13-35 540, 13-35 540

Veteran served on active duty from June 1964 to June 1967 and filed a claim for special monthly pension (SMP) based on need for aid and attendance (A&A) on July 25, 2005.
An October 2006 RO rating decision denied SMP/A&A for the 2005 claim; the Veteran did not timely appeal, so that decision became final.
The Veteran filed a new claim for SMP/A&A on September 28, 2010.
A November 2010 RO decision granted SMP/A&A, assigning an effective date of September 28, 2010 (the date of the new claim).
The Veteran requested an earlier effective date (July 25, 2005); the Board considered whether earlier entitlement could be established by timely appeal, CUE, retroactive pension rules, or other record submissions prior to September 28, 2010.
The Board found no timely appeal, no allegation or proof of CUE regarding the 2006 denial, no pre-September 28, 2010 submissions constituting a new claim or appeal, and no retroactive pension award that would trigger an earlier effective date.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether an effective date earlier than Sept. 28, 2010 is warranted for SMP based on A&A	Veteran: effective date should be July 25, 2005 (date of original claim)	VA: 2006 denial became final; new award stems from 2010 claim, so earliest effective date is Sept. 28, 2010	Denied — effective date is Sept. 28, 2010
Whether the October 2006 denial is subject to CUE such that the 2005 claim’s effective date should be revived	Veteran: implies 2006 decision was wrong and earlier date should apply	VA: Veteran did not allege CUE and record contains no timely CUE challenge	No CUE alleged; Board invited Veteran to raise CUE separately
Whether 38 C.F.R. § 3.401(a)(1) (retroactive pension) yields an earlier effective date for A&A	Veteran: earlier pension award date could make A&A payable retroactively to 2005	VA: pension for 2005 was already awarded (not retroactive); § 3.401(a)(1) applies only when pension award itself is retroactive	Not applicable — no retroactive pension award, so no earlier A&A effective date
Whether VA failed to satisfy VCAA/notice and assistance duties, prejudicing the claim	Veteran: may argue inadequate notice/assistance (not specifically alleged)	VA: VCAA notice satisfied; November 2010 grant rendered statutory notice issue moot; duty to assist met	No prejudicial VCAA error; record adequate for decision

Shinseki v. Sanders, 129 S. Ct. 1696 (U.S. 2009) (articulating the prejudicial-error standard for reviewing procedural defects)
Gonzales v. West, 218 F.3d 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (Board need not discuss every piece of evidence; summary of relevant evidence and focused analysis is sufficient)