Citation Nr: 1320919 Decision Date: 06/28/13 Archive Date: 07/05/13 DOCKET NO. 10-00 979 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Waco, Texas THE ISSUE Entitlement to an initial rating higher than 30 percent for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). REPRESENTATION Veteran represented by: Disabled American Veterans ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD Adrian Jackson, Counsel INTRODUCTION The Veteran had active service from July 1967 to July 1970. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a May 2009 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO), in Waco, Texas, which granted service connection for PTSD. The RO assigned a 30 percent rating, effective on December 18, 2008, the date of the claim. In September 2009, the Veteran responded by appealing for a higher initial rating for this condition. See Fenderson v. West, 12 Vet. App. 119 (1999). The Veteran also disagreed with the effective date assigned for the grant of service connection for PTSD. A statement of the case (SOC) was issued in September 2010. The Veteran did not perfect a timely appeal. In a June 2013 statement, the Veteran's representative again raised the issue of an earlier effective for the grant of service connection. The RO has not had opportunity to address this issue however; and as the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ), the RO must consider this claim in the first instance. Therefore, the Board does not have jurisdiction over this claim so is referring it to the RO for appropriate development and consideration. See Godfrey v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 398 (1995) (the Board generally does not have jurisdiction over an issue not yet adjudicated by the RO). The appeal is REMANDED to the RO via the Appeals Management Center (AMC), in Washington, DC. VA will notify the appellant if further action is required. REMAND The Veteran is claiming that an increased rating is warranted for PTSD. A VA examination was conducted in May 2010. At that time, the examiner noted that the Veteran was being followed for medication management and individual therapy by VA and he noted that the most recent VA mental health outpatient note was in March 2010. However, the Board observes that since that that time, additional VA mental health outpatient treatment notes have been added to the Veteran's virtual VA paperless record. See, e.g., North Texas Health Care System mental health outpatient clinic notes dated in August 2011, February 2012, June 2012, and February 2013. Arguably, these records show a possible change in the severity of the Veteran's service-connected PTSD. Moreover, there is no indication that the RO has reviewed these relevant outpatient records in connection with the Veteran's appeal. The record indicates that the most recent supplemental statement of the case predates the records referenced above, as it was issued in May 2010. In light of the above, the Board finds that additional development is warranted to determine the current severity and manifestations of the Veteran's service-connected PTSD. See Snuffer v. Gober, 10 Vet. App. 400, 403 (1997); Caffrey v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 377, 381 (1994) (an examination too remote for rating purposes cannot be considered "contemporaneous"). VA is required to afford the Veteran a contemporaneous VA examination. See Palczewski v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 174, 181 (2007); Snuffer, 10 Vet. App. at 403; see also VAOPGCPREC 11-95 (1995), 60 Fed. Reg. 43186 (1995). Therefore, the Board finds that the Veteran should be afforded another VA compensation examination to assess the current degree of disability of his PTSD. Accordingly, the case is REMANDED for the following action: 1. The RO is requested to furnish the Veteran the appropriate release of information forms in order to obtain copies of all VA and private medical records pertaining to treatment for his PTSD, which have not been previously obtained. 2. The Veteran should be afforded a VA examination to determine the severity of his service-connected PTSD. The examiner is asked to report on the presence or absence of the specific symptoms in the general rating formula for mental disorders. The examiner must assign a Global Assessment of Functioning Score consistent with the American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (4th ed.) (DSM-IV), and explain what the assigned score represents. A complete rationale for any opinion expressed must be provided. The claims folder should be made available to the examiner for review in conjunction with the examination, and the examiner should acknowledge such review in the examination report. 3. Thereafter, the RO should readjudicate the issue in appellate status. If the benefit sought remains denied, the Veteran and his representative should be furnished with a supplemental statement of the case and an opportunity to respond. The Veteran has the right to submit additional evidence and argument on the matter or matters 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 of Veterans' Appeals 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). _________________________________________________ S. L. Kennedy Veterans Law Judge, Board of Veterans' Appeals Under 38 U.S.C.A. § 7252 (West 2002), only a decision of the Board of Veterans' Appeals 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 your appeal. 38 C.F.R. § 20.1100(b) (2012).