Citation Nr: 1329259 Decision Date: 09/12/13 Archive Date: 09/20/13 DOCKET NO. 07-29 191 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania THE ISSUES 1. Entitlement to a rating in excess of 30 percent for service-connected posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). 2. Entitlement to a total disability rating due to individual unemployability (TDIU) as a result of service- connected disabilities. REPRESENTATION Veteran represented by: Disabled American Veterans ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD M.W. Kreindler, Counsel INTRODUCTION The Veteran served on active duty from January to July 2003 with subsequent service in the Air National Guard. He served in Iraq. This matter came to the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) from a February 2007 rating decision of a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO), which denied an increased rating for PTSD. This matter was remanded in February 2011. When a TDIU for a service-connected disability is raised in connection with an increased rating claim for that service- connected disability, the Board has jurisdiction over the issue of TDIU because it is part of the claim for increased compensation. Thus, the TDIU claim is added to the Veteran's appeal consistent with Rice v. Shinseki, 22 Vet. App. 447 (2009). The appeal is REMANDED to the RO via the Appeals Management Center (AMC), in Washington, DC. VA will notify the Veteran if further action is required. REMAND The record indicates that the Veteran may have a VA vocational rehabilitation folder. This would be relevant to the claims, but has not been obtained. The Veteran's most recent VA examination was in March 2011. In the July 2013 Appellate Brief the Veteran's representative at the Board asserted that the Veteran's PTSD has worsened and he now had panic attacks, impaired judgment, and difficulty establishing and maintaining effective work and social relationships. Given these reports, the Veteran is entitled to a new examination. Snuffer v. Gober, 10 Vet. App. 400 (1997); VAOPGCPREC 11-95 (1995). Moreover, while the VA examiner indicated that the Veteran was attending full-time college, an August 2011 VA neuropsychology note reflects that the Veteran was unemployed and was thinking of returning to college. Thus, it is clear that while the Veteran had been seeking his college degree since in or about 2007, he had not graduated and at this time was not enrolled as a full-time student. It is not clear the basis for his lack of employment or lack of enrollment as a full-time student. Entitlement to TDIU, is an element of the claim for increase. Rice v. Shinseki, 22 Vet. App. 447, 453-54 (2009). In light of the Veteran's lack of employment in 2011 and possibly for other periods, a TDIU claim is raised. An opinion is required as to the impact of PTSD on his ability to work. Friscia v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 294, 297 (1994). Additionally, the March 2011 VA examination report reflects that the Veteran has sought treatment at the University of Pittsburgh Johnstown Campus Counseling Center. VA has a duty to seek records of this treatment. 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(c)(1) (2013). Accordingly, the case is REMANDED for the following actions: 1. Invite the Veteran to complete a formal application for TDIU. 2. Ask the Veteran to complete an authorization for VA to obtain all records of his treatment for mental health treatment at the University of Pittsburgh Johnstown Campus Counseling Center. If the Veteran fails to furnish a necessary release for the private treatment records, he should be advised to obtain the records and submit them to VA. If any records are unavailable, the Veteran should be notified of the identity of the records that are unavailable, the efforts VA has undertaken to obtain such records, and any additional action that may be taken concerning his claims, and he should be advised to submit any records in his possession. All such notification must be documented in the claims file. 3. Associate with the claims folder or Virtual VA, the Veteran's vocational rehabilitation folder. If such efforts prove unsuccessful, documentation to that effect should be added to the claims folder. 3. Associate with the claims folder or Virtual VA, updated VA treatment for the period from February 17, 2012. If such efforts prove unsuccessful, documentation to that effect should be added to the claims folder. 4. AFTER completion of the above and all outstanding treatment records have been associated with the claims file, schedule the Veteran for a VA psychiatric examination with a psychologist or psychiatrist to determine the current severity of his service-connected PTSD. The examiner should review the claims folder and note such review in the examination report or addendum to the report. The examiner should offer an opinion as to whether, due solely to the Veteran's service-connected PTSD he is precluded from all forms of substantially gainful employment for which he would otherwise be qualified during any period since February. The examiner should provide reasons for any opinion. 5. If the benefit sought on appeal is not granted in full, issue a supplemental statement of the case. Thereafter, the case should be returned to the Board, if in order. The Veteran and his representative have the right to submit additional evidence and argument on the 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). _________________________________________________ Mark D. Hindin 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).