Citation Nr: 1321302 Decision Date: 07/02/13 Archive Date: 07/12/13 DOCKET NO. 10-13 893A ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in New York, New York THE ISSUE Entitlement to an increased rating for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), currently rated at 70 percent disabling. REPRESENTATION Veteran represented by: New York State Division of Veterans' Affairs ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD A. D. Jackson, Counsel INTRODUCTION The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Army from April 1982 to June 1988. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a September 2009 rating decision issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in New York, New York, which continued a 70 percent rating evaluation for the Veteran's PTSD. In November 2012, the appeal was remanded to provide the Veteran with Veterans Claims Assistance Act of 2000 (VCAA) notice and to obtain additional VA medical records, examinations, and opinions. The case has been returned for review. However because all of the development directed by the prior remand has not been completed, the Board in turn is remanding the claim to the RO via the Appeals Management Center (AMC) in Washington, DC. See Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268 (1998). REMAND In the prior remand, the Board pointed out that VA failed to provide the Veteran appropriate VCAA notice regarding the evidence needed to substantiate an increased rating claim for PTSD. The AMC was instructed to issue this notice to the Veteran. The AMC sent duty to assist letters in November and December 2012. However neither included notice in regard to the substance of the VCAA, including the type of evidence necessary to establish entitlement to an increased rating and of the division of responsibility between the claimant and the VA for obtaining that evidence. Therefore, the AMC should send a complete VCAA notice to the Veteran. Secondly, the Board noted that the Veteran had attended mental health and drug counseling programs at "Daytop" and "Queens TASC". The Board noted that these records were not in the claims file and requested that the RO enlist the Veteran's assistance in obtaining these records. The AMC sent a general letter requesting that he identify any missing treatment records (without specifically referring to the "Daytop" and "Queens TASC" programs). However, the Board notes that the VA has used two versions of the Veteran's address in corresponding with him. The RO/AMC should ensure that any further correspondence to the Veteran utilizes the exact address provided by the Veteran. The Board also requested that the AMC obtain any VA treatment records dated after October 2011. In reviewing the claims file and Virtual VA, it does not appear that any attempts were made to procure these additional VA treatment records. Moreover, in light of what may be a discrepancy in the addresses used by the VA, the RO/AMC should make another attempt to schedule the Veteran for VA examination to determine the severity of his PTSD. Accordingly, the case is REMANDED for the following action: 1. The RO/AMC should provide the Veteran with the proper notice for increased ratings claims under the Veterans Claims Assistance Act of 2000. In addressing the notice letters, the AMC should use the exact address of record provided by the Veteran. 2. The RO/AMC should contact the Veteran and his representative and request that he identify any additional medical or psychological treatment he has received for PTSD since August 2008. The RO/AMC should take appropriate steps to secure copies of any such treatment reports identified by the Veteran that are not already in the record on appeal, to include updated VA treatment reports since October 2011 and counseling records from the "Daytop" and "Queens TASC" programs. Efforts to obtain these records should also be noted in the Veteran's VA claims file. 3. Afterward, the RO/AMC should schedule the Veteran for a VA examination in order to determine the current severity of his PTSD. The claims files must be made available to the VA examiner and a notation indicating the files were reviewed should be included in the examination report. Complete rationale should be given for all opinions reached. The examiner should fully explain the relationship, if any, between the Veteran's PTSD, polysubstance dependence, and any other diagnoses. Specifically, the examiner should describe: (1) the extent of the Veteran's functional impairment, socially and occupationally, that is attributable to his PTSD alone, not to include functional impairment due to factors or symptoms resulting from nonservice-connected disabilities. If a determination is not possible, that should be so noted and a rationale as to why a determination is not possible should be provided; and (2) whether polysubstance dependence is secondary to or a symptom of the Veteran's service-connected PTSD, i.e., whether it is at least as likely as not that polysubstance dependence is proximately due or the result of the Veteran's service-connected PTSD; and whether it is at least as likely as not that polysubstance dependence is a symptom of, or evidence of an increased severity of, PTSD. 4. Following the completion of the foregoing, and after undertaking any other development it deems necessary, the RO/AMC should review the Veteran's entire record, and readjudicate the Veteran's claim for a higher disability rating for his service-connected PTSD. If the claim is denied, the RO should provide the Veteran and his representative with a supplemental statement of the case (SSOC) and allow an appropriate period of time for response. Thereafter, the claims folder should be returned to the Board for further appellate review, if otherwise in order. 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).