate this theory because the AOJ adjudicated CUE in the assignment of an effective date in the first instance. See Rating Decision (June 2022); Rating Decision (July 2022). Specifically, the Veteran asserts that there was CUE because the AOJ did not consider a 2012 Gulf War when assigning the effective date for the award of service connection. See Hearing Transcript at 6 (March 2023). The Board finds that argument lacks merit because the Veteran had not been continuously pursuing the claim since 2012 and, moreover, that examination report does not establish either date of claim or date entitlement arose for the purpose of assigning an effective date under 38 C.F.R. § 3.400. Indeed, it does not diagnose fibromyalgia; rather, it noted all joints had a corresponding diagnosis-no undiagnosed illness or MUCMI. See Medical Treatment Record - Government Facility at 54 (April 2012). Importantly, the later of the date of claim and date of entitlement would remain the date of claim - March 4, 2022-regardless of consideration of the substance of the 2012 Gulf War examination. Stated differently, even if there were an error, it did not rise to the level of CUE since it did not manifestly changed the outcome as to the assignment of an effective date from March 4, 2022. The Veteran further asserted that there was CUE because the AOJ should have presumed fibromyalgia was present at the time of the 2012 examination. See Hearing Transcript at 5 (March 2023). But this also does not appear to be CUE as it alleges a disagreement in a weighing of the evidence. See Damrel, 6 Vet. App. at 245; Russell, 3 Vet. App. at 313-14. Here, the 2012 examination report contained the opinion that there was no undiagnosed illness and the claimed joints had diagnoses, i.e., there was no fibromyalgia. See Medical Treatment Record -Government Facility at 54 (April 2012). The AOJ noted review of the April 2012 examinations and denied service connection based on a lack of a relationship between the joint diagnoses and service. See Notification Letter at 2 (August 2012). This weighing of the evidence does not constitute CUE. The Veteran next asserts that there was CUE because the AOJ failed to ensure that a full and complete Gulf War examination was conducted, arguing that the 2012 GW examination was inadequate. See Hearing Transcript at 4 (March 2023). However, this allegation amounts to an argument that there was a duty to assist. It is well-established a duty to assist error is not CUE. Crippen v. Brown, 9 Vet. App. 412, 418 (1996); Caffrey v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 377, 383-84 (1994); Cook v. Principi, 318 F.3d 1334, 1345-47 (Fed. Cir. 2002). Furthermore, a disagreement with how the evidence was weighed is not CUE. See Burden v. Shinseki, 727 F.3d 1161, 1169-70 (Fed. Cir. 2013). The requirement for CUE is that, but for the error, there would have been a manifestly different outcome based on the evidence that existed at the time. A breach in the duty to assist cannot form a basis for a claim of CUE because such a breach creates only an incomplete record rather than an incorrect one. See Tetro v. Gober, 14 Vet. App. 100, 109 (2000). When additional development is required, the alleged error only leads to further litigation, which is not CUE. Smith v. McDonough, 101 F.4th 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2024). Finally, the Veteran's representative asserts that under the Veterans Education and Benefits Expansion Act of 2001, an earlier effective date is warranted. See Hearing Transcript at 4 (March 2023). Although not particularly clear, the argument appears to be that the Act provides an effective date of the onset date of the MUCMI, here, fibromyalgia. See Hearing Transcript at 4 (March 2023). The Board disagrees. The Act referenced did not alter the regulatory criteria for effective dates assigned to disabilities granted therein. See Compensation and Pension Provisions of the Veterans Education and Benefits Expansion Act of 2001, 68 Fed. Reg. 34539 (June 10, 2003). As explained above, CUE is not shown in a prior rating decision issued by the AOJ; and the date of March 4, 2022, is the later of the date of claim and the date entitlement arose. Accordingly, the claim is denied. As the evidence of record persuasively weighs against an earlier effective date than assigned, the benefit-of-the-doubt rule does not apply. 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.102; Lynch v. McDonough, 21 F.4th 776 (Fed. Cir. 2021). 2. Entitlement to an effective date prior to March 4, 2022, for the grant of service connection for urinary frequency. The Veteran contends that the effective date for the grant of service connection for urinary frequency should be in 2012, the date of the Gulf War General Medical examination because if it had been properly done, it would have supported a grant of service connection. See Hearing Transcript at 4-5 (March 2023). Additionally, he asserts that he is entitled to earlier effective date based on the grant of presumptive service connection. See Hearing Transcript at 5 (March 2023). Finally, the Veteran asserts that the AOJ erred in its August 2022 rating decision grant of service connection because it did not list the Gulf War examination as evidence that it considered. See Hearing Transcript at 6 (March 2023). The Board concludes that the criteria for the assignment of an effective date prior to March 4, 2022, for the grant of service connection for urinary frequency are not met. 38 U.S.C. § 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.400. Here, the procedural history is relevant. In September 2009, the AOJ received an informal claim for service connection for urinary frequency. See VA 119 Report of Contact (September 2009). An April 2010 rating decision denied the claim. In July 2010, the Veteran submitted a statement indicating he believed several disabilities were related to his Gulf War service, including urinary problems. See VA 21-4138 Statement In Support of Claim (July 2010). A February 2012 rating decision denied the claim for service connection for frequent urination and a March 2012 VA letter notified the Veteran of this decision and how to appeal to the Board. See Rating Decision (February 2012); Notification Letter (March 2012). VA received no appeal or new and material evidence prior to expiration of the appeal period. A March 4, 2022, VA letter from the AOJ to the Veteran reflects receipt of his intent to file a claim for compensation on March 4, 2022. See Notification Letter (March 2022). On March 5, 2022, the AOJ received a supplemental claim for multiple disabilities, including frequent urination. See VA Form 20-0995 Supplemental Claim Application (March 2022). An August 2022 rating decision granted service connection for urinary frequency, effective March 4, 2022. See Rating Decision at 5 (August 2022). This appeal arises from the Veteran's disagreement with the assigned effective date. See VA Form 10182 Notice of Disagreement (August 2022). First, the Board finds that the date of claim is March 4, 2022. After the March 2012 rating decision, the Veteran did not appeal nor submit new and material evidence within one year. See also 38 U.S.C. § 7105(c); 38 C.F.R. § 20.1103. Although VA treatment records and Gulf War examinations were associated with the claims file after this rating decision, these records did not address the Veteran's urinary condition. See Medical Treatment Record - Government Facility (April 2012); Medical Treatment Record - Government Facility (August 2012). Hence, the rating decision became final. After that rating decision, and prior to March 4, 2022, there was no claim for service connection for a urinary condition submitted under either the legacy or modernized appeals systems. 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.1(p), 3.155(a) (2018); Brokowski v. Shinseki, 23 Vet. App. 79, 84 (2009); Standard Claims and Appeals Forms, 79 Fed. Reg. 57,660, 57,686 (Sept. 25, 2014) (eff. Mar. 24, 2015); 38 C.F.R. § 3.151(a) (2020). On March 4, 2022, VA received the Veteran's intent to file a claim for compensation, followed the next day by a completed formal claim. Therefore, March 4, 2022, is the date of claim for effective date purposes. Second, the Board finds that the date of entitlement to service connection for a urinary condition is in February 2008. Urinary frequency was diagnosed in a March 2022 VA-obtained Urinary Tract Conditions examination report, but it was noted that the conditions was diagnosis in 2009. See C&P Exam at 2 (March 2022). A June 2022 VA medical opinion report indicated that urinary frequency at least as likely as not was incurred in or caused by urinary complaints during service. See C&P Exam at 3 (June 2022). The AOJ granted service connection based on this direct service connection nexus opinion. See Rating Decision at 3 (August 2022). As noted above, the date entitlement arose is the date when the claimant met the requirements for the benefits sought, on a facts found basis. See McGrath, 14 Vet. App. at 35; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. VA treatment records indicate that in February 2009, the Veteran reported urinary frequency of one year; no prior reports of urinary frequency were noted. See Medical Treatment Record - Government Facility at 9 (March 2010). Although the examination providing a link between the current disability and in-service symptoms was not provided until 2022, it places the date of onset sometime in 2009. That 2009 medical record indicates that the symptoms began in 2008, one year prior. Thus, entitlement is warranted as of that date. See McGrath, 14 Vet. App. at 35. Therefore, the date of entitlement is in February 2008. The later of the date of claim (March 4, 2022) and the date of entitlement (February 2008) is March 4, 2022. Given the above, there is no legal basis for the assignment of an effective date prior to March 4, 2022. 38 U.S.C. §§ 5107, 5110; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.400, 3.2500. Based on this conclusion, an earlier effective date is not warranted. Accordingly, the claim is denied. As the evidence of record persuasively weighs against the claim, the benefit-of-the-doubt rule does not apply. 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.102; Lynch v. McDonough, 21 F.4th 776 (Fed. Cir. 2021). The Board notes that at the 2023 Board hearing, the Veteran appeared to assert entitlement to an earlier effective based on CUE. See Hearing Transcript at 4 (March 2023). The Board is unable to adjudicate CUE in the first instance. See Jarrell v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 326 (2006). An assertion of CUE is a motion or a request, not a theory of entitlement that can be considered part of an appeal for an earlier effective date. See, e.g., Hillyard v. Shinseki, 24 Vet. App. 343, 355 (2011). Therefore, jurisdiction over an earlier effective date appeal does not extend to an allegation of CUE in a prior final rating decision. See Phillips v. Brown, 10 Vet. App. 25, 33 (1997). Rather, such a CUE motion must be adjudicated by the AOJ in the first instance and separately appealed to the Board. See Jarrell v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 326, 333 (2006). Whether there was CUE in an AOJ decision is a separate and distinct matter from the issue of entitlement to an earlier effective date; both questions involve different standards of proof and law. Compare 38 U.S.C. § 5109A with 38 U.S.C. § 5110. During the March 8, 2023, Board hearing, the Veteran appeared to assert CUE that warranted an earlier effective date. The AOJ did not adjudicate the CUE assertions as to this claim. Therefore, the Board does not have jurisdiction to review the CUE assertions. The Veteran may request AOJ adjudication in the first instance as to any claimed CUE. The Board did not consider any CUE assertion in addressing the effective date claims discussed herein. 3. Entitlement to an effective date prior to March 4, 2022, for the grant of service connection for dermatitis. The Veteran contends that the effective date for the grant of service connection for dermatitis should be in 2012, the date of the Gulf War General Medical examination because if it had been properly done, it would have supported a grant of service connection. See Hearing Transcript at 4-5 (March 2023). Additionally, he asserts that he is entitled to earlier effective date based on presumptive service connection. See Hearing Transcript at 5 (March 2023). Finally, the Veteran asserts that the AOJ erred in its August 2022 rating decision grant service connection because it did not list the GW Registry examination as evidence that it considered. See Hearing Transcript at 6 (March 2023). The Board concludes that the criteria for the assignment of an effective date prior to March 4, 2022, for the grant of service connection for dermatitis are not met. 38 U.S.C. § 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.400. Here, the procedural history is relevant. In July 2010, the Veteran submitted a statement indicating he believed several disabilities were related to his Gulf War service, including a skin rash. See VA 21-4138 Statement In Support of Claim (July 2010). This issue was deferred pending a VA examination. See Notification Letter (March 2012). An August 2012 rating decision denied service connection for a skin rash based on a lack of a current disability. See Rating Decision (August 2012). VA received no appeal or new and material evidence prior to expiration of the appeal period. Although the Veteran resubmitted VA treatment records, these records were already associated with the claims file and are thus not new and material. See Medical Treatment Record - Government Facility (August 2012); see also 38 U.S.C. § 7105(c); 38 C.F.R. § 20.1103. Hence, the August 2012 rating decision became final. On March 4, 2022, VA received the Veteran's intent to file a claim for compensation. On March 5, 2022, the AOJ received a supplemental claim for multiple disabilities, including a skin rash. See VA Form 20-0995 Supplemental Claim Application (March 2022). An August 2022 rating decision granted service connection for skin rash, effective March 4, 2022. See Rating Decision (August 2022). This appeal arises from the Veteran's disagreement with the assigned effective date. See VA Form 10182 Notice of Disagreement (August 2022). First, the Board finds that the relevant date of claim is March 4, 2022, because that is the date, VA received the Veteran's intent to file a claim for compensation, followed the next day by a completed formal claim. Therefore, March 4, 2022, is the date of claim for effective date purposes. There is no earlier unadjudicated claim or appeal. As noted above, a final 2012 rating decision denied service connection for skin rash. After that rating decision, and prior to March 4, 2022, there was no claim for service connection for a skin disorder submitted under either the legacy or modernized appeals systems. 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.1(p), 3.155(a) (2018); Brokowski v. Shinseki, 23 Vet. App. 79, 84 (2009); Standard Claims and Appeals Forms, 79 Fed. Reg. 57,660, 57,686 (Sept. 25, 2014) (eff. Mar. 24, 2015); 38 C.F.R. § 3.151(a) (2020). Second, the Board finds that the date of entitlement for service connection for dermatitis is prior to the date of claim, as early as September 1, 1996. Dermatitis was diagnosed in a March 2022 VA-obtained Skin Diseases examination report; the clinician noted onset in 1991. See C&P Exam at 2 (March 2022). A July 2022, VA medical opinion was that dermatitis was a MUCMI. See C&P Exam at 2 (July 2022). The AOJ granted presumptive service connection based on this conclusion - the Veteran is a Persian Gulf Veteran with a chronic disability resulting from a MUCMI that became manifest within the required time period. 38 U.S.C. § 1117; 38 C.F.R. § 3.317(a)(1)(i), (a)(2); Rating Decision at 3 (August 2022). As noted above, the date entitlement arose is the date when the claimant met the requirements for the benefits sought, on a facts found basis. See McGrath, 14 Vet. App. at 35; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. Here, although a March 2022 VA-obtained examination report noted a diagnosis of dermatitis in 2019, the evidence of record indicates that the Veteran had chronic recurring rashes since at least 1996. See C&P Exam at 2 (March 2022); STR at 20 (March 2011); Medical Treatment Record - Government Facility at 5, 6, 22, 24 (July 2010); CAPRI at 3, 439 (February 2019). Thus, it appears that post-service, rashes were documented in September 1996. Although a 2012 Gulf War examination report noted there was no diagnosis of a skin rash, this was based on a lack of a skin rash on the day of examination, which is consistent with the prior notation of recurring, rather than constant, rashes. See Medical Treatment Record - Government Facility at 21 (April 2012); STR at 20 (March 2011); Medical Treatment Record - Government Facility at 5, 6, 22, 24 (July 2010); CAPRI at 3, 439 (February 2019). Thus, September 1996 is the date of entitlement. The later of the date of claim (March 4, 2022) and the date of entitlement (September 1, 1996), therefore, is March 4,2022. Accordingly, the claim is denied. As the evidence of record persuasively weighs against the claim, the benefit-of-the-doubt rule does not apply. 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.102; Lynch v. McDonough, 21 F.4th 776 (Fed. Cir. 2021). The Board notes that at the 2023 hearing, the Veteran appeared to assert entitlement to an earlier effective based on CUE. See Hearing Transcript at 4 (March 2023). The Board is unable to adjudicate CUE in the first instance. See Jarrell v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 326 (2006). An assertion of CUE is a motion or a request, not a theory of entitlement that can be considered part of an appeal for an earlier effective date. See, e.g., Hillyard v. Shinseki, 24 Vet. App. 343, 355 (2011). Therefore, jurisdiction over an earlier effective date appeal does not extend to an allegation of CUE in a prior final rating decision. See Phillips v. Brown, 10 Vet. App. 25, 33 (1997). Rather, such a CUE motion must be adjudicated by the AOJ in the first instance and separately appealed to the Board. See Jarrell v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 326, 333 (2006). Whether there was CUE in an AOJ decision is a separate and distinct matter from the issue of entitlement to an earlier effective date; both questions involve different standards of proof and law. Compare 38 U.S.C. § 5109A with 38 U.S.C. § 5110. The AOJ did not adjudicate the CUE assertions as to this claim. Therefore, the Board does not have jurisdiction to review the CUE assertions. The Veteran may request AOJ adjudication in the first instance as to any claimed CUE. The Board did not consider any CUE assertion in addressing the effective date claims discussed herein. C.A. SKOW Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board K.M. 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.