UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR VE TER AN S CL AI M S

N O . 98-749
V ANCE I. H U RD , A PP EL L ANT ,

V
. T OGO D. W EST , J R ., S EC RE T A RY O F V ET ER A N S A FF A I RS , A PPEL L EE
.

On Ap pe a l f ro m th e B oa

rd of Ve te ra ns ' Ap pe a ls
(De cided Apr il 25, 2000 )

Se an Ke nd

all , o f Wa sh ing ton , D .C. , w a s o n th e br ie f f or the a pp e lla nt. Leigh A. Bradley , G e ne ra l Co un se l; Ro n G arv in , A ssi sta nt G e ne ra l Co un se l; Michae l A. Le on ar d , Deputy Assistant Gener al Counsel; and Richard Scott Ragan , of Washington, D.C., we re on the brief

for the a ppellee.
Be fore HOL DAWAY, I VERS, and GREENE, Judges

. HOL DAWAY, Judge : The appellant, Vanc e I

. Hurd, appea ls from a F ebrua ry 1999 decision of the B oard of

Veter ans' Appea ls (BV A or B oard) which dete rmined that he was not entitled to an

e ff e c tiv e date fo r a

tot a l di sa

bil ity ra tin g ba se d o n in di vi du al une mpl oy a bil ity (T DI U) pr ior to Ap ri l 7, 19 92 . B oth

pa rt ie s h a ve fi le d b ri e fs . T he Court ha s juri sd ic tio n o f t

he c a se un de r 3 8 U .S. C. § 7252(a) . For

the following rea sons, the Court will affirm the de cision of the B oard.

I. F AC TS The a ppellant serve d on active duty in the U.S. A rmy from Dec ember 1958 to Aug ust 1977. I n Se pte mbe r 1 97 7, the a pp e lla nt w a s g ra

nte d s e rv ic e c onne c tio n for int e rv e rt e br a l c e rv ic a l di sc sy ndrome a nd lumbosacra l strain with a combined 50% disability rating

. I n September 1984, the appellant submitt ed a claim for an incre ased rating

. The a ppellant did not specifica lly

state how his condition had worsene d but me rely offe red the g ener al conc lusion2

that his condition "ha s been g etting w orse." I n response , VA sent the a ppellant a letter

which stated that it was nec essar

y for him to submit evidence d es cr i bing his c urre nt disabilit y . The letter reque sted that if the appe llant had been treated at a VA medical fa cility that he inform VAof whe n and whe re he was tre ated. The letter a lso advised: I f y ou have not r ece ntly

been e x amined or tre ated by a doctor and if you cannot su bmi t oth e r e vid e nc e of inc re a se d dis a bil ity , y ou may su

bmi t y our ow n s tate me nt. I t should completely

descr ibe y our sy

mptoms, t heir fr equenc y

and seve rity , and any further involvemen t , extension or additional disablement cause d by y our servicec o n n e c t e d

d i s a b i l i t y. You ar e entitled to medica l t reatment without charg e for y our ser vice- connec ted dis a bil ity a t any VAme dic a l f

a c ili ty

. I f y ou r co nd iti on ha s w or se ne d, y ou

sh ou ld reque st treatment fr om your near est VA medical fac ility

. At the time the treatment is furnished, y ou should ask the fa cility to supply this office w ith a complete c opy of the re port of any

treatment give n [t o] y ou (including any diagnosis, treatments or clinical finding s). The a ppellant did not respond to the VA le tter. On Ap ri l 7 , 1 9 9 2 , t h e ap p el l a n t fi l edan o t h er cl ai m fo r a ni n cr ea s edd i s ab i l i t y ra t i n g. Pursuant to this reque st, VA provided him with a medical examination in J uly 1993. I n J uly 1994, a VA r eg ional office (VARO) incre ased t he appe llant's c ombined disability ratingto 70% and g rante d him indivi dual unemploy abil i ty eff ective f rom April 7, 1992. The V ARO found that the

a pp e lla nt w a s n ot e nti tle d to an e arl ie r e ff e c tiv e date be c a

us e he ha d n ot p ur su e d h is 1 98 4 c la im. The a ppell ant filed a

Notice of

Disag ree ment (NOD ) alleg ing that he was e ntitled to an

e ff e c tiv e date of

Se pte mbe r 1 98 4, the date wh e n h e ha d f ir st f ile d a c la im fo r an inc re a se d d isa bil ity rating . He state d that he had not se nt V A additional medical rec ords in 1984 beca use he did not have any , but that he had repe atedly reque sted to be re evaluated for his c ondition. He stated that he ha d written VA a

letter e x plaining that he did not have a ny medical e vidence an d wo u l d like to be evaluated bec ause his condition had be come wor se. In support of his claim, he submitted a state me nt f

ro m a fo rm e r c o- wo rk e r wh o sta te d that th e a pp e lla nt f re qu e ntl y ha d tr ou ble s at w or

k w ith his ba c k d

ur ingthe pe ri od

fr om 1 98 0 to 19 83 and

that in 19 83 he was fo rc e d to re sig n d ue to h is ba c k c on dit ion . In Augus t 19 96 , th e a pp e lla nt s ub mit te d a c op y of a 19 96 Soc ia l Se c ur ity Ad min istratio n d e c isi on

wh ic h a wa rd e d h im a

n e ff e c tiv e date of Decem ber

19 83 fo r h is b e ne fi ts. At a VA he aringin M arch 1997, the appe llant ag ain asser ted that he ha d responde d to the 19843

reque st for information. He stated that he had told the VARO that he did not have any new medic al

rec ords. He a lso stated that he had r epeatedly asked for a new medical evaluation f or his condition. At an Oc t o b er 1 9 9 7 BV A he ar i n g, t h e ap p el l an t aga i n i n s i s t ed t h at h e ha d re s p o n d ed t o t h e V AR O's 1984 letter a

nd explained that in 1984 he did not have a ny medical r ecor ds to submit in support of his c la im. On appea l, the Boa

rd found that a preponde ranc e of the evidenc e was agai n s t an effective date e arlier

than April 7, 1992, for the appellant' s TDIU benef its. Spec ifically , the B oard f ound that the appe llant had aba

ndoned his 1984 claim for an incr ease d disability

rating . The B oard he ld, [P ]rincip l es of administrative re g ularity dictate a presumption that g overnme nt officia ls have prope rly

discharg ed their of

ficial duties. That is, absent some evidenc e which would tend t o in d ic a te a d mi n istrative irre g ularity , the B oard must pre sume that any response mailed to the [VARO] would have be en re ceive d by the [VARO] and associate d with the claims file. The Bo ar d notes no such irre g ularities. Thus, the B o ar d mu s t c o n c lu d e th a t n o s u c h r e s p o n s e w a s s e n t t o th e [V A RO ]. Th e B oa rd a lso fo un d th a t th e re c or d did no t in dic a te tha

t th e a pp e lla nt w a s une mpl oy a

ble pr ior to April 1992. II. AN AL YSI S Th e e ff e c tiv e date of an awa

rd fo r an inc re a se d d isa

bil ity ra tin gis t he e arl ie st d a te wh e n it is a scer tainable that an incre ase in disabilit y occur red, if the application for

an incr ease is rece ived wi thi n one y e ar fr om the date of inc re a se . 3 8 U .S. C. § 51 10 (b )( 2) ; see Hazan v. Gobe r , 10 Vet.App. 511 (1997). The Court r eviews the Boa rd' s deter mination a s to the eff

ective da te of a n awa rd under the " clea rly err oneous" standard of

revie w. Ste war t v . B ro wn , 10 Vet.App. 15 ( 1997). Un de r t his standard, the Court must affirm the B oard' s fi n d i n gs if there is a " plausible basis" in the rec ord. Gilbert v. De rwinski , 1 Vet.App. 49 ( 1990). I n this case, the Court f

inds that there is a plausible basis in the rec ord for the B oard' s finding that the appe llant was not entitled to an ea rlier e ffe ctive date for his TDIU rating. The rec ord on appea l does not contain any medical e vidence dated pr i o r t o April 1992 which found that the appellant wa s entitled t o a TDI U rating. The first evidenc e which show ed that the a ppellant was

e nti tle d to a

TD I U r a tin g is the July

19 93 VAme dic a l e xami natio n ta ken in con

jun c tio n w ithhis claim for a

n incr ease d ratingfiled in April 1992. In his brief, the a ppellant ar g ues that his Social Secur it y aw ar d s h o w s th a t th e a p p e ll an t w a s u n e mp lo y a

b le a s e ar ly a s 1 9 8 3

. H o w e v e r, eve n4

assuming that this evidence de monstrates that a TDIU ratingwould have be en wa rra nted, in order to o bta in a

n e arl ie r e ff

e c tiv e date , his ap pli c a tio n must have be e n r e c e ive d w ith in o ne y e ar o f t he date of the increase in disability

. 38 U.S.C. § 5110(b)( 2) ("The eff ective date of an award of incre ased

c omp e ns a tio n sh a ll b e the e arl ie st d a te a s o f whic h it is a sc e rt a ina

ble that an in c re a se in d isa bil ity had occ urre d, if application is r ece ived within one y ear from such date .") Her e, the a ppellant filed his claim in April 1 9 9 2 b u t did not submi t the Social Security decision until Aug ust 1996. There fore , the Court finds no err or in the B oard' s assig nment of an e ffe ctive date of his awa rd. I n the alter

native, the a

ppellant ar g ues that the Septembe r 1984 VARO decision is not final be c a us e it ( 1) fa ile d to pr ov ide him no tic e of his a pp e lla nt r ig hts and

(2 ) v iol a te d th e du ty

to a ssi st by failing to sc hedule him f or a medical e x amination. Reg ardinghis first argument, the appe llant argues that the Septembe r 1984 VARO c orre spondence eff ectively denied his claim for a

n incre ased rating . He maintains that be cause of t hat failure t o inform hi m of his appellate r ights, that de cision ha s n ot b e c ome fi na l. H ow e ve r, un de r 3 8 C. F .R. § 3 .1 58 : [W ]here evide nce r equeste d in connec tion with . . . a claim for incr ease
. . . is not furnished within 1 y ear afte r the date of reque st, the claim wil l b e c o n s i dere d a ba nd on e d. Af

te r t he e xpir a tio n o f 1 y e ar, fu rt he r a c tio n w ill no t be take n unle ss a new c laim is rece ived. Should the righ t t o b enefits be finally established . . . [i ncre ased] compensation . . . shall commence not earlier than t he date of fili ng the ne w c la im. 38 C.F.R. § 3.158(a) . The fa cts of t his case fit square ly into the prescr ibed cour se of a ction under this reg ulation. The appe llant fi l ed a cla im for an incr ease d ratingand the VA RO reque sted additional evidenc e. When t he appellant did not respond within one y ear , his claim was conside red abandone d under 38 C.F .R. § 3.158. Fur thermore , this re g ulation r equire s no further action by the VARO until a new c laim is rece ived. Once a cla im has been abandone d under 38 C.F .R. § 3.158, the Secr etar

y need not a dvise a c laimant of his appellate rig hts. The a ppellant' s seco n d

ar gu m en t , t h at t h e S ep t em b er 1 9 8 4 VA R O c o rr es p o n d en ce i s n o tfinal decision bec ause the VARO violated its duty to a ssist, is based on the U.S. Court of Appea ls for the Fe dera l Circuit's (F eder al Circuit) dec ision in Ha y re v . W est , 1 8 8 F. 3 d 1 3 2 7 (F ed

. C i r. 1 9 9 9 ). In Ha y re , th e a pp e lla nt a rgue d th a t c le ar a

nd un mis taka

ble e rr or (C UE ) e xiste d in

a pr ior VA RO de c isi on . T he F e de ra l Cir c uit , a lth ou g h fi nd ing that CU E d id n ot e xist, he ld t hat " a sin g le re qu e st for pe rtinent SMRs [ service medical rec ords] spec ifically reque sted by the claimant and not obtained5

by th e [ VAR O] do es n o t f

u l f i ll th e du ty

to ass is t. " Ha

y re , 1 88 F .3 d at 13 32 . T he F e de ra l Cir c uit conclude d that if "the [VARO] brea ched the duty to assist in 1972, then t he 1972 [VARO] decision is no t fin al f

or t he p urp os es o f di rect app eal ." Id. a t 13 33 . App lyingthi s h old ingto t he fa c ts o f t

his

case , the appe llant argues t hat t he VARO violated the duty to assist by

failing to schedule a

medical examination. Thus, under Ha y re , the appellant aver s that the September 1984 corr espondenc e wa s
no t a fi na l de c isi on

fo r t he purp os e s o f a

pp e a l. On t he contrary , the C ourt finds that the VARO did not violate t he duty to assist in this case. The Septembe r 1984 VARO letter specific ally stated that the appellant was entitled to a VA medic al examination and treatment at VA ex pense. The letter instruc ted the appe llant to contact his local VA

me dic a l f a c ili ty to a rr ang e fo r a

n a pp oin tme nt. VA ' s d

uty to a ssi st " is n ot a lw ay s a

on e -w ay str e e t. I f a ve ter an w is hes hel p, he canno t pas si vel y wai t for i t. " See W ood v. De rwinski , 1 Vet.App. 190, 19 3 ( 19 91 ). I n th is c a se , if the a pp e lla nt h a d r e pe a te dly

a sk e d for an exam inatio n, he e a sil y c ou ld have had one sc heduled by following the instructions of the VARO' s letter. Se e Glov e r v . W est , 185 F .3 d 1 32 8, 13 32 (F e d. Cir . 1 99 9) (c la ima nt r e qu ir e d to pr ov ide e vid e nc e of inc re a se d d isa bil ity in order for VAto be re quired to provide me dical re examination). I ndeed, the appellant wa s urg ed by the VARO to make arr ang ements for a medical examination to which he was entitl ed fr ee of char g e, i f h e t h o u gh tt h er e h ad b ee n an i n cr ea s e. T h e ap p el l an ti gn o re d t h i s s u gges t i o nas h e d i d

t h e V AR O's reque st that he submit a more de tailed lay statement of how his c ondition had worsene d if he ha d not medical e vidence of an increa se. By failing to respond to the VA RO letter, the B oard' s finding that the a pp e lla nt a ba nd on e d h is c la im i s c or

re c t. T his re lie ve d th e Se c re tary of any re sp on sib ili ty

to

a ssi st h im i n p ur su ingthat c la im. Mo re ov e r, the Court

is n ot c on vin c e d th a t, e ve n if the VAR O ha d ma

rg ina lly br e a c he d it s duty to assist by

not scheduling an appointment, this brea ch woul d have be en the ty pe of " g rave proce dural e rror " c o ntemplated by the Fe dera l Circuit in Ha

y re wh ic h w ou ld r e nd e r a

c la im n on fi na l. Cf. Te tro v . W

est , __ Vet.App. __, No. 97-1192 (Apr. 4, 2000) . I n Ha y re , the Feder al Circuit stated, "When a veter an' s SMR ' s are unavailable , the VA' s duty to assist . . . [i s] heig htened .

. . beca use ' the

ve te ra n' s p os se ssi on

of [SMRs ] is a

de c ide dly a

bn or ma l si tuatio n. Th e Ve te ra n c ann ot r e a so na

bly be ex pect ed t o h ave s uch reco rds .'" Ha y re , 188 F.3d at 133 2 (quot ing f rom a VAcirc ular). T he Fe dera l Circuit concluded, " A bre ach of the duty to assist in which the VA fa iled to obtain pertinent6

SMRs specific ally

reque sted by

the c l ai m ant and failed to provide the c laimant with notice explaining the def

iciency is a procedura l err or . . . that vitiates the finality of an RO de cision for the pu rpo ses of d ir ectapp eal ." Id. at 1333. What the Fe dera l Circu i t did not hold i s as important as what it d i d

. T h e Fe d eral Circuit did not hol d that all brea ches of the duty to assist are suc h g rave pr oc e dura l e rr or s th a t th e y re nd e r a c la im n on fi na l. T he F e de ra l Cir c uit se e min g ly

sin g le d o ut S MRs for spe cial attention bec ause those rec ords are irrepla cea ble and in the hands of the g overnme nt. The SMRs are vital to most claims. Wit hout them, claimants g ener ally have no other means to prove that a disability

was incur

red dur ing military

service . I n the ca se at ba r, the e vidence alleg edly

soug ht by the appel l an t , i

. e., a medical examination, could have be en obtained w ithout gover nment assistance . Of c ourse, VAis require d by law to provide suc h assistance , wh i ch i t o ff er ed to t he appellant. Whether

or not such a putative violation is the ty pe of g rave proce dural e rror is a question left open by

the Fe dera l Circuit in Hayre

. Since the Court will affir m the Boa

rd' s decision on other g r o u n d s , t h e C o u rtn e e d

n o tan s w e r

t h i s qu e s t i o nt o d ay.

III . C ON CL USI ON After consideration of the pleadings and a r eview of the re cord, the Court holds that the

a pp e lla nt h a s not de mon str a te d that the B oa rd c omm itt e d eithe r le g a l or f a c tua l e rr or

wh ic h w ou ld

war rant re versa l or rema

nd. The Court is also satisfied t hat t he Board decision fulfills the "r easons or base s" r equire ments of 38 U.S.C. § 7104(d)(1)

. Se e Gi lbe rt, su pra . The de cision of the B oard is AF FI RMED.