UNITED STAT ES COURT OF AP P EALS FOR VETERANS CLAIMS

N O . 98-2095
J ER R Y L. W OODS , A PP EL L ANT ,

V
. H ER SH EL W. G OBER , A C TI NG 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 De cembe r 15, 2000 )

Keith D. Snyder , o f O lne y , M ary land , w a s o n th e ple a din g s 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 , Assistant G ener al Counsel; and Mary Ann Flynn , Deputy

Assis t an t Ge n er al C ounsel, all of Washing ton, D.C., wer e on the plea dings f or the appellee

. Be fore KRAMER, I VERS, and STEI NB ERG, Judges

. STEI NB ERG, Judge , filed the opinion of the Court. I VERS, Judge , fi led an opinion c on c ur ri ngin p art

and dis se nti ngin p art

. STEI NB ERG, Judge : T h e ap p el l an t , Vi et n am v et er an J erry L

. W o o d s , ap p ea l s , t h ro u gh counsel, a J uly 21, 1998, decision of the Board of Veter ans' Appea ls (BV A or B oard) that deter mined that an ef fec tive date e arlier

than Aug ust 10, 1989, for an a war d of De partment of V eter ans Aff airs (VA) service connec tion for post-trauma ti c s tr e s s d is o r d e r

( PTSD) was not war

rante d and that denie d a cla im of clea

r and unmistakable err or (CUE) in a Fe bruar y 1985 VA re g ional office (RO) de cision that had denie d service connec tion f or PTSD. Record (R.) at 4, 14. The a ppellant has filed a

brief and a r eply

brief a nd the Secr etar

y has filed a

brief. The a

ppellant appe als only

the question of an

e arl ie r e ff e c tiv e date fo r t

he awa rd of se rv ic e c on ne c tio n f

or PTSD . B ri e f ( B r. ) at 1. Th is a pp e a l is timely , and the Court has j urisdiction pursuant to 38 U.S.C. §§ 7252(a) and 7266(a ). F or the re asons2

that follow, the Court will vaca te i n p a r t t h eBVA dec ision and remand the earlier-e ffe ctive-da te matter.

I. Re le va nt Bac kgr ound Th e ve te ra

n s e rv e d in

the U. S. A rmy

fr om Janu ary

19 66 to O c tob e r 1 96 8, wi th s e rv ic e in Vietnam. R. at 18. I n Dec ember 1984, he applied f

or ser vice c onnection for , inter alia, PTSD. R. at 75-78. On his applic at i o n , h e l isted his address a s the VA Medic al Center ( VAMC), Unit 8, Sheridan, Wy oming, 82801. R. at 77. He also listed his ex-wife as having custody of his children and g ave he r addr ess and include d his sist er a s his neare st l i v i n g relative, showing her a ddress a s "Havre , M on t. " Id . On two statements that the ve tera n sent to the VARO in ea rly Fe bruar y , the veter an used the same Sherida n VAMC addre ss. R. at 90, 93. I n J anuar y 1985, the RO reque sted fr o m t h e S h er i d an VA M C ex am i n at i o nan d t re at m en tre p o rt s re gar d i n g, i n t er al i a, t h e v et er an 's PTSD claim. R. at 87. The recor d on appea l (ROA) c ontains a copy of one c linical rec ord, re ceive d at t h e R O o nJ an u ary

2 5 , 1 9 8 5 , t h at p r o v i d ed , ap p ar en t l y , a n arra t i v e s u m m ary o f t h e v et er an 's ho sp ita lizatio n, bu t th a t VAM C re po rt c op y do e s not cl e arl y ind ic a te the ve te ra n' s n a me or

a dd re ss. R. at 83-84. On Fe bruar

y 6, 1985, the Sheridan VAMC notified the RO that the veter an had be en re lease d from that fac ility for "outpatient tr eatment"

. R. at 98. There is no indication in the R OA t h at t he veter an provide d the RO wi t h a chang e of a ddress at that time. Bef ore he was discha

rg ed, the veter an re ported to a V A phy sician that he ha d been acc epted in a 30-day prog ram in F ort Har

rison, Montana, a

ppare ntly at the VAMC ther e, provide d that he could a rrive by Fe bruar

y 7, 1985. R. at 127, 464. On Februa

ry 11, 1985, the R O denied his PTS D claim and ma iled notice of that decision to t he ve te ra n at th e Sheri dan VAM C a dd re ss. R. at 10 4. Th e She ri da n V AM C a

pp a re ntl y fo rw ard e d th a t no tic e to the F or t H arr iso n V AM C, b ut t

hat no tic e wa s u lti ma te ly

re tur ne d to the RO as undeliver able. R. at 105-06. T here is no evidenc e in the ROA that the vete ran pa rticipated at that time in any

prog ram at the For

t Harr ison VAMC, but it do es ap p ea r t h at he voluntarily chec ked himself into the Montana State Hospital on Fe bru ary 15, 1985, and wa s discharg ed on Mar ch 14, 1985 (R. at 263-66). I n Aug ust 1989, the vet era n filed a c laim to reopen his pre viously and fina lly

disallowed PTSD c la im. R. at 10 8. I n O c tob e r 1 98 9, the RO a g a in r e qu e ste d f ro m th e She ri da

n V AM C3

hospital reports for

the veter an for

the per iod of Dec ember

1985 to Febr

uary 1986. R. at 116, 133. I n Dec ember

1989, the RO rec eived c opies of t wo reports from the Sheridan VAMC (R. at 127-31), inc lud inga

c op y of the c lin ic a l r e c or d th a t th e RO ha d p re vio us ly recei ved fr om t hat V AM C in J anuar y 1985 (R. at 129-30). That Dec ember 1989 copy of the J anuar y 1985 VAMC clinical re cord in clu ded at

the bo tto m th e ve te ra

n' s n a me and

a Ha vr e , M on tana , a dd

re ss a s f oll ow s: " WOO DS, J ERRY L .[,] 451 5th St, N[ ,] Havre, MT 59501" (Havre, Montana , addre ss). R. at 127. I n J anuar y 1990, the RO denied the veter an' s PTSD c laim (R. at 137), but in September 1990 the RO g rante d the PTSD claim and assig ned a 50% rating , eff ective Aug ust 10, 1989, the date that the veter an had filed hi s claim t o reope n (R. at 202-03). He filed a Notice of Disag ree ment (NOD ) as to the September

1990 RO decision. R. at 208. I n September 1991, the R O confirmed t he 50%

ra tin g fo r PT S D

. R

. a t2 9 6

. I nO c t o b e r 1 9 9 1 , h e s u

b m i t t e d a l e t t e r f r o mt h e S o c i a l S e c ur ity Administration (SS A) that indi cate d that he had qualified for disability benef its as of Octobe r 1987. R. at 342-45. I n a Decembe r 1992 decision, t he Board denied a rating above 50% for PTS D. R . at 367-76. In that decision, the B oard note d t h at, although it appea red that the veter an had ne ver
rec eived notice of the F ebrua ry 1985 RO decision, he ha d not, before t h at dec ision, provided VA with an updated ad dress nor ha d he conta cted VAconce rning disability benef its for sever al y ear s afte r that 1985 RO decision. R. at 374. The ve tera n appea led that B VA dec ision to t his Court, and the Court in March 1995 issued a n order rema

nding the claim pursuant to the parties' joint m otion for r emand, whic h require d the B oard to " obtain all pertinent se rv i ce , VA, and pr ivate medica l

reco rd s , i n cl u ding Socia l Security rec ords" , in order to de termine if the ve tera n satisfied the require ments for a

70% or 100% rating . R. at 378, 379-85. I n J une 1995, the Boa rd rema nded the

c la im w ithins tr

uc tio ns that th e RO " c on ta c t th e [SSA] a nd re qu e st c op ies o f a

de c isi on a nd a ll

rec ords, including medical r ecor ds, reg ardingtheir determination of the ve tera n' s employ ability

for Social Security

disability purposes" . R. at 389. There is no evidence in the ROA that the RO made

su c h a re qu e st. I n a Marc h 1 99 7 a dmi nis tr a tiv e de c isi on , the RO de te rm ine d that it ha d f ulf ill e d it s d uty to

no tif y the ve te ra

n o f t he 19 85 RO de c isi on

by se nd inga cop y of tha t de c isi on to t he ve te ra n' s la st known addr ess, the Sherida n VAMC. R. at 498-99. Also in March 1997, the RO g rante d the veter an
a 70 % r a tin g fo r P TSD a nd a ratin g of tot a l di sab il it y

du e to i nd ivi du a l un e mpl oy a bil ity , b oth4

eff ective Aug ust 10, 1989. R. at 501. The RO found no er ror in its 1985 mailing be cause it had been sent to the addre ss provided by the veter an and he had not informed VA of any other a ddress. R. at 503. The ve tera

n filed an N OD as to the eff ective date, arguing that the RO should have use d the informa t i on on his Dece mber 1984 a pplication to locate him af ter he was discha

rg ed fr om the Sheridan VA MC. R. at 496, 536-37. I n the J uly

1998 BV A dec ision here on a ppeal, the B oard de termined, i n t er alia, that the

ve te ran was no t e nti tle d to an e arl ie r e ff e c tiv e date fo r t

he awa rd of se rv ic e c on ne c tio n f

or PTSD beca use it found that t h e 1985 RO dec ision was final in that the RO had mailed notice of that decision to the vete ran' s "la st known addre ss" a s it was require d to do by VA re g ulation. R. at 6.

II. Ana lys is Th e de te rm inatio n o f t

he e ff e c tiv e date fo r a

n o ri g ina l c la im is go ve rn e d b y 38 U. S.C. § 5 11 0( a ), wh ic h p ro vid e s: Unless spec ifically

provided other

wise in this chapte r, t he ef fec tive date of

an aw ard based on a

n orig inal claim, a claim reopened after final adjudication, or a cla im for incre ase, of

compensation, dependenc y and indemnity compensation, or pension, sh a ll b e fi xed

in a c c or da

nc e wi th t he fa c ts f ou nd , b ut sh a ll n ot b e e arl ie r t ha n th e date of re ceipt of a

pplication there for. 38 U.S.C. § 5110(a). The implementi n g regulation for orig inal claims provides that the e ffe ctive date sh a ll b e the date of re c e ipt of the c la im or the date e nti tle me nt ar os e , whi c he ve r is late r, un le ss the claim is r ece ived within one y ear afte r separ ation from service

. 38 C.F.R. § 3.400(b)( 2) (1999) ;
se e als o Tuc k

e r v . W est , 11 Ve t.A

pp . 369 , 372 (1 99 8) (c on c e rn ing e ff e c tiv e date of

or ig ina l c la im fo r s e rv ic e c on ne c tio n) ; Di ns ay v . B ro wn , 9 Ve t.A

pp . 7 9, 87 (1 99 6) . T he re g ulatio n f or c la ims to reope n provides that the eff ective date is the "[d]ate of the rec eipt of cla im or [t he] date entitlement

aro se , wh ic he ve r i s late r" . 3 8 C. F .R. § 3 .4 00 (r) ( 19 99 ); se e als o Li nk v . W est , 12 Vet.App. 39, 46 (1998) ( eff

ecti v e d ate of reope ned cla im is t he date of the a pplication to reope n or fa cts found, whicheve r is later)

. A Boa rd deter mination of the proper eff ective date is a finding of fac t. S ee ibid. (citing Ha ns on v . B ro wn , 9 Vet.App. 29 , 32 (1996)) . The Court re views B VA finding s of fa ct using the "c lear ly err oneous" standard of

revie w set for

th in 38 U.S.C . § 7261(a) (4). In deter mining whe ther5

a finding is c lear ly err oneous, "this Court is not permitted to substit ute its judgment for that of the BV A on issues of mater ial fac t; if there is a ' plausible basis' in the rec ord for the f actua l det erm in ati on s of the BVA, .

. . [ th e Co urt ] cann ot ov ert urn th em. " Gilbert v. De rwinski , 1 Vet.App. 49 , 5 3 ( 19 90 ); se e als o El k ins ( J oe ) v . W est , 12 Ve t.A

pp . 209 , 216 (1 99 9) (e n b anc ) ( " [u]nd e r t his standard, we cannot reve rse a finding simply beca use we would have rea ched a diffe rent c onclusion b as edu p o nt h e s am e r ec o rd " ( ci t i n g Gi lbe rt , su pra )). A. D ate of Re c e ipt of Cla im 1. Se c re tar

y 's Dut y to Se nd to V

e te ra n No tic eof

RODe c ision. The a

ppellant ar g ues that the PTSD claim, which the RO denie d in Fe bruar y 1985, is stil l pending befor e VA be cause the Secre tary has fa iled to demonstrate that he fulfilled his obligation to mail notice of the F ebrua ry 1985 RO de c isi on

to t he ve te ra n. B r. a t 1. Th a t argume nt, i n ess ence, is that th e Janu ary 19 85 RO de c isi on ha s n ot b e c ome fi na l be c a us e the RO fa ile d to noti fy the ve te ra n of that dec isi on and

of his ri g ht t o a pp e a l it to t he B oa rd and that, t he re fo re , th e date of

the RO ' s r e c e ipt of

his PTSD c la im i s that of his orig inal Dec ember 1984 application, not that of his Aug ust 1989 claim to reopen. "U nder the Court's c urre nt case l aw , i t i s well established, under 38 U.S.C. § 5104(a) a nd 38 C.F .R. §§ 3. 10 3 a

nd 19 .2 5 ( 19 9[9]) , th a t th e RO ' mus t pr ov ide noti ce of th e ri gh t to a pp e a l in regul ar an d i n s im ul tan eou sl y con tes ted cla im s. '" Pa rh am v . W est , 13 Vet.App

. 5 9, 59 (1999) (q u o t i n g T

h u r b e r v
. B r o wn , 5 Vet.App. 119, 123 ( 1993)). How ever , the cur rent statutory

and regulatory

provisions cited in Parham wer e not in exis tence at t h e time of the 1985 RO dec ision. The c urre nt statutory

provision, enac ted in 1989 b y the Vete rans' Be nefits Amendments of 1989, Pub. L . No. 101-237, § 115(a )(1) , 103 Stat. 2062, 2065 (1989), provides that, whe re the Secre tary ha s ma de a

de c isi on " a ff e c tin g the pr ov isi on

of be ne fi ts t o a c la ima

nt, the Se c re tary sh a ll, on

a tim e ly basis, provide to the c laimant .

. . notice of suc h decision." 38 U.S.C. § 5104(a). The curr ent ver sion of 38 C.F.R. § 3.103 was p ro m u l gat ed in 1990, see 55 Fe d. Reg . 13,522, 13,527 (1990), a nd pr ov ide s: (a) Statement of policy

. Every claimant has the right to written notice of the decision made on his or her c laim . . . . (b) The right to not ice-

- (1) Gene ral . Claimants and their re prese ntatives are entitled to notice of a

ny decision made by

VA af fec ting the pa

y ment of bene fits or the g ranting or re lief. Such notice sha ll clear ly s et forth the decision made, a nd6

applicable eff

ective date, t he reason(s) for the decision, .

. . and the r ight, a s well as the nec essar

y proce dures a

nd time limi ts, to ini tiate an a ppeal of the dec ision.

. . . . (f) Notif ication of decisions . The c lai m an t or bene ficiar y and his or her repr esentative will be notified in writing of decisions af

fec ti n g t h e p ay

ment of benef its or gr anting relief

. 3 8 C

. F

. R

. § 3

. 1 0 3 ( a ) , ( b ) , ( f )

. T h e v e r s i o na

p p l i c a b l e i nJ an u ar

y 1 9 8 5 p r o v i d e d

o n l y: (e) Notif ication of decisions . The c laimant will be notified o f an y decision aff ectingthe pay

ment of bene fits or g ranting relief

. 38 C.F.R. § 3.103(e) (1985).) As to VA " notification of rig hts", 38 U.S.C. § 4005 (now 38 U.S.C. § 7105(b)(1)) provided in p e rt ine nt p art :

Ex cept in the c ase of

s im u lt aneously

contested c laims, notice of disag ree ment shall be filed within one y ear from the date of maili ng of notice of the re sult of initi al revie w or de termination. 38 U.S.C. § 4005(b)(1) (1985). I n addition, part 19 of title 38 of the C.F.R. wa s revised in 1992, see 57 Fe d. Reg . 4,088, 4,106 (1992), and the regulation a pplicable in 1985, 38 C.F .R. § 19.114 (1985),

wa s r e numbe re d a

nd so me wh a t mo dif

ie d to c re a te 38 C.F .R. § 1 9. 25 , w hic h p ro vid e s: The c laimant and his or her repr esent at ive, if any , will be informed of appellate rig hts prov i d ed b y 38 U.S.C. chapters 71 a nd 72 . . . . The a g ency

of orig inal jurisdiction will pro v i d e t h is information in eac h notification of a de te rm inatio n o f e nti tle me nt o r n on e nti tle me nt t o [V A] b e ne fi ts. 38 C.F.R. § 19.25. The reg ulation applicable at t he ti me of the Februa ry 1985 RO decision provided, to essentially

the same e ffe ct, in terms of the r ight to appe al to the B VA: Th e c la ima

nt a nd the re pr e se ntativ e , if

any , w ill be inf

or me d of the ri g ht t o initiate an appe al and the time within which to do so
. . . . This information will be inc lud e d in

e a c h n oti fi c a tio n o f a de te rm inatio n of e nti tle me nt or no ne nti tle me nt t o [VA] benef

its by the ag ency

of orig inal jurisdiction. 38 C.F.R. § 19.114 (1985). Th e Court

no te s th a t th e B oa

rd and bo th p art ie s h e re have a ssume d th a t the RO ha d a du ty in 1985 to send to the vetera n notice o f t h e 1 9 8 5 RO decision and of his right to appe al it to the7

Boa rd. The Court a g ree s. Ba sed on the lang uag e of §19.114 ( 1985) in forc e at the time of the 1985 RO de c isi on , the Court ho lds that the RO ha d a re g ulator y du ty to i nf or m th e ve te ra

n o f h is r ig ht t o appea l the 1985 RO decision. Th e re g ulatio n in

e ff e c t in 19 85 did no t a dd re ss the pla c e to wh ic h no tic e wa s to be se nt t o
a c l a i m an tan d

an y r e p r e s e n t a t i v e " o f

t h e r i g h tt o i n i t i a t e ana

p p e a l "

. 3 8 C

. F

. R

. § 1 9

. 1 1 4 ( 1 9 8 5 )

. In his br ie f, the Se c re tary

se e ms t o a ssume that no tic e of the de c isi on

and the c la ima

nt' s a pp e llate ri g hts

wo u l d h av e t o b e "s en tt o t h e ap p el l at e's 'l at es tad d r e s s o f re co rd '". Br

. at 1 2 (q u o t i n g Hyson

v . B ro wn , 5 Vet.App. 262, 265 ( 1993)), 15 ( ref err ing to " viable maili ng addre sses for the a ppellant" ), 19 (re fer ring to VA duty

to mail notice to appellant' s "la st know n ad d re s s of re cord" ). Also, the Bo ar d , qu o t i n g an d

ap p l y i n g Hyson , su

pra , stated that "the Boa

rd must de monstrate that notice wa s sent to the veter an' s latest addre ss of rec ord in the ca se cur rently on appea l" a

nd that "it is only

wher e a file disclose s other possible and plausible addresse es t hat an attempt should be made to locate the veter an at a

n alternate known addre ss". R. at 8-9. The Boar d then concluded t hat "VA ca rried the b u rd en o f d em o n s t ra t i n g t h at n o t i ce o f t h e Fe b ru ary 1 9 8 5 [ R O] d ec i s i o n
. . . wa s s en tt o t h e v et er an 's latest addre ss of rec ord." R. at 10. The Court has be en unable to find any statutory or re g ulatory

provision in effe ct in 1985 that specifie s any

thing about the pl ace wher e the notice to the claimant should be mailed or delivere d. (The f irst refe renc e in the statute a s to the m ailing of notice of a

decision ca

me in the 1988 ena ctment of 38 U.S.C. § 7104(e) ( then 38 U.S.C. § 4004(e)) by the Veterans' J udicial R eview Act, P ub. L . No. 100-687, § 205, 102 S tat. 4105, 4111 (1988), which require d notice of a BVA decision to be mailed "to the c laimant at the last known addre ss of the claimant." 38 U.S.C. § 7104(e)(1) . Fur thermore , as noted a bove, the s ec t i o n 5 1 0 4 (a) provision as to notice of RO de cisions was ena cted in 1989.) Nonethele ss, for purpose s of t his analy sis, the C ourt assumes t hat a "la st known address of re cord"

re qu ir e me nt o r pr a c tic e wa s in e ff e c t a t th e tim e of

the F e br ua ry 19 85 ma ili ng

of no tic e of the RO de c isi on to t he c la ima

nt

. Th us , the n e xt que sti on is w he the r t

he RO , in

fa c t, f ulf ill e d it s responsibilities pursuant to 38 C.F.R. § 19.114 (1985) to provide the veter an with notice of the 1985 RO de c isi on

and his ri g ht t o a

pp e a l it

. 2
. P r es u mp t i o n o f R e gul ar ity . There is a presumption of re g ularity that attache s to the actions of public of

ficials. See I

NS v. Miranda , 459 U.S. 14, 18 ( 1982); United States v. Chemic al8

Foundation, Inc. , 27 2 U. S. 1, 14 -1 5 ( 19 26 ); Morris v. Sullivan , 897 F.2d 553, 560 (D.C. Cir. 1990). Th is Court

ha s a pp lie d th e pr e su mpt ion

of re g ula ri ty to a ll m ann e r o f V A p ro c e sse s a nd pr oc e dure s. See , e.g. , Re dd

ing v . W est , 1 3 V e t.A

pp . 5 12 , 5 15 (2 00 0) (a

pp lying pr e su mpt ion of re g ula ri ty a s to whether RO rec eived vetera

n' s power of attorney that was mailed by veter an to cor

rec t RO address) ; Ba ldw in v . W

est , 1 3 V e t.A

pp . 1 , 5 -6 (1 99 9) (a

pp lying pr e su mpt ion

of re g ula ri ty a s to wh e the r R O

e xami ne d a

nd c on sid e re d s e rv ic e me dic a l r e c or ds ); Sc ho olm an v . W est , 12 Vet.App. 307, 310 ( 1999) (applying pr esumption as to whether RO sent to claimant the applica tion form for de pendenc y and i n d em n i t y

co mp en s at i o n ). I nt h i s ca s e, t h at p re s ump t i o nat t ac h es t o t wo ac t i o n s : (1 ) T h e S ec re t ary 's

m ai l i n g o f n o t i ce o f t h e 1 9 8 5 R O d ec i s i o nan d h i s ri gh tt o ap p ea l i t ; an d (2 ) t h e V AM C 's photocopying of

the J anuar

y 1985 VAMC clinical re cord.

a
. Presumption a s a

pp lie d to ROnot

ic eof de c ision t

o v e te ra n: The Court h as held that there is a p re s u m p t ion of reg ularity that the Secr etar

y proper ly discharg ed his offic ial duties by

m ai l i n g a c o p y

o f a VA d ec i s i o nt o t h e l a s t k n o wn ad dre s s o f t h e ap p el l an tan d t h e ap p el l an t 's repr esentative, if any , on the date that the dec i s i o n wa s i ssued. Se e Da v is ( De sm on d) v . B ro wn , 7 V e t.A pp . 2 98 , 3 00 (1 99 4) ; Ashley v . Derwinski , 2 Vet.App. 62, 64-65, mot

. for recons. granted , mot

. t o d ismiss denied , 2 Ve t.A pp . 3 07 (1 99 2) ; Chute v. De rwinski , 1 Vet.App. 352, 353 ( 1991). The app ella

nt m ay re bu t th a t pr e su mpt ion

by su bmi tti ng" c le ar e vid e nc e to t he e ff e c t th a t [VA ' s]

' re g ula r' ma ili ngpr a c tic e s are no t re g ula r or that the y we re no t f

oll ow e d" , a

nd the " burd e n th e n s hif

ts to the Secre tary

to establish that the [VA] decision wa s mailed to the veter an"

. Da v is , su pra (quoting Ashley , 2 Ve t.A

pp . at 30 9) ; se e als o Ch ute , su pra . Absent evide nce that the veter an notified VAof a chang e of addre ss a nd absent e vidence that any notice sent to him at hi s last known address has been returne d as undeliverable, VA is entitled to rely on that addre ss. Se e Cro ss v . B ro wn , 9 Ve t.A pp
. 18 , 19 (19 96 ); Tho mp so n ( Cha rle s)

v . B ro wn , 8 Vet.App. 169, 178- 79 (1995), recons. on other grounds , 9 Ve t.A pp . 1 73 (1 99 6) ; se e als o Hyson , 5 Vet.App. at 264-65. " Howeve r, whe re a mailing i s returne d as undeliver able a nd a claimant' s file discloses other possible a nd plausible addre sses, [VA] must attempt to l ocate the vet eran at th e alt erna ti ve kn own add res ses ." Cro ss , su pra ; se e als o Th om

ps on ( Cha rle s) and Hyson , both su pra .9

Th e Se c re tary

argue s th a t " Hyson do e s n ot r e qu ir e VAto r e e xami ne the fi le in a ll c a se s to deter mine ' whether another addre ss is available ' " be cause "the Hyson Court specifica lly limit ed that decision to the ' peculiar ' fac ts of that case ". Br

. at 14. Howeve r, as indicated above , this Court has applied the Hyson holding in both Cro ss and Tho mp so n ( Cha rle s) , both su pra , wher e VA se nt notice of a B VA dec ision to a v et er an at the " last known addre ss" a nd that notice wa s returne d as undelivera

ble. We perc eive no significa nt differ ence in the fac t that the Cro ss and Thompson case s involved BV A decisions, wher eas the instant c ase involves a n RO decision. Thus, wher e, as he re, an RO has se nt to a veteran notice of an RO decision but that notice wa s returne d as undeliver able, that RO has the oblig ation to asce rtain by a re view o f t h e claims file whe ther ther e ar e " other possible and plausible addr esses" for the ve tera n. Cro ss , 9 Vet.App

. at 1 9-20. He nce, the presumption of re g ularity as her e applied to a

regular mailing is re butted and the bur den has shifte d to the Secre tary

to establish that that obligation wa s discharg ed. We hold that the Secre tary has fa iled t o m ee t h i s burden. A lthough, in esse nce, both the Boa rd (R. at 8) a

nd the S ec re t ar y (B rief at 14-15) state that there w as no other " possible and plausible" addre ss to which the RO dec ision could have be en mailed to the veter an, the Court notes that th e re is n o d isp ute that th e Janu ary 19 85 VA MC c lin ic a l re c or d wa s be fo re the RO a t th e tim e of its 1985 decision and that, ther efor e, it also was before the R O at the time that the notice of the 1985 decision mailed to the ve tera n at the Sherida

n VAMC was re turned to the R O as undeliverable. Although the 1985 co p y o f t h at clini cal r ecor d in the ROA does not re flec t any addre ss of the veter an, what appea

rs to be the same clinical r ecor d, rec eived by the RO in 1989, shows the Havr e, Montana, a ddress a s the curr ent addr ess of the ve tera n. b

. Presumption a s a

pp lie d to V

AMC p hot

oc op y ing of its re c ord : The pre s u m p t i on of regularity applies her e with equal forc e to the VAMC t ransmittal to the RO of a c omplete copy of the Janu ary

19 85 VA MC c lin ic a l r e c or d - - t hat is , a c op y that r e ve a le d th e ve te ra

n' s n a me and

his Ha vr e , Mo nta

na , a dd re ss, a s did the c op y of that re c or d that wa s se nt to the RO by the VA MC in 1989 (R. at 129). T his second application of the pr esumption of regularity serve s to show that the 1985 and 1989 copie s are copies of the same document and that the c ontents of ea ch ar e the same, including the showing of the 1985 a ddress. I n this reg ard, the Court notes that the absenc e of that addre ss in th e 1 9 8 5 c o p y w o u ld a p p e ar to r e f

le c t o n ly a p r o b le m in c o p y in g th a t d o c u me nt for10

purposes of c reating the ROA , and that such a bsence cer

tainly is not sufficient to rebut this second application of the presumption as to the addre ss be ing a par t of the 1985 copy . Moreove r, neither the B oa rd no r t he S ecret ary in any

wa y dis pu te that th e 19 85 and the 19 89 c op ie s a

re of the same medical r ecor d.

c . Ef fe c t of ap plic ation o

f p re sumption t

o mail ing and pho toc op y ing : There fore , the Court ho l d s t h a t t h e c l a i m s f

i l e d i d , i n d e e d , c o n t a i n an o t h e r a d dr e s s f o r t h e v e t e r an t o w h i c h the RO decision could have been mailed and that, beca use no such mailing occur red, the Secre tary

has fa iled to overc ome his burden and the presumption of reg ular maili ng rema ins rebutted. Acc ording ly , the Court also holds that the RO did not proper ly notify the veteran of its Februa ry 1985 decision and that, co n s equently , the veter an' s Dec ember 1984 claim for PTSD is still pending . Be cause the pendenc y of that De cembe r 1 9 8 4 claim will affe ct any deter mination of the eff

ective date of the veter an' s PTSD claim, the Court will rema n d the matter to the B oard to re adjudicate this earlier

eff ective- date issue in ac corda nce w ith this opinion. B. So c ial Se c urit y Re c ords and

Da te Enti tlement Aros e T h e ap p el l an tar gu es , ci t i n g Ste ga ll v . W est , 1 1 V e t

. A p p
. 2 6 8 ( 1 9 9 8 ) , t h a t t h e RO e rr e d in failing to c omply with the Court's Ma rch 1995 or der g ranting the par ties' joint remand motion that require d VA to obtain, inter a lia, Social Security rec ords (R. at 3 7 8 , 383), and to c omply with the Boa rd' s J une 1995 re mand orde r that the RO conta ct t he S SA and request a copy of t he SSA decision

and of a ll r e c or ds it ha d as to the ve te ra n' s une mpl oy a

bil ity (R . at 398 ). Th e Se c re tary c on fe sse s in his br ie f t

hat it do e s n ot a

pp e ar t hat th e RO mad e any reques t f or the ve te ra

n' s So c ia l Se c ur ity

rec ords. B r. at 7, 19. Th e Se c re tary

argue s, no ne the le ss, that the a pp e lla nt' s argume nt sh ou ld be re je c te d b e c a

us e it is not pertinent to the ear lier-e ffe ctive-date issue, which is the only issue befor e the Court. B r. at 20. The Court holds, howeve r, that there is evidence in the rec ord that t h e v eteran wa s rec eiving SSA dis ability benef

its as early as October 1987 (R. at 342), and that any such evide nce that might

su pp or t an e arl ie r- e ff

e c tiv e date fo r P TSD purs ua nt to 38 U.S.C . § 51 10 (a ), (b )( 2) and 38 C.F .R. § 3 .4 00 (b )( 2) , w ou ld b e re le va nt t o th e ins tant m a tte r. Th e Cou rt no te s tha t th e e arl ie r- e ff

e c tiv e -d a te mat te r is o nd ir e c t a

p p e a l f r o m t h e v e te r an ' s s e r

v ic e - c o n n e c ti o nc la im

a s to PT SD , w h ic h w as eff ective in August 1989, and there is, there fore , no question but that the claim was we ll gr ounded.11

Pursuant to 38 U.S.C. § 5107(a) as in ef fec t during the pende n cy o f t h i s cl aim, once a claimant submitt ed a well-g rounded c laim, the Secre tary was re quired to assist that claimant " in developing the fac ts pe rtinent to the claim" , see 38 C.F .R. § 3.1 59 (1 99 9) ; Epps v. Gobe r , 126 F.3d 1464, 1469 (F e d. Cir . 1 99 7) ; Gr iv ois v . B ro wn , 6 Vet.App. 136, 139 ( 1994), and that duty involved reque sting information from other Fe dera l de partments or ag encie s, see 38 U. S.C. § 5 10 6, 51 07 (a ). Th e SSA

re c or ds wo uld

be " pe rt ine nt" to the e ff

e c tiv e date fo r the awa

rd of PTSD se rv ic e c on ne c tio n, be c a us e the y may pr ov ide me dic a l e vid e nc e of wh e the r he ha d a d ia g no sis of PTSD e arl ie r t

ha n th e Au g us t 1989 date a ssigne d to that awar d in the September 1990 RO decision. The followingquote (a djusted to refle ct the fa cts of t he ins tant case ) fr om the Court's r ece nt opinion in McG rath v. Gober illust rate s the posture of

this case: I n sum, t h e C ourt finds that this issue must be re manded to the B oard f or rea djudication of t he effec tive date of the appellant's PTS D claim and to assign the appropr iate disability rating s if nece ssary
. First, the Boa rd must de termine whe n the a pp e lla nt' s se rv ic e -c onnected

dis a bil ity manif e ste d it se lf

un de r .
. . a ll o f t

he " fa c ts found , " in c lu d in g th e [S SA r e c o r d s ] in qu e s ti o n , an d a s s ig n an e f f e c ti v e d a te no e arl ie r t ha n [D e c e mbe r 19 84 ]. Of

c ours e , w he the r o r n ot t

hat e vid e nc e su

bmi tte d is c re dib le a nd

su ff ic ie nt t o s up po rt

a de termi nation

that an e arl ie r e ff

e c tiv e date is war rante d is a finding of f

ac t fo r t h e Boa

rd to deter

mine in the first instance. See He ns le yv . W est , 212 F.3d 1255 (F ed. Cir. 2000)

. Second, if the B oard ha s assig ned an e arl ie r e ff

e c tiv e date of an aw ard , th e B oa rd mus t a ssi g n th e a

pp ro pr ia te dis a

bil ity rating or ratings. De pendent on the " fac ts found," this rating may be a constant rating if the disability

has bee n consistent in severity or a " stag ed" rating if the disability has fluctuate d in severity

. Se e Fe nd e rso n v . W

est , 12 Vet.App. 119 ( 1999).
Mc Grath , 14 Vet.App. 28, 35 (2000). According ly , in light of e vidence indicating that the appe llant

was re ceivingSocial Security disability bene fi t s (R

. at 342), VAwas oblig ated to have attempted to obtain the appellant' s SS A re cords pur suant to its duty to assist under sec tion 5107(a) a s in effe ct during the pende ncy

of this case , and a r emand would be nece ssary in order f

or VA to make that reque st. Se e Vo e rth v . W

est , 1 3 Ve t.A

pp
. 11 7, 12 1 (1 99 9) (o nc e c la im is w e ll g ro un de d, VAha s d uty to a ssi st that in clu des res po ns ibi lity to o bta in a

ny re le va nt r e c or ds fr om S SA) ; Ba k e r v . W est , 11 Vet.App. 163, 169 (1998) (whe n VA is put on notice of SSA re cords prior to i s s u an ce o f f inal de c isi on , B oa

rd mus t se e k to ob ta in re c or ds purs ua nt to s e c tio n 5 10 7( a ) d

uty to a ssi st) ; Murincsak v. De rwinski , 2 Vet.App. 363, 370 (1992) (VA has statutory duty to acquire both SS A dec ision and

su pp or tin g me dic a l r e c or ds pe rt ine nt t o w e ll- g ro un de d c la im) ; see also 38 U.S.C. § 5103A(b)(c )(3)12

(as a dded by

the Vete rans Claims Assistance A ct of 2000, Pub. L

. No. 106-475, § 3, 114 Stat. 2096 (Nov. 9, 2000) a

nd relating to VA obta ining a ny rele vant re cords of

any Fe dera l d ep ar t m ent or ag ency in all disabilit y

compensation claims). Moreove r, in Ste

ga ll , this Court held t hat "a remand by this Court or t he B oard c onfer s on the veter an or othe r cla imant, a s a matter of law, the rig ht to compliance with the rema nd order s" a

nd that "the Secre tary

. . . [had] a concomitant duty to ensure c ompliance with the ter ms of the re mand" and th at th us "th e Boardit sel f errs in fai li ng to in su re co mp li ance. " Ste ga ll , 11 Ve t.A

pp . at 2 71 ; see als o Ro be rts (

Me lv y n) v . W est , 13 Vet.App. 185, 189 ( 1999) (no Ste ga ll duty absent submission of well-g rounded c laim). As to this claim, both the Court, by virtue of its Marc h 1995 order g ranting the joint remand motion (R. at 378), and the Boa rd, in its J une 1995 re m an d order (R. at 387), require d the RO to contac t the SSA and obtain a ny Social Security rec ords that would be per tinent to t he ve te ra n' s PT SD c la im. B e c a

us e , a s n ote d b y

the Se c re tary , th e re is n o e vid e nc e that th e RO

c o mp l i e d w i t h t h o s e r e m an d

i n s t r u c t i o n s , a r e m an d i s a l s o r e qu i r e d

b y Ste ga ll in order f

or the Secre tary to obtain any

pertinent re cords f

rom the SSA.

III. Conclusi on Up on c on sid e ratio n o f t

he fo re g oin g ana ly sis , the RO A, and the su bmi ssi on s o f t

he pa rt ie s, the Court va c a te s in

pa rt the July 21 , 1 99 8, B VAde c isi on and re mand s th e e arl ie r- e ff

e c tiv e -d a te matter for expeditious further development a nd issuance of

a re adjudicate d decision supported by an ade quate state ment of re asons or ba ses, see 38 U.S .C. §§ 1110, 5107, 5110, 7104(a), ( d)(1) ; 38 C.F .R. § 3 .4 00 ; Fletche r v. De rwinski , 1 Ve t.A pp
. 39 4, 39 7 (1 99 1) , a ll c on sis te nt wi th thi s opinion and in acc ordanc e with all applica ble law a nd regulation and with section 302 of the Veter ans' Be nefits I mprovements Ac t, P ub. L . No. 103-446, § 302, 108 Stat. 4645, 4658 (1994) (fo u n d a t 3 8 U

. S. C. § 5 1 0 1 n o te ) ( r e qu ir in g Se c r e ta r y to p r o v id e f

o r " e xp e d it io u s tr e atment" for claims rema

nded by BV A or the Court). Se e Al lda yv . B ro wn , 7 Vet.App. 517, 533-34 (1995). On

rema nd, the appe llant will be free to submit add i t i o n al evidenc e and a rg ument on the re manded claim in acc ordan c e w ith Kut sc he ro us k yv . W est , 12 Vet.App. 369, 372- 73 (1999) ( per c uriam orde r), and all applicable law and reg ulation. As noted i n part I I ., above, a re mand by this Court and by

the Boa rd conf ers on an appellant the rig ht to VA compliance with the terms of the r emand or der a nd13

imposes on the Secre tary a conc omitant duty to ensure c ompliance with those ter ms. Se e Ste

ga ll , su pra . A final de cision by the B oard f

ollowing the r emand he rein orde red w ill constit ute a ne w decision that, if adverse, may be appe aled to this Court only upon the filing of a ne w Notice of Appea l with the Court not later than 120 day s afte r the date on which notice of the new B oard f inal decision is mailed to the appe llant. Se e Ma rsh v . W est , 11 Vet.App. 468, 472 ( 1998). I n light of the Court's Ma rch 1995 r emand or der that was not complied with, the Secr etar y is directed t o s ee k t h e S ocial Secur ity rec ords at issue her e not later than 30 day s after

the date of issuance of this opini on and to re port to the Court not later than 90 da y s after the date of

such opinion issuance as to whe ther those SSA rec ords have been obta ined. See F ri sci a v. Bro wn , 7 Ve t.A pp
. 29 4, 29 7- 98 (1 99 4) ; cf. Dambach v. Gobe r , 2 2 3 F

. 3 d 1 3 7 6 , 1 3 8 1 ( F e d

. Ci r
. 2 0 0 0 ) ( " [w ]e be lie ve it wou ld be a

pp ro pr ia te fo r t

he

. . . Co ur

t to se t a de a dli ne by

wh ic h th is v e te ra

n' s c a se wi ll be conc luded" ). VACATED I

N PART AND REMANDED

.

I VERS, Judge , concur

ring in part and dissenting in part: Iconcur in the majority ' s conclusion that the veter an' s Dec ember 1984 claim is still pe nding a nd its decision to remand his ca se on that b as i s
. Ho we v er , Im u s td i s s en tas t o t h e C o u rt 's o rd er d i re ct i n g t h e S ec re t ary

t o o b t ai nt h e v et er an 's Soc ia l Se c ur ity

Ad min istratio n ( SSA ) r e c or ds . It is an a c tio n th a t is a t be st s up e rf luo us
. Th e Co u r t h a s c o r r e c t l y c o n c l u d e d t h a t t h e R O d i d n o t p r o p e r l y n o t i f y t h e v e t e r an o f i ts Fe bruar y 1985 decision deny

ing his c laim. Ba sed upon this proc edura l failure, the Court found that the veter an' s 1984 claim is stil l open and pending before the RO. See M atter of the Fee A greem ent of Cox , 10 Vet.App. 361, 374- 75 (1997) ; s e e als o Tab laz on v . B ro wn , 8 Vet.App. 359, 361 ( 1995) (fa il i n g t o p roce durally

comply with the statutorily

mandated r equire ments preve nts a claim fr om becoming final for purposes of an appea l to the Court). Section 3.160(c) of the Code o f F eder al Reg ulations (C.F.R.) defines a "pendingclaim" as " [a] n application, for mal or informa l, which has not be en finally adjudicate d." Since the veter an' s claim is pe nding, it is subj ec t t o fu rt h er development by

the RO. Se e Pr ic e v . B ro wn , 8 Ve t.A pp . 5 27 (1 99 5) . " F ur

the r d e ve lop me nt" wo uld require that the RO obtain the veteran' s SSA rec ords because evidence contained in the re cord a nd the ve te ra n' s a pp e a l ha ve se rv e d to pu t V A o n notic e of the e xiste nc e of

SSA re c or ds and

the ir14

rele vance to the veter an' s claim. See Ha y es v . B ro wn , 9 Vet.App. 67, 73- 74 (1996) ( "V A is require d to obt a in e vid e nc e fr om t

he [SSA]) ; se e als o McCormick v. Gobe r , 14 Vet.App. 39 ( 2000); Colli er v. De rwinski , 1 Vet.App. 413, 417 ( 1991). Ther efore, o rd er i ng the Secr etar y to perfor m an ac t alre ady require d by

law see ms unnece ssary
. I t is c le ar that the Se c re tary did no t f ull y c omp ly wi th t he re mand

ins tr uc tio ns of thi s Co ur t, and that he should be admonished in that re g ard. The veter an had a cce ss to, if not actual possession of the SSA rec ords in question. The duty to assist is not a one- way street, and the veter an could have submitt ed the SSA rec ords to the RO. S e e H u rd v
. W e st , 1 3 Ve t

. App. 449, 452 (2000) ( veter an cannot pa ssively

wait for he lp from VA)

. Additionally , while I

ag ree that the veter an' s SS A re cords should be obta ined, I believe the majority has inflated the importance of these r ecor ds in establishing the veter an' s entitlement to an

e arl ie r e ff e c tiv e date

. Se c tio n 5 11 0 ( a ) o f t itl e 38 of the U. S. Co de pr ov ide s th a t " the e ff e c tiv e date of an a wa rd ba se d o n a

n o ri g ina l c la im .

. . sh a ll b e fi xed in a c c or da

nc e wi th the fa c ts fo un d, bu t sh a ll not be ea rlier than the date of

rec eipt of application therefor ." T he re g ulation provides that the eff ective da te shall be either the date of receipt of the claim or t he date entitlement arose , whicheve r is the later. 38 C.F .R. § 3.400(b)(2) (1991). The re is no evide nce in the r ecor d, nor i s there an alleg ation by

the veter an, that the SSA disability ben ef i t s h e was rece iving in Oc tober 1987 we re based on his suff

eringfrom PTSD. There fore , the majority ' s insist ence that these S SA rec ords might pr ov ide the re qu isi te e vid e nc e the ve te ra n ne e ds to e sta

bli she nti tle me nt t o a

n e arl ie r e ff

e c tiv e date is s pe c ulativ e , at be st.