UN IT ED ST AT ES CO UR T O F A PP EA LS FO R V ET ER AN S C LA IMS

N O
. 05-0080
S ANT I AGO M. J UAREZ , A P P EL LA NT ,

V
. J A M ES B. P EA KE , M.D., S ECR ETA RY OF V ETER A N S A FF AI RS , A PP ELL EE
.

On Ap pe al f rom the Bo ard

of Ve ter an s' Ap pe als

(Argued August 9, 2007 Decided Ja nuary 10, 2008 )
Kathy A. Lieberman , o f W ash ing ton , D .C

. , f or t he ap pe llant. Th om as Kn iff

en , with whom

Ti m S . Mc Clain , G en era l Co un sel ; R. Ra nd all Ca mp be ll , As sis tant G en era l C ouns el; B r ia n B . R ipp el , Deputy AssistantGeneral Counsel; and Willi am L. Pu ch nic k, S en ior

Ap pe llate A tto rne y, we re o n th e b rie f, all of W ash ing ton , D .C ., fo r th e ap pe lle e. Before KASOLD , MOORMAN, and LANCE , Ju dges . MOORMAN, Ju dge , filed the opini on of the Court. KASOLD, Judge , filed a concurr ing opinion. MOORMAN, Judge : T he ap pe llant, ve ter an Santi ag o M . Juarez , ap pe als through co un sel

a Jan uary 3, 200 5 , de cis ion

of th e Bo ard

of V ete ran s' App eal s (B oa rd) that den ied an ef fe cti ve date earlie r than August 1, 1997, for the gr ant of service c onnection for the appellant's back condi tion. Th e parti es eac h fi led

b rie fs , an d the a

pp ell ant f ile d a re ply

bri ef . T he rea ft er, the Co urt

he ard ora l argum ents i n th e ca se. Fo r th e re aso ns that f oll ow , the Co urt

wi ll m od if

y th e d eci sio n o n a

pp eal to remove from

that deci sion the Board's sta tement regarding the status of the August 1955 RO decision and a ffirm

the decisi on as modified.2 I. FACTS Mr. Ju are z se rve d o n a cti ve duty f rom Ap ril 19 51 to A

pri l 195 4. Re co rd ( R. ) at

18 . H e f ile d a claim for service connection for a back injury in May 1954. R. at 41-42. In an August9, 1955, decision, th e S anAnton io, Te xa s, VAreg ion al o ff ice (R O) de nie d th e cl aim , and the RO sent Mr. Ju are z n oti ce o f i ts de cis ion in a le tte r d ate d on e day lat er. R. at 5 9, 6 1. Mr. Ju are z as ser ts that he did not appeal the decisi on because he did notreceive not ice of the decis ion. Fo rty -on e ye ars later , in Mar ch1 99 6, M r. Ju are z ag ain a pp lie d for serv ice -co nn ect ed

co m pe ns ati on fo r hi s bac k co nd iti on . R. at . 35 9. In th at c lai m , h e expli cit ly a sse rte d th at h e n ev er received not ice of an adjudica tion of the clai m he f iled in 1954. Id. In April 1 99 6, t he RO de ter m ine d th at ne w an d m ate ria l ev ide nc e h ad no t be ensu

bm itt ed to r eo pe n h is c lai m

fo r se rvi ce
co nn ect ion

fo r hi s b ack

co nd iti on . R . at 36 2-6 5. Th e R O n ote d th at " ser vic e co nn ect ion

fo r ba ck inj ury wa s d en ied

in 8 -55 " an d th at there was "no rea so na ble po ssi bil itythat th e n ewev ide nc e submitted in connecti on with the c urre nt cl aim would change our previous deci sion." R. at 364. Mr. Juarez was notified of this deci sion in an April 1996 letter . R. at 36 2. He concedes that he received not ice of this deci sion. Tw o y ear s later , in

Au gu st 1 99 8, the RO grante d s erv ice conne cti on for pos top erativ e sp ina l stenosis, L4- L5, and assi gned a 60% disabi lity ra ting, effective August 27, 1997. R. at 435- 38. Mr. Juarez filed a Noti ce of Disagreement (NOD), disagreeing wit h the effective date of the award,

an d atta ch ed

the ret o a co pyof the Au gu st 9 , 1 95 5, RO de cis ion . R . at 46 3-6 4. Fo llo wi ngan ap pe al to t he Bo ard , th e B oard gr anted an e ff ect ive date o f Augus t 1, 19 97 , b ut n o e arl ier , f or h is

ser vic e-c onne cte d b ack

co nd iti on . R . at 89 3-9 05 . T he Bo ard grante d the earlier

ef fe cti ve date be cau se i t f

ound that, a fter Mr. Juarez had n ot a pp eal ed the Ap ril 19 96 RO de cis ion , h e h ad fi led

on Augus t 1 , 19 97 , anin fo rm al cla im to re op enh is pre vio us ly an d fi na llyd isa llo we d cla im

. R. at 90 4. Th ere af

ter , th e m att er c on cer

ningthe pro pe r ef

fe cti ve date f

or h is b ack

co nd iti on

wa s remanded by this Court. R. at 979-82. After a n ex te nded proc edural his tory, in Janua ry 2005, the Board is sued its dec ision on appeal denying an earliereffective date for service connect ion for a back disor der. In it s decision, the Bo ard fo un d th at the ap pe llant h ad no t ap pe ale d th e Apri l 19 96 RO de cis ion d enyin g h is r eq

ue st to re op enhi s c la im fo r s ervi ce co nn ec ti onforhi s b ac k c on di ti onandtha t tha t d ec is io n h adbe co me final. R . at 3. In so doing, the Board specificall y noted that the appellant , through h is at to rn ey,3

co nc ed ed at an Oc tob er 20 04 h ear ingth at the a pp ell ant h ad

re cei ve d no tic e of

th e RO ' s Ap ril 15, 19 96 , le tte r no tif

yin g h im of its April 199 6 R O d eci sio n (R . at 7, 9, 10 , 1 2, 13 ) an d th at i t w as undisputed tha t VA had rece ived no pertinentcomm unication from

the appellantprior to August1, 19 97 . R . at 12 . T he Bo ard de ter m ine d th at b eca

us e th e Apri l 199 6 RO deci sio n ha d be co m e f ina l, the assigned effective date of August 1, 1997, properly reflected the date of receiptof the application to reopen. R. at 13 (citing 38 U .S.C. § 5110). T he Board also det ermined that, because t he appellant

wa s n ot n oti fi ed

of the 19 55 de cis ion , th e 1 95 5 R O d eci sio n "d id n ot b eco m e final unt il o ne ye ar from the date the veteran w as n ot if ie d in Apri l 1996 of the RO's April 1996 rating deci sion confirming and continuing the pr evious denial of the claim." R. at 4, 11. On ap pe al, the app ell ant ar gu es t hat, a lth ou ghthe Ap ril 19 96 RO de cis ion de nie d h is c lai m to r eo pe n, be cau se t

he 1 95 5 RO d eci sio n de ny inghis ori gin al c lai m fo r se rvi ce c onne cti on

fo r hi s ba ck co nd iti on

w as no t y et fi na l at t

he tim e h is c lai m

wa s u lti m ate ly g ranted

in 1 99 8, an d b eca

us e that or igi na l claim

wa s f ile d w ith in o ne ye ar o f t

he ve ter an ' s d isc harge fr om ser vic e, the co rre ct ef fe cti ve date s ho uld

have be enAp ril 25 , 1 95 4, the day f ollowing his dis ch arg e f rom ser vic e. Ap pe llant' s B rie f ( Ap p. Br .) at 6- 13 . T he ap pe llant argu es t hat "[ u] nti l s uc h tim e as the RO pro vid es ap pro pri ate no tic e o f t

he 19 55 de nia l of

his cla im , th e inter

m ed iat e 1 99 6 de nia l of

reop en ingfor

lac k of new and m ateria l evidence r emains irrelevantto the conti nued nonfinality of the 1955 deni al of the v ete ran ' s o rig ina l cl aim ." Id. at 1 2 (c iti ngas ana log ou s Myers v. Pri ncipi , 16 Vet.App. 228 (2002)). The Secr etary count ers th att he u nappealed April 1996 RO decision and the Apri l 1996 notic e le tt erc ured any lack of noti fication of denial of the appellant's clai m in August 1955. Secretary's Br. at 16. In reply, the appellantargues thatthe RO's errorin mailing the 1955 RO decision was notcured by actua l recei pt by him of that decision and, there fore, the April 1996 RO decision di d not constitute notice to him of the 1955 RO decision. Reply at 1-5.

II. AN AL YS IS A. Law o n E ff

ect ive Dates The matter on appeal is t he effective da te for the awar d of se rv ic e connection for the appellant 's back conditi on. The law governing the e ffective dat e for an award of service connect ion is well est ablished and not in di spute. The effective dat e for any award based on the re opening of4

a cl a im m u s t b e b a s e d

o nth e d ate o f

re c e ip t o f

th e c la im

to re o p e n
. T h e g e n e ra l e f f e c ti v e date statut e p rov ide s th at: Un les s sp eci fi cal ly p rov ide d o the rw ise

. . . , the ef fe cti ve date of an

award b ase d on an original claim, a claim reopened after final adj udication, ora claim for increase , of com

pensation, depe ndency and in demnity compensation, or pension, sh all be fix ed

in acc ord an ce w iththe f

act s fo un d, but s ha ll n ot b e earli er than th e d ate of rec eip t of

ap pli cat ion

the ref or. 38 U. S. C. § 5110(a ). A cco rdi ng ly, wh ena cl aim is r eo pe ne d, the ef

fe cti ve date c anno t be ear lie r than the dat e of the c la im to reopen. Se e Flash v. Brown , 8 Vet.App. 332, 340 (1995); 38 C.F.R. § 3 .4 00 (r) (20 06 ). Th e U .S . Co urt

of App eal s fo r the Fed era l Cir cu it (F ed era l Cir cu it) has m ad e it cle ar that an ap pe llant g en era llycan

att em pt t o o ve rco m e th e f

ina lity o f a

pri or f ina l dec isi on

of t he RO or B oard in only one of two ways: By a request for revi sion of an RO or Board deci sion based on cl ear and unmistakable error(CUE), or by a claim to reopen base d upon new and material evidence. See Cook v. Principi , 3 18 F. 3d

13 34 , 1 33 9 (F ed. Cir. 2002) (e n b an c); see also 38 U. S. C. § 7 11 1(a ) (" A decision b y th e Boa rdi s subject t o revision on t he grounds of [CUE] . If evidence est ablishes t he

err or, the pri or d eci sio n s ha ll b e re ve rse d o r r ev ise d. "). Of th e tw o o pti on s f

or c ha lle ng inga f

ina l de cis ion , o nly

a re qu est fo r re vis ion

pre m ise d on

CU E co uld

res ult in t he ass ignm ent of

anear lie r ef fe cti ve date f

or an award o f s erv ice co nn ect ion , b eca us e th e p roper eff

ect ive date f

or an award based on a clai m to reopen can be no earli er than the date on which thatclaim was received. 38 U. S. C. § 5 11 0(a ); see Leonard v. Nicholson , 405 F.3d 1333, 1337 (Fed. C ir. 2005 ) ( "[A]bsent a sh ow ingof

CU E, [ the a

pp ell ant] c anno t r ece ive d isa bil ityp aym ents fo r a

ti m e fr am e earli er than the ap pli cat ion

date of his cl aim to reo pe n, ev enwi th n ewev ide nc e su pp ort inganear lie r di sab ili ty date. "); Flash v. Brown , 8 Vet.App. 332, 340 (1995) ("[W ]hen a claim to reopen is successful and the be ne fi t so ug ht i s aw arded upon readju dic ati on , th e ef fe cti ve date i s th e d ate of the cla im

to
reo pe n. "); see also Bingham v. Nichol son , 4 21 F. 3d

13 46 (F ed . C ir. 20 05 ). 1. Challenge to the prior final adjudicati on He re, th e ap pe llant’ s cla im f or VAco m

pe ns ati on be ne fi ts f or a ba ck co nd iti on wa s re op en ed and granted i n August 1998. The RO assignedan effective date, which was adj usted to August 1, 19 97 , b y th e B oard, an d th at e ff ect ive d ate is th e su

bje ct of th e curre nt ap pe al. Pr ior to the Au gu st 1 9 9 8 R O d e c is io n , th e R O i nAp ri l 1 9 9 6 h a d d e n ie d r e o p e n in g o f

th e a p p e ll ant' s c lai m . It

is5

un dis puted

that th e Apri l 19 96 RO de cis ion de ny ing reopening was a fi na l de cis ion . T he Bo ard specificall y found that (1) the appellantconceded thathe had rece ived not ice of that deci sion and (2) the Ap ril 19 96 RO de cis ion be cam e fi na l. R . at 7, 9, 10 , 1 2, 13 ; seeR. at 1 18 6-1 20 4 (O cto be r 2004 hearing before the Board). On appeal, the appellantdoes not challenge those findings by the Bo ard

. R ath er, th e ap pe llant ch all en ge s the B oard' s fi nd ingw ithre sp ect to th e im pa ct o f t he Ap ril 19 96 RO de cis ion

on his ori gin al 1 95 4 cla im . The Board de ter m ine d that "be cau se t

he ve ter andid

no t ch all en ge the Apri l 1 99 6 de ter m inatio n wi thi n a y ear

of rec eiv ingthe no tic e, anef fe cti ve date pri or t o Augus t 1, 19 97 , is not availabl e" und er 3 8 U .S .C . § 51 10 . R . at 12 -13 . T he Bo ard

co ns ide red

an d re jec ted the ap pe llant' s co nte nti on tha t hi s re cei pt o f t

he Ap ril 19 96 no tic e le tte r w as

"' wh oll y ir

rel ev ant' to t

he iss ue con cer

nin g wh eth er he had

rece ive d no tic e of

the Augus t 195 5 d en ial be cau se t he y re lat ed

to d if fe rent c lai m s, i. e. , wh eth er ne w an d m ate ria l e vid en ce ha d be enpre sented to reopen a claim of service connection for back disability rather than whether service connect ion

wa s w arr anted

fo r ba ck dis ab ili ty. " R . at 10 . In rea ch ingits de cis ion

on the fi na lity o f t

he Ap ril 1996 RO decision, the Board st ated: [T ]h e v ete ran

is c ha lle ng ingthe ba sis of th e Ap ril 199 6 de nia l, rathe r than whe the r he re cei ve d no tic e of

th e Ap ril 1 99 6 de ter

m inatio n. Th e bo tto m

li ne rem ain s, ho we ve r, t

hat hi s back disab ili ty c lai m , re gardl ess of the ba sis , w as d en ied

in an Ap ril 19 96 rat ingde cis ion , th at h e re cei ve d n oti fi cat ion of that deni al and

of his ap pe llate r ights, an d th at h e d id n ot a pp eal . A s su ch , f

ina lity atta ch ed

to t he Ap ril 1996 rating ac tion.
R. at 13. The Co urt

c on clu de s, a s did

th e Bo ard , that t

he a pp ell ant' s ch all en ge is a

c ha lle nge to the basis of the Ap ri l 19 96 RO decision. Se e DiCarlo v. Nicholson , 20 Vet.App. 52, 57 (2006) ("Furthermore, the conclusion thata prior dec ision is final is not a conclusion that t he prior dec ision is c orr ect , whic h c anbe reb utt ed bya showing of error

in t he pri or d eci sio n. Al tho ug h a fi na l decision enjoys a pre sumption of corr ectness, finality and correctness are different conce pts."). The appellantis essent ially ar guing that t he RO, in deciding his claim in April 1996 for compensation fo r hi s b ack

co nd iti on , s ho uld

no t h av e re qu ire d th at the ap pe llant s ub m it n ewan d m ate ria l ev ide nc e. Co ntr ary to t he ap pe llant' s as ser

tio n, the Ap ril 19 96 de nia l of reo pe nin g is no t "i rre lev ant" t o the issue of the corr ect effective date for the grant of servi ce connecti on for his back condit ion. In the Ap ril 19 96 de cis ion , th e R O d ete rm ine d th at n ewand mater ial evid en ce h ad

no t be ensu

bm itt ed to6

reo pe n h is c lai m

fo r se rvi ce c onne cti on

fo r hi s b ack

co nd iti on . R . at 362-65. Th e R O n ote d th at "se rvi ce c onne cti on

fo r ba ck inj ury wa s d en ied

in 8 -55 " and

that ther e wa s "n o re aso na

ble po ssi bil ity that the ne w e vid en ce s ub m itt ed in c onne cti on

wi th t he curre nt c lai m

wo uld ch an ge our pr ev ious decision." R. at 364. The prior Apri l 1996 RO decision is bi nding and its c lear la nguage cannot be ignored. The appellantis essentially contesti ng the f inding in the April 1996 decision that the 1955 decision was a final decision on hi s claim. The appellantcould have appe aled the 1996 RO decision and argued thatit incorrectly de termined the final ity of the 1955 decision. However, he di d not do

so. The appellant 's contention of errorwith respectto the 1996 final RO decisi on, even though presented i n terms suggesting a la ck of finali ty i n the 1955 RO decision, is a matter that is not currentl y on appeal before the Court and this i s not a m atter over which the Court has jurisdi ction. Assertions of err or in final deci sions below are generall y properly br ought pursuant t o a request for revision of the pr ior decis ions based on CUE. Se e 38 U.S.C. §§ 5109A, 7111; 38 C.F.R . §§ 3.105, 20 .1 40 0 (2 00 6); see al

so Jarr ell v. Nicholson , 2 0 V et. Ap p. 32 6, 33 2 (2 00 6) ( enbanc ). T he Co urt do es n ot h av e juris dic tio n, in th e co nte xt o f t his ap pe al, to c on sid er t

he ap pe llant' s co llater al atta ck on the April 1996 RO decisi on. Se e Cook, su pra . In thi s cas e, th e Bo ard

d eci sio n on

a pp eal e rre d in rev iew ingth e fi nd ingmade in the fina l April 1996 RO decision t hat the 1955 RO decisi on was a prior final disallowance of the claim for which new and material evide nce was requir ed for reopening. Because the Board lacke d jurisdi ction to make findings on whether the 1955 decision was a final decision, an i ssue that was i ntegral t o the fi na l 19 96 RO de cis ion

de ny ingreo pe nin g, we m us t m od if y th at p ort ion

of the Board d eci sio n th at fa ile d to giv e p rop er r esp ect to t he fi na lity o f t

he pri or d eci sio n o n that iss ue . Acc ord ing ly, the C ourt will modify the decision on appeal to remove from that deci sion the Board's stat ement regarding the status of the August 1955 RO decis ion, includi ng its sta tement that the Au gu st1 955 RO decision became final one year f

rom the date the veteran was notified in April 1996 of the RO 's April 1996 RO decision confirming and continuing the previous deni al of that cla im. Se e 38 U. S. C. § 7 25 2(a ); Seri v. Nichols on , 2 1 V et. Ap p. 44 1, 44 4 (2 00 7). Gi ve n th at t he ap pe llant' s argum ents f or an e arl ier effective date ar e all base d on a disagreement with the conclusion of the April 1996 RO decision, they must be rejecte d because neit her the Boa rdn orthe Court here has juris diction t o reverse or7

modif y the 1996 RO decision through thi s appeal. Cook, 318 F.3d at 1337 (coll ateral attacks on VA de cis ion s ar e li m ite d to tho se c reated byCo ng res s). 2. Pr ior fin al a dju dic ati on of t

hecla im Th ere is n o m eri t to the ap pe llant' s ar gum ent th at the Ap ril 19 96 RO deci sion w as n ot a decision on hi s claim for VA com pensation bene fits for his ba ck condi tion and tha t that RO decisi on decided a cl aim that is different from his origi nal c laim for service connection for his back conditi on. The Federal Circ uit made clear in Deshotel v. Nicholson , 45 7 F. 3d 125 8, 126 1-6 2 (F ed . Ci r. 2 00 6), that a cl aim does not need to be formally adjudicat ed, as long as i t is disc usseds ufficientl y in the body of the decision t o provide a cl aimant notice thatthe benefit was bei ng denied and thatthe claimant has the opportunity to app ea l that deni al. In short , to creat e finality, the notice of the decision must identi fy the benefit being deni ed; it nee d not give a valid re ason for denying it. Se e Bingham v. Nicholson , 4 21 F. 3d 13 46 , 1 34 9 (F ed . C ir. 20 05 ) (una pp eal ed de cis ion is f ina l as to a ll possible theories of enti tlement, not just theories ex pl ic it ly a ddressed). Where the re ason for denying the benefit is inva lid, the pr oper remedy is a timely appeal. Otherwise, the corr ectness of the decisi on can be dispute d only through a st atutori ly-author ized collate ral att ack. Cook, 318 F.3d at 1337. In t his cas e, the ap pe llant i nd isp uta bly ha d n oti ce f

rom the 19 96 RO decision t hat h e w as be ingde nie d VA c om

pe ns ati on be ne fi ts f or a b ack d isa bil ity

. B oth

h is ori gin al cla im

an d h is c lai m to reopen ar e claims for compensation for a back condition–a n asserted s erv ice-connected di sabilit y. Se e Sc hroe de r v. Wes t , 212 F.3d 1265, 1269 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (holding that VA regulatory provisions de fi ne a cl aim

bro ad ly a s an ap pli cat ion for ben ef its for a cur rent di sab ili ty) ; Roebuck v. Nicholson , 20 Vet.App. 307, 312-13 (2006) (hol di ng t ha t "a c laim is an applicat ion for entitl ement to a VA benef itb ased on a curr ent disabi lity") . Notably, the appel lant in Ma rch 1996 submitted to VA

co rre sp on dence in wh ich he stated : "P lea se c on sid er this req ue st f or S C [ (se rvi ce c onne cte d)] disabili ty for back injury . . . ." R. at 359. Based on this correspon de nc e, t he RO i n April 1996 denied his cl aim. Although the Court does not now have ju risdict ion to determine whether the August 1955 R O d ec is io n was a final decisi on because a chal lenge to the final April 1996 RO decision i s not now before the Court , the Court concl udes that the April 1996 RO decision putthe appellanton notice tha t his cla im f or compensation for a back disabi li ty wa s be ing denied. Se e Ingram v. Nicholson , 2 1 V et. Ap p. 23 2, 24 3 (2 00 7) ( "a r eas on ab ly r a ise d c lai m rem ain s p en din g unti l8

the re i s .
. . anexpli cit

ad jud icatio n o f a

su bs eq ue nt ' cla im ' fo r th e sam e d isa bil ity "). St ate d ano the r way, the appe ll an t's or ig in al cl ai m forse rv ic e- co nn ec te d c ompe ns at io n b en efi ts , even i f still pendi ng at t hat ti me, was deni ed

wh enthe Ap ril 19 96 RO expli cit ly d ete rm ine d th at n ewan d m ate ria l

ev ide nc e h ad

no t be ens ub m itt ed

to re op enh is cla im

. T he rea ft er, whe n the ap pe llant d id n ot a pp eal th e Apr il 19 96 RO d ec is io n wi thre sp ec t t o th e de ni al of ben efi ts for his bac k d is ab il ity, itbe ca me final. Se e 38 U. S. C. § 7 10 5(c ); Cook, 3 18 F. 3d at 1 34 0; seeals o Desh ote l , 457 F.3d at 1261. T he Court concludes t hat the April 1996 RO deci sion was a final pri or adjudica tion of his clai m f or VA
co m pe ns ati on be ne fi ts f or h is b ack

co nd iti on , i. e. , a fi na l p rio r a dju dic ati on of his cla im fo r se rvi ce connection for the back conditi on. The Court is not per suaded by the app el la nt’s att empt to equate this ca se with Mye rs , 16 Vet.App. at 228. In Mye rs , the app ell ant' s cla im fo r se rvi ce c onne cti on

fo r a b ack

co nd iti on wa s denied in April 1958. Id. at 229. Within one year of the mai li ng of notice of thatdecision, t he ap pe llant s ub m itt ed

a le tte r to the RO that th e S ecr etary f ail ed to r eco gn ize as an N OD as t o th at decision. Id. The RO subsequently denied t hree reques ts t o "reopen" t he 1958 denial and t he appellantdid not att empt to appeal them. Id. Final ly, in 1 99 6 th e R O r eje cte d ano the r attem pt t o "reopen" the claim, and that deci sion was appeale d to the Board. Id. at 230. After a Board remand, the appellant was granted be nefits, and he appeal ed the effective dat e assigned. Id. On review of the ef fe cti ve -date d eci sio n, thi s Co urt h eld th at the o rig ina l 1 95 8 R O d eci sio n n ev er b ecam e f ina l be cau se t he NO D h ad

no t be enpro ces sed, no tw ith stand ingthe int erm ed iat e d en ial s o f t he thr ee
c la im s to "re op en ." Id. at 235. As a resul t, the Board's 1997 decisi on was a continuat ion of the ap pe al that be gan w iththe 19 59 NO D an d "th e ve ter an ' s ori gin al ser vic e-c onne cti on

cla im wa s p art of th e curre nt cla im

s tre am ." Id. at 236 . The Cou rt rem an de d the matte r to th e Bo ard to a ssi gn an appropriat e effective date bas ed on his origi nal clai m. Id. The filing of an NOD in Mye rs dis ti nguishes itfrom this case

. Mye rs stands for the pro po sit ion

that on ce an N OD h as be enf ile d, fu rth er R O d eci sio ns , whic h d o n ot g rant th e b en ef it

so ug ht, canno t re so lve the a pp eal th at rem ain s pe nd ingb ef ore th e Bo ard . O nly

a su bs eq ue nt B oard decision ca n resolve an appeal thatwas initia ted but not completed. Se e Ingram , 21 Vet.App. at 241; cf. Smith v. Brown , 3 5 F .3 d 1 51 6, 15 26 (F ed . Ci r. 1 99 4) ( as an in fe rio r tr ibu na l, R O l ack s autho rity to u surp B oard b y c oll ate ral ly r ev iew ing its d eci sio ns ). I n th is c ase , th e ap pe llant h as n ot a lle ge d a juris dic tio na l barri er that w ou ld have p rev ented th e RO in 1 99 6 f

rom m ak inga d ete rm inatio n a sO ur s epar at el y w r i t i ng col l eag ue argue s t hat ou r decis i on t od ay p r ecl ud es t he assi gn m ent of an ear l i er eff ect i ve 1 dat e t hr ough any f

ut ur e c ol l at er al at t ack on t he 1996 RO dec i si on. W e need n ot reach that i ss ue i n t hi s deci si on, and w e h ave not done s o. W e do not e, how ever , t hat our dec i si on t oday i s bas ed upon a ce r t ai n s et of ci r cum st ances– spe ci f i cal l y, t he e xi st ence of

t he f i nal 1996 V A r egi onal of f i ce ( R O ) dec i si on t hat deni ed t he a ppel l ant ' s back cl ai m
. O ur deci si on hol ds t hat t he pr i or 1996 R O deci si on pr event ed t he cur r ent B oar d deci si on f r om r evi si t i ng t he f

i nal i t y of t he 1954 cl ai m
. W e vaca t ed a por t i on of t he B oar d deci si on so as t o pr ecl ude a ny ar gum ent t hat t he 1996 RO dec i si on w as subs um ed by t he pr es ent l i t i gat i on, i ncl udi ng t hi s C our t de ci si on. H ence , our dec i si on t o vac at e t he ul t r a vi r es por t i on o f t h e Bo a r d d e c i s i o n u n a mb i g u o u s l y me a n s t h a t t h e pr i o r RO d e c i s i o n i s n o t s u b s u me d

. T h e r e f o r e , t h e 1 9 9 6 RO deci si on m ay s t i l l be c ol l at er al l y at t acke d. I f a f ut ur e a t t ack on t hat f

i nal dec i si on w er e t o r es ul t i n a f i ndi ng of cl ear and unm i st akabl e e r r or , t hen t hat w oul d pr es ent a ne w or cha nged s et of ci r cum st ance s ( i

. e. , ci r cum st ance s not cons i der ed b y th is C o u rt in th is d e c isio n ) th a t w o u ld h a v e to b e c o n sid e re d in d e te rm in in g w h e th e r a n e a rlier e ffe c tive d a te is poss i bl e. O f

cour se , w e e xpr es s no opi ni on on t he mer i t s of any s uch a t t ack. W e, t her ef or e, al so need not r eac h t he i ss ue of w hat , i f a ny, e f f ect s uch an at t ack coul d ha ve on t he ef f ect i ve dat e now be i ng a f f i r m ed by t hi s C our t

. O ur dec i si on t od ay r evi ew s t he e f

f ect i ve da t e of

t he onl y cl ai m pr oper l y bef or e t he B oar d–t he c l ai m f or t he s epar at e A ugust 1997 c la im to re o p e n
. 9 to t he fin ali ty of

the 1 95 5 d eci sio n. Th e p roc edu ral po sture o f t

he ins tant ca se i s n ot s im ilar to that in Mye rs , whe re the R O, u po n re cei pt o f t

he NO D, wa s re qu ire d to pre pare a St ate m ent of

the Ca se. Se e 38 U. S. C. § 710 5(d)(1 ). Be cau se t he ap pe llant’ s 1 95 4 c lai m ha d n ev er m ov ed

int o an a pp ell ate status at VA, the su

bs eq ue nt A pri l 19 96 RO ad

jud icatio n w as an adjudication of the ap pe llant’ s claim. In summ ary , th e ap pe llant' s ar gum ent f or an e arl ier

ef fe cti ve date i s p rem ise d o n the asserti on that the 19 55 RO d ec isi on did not become final. However, the 1996 RO decision de term ine d

th at t h e p ri o r d e c is io nw a s f

in a l a s p art

o f it s d e te rm in ati o nth at n e wan d m ate ria l evidence had notbeen submitted. The 1996 RO decision provided noti ce that compensation for the appellant 's back condition was being de nied a nd gave him the opportunity to appe al a nd pres ent any and all ar guments of error, including the argument that its determination on finali ty of the 1955 RO decision was flawed. The 1996 RO deci sion was not appeal ed. Accordingly, i ts ruli ngs, including its fi na lity det erm inatio n, are fi na l an d b ind inguntil a su cce ssf ul c oll ate ral att ack

ha s b een m ad e. Th ere is n o s uc h c oll ate ral att ack on the Ap ril 19 96 de cis ion

curre ntl y b ef

ore the Co urt

. 1 B. Pr op er E ff

ect ive Date Pursu ant to 38 U. S. C. § 5 11 0(a ), the p rop er ef fe cti ve d ate f

or anaw ard

ba sed on a cl aim to
reo pe n c anbe n o ear lie r t han the d ate o n whic h th at c lai m wa s re cei ve d. In i ts d eci sio n, the Bo ard found that the appel lant's claim to reopen his pr eviously dis allowed clai m f or servic e connection for his ba ck co nd iti on

wa s re cei ve d b y VAon August 1, 19 97 . B ase d o n s ect ion 51 10 (a) , th e B oard10

co n c lu d e d

th at Au g u s t 1 , 1 9 9 7 , w a s th e ap p ro p ri ate e f f e c ti v e d ate a s am att e r o f law . T h e C ourt cannot conclude that thi s decision i s clearl y erroneous.

III . C ON CL US ION The January 3, 2005, Board deci sion is MODIFIED to remove the Board's statements on the status of the August 1955 RO decis ion. The decisi on, incl uding i ts de termination that the Apri l 1996 RO decision was final, is ot herwise AFFIRMED. KASOLD , Judge , c on curri ngin r esu lt: Al tho ug h I c on cur fully in af fi rm ingthe Bo ard decision in t his c ase, I writ e sepa rately (1) because I se e no basis for modifying the Board decisi on, and (2) to not e that our de cision toda y precludes t he assignment of a n ea rl ier effective dat e by attacki ng any decisions below based on clea r and unmistakable evide nce (CUE). Th e 1 99 6 RO d ec is io n no te d th atthe 1 95 5 RO de ci si onha d d en ie d M r. Ju ar ez 's i ni ti al cl ai m,
an d th at the 19 96 RO de cis ion de nie d M r. Juarez ' s cl aim to r eo pe n b eca

us e h e h ad

no t su bm itt ed new and material e vi de nc e. Al though denyi ng a claim to reopen becaus e there i s no new and

m ate ria l ev ide nc e n ece ssaril y im pli es t hat a p rev ious clai m

ha s b eco m e f

ina l, t he iss ue of

fi na lity of the 1955 RO decision was neithe r liti gated in the 1996 RO proceedings nor expl icitl y decided by the 19 96 R O de cis ion

. A cco rdi ng ly, c oll ate rale sto pp el (is su e pre clu sio n) did n ot att ach , and th e re f o re d id n o t p re c lu d e th e i s s u e o f th e f in a li ty o f th e 1 9 5 5 R O d e c is io nf

ro m b e ing rai sed

in another set ting. See Lawlor v. Nat'l Sc re en S erv. Corp., 34 9 U .S . 3 22 , 3 26 (19 55 ) (n oti ngthat collate ral e st op pe l appl ies to "i ssues actua lly lit igated and det ermined in the priorsuit")

. Se e generally, 47 A M
. J UR
. 2 D Ju dg m ents § 49 3 (20 06 ) (d isc us sin g th e d oc tri ne of co llater al e sto pp el)

. Thus , thi s cas e dif

fe rs m ark ed ly fr om

o ur de cis ion in Di Car lo v. Nicholson, 20 Vet.App. 52, 57 (20 06 ), h old ingthat an

iss ue exp lic itl y ad dre sse d and de cid ed bya B oard d eci sio n, ge ne ral ly, m ay
no t be re- ad dre sse d in

a su bs eq ue nt B oard d eci sio n e xc ep t on th e b asi s o f C UE in t

he ear lie r B oard decision. On the other hand, a c laim to reopen, although i t has its own disti nc t el eme nt s, i.e ., the req uir em ent f

or n ewan d m ate ria l ev ide nc e, is n ev erthe les s p art of th e ori gin al cla im

s tre am . T hu s, wh enthe 19 96 RO de nie d th e cl aim to r eo pe n because new and m ate ria l ev ide nc e h ad no t be en submitted, this deci sion could have be en appealed on any number of issues, one of which was the issue of whether new and material information was required in t he first inst ance. Otherwise s tated,11

Mr. Juarez cou ldh ave appe aled the 1996 RO decisi on on the grounds tha t the 1955 RO decision de ny inghim

ben ef its had not be co m e fi na l and

that the 19 96 RO erre d in d enyin g h is c lai m be cau se new and m ateria l evidence had not been subm itted. Mr. Juarez, however, never appealed t he 1996 RO de cis ion , and

the is su es that c ou ld have b een ra ise d in that a

pp eal w ere fo rec los ed

fr om att ack by applicat ion of res judica ta ( cl aim preclusion), see McDowell v.Brown, 5 Vet.App. 401, 405 (1993) (holdi ng that res judicatap rec ludes "furtherclaims by the parti es or thei r privie s based on the same cause of action, incl ud in g is su es ac tually l itigat ed and . . . tho se w hic h m igh t ha ve b een lit iga ted or ad jud ica ted the rei n ")( em

ph asi s ad de d); seeals o C

oo k v. Pr inc ipi

, 318 F.3d 1334, 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (e n banc) (applying the principle s of res judicata t o agency decisi ons that have not be enap pe ale d and

have be co m e f

ina l), ex cep t by w ayof re vis ion base d on clear and unm ist ak ab le error, see 38 U. S. C. § 5 10 9A ; 38 C. F. R. § 3 .1 05 (a) (20 07 ). In the Board decision on appeal , I do not believe the Board improperly examined the iss ue of fi na lity o f t

he 19 55 RO de cis ion , whic h w as r ais ed byM r. Ju are z. Rathe r, the B oard d isc us sed the facts, which inc luded recogni tion that(1) Mr. Juarez's 1955 RO decision had remained in a nonfinal st ate for a time, but that the 1996 RO decisi on denying his cl aim could have been appealed a nd, (2) his cla im

fo r di sab ili ty co m

pe ns ati on for a back disa bil ity– the in iti al cl aim

and the p urp ort ed claim to reop en–

b ecam e fi na l whe n the 1 99 6 RO d eci sio n wa s no t a pp eal ed

. S inc e the is sue of finality of the 1955 RO decisi on had not been litigated in the 1996 RO decision, the Board was not barre d f rom ad dre ssi ngbo th t

he im pact of th e 1 99 6 R O d eci sio n and the fa ilure o f M r. Juarezto appeal thatdeci sion on the status of the 1955 RO decision. Thus, ther e is no reas on to modify the Board decision. W ith regar d to a possibl e subsequent at tack on the 1996 RO decisi on, I note that ourdecision tod ayaf fi rm s th e B oard' s d eci sio n th at M r. Juarezis n ot e nti tle d to an effective date e arl ier than August 1, 1997, and our decis ion may only be attacked on appea l to the Feder al Circuit

. Se e Wi ns ett v. Principi , 3 41 F. 3d

13 29 , 1 33 1 (F ed . Cir. 2003 ) (h old ingthat C UE m ayno t be bro ug ht a ft er an
un de rly ingiss ue ha s b een ad jud icated by

a co urt an d n oti ngthat pe rm itt ingsu chact ion "w ou ld allow a lower tribunal t o review the dec ision of a higher t ribunal" ).