Citation Nr: 1324276 Decision Date: 07/31/13 Archive Date: 08/07/13 DOCKET NO. 09-10 837 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Manchester, New Hampshire THE ISSUE Entitlement to an initial evaluation in excess of 30 percent for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). REPRESENTATION The Veteran is represented by: Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD S. Pflugner, Counsel INTRODUCTION The Veteran served on active duty from June 1965 to June 1967. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a March 2008 rating decision by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office located in Manchester, New Hampshire. In the March 2008 rating decision, service connection for PTSD was granted and an initial 30 percent rating was assigned, effective March 29, 2007. The Veteran perfected an appeal seeking a higher initial rating. The case has been certified to the Board for appellate review. Generally, a claim for a total rating based on unemployability due to service-connected disability (TDIU), either expressly raised by the Veteran or reasonably raised by the record, involves an attempt to obtain an appropriate rating for a disability and is part of the claim for an increased rating. Rice v. Shinseki, 22 Vet. App. 447 (2009). In this case, however, the Veteran has not argued, and the record does not otherwise reflect, that the disability at issue renders him totally unemployable. Accordingly, the Board concludes that a claim for TDIU has not been raised. The appeal is REMANDED to the RO via the Appeals Management Center in Washington, DC. VA will notify the Veteran if further action is required. REMAND An August 2012 letter demonstrated that the Veteran was treated for PTSD at a Vet Center location on July 14, 2011, and that he was treated by the Vet Center on six subsequent occasions, the final session occurring on July 23, 2012. Records demonstrating this treatment were not associated with the claims file. When VA has notice of the possible existence of certain records and their relevance, the Board must seek to obtain those records before proceeding with the appeal. Bell v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 611 (1992). As such, the Board finds that a remand to attempt to obtain these treatment records is warranted. Additionally, the August 2012 letter indicated that the Veteran was determined to be "sub-diagnostic" for PTSD and that he exhibited a stable mood when treated in December 2011. The most recent VA examination was in May 2011, which resulted in a diagnosis of PTSD and a Global Assessment of Functioning score of 55. As such, the Board finds that a remand is also warranted in order to provide the Veteran another VA examination in order to assess the severity of his service-connected PTSD. 38 U.S.C.A. § 5103A(d) (West 2002 & Supp. 2012); 38 C.F.R. § 3.159 (2012); see Green v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 121, 124 (1991). Accordingly, the case is REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain copies of all Vet Center records dated in and after July 2011. Associate all available records with the claims file. Document all attempts to secure this evidence in the claims file. If, after making reasonable efforts to obtain named records any records remain unavailable, notify the Veteran of the specific unavailable records, briefly explain the efforts made to obtain those records, and describe any further action to be taken with respect to the claim. Give the Veteran an opportunity to respond. 2. Then, schedule the Veteran for a VA examination to determine the current severity of his service-connected PTSD. The claims file and a copy of this Remand must be made available to and reviewed by the examiner. The examiner must provide accurate and fully descriptive assessments of all psychiatric symptoms. The examiner must comment upon the frequency or severity of the Veteran's PTSD symptoms. The examiner must also enter a complete multi-axial evaluation, and assign a Global Assessment of Functioning score, together with an explanation of what the score represents in terms of the Veteran's psychological, social, and occupational functioning. A complete rationale for all opinions must be provided. 3. Notify the Veteran that he must report for any scheduled examination and cooperate in the development of the claim. Failure to report for a VA examination without good cause may result in denial of the claim. 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.158, 3.655 (2012). 4. When the above development has been completed, readjudicate the issue on appeal. If any benefit sought on appeal remains denied, issue a supplemental statement of the case to the Veteran and his representative. After the Veteran and his representative have had an adequate opportunity to respond, return the appeal 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). _________________________________________________ ROBERT C. SCHARNBERGER 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).