Citation Nr: 1335779 Decision Date: 11/05/13 Archive Date: 11/13/13 DOCKET NO. 10-44 235 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in St. Petersburg, Florida THE ISSUE Entitlement to an initial evaluation in excess of 30 percent for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: Disabled American Veterans WITNESS AT HEARING ON APPEAL Appellant ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD Christopher Murray, Counsel INTRODUCTION The Veteran had active military service from March 1979 to August 1999. This case comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal of a July 2009 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in St. Petersburg, Florida. The Veteran testified before the Board at an April 2013 hearing conducted at the RO. A transcript of the hearing is of record. At the April 2013 Board hearing, the Veteran alleged she suffers from alopecia as secondary to her service-connected PTSD. However, as this issue has not been considered by the RO, it is not currently within the Board's jurisdiction. As such, this issue is REFERRED to the RO for its consideration. See Godfrey v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 398 (1995). 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 asserts entitlement to a disability evaluation greater than 30 percent for her service-connected PTSD. At the April 2013 Board hearing, she testified that her symptomatology has increased since her most recent VA examination in July 2009. Therefore a remand is necessary to provide the Veteran a new VA examination to address the current severity of her service-connected disability. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.159; see also VAOPGCPREC 11-95 (1995) (a new examination is appropriate when there is an assertion of an increase in severity since the last examination); Green v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 121, 124 (1991) (holding that VA's statutory duty to assist includes a thorough and contemporaneous medical examination). Further, VA treatment records were last associated with the claims file in September 2010. The Veteran testified that she has received continued treatment for her PTSD since this time. Records generated by VA facilities that may have an impact on the adjudication of a claim are considered in the constructive possession of VA adjudicators during the consideration of a claim, regardless of whether those records are physically on file. See Dunn v. West, 11 Vet. App. 462, 466-67 (1998); Bell v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 611, 613 (1992). On remand, any outstanding VA treatment records must be obtained and associated with the claims file. Accordingly, the case is REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain and associate with the claims file all outstanding VA treatment records. Specifically, records generated by VA facilities from September 2010 to the present must be obtained. Efforts to obtain these records must be associated with the claims file and requests for these records must continue until the AOJ determines that the records sought do not exist or that further efforts to obtain those records would be futile. 2. Then, schedule the Veteran for a VA psychiatric examination to determine the current degree of severity of her PTSD. The entire claims file (i.e. the paper claims file and any medical records contained in Virtual VA, CAPRI, and AMIE) must be reviewed by the examiner in conjunction with the examination. If the examiner does not have access to Virtual VA, any relevant treatment records contained in the Virtual VA file that are not available on CAPRI or AMIE must be printed and associated with the paper claims file so they can be available to the examiner for review. The examiner should identify the nature, frequency, and severity of all current manifestations of the Veteran's current service-connected psychiatric disability. The examination report should include a full psychiatric diagnostic assessment including a Global Assessment of Functioning (GAF) score on Axis V and an explanation of the significance of the current levels of psychological, social, and occupational functioning which support the score. The examiner should also specifically comment on the impact of the Veteran's PTSD upon her social and industrial activities including her employability. A complete rationale should be given for all opinions and conclusions expressed. 3. After completing the above, and any other development deemed necessary, readjudicate the Veteran's claim based on the entirety of the evidence. If the benefits sought on appeal are not granted to the appellant's satisfaction, she and her representative should be provided with a supplemental statement of the case. An appropriate period of time should be allowed for response. The appellant 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). (CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE) 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). _________________________________________________ K. PARAKKAL 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).