s as it existed in one thousand nine hundred seven was relevant to the determination of the effective date of the award of service connection for post traumatic stress disorder in this matter the veterans court relied upon a misinterpretation of three point three zero four f when it determined that the board had adequately explained the assignment of the effective date based upon the application of three point three zero four f section three point three zero four is simply not relevant to whether me when determining the effective date under the prior version of three point one five six c in this case the board found that service department records had in fact been submitted by mr young in  four and they fell into the prior provisions of three point one five six c exception for the assignment of an effective date and that mr young's one thousand nine hundred eighty four claim was therefore considered to be determination could be made that the effective date would be six months prior to the date of the exam based upon that medical evidence but ultimately i believe it turns on what is meant by a retrospective evaluation on  out well i think your hypothetical comes out in that it depends on the fact finder as to what determination they would or would not have made in this i'm go to some of the fact finder believes the five six c he would be entitled to consideration of an effective date based upon a retroactive evaluation that retroactive the value of the current try to answer my question as a go back to that hypothetical does it go back to hundred eighty four or does it go back to six months before the end without a retrospective evaluation or i don't believe you can properly applied three point one five six c you cannot simply rely on the evidence as it existed hundred eighty nine when that examination was made because we clearly have a change in circumstance in the awarding of service connection based upon evidence that the v a consider that was new in material including is there for going back to the date of the filing of the claim when there isn't any medical evidence that the onset of p t s d went back to nine hundred eighty four because there is evidence in the in that circumstance i did not understand that you were constraining it to no evidence prior to that if there is no evidence prior that date then under your hypothetical it would go back six months before the date of the diagnosis ok but that is not the facts in this case that was not what the board was confronted with when it assigned the effective date and applied three point one five six c by importing a higher legal standard under three point three zero four  by importing that higher legal standard they said that you assign the effective date simply based upon the presence of a diagnosis but service connection had already been established when this claim was reopened and granted in one thousand nine hundred eight the a determined that there was evidence of the required diagnosis under three point three zero four f that is the end of the application is no evidence it went back for the night in the night of but there there was evidence in the veterans additional application in which he described his symptoms and manifestation but a medical diagnosis absolutely not your honor but that is the import of the language of three one five six c which requires a retrospective of valuation it requires that you now go back and look back retroactively to determine what those symptoms and manifestations meant in terms of in this stress disorder that was diagnosed in one thousand nine hundred three point one five six c he is entitled to that benefit that is the intended operation the remedial purpose of three point one five sixty two a for the veteran that retrospective evaluation in order to determine whether or not based upon the totality of the evidence which includes lay evidence of the description of the symptoms and manifestations that he had if based upon a retrospect evaluation a medical determination says that those symptoms would not have been but the test here is was it at least as likely as not and if the medical evidence was that the description of those symptoms was at least as likely as not where the description of symptoms and manifestations of post traumatic stress disorder then he would be entitle to consideration of an award from one thousand nine hundred four going forward now that is separate from the rating to be a sock the rating has to be assigned based upon the severity of those symptoms and that as we know from the court's decision below and showed it will require another retrospective a valuation that determine the severity of those conditions clearly in this case the board or the yes the board recognized that the assignment of the effective date in one thousand nine hundred ninety two was not correct and that which the provisions of the regulation which do not relate to three point three zero four ath allow him a retrospective evaluation he was not afforded that retrospective evaluation the board made a medical determination without any medical evidence in the record that implicitly found that those symptoms and manifestations were not symptoms and manifestations of post traumatic stress disorder in the remaining time of my initial presentation i would like to at least present the alternative argument which is even if this court finds that three point three zero four f was a apply couple provision in the assignment of the effective date the court s use of that and the board's use of that is in conflict with the rule established by this court in princes cruise all three factors of the prince's cruise criteria are met in this case by applying a respective determination and sat there was an earlier affected day i mean p t s d presumably didn't start with the date of medical opinion and there hasn't been any determination as to what did start and he says there should be a retrospective determination as to what an earlier day would have met well two responses to that the first is that this case comes to this court on the basis of acute challenge and so the request to develop additional evidence is inappropriate invasive to challenge where the arguments need to be based on the record setting time of the decision so that's my first response the second response is under three point one five six  and retrospective annihilation it says that evaluation resulting from disease or injury must be supported adequately by medical evidence in this case there is no medical evidence until the march ten associated with a claim related only to the in service trust or the p p s the determination was not on the made on the basis of those service department records so the attempt to use three point one five six c to then go back and substantiate his claim they scheduled a medical examination you know either sent in any documents support his claim or showed up for his medical examination and so they didn't take any further action on his claim and i would know that the mayo levante nine hundred eighty nine medical exam that he finally used in support of his claim was from the v a so he wasn't forced to go outside to a private doctor he was afforded medical care that did ultimately diagnose the second point i'd like to make is in response to mr carpenter's discussion of princess cruises as i think is most of force in our briefs this court need not reach the question of princess cruises because although three point three or four  three which was not a couple of the time of the one nine hundred eighty four regulation clearly requires medical diagnosis of p t s d the preceding regulation governing mental disorders four point two six also required a medical diagnosis of mental disorders for service connection so there was no substantial change between four point one two six and three point three zero four after in that net two to become service connected for mental disorder including p the v a has always required a medical diagnosis in conformance first with the a p a manual and then with the d s m of that mental disorder so there's no need to look at the retrospective applicability because a medical diagnosis is always required know i'd like to begin with the notion that this matter is a huge challenge or involves a huge challenge or that is correct that this does stem from a request for a vision the request for revision was granted what we're talking about here aaron that was not the issue the issue was whether or not in one thousand nine hundred eighty eight mr young was entitled to the benefit of three point one five six c and whether the failure to afford that benefit would have resulted in a manifestly different outcome and obviously would actually see that there's that much difference between you and the government as to what the legal standard is you both seem to be saying that that date of the diagnosis is not determinative but if there was medical evidence that there an earlier onset of p t s d that the veteran gets the date of the earlier onset and so the only question is here whether there was evidence in the in the record which would compel  finding of an earlier onset date based on medical evidence i don't see that you really even argue that the record required an earlier effective date based on the medical evidence that was in the record at the time not based upon medical evidence but based upon the lay evidence which triggered the provisions of three point one five six c to entitle him to a retrospective evaluation and part of that retrospective evaluation was to ask the question whether or not the tweet based upon the symptoms that were described by the veteran in his application was that it least as likely as not that those symptoms were the product of post traumatic stress disorder for the purpose of assigning the effective date so here we are substantially different your honor because of the v a which used it and the inquiry under three point one five sixty based upon a diagnosis of post traumatic stress disorder first under the round of three point three zero for aft and then under the ground of a regulation that requires a diagnosis for service connection both of those arguments are flawed because the veteran was granted service connection for post traumatic stress disorder hundred ninety eight all that is at is at issue is the assignment of the effective date based upon the application a three point one five six c the board found that mr young was entitled to the benefit of three point one assigning a new effective date at that point june was behind us we are done with clear and unmistakable air we are dealing with the application of three point one five six c for the determination of the correct effective date and under the pla language of the regulation your honor i've got it right here  language is a wreck respective evaluation of a disability resulting from a disease or injury subsequently service connected on the basis of new evidence from the service department must be supported adequately by medical evidence and it is the support by medical evidence that is the component that's missing here your honor correctly acknowledged that the one thousand nine hundred ninety examination and diagnosis simply did not address the question