Citation Nr: 1306429 Decision Date: 02/25/13 Archive Date: 03/01/13 DOCKET NO. 06-35 664 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Waco, Texas THE ISSUE Entitlement to an initial rating higher than 10 percent prior to February 25, 2010, and an initial rating higher than 30 percent from February 25, 2010, for posttraumatic stress disorder. REPRESENTATION Veteran represented by: Vietnam Veterans of America ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD Debbie A. Breitbeil, Counsel INTRODUCTION The Veteran, who is the appellant, served on active duty from June 2001 to June 2006. This matter comes to the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal of a March 2007 rating decision of a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO), which granted service connection for posttraumatic stress disorder and assigned a 10 percent rating for the disability, effective in June 2006. The Veteran appealed for a higher rating. In March 2009, the Board remanded the case to the RO for additional development. In a July 2010 rating decision, the RO granted an initial rating of 30 percent for posttraumatic stress disorder, effective from February 15, 2010. The Veteran continued his appeal for a higher rating. In August 2011, the Board again remanded the case to the RO for additional development. The appeal is REMANDED to the RO via the Appeals Management Center in Washington, DC. REMAND The purpose for which the Board remanded the case to the RO in August 2011 was for the RO to obtain a medical release form from the Veteran so that it could request pertinent private medical records from David Missimo, M.D., who reportedly treated the Veteran (as related on a March 2010 VA examination report). In August 2011, the RO sent the Veteran a letter, requesting that he complete a medical release form authorizing VA to obtain the private treatment records of Dr. Missimo. There was no reply to this letter. Although the RO letter of August 2011 was not returned as undeliverable, evidence in the file suggests that the mailing address of the Veteran may not have been correct. The address, which was located in Frisco, Texas, and included a post office box, was different than the address to where previous correspondence was sent in Frisco. At about that same time, the Board sent him a copy of its August 2011 decision and remand to what it believed to be his address of record in Frisco, but that copy was returned as undeliverable in November 2011. The Board soon thereafter obtained a new address for the Veteran in Plano, Texas, and resent the copy to him in December 2011. After the claims file was returned to the Board in late August 2012, the Veteran in October 2012 sent a completed medical release form, authorizing VA to obtain his treatment records from Dr. Missimo. In a January 2013 statement, the Veteran's representative requested that the case be remanded to the RO to obtain the Veteran's private treatment records. In accord with the duty to assist, the Board will again remand the case to the RO to obtain the said private records of the Veteran. Accordingly, the case is REMANDED for the following action: 1. Request the Veteran's private treatment records from Dr. Missimo, as authorized by him in a medical release form received in October 2012. 2. After receipt and review of the private treatment records from Dr. Missimo, and any other pertinent evidence submitted by the Veteran, determine whether a new VA psychiatric examination is necessary in order to evaluate the severity of the Veteran's posttraumatic stress disorder. If the need for a new examination is raised by the record, schedule the Veteran for the examination. 3. After completion of the above, adjudicate the claim of an initial rating higher than 10 percent before February 15, 2010 and an initial rating higher than 30 percent from February 15, 2010, for the Veteran's posttraumatic stress disorder. If any benefit sought remains denied, furnish the Veteran and his representative a supplemental statement of the case and return the case to the Board. The Veteran has the right to submit additional evidence and argument on the matter the Board has remanded. Kutscherousky v. West, 12 Vet. App. 369 (1999). This claim must be afforded expeditious treatment. The law requires that all claims that are remanded by the Board or by the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims for additional development or other appropriate action must be handled in an expeditious manner. See 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 5109B, 7112 (West Supp. 2012). _________________________________________________ ALAN S. PEEVY Veterans Law Judge, Board of Veterans' Appeals Under 38 U.S.C.A. § 7252 (West 2002), only a decision of the Board is appealable to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. This remand is in the nature of a preliminary order and does not constitute a decision of the Board on the merits of the Veteran's appeal. 38 C.F.R. § 20.1100(b) (2012).