An effective date earlier than September 3, 2024, for the award of service connection for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is denied.

Citation Nr: A26069991 Decision Date: 07/30/26 Archive Date: 07/30/26 DOCKET NO. 250801-571370 DATE: July 30, 2026 ORDER An effective date earlier than September 3, 2024, for the award of service connection for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is denied. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The Veteran's initial October 2015 claim for service connection for a psychiatric disorder was denied in a January 2016 rating decision; the Veteran did not appeal and no new and material evidence was received within one year of the decision. 2. Although a private psychological medical evaluation was submitted in July 2023, it was not accompanied by a supplemental claim form, and the claim form (a VA Form 21-526EZ) that was submitted did not include any psychiatric disorder in the list of claimed disabilities. 3. Additional service department records received in August 2023 were not relevant to the Veteran's psychiatric disorder claim as they did not address a factual issue is dispute in the prior VA adjudication of the claim and did not serve as the basis of the eventual grant of service connection. 4. The Veteran's next claim received for service connection for a psychiatric disorder was a supplemental claim received in January 2025, within one year of receipt of an intent to file on September 3, 2024. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for an effective date earlier than September 3, 2024, for the grant of service connection for PTSD have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 5101, 5110; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.155, 3.156(c), 3.400. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty from September 2003 to June 2007. This matter is before the Board following an appeal of a May 2025 rating decision. The claim on appeal was received in January 2025, within one year of receipt of a September 2024 intent to file. The Veteran selected the hearing docket on a February 2022 VA Form 10182 (Notice of Disagreement) and testified before the Board in August 2025. Based on the foregoing, the Board may only consider evidence of record at the time of the February 2022 rating decision on appeal, as well as evidence received during or within 90 days following the Board hearing on August 4, 2025. Earlier Effective Date Unless specifically provided otherwise, the effective date for an award based on an initial claim or supplemental claim will 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. A "claim" is defined in the VA regulations as "a written or electronic communication requesting a determination of entitlement, or evidencing a belief in entitlement, to a benefit." 38 C.F.R. § 3.1(p). Pursuant to 38 C.F.R. § 3.155(d), a complete claim is required for all types of claims, and will generally be considered filed as of the date it was received by VA for an evaluation of award of benefits. If VA receives a complete claim within 1 year of the filing of an intent to file a claim that meets the requirements of 38 C.F.R. § 3.155(b), it will be considered filed as of the date of receipt of the intent to file a claim. When there is a prior final decision and a later reopened claim results in a grant of the benefit, the general rule for effective dates for reopened claims applies. In such cases the effective date cannot be earlier than the subsequent claim to reopen. 38 U.S.C. §§ 5110(a), (i), 5108; 38 C.F.R. § 3.400(r); Sears v. Principi, 349 F.3d 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2003). The award can be made effective no earlier than the date of the new application. 38 U.S.C. §§ 5110(a), (i), 5108; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.156(c), 3.400(q), (r). Under the AMA, a Veteran may seek review of a prior rating action by filing a supplemental claim. 38 C.F.R. § 3.2500(a). He or she may "continuously pursue" a claim "by timely and properly filing" a supplemental claim within 1 year of a prior rating action. 38 C.F.R. § 3.2500(c)(1). The effective date of a supplemental claim will be the date of receipt of the initial claim or date entitlement arose, whichever is later, when a supplemental claim is received within 1 year of a prior rating action. 38 C.F.R. § 3.2500(h)(1). When a supplemental claim is received more than 1 year after a prior rating action, the effective date will be fixed "in accordance with" the date entitlement arose but not earlier than the date of receipt of the supplemental claim. 38 C.F.R. § 3.2500(h)(2). However, if a complete application or claim is received within one year of receipt of an intent to file, the claim will be considered filed as of the date of receipt of the intent to file. 38 C.F.R. § 3.155(b). Additionally, under 38 C.F.R. § 3.156(c), if at any time after VA issues a decision on a claim, VA receives or associates with the claims file "relevant" official service department records that existed and had not been associated with the claims file when VA first decided the claim, VA will "reconsider" the claim de novo. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.156(c)(1). In such instance, the Veteran is not required to provide new and material evidence to reopen the claim under 38 C.F.R. § 3.156(a). If upon reconsideration, VA makes an award based "all or in part" on these newly associated service department records, the assigned effective date will be "the date entitlement arose or the date VA received the previously decided claim, whichever is later." 38 C.F.R. § 3.156(c)(3); see Mayhue v. Shinseki, 24 Vet. App. 273, 279 (2011) ("[A] claimant whose claim is reconsidered based on newly discovered service department records may be entitled to an effective date as early as the date of the original claim."). However, "reconsideration" of a claim under 38 C.F.R. § 3.156(c)(1) does not necessitate the assignment of an effective date under 38 C.F.R. § 3.156(c)(3). Jones (Florence) v. Wilkie, 964 F.3d 1374, 1379-80 (Fed. Cir. 2020). To qualify for an earlier effective date under 38 C.F.R. § 3.156(c)(3), the award of benefits need not be based "solely" on the new service department records but must be based "at least in part" on service department records that were not before the VA at the time of the initial denial of the claim. Flores-Vazquez v. McDonough, 996 F.3d 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2021). "In this sense," the Court has said of the operation of § 3.156(c), "the original claim is not just re-opened, it is reconsidered and serves as the date of the claim and the earliest date for which benefits may be granted." Vigil v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 63, 6667 (2008). Therefore, if a claim is "reconsidered" under 38 C.F.R. § 3.156(c), the claim will be treated as though the prior AOJ or Board denial never occurred. The point of the § 3.156(c) provisions is to put veterans in the positions they would have been had VA obtained and considered relevant service department records before adjudicating their earlier claims. See Blubaugh v. McDonald, 773 F.3d 1310, 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Under such circumstances, the claim is not treated as a new and material evidence claim (see § 3.156(a)), or a clear and unmistakable error ("CUE") claim (see § 3.105(a)), but rather, is governed by § 3.156(c). The regulation identifies "relevant" service department records as service records that are related to a claimed in-service event, injury, or disease, regardless of whether such records mention the veteran by name. 38 C.F.R. § 3.156(c)(1)(i). Thus, the mere receipt of additional service department records is not enough to trigger reconsideration; the records must be "relevant." To be "relevant" for purposes of reconsideration under 38 C.F.R. § 3.156(c)(1), the new service record must address a factual issue that was dispositive against the Veteran in the prior VA adjudication, i.e., speak to an element in dispute, and therefore affect the outcome of the case. Kisor v. McDonough (Kisor IV), 995 F.3d 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2021). Following a review of the record, the Board finds that an earlier effective date is not warranted for the grant of service connection for psychiatric disorders characterized as PTSD, persistent depressive disorder with anxious distress, insomnia disorder, and alcohol use disorder. See May 2025 Rating Decision. The Veteran filed an initial claim for service connection for a psychiatric disorder in October 2015, claimed as PTSD, sleep issues/nightmares, and anxiety/panic attacks. The claim was denied by a January 2016 rating decision. The Veteran did not appeal that decision and new and material evidence was not received within one year of its issuance. Thus, the rating decision became final. 38 U.S.C. § 7105(c). The next claim for service connection for any psychiatric disorder was a supplemental claim for service connection for PTSD received in January 2025, within one year of receipt of an intent to file on September 3, 2024. Thus, September 3, 2024, is considered the date of claim. The Board finds that it is also the earliest effective date assignable in this instance. In so finding, the Board acknowledges that, in July 2023, the Veteran submitted a June 2023 report of a private psychological evaluation. However, the report was not accompanied by a supplemental claim or any request to reopen or readjudicate the previously denied psychiatric claim. Although a VA Form 21-526EZ was also submitted on the same day in July 2023 as the private psychological evaluation, that claims form did not list any psychiatric disorders or requests to readjudicate. What is more, when a September 2023 rating decision was issued adjudicating the July 2023 claims, and did not include adjudication of any psychiatric claim, the Veteran did not challenge the decision or assert that the RO failed to adjudicate any psychiatric claim. Nor did the Veteran assert in conjunction with the January 2025 PTSD claim that he had filed an earlier claim in July 2023 that remained pending or unadjudicated. The Veteran's attorney submitted an argument in January 2025, which similarly did not assert that any previously filed claim remained pending or had been overlooked. Thus, while a private psychological evaluation was submitted in July 2023, the record does not show that it was accompanied by a claim or believed to have been accompanied by a claim that remained pending and unadjudicated when the September 2024 intent to file and January 2025 claim were received. To the extent that the June 2023 psychological evaluation did show a current diagnosis of a psychiatric disorder (other specified trauma and stress related disorder/other reactions to severe stress, and generalized anxiety disorder) and a positive nexus to service, such that entitlement arose in July 2023 upon receipt of the report, the Board points out that the proper effective date is the later of the date entitlement arose or the date of claim, which, in this instance, is the September 3, 2024, date of claim. Thus, the June 2023 psychological evaluation cannot serve as the basis for an earlier effective date. Finally, the Board has considered that new service personnel records were obtained in August 2023, which were not before the RO when the Veteran's initial October 2015 claim was adjudicated in January 2016. However, the newly-obtained records did not relate to any element in dispute when the claim was denied in January 2016. They did not contain evidence that corroborated the Veteran's claimed stressor related to an oil rig explosion or show a current diagnosis of a psychiatric disorder. As discussed by the Veteran's attorney in the January 2025 argument, the Veteran's assignment on the USS Peleliu was already of record in January 2016 and, in November 2015 the RO obtained verification of the oil rig explosion and the USS Peleliu's involvement with the explosion. Accordingly, because the newly associated service department records did not address a factual issue that was dispositive against the Veteran in the January 2016 VA adjudication, (namely whether the Veteran had a diagnosis of PTSD) they are not considered relevant for purposes of reconsideration of the October 2015 claim. Therefore, they cannot serve as the basis for an earlier effective date. As a final matter, the Board has considered the argument of the Veteran's attorney that the January 2016 rating decision did not become final because VA failed in its duty to assist the Veteran by not providing him with a VA examination. The attorney contends that the failure to provide an examination constituted a "grave procedural error," citing to Cook v. Principi. 318 F.3d 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (en bane). Therefore, he asserts, the January 2016 rating decision did not become final, the October 2015 claim remained pending, and October 2015 is the proper date of claim. However, the Board finds the attorney's reliance on Cook to be misplaced as the Federal Court in Cook concluded that "a breach of the duty to assist the veteran does not vitiate the finality of an RO decision." 318 F.3d 1334 (2002). In fact, the Court in Cook overruled its own prior decision in Hayre v. West 188 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 1999) to the extent that it found that "grave procedural error" rendered a VA decision non-final. The Court also observed that the cases it relied on in Hayre involved situations in which a failure to comply with a statutory procedural requirement related to notification of benefits determinations deprived a veteran of his or her right to appeal. In this case, even if VA did not fulfill its duty to assist the Veteran by providing an exam in connection with his October 2015 claim, the Veteran was not precluded from appealing the January 2016 decision, which he did not. Thus, the Board is not persuaded by the argument presented. The appeal is denied. S. C. Krembs Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board A. Fagan 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.