Citation Nr: 1339441 Decision Date: 12/02/13 Archive Date: 12/13/13 DOCKET NO. 11-11 448 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Columbia, South Carolina THE ISSUE Entitlement to an initial rating in excess of 50 percent for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: The American Legion WITNESS AT HEARING ON APPEAL The Veteran ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD A. Dean, Associate Counsel INTRODUCTION The Veteran had active military service from September 2001 to April 2006. This case comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal of July 2010 and January 2011 rating decisions by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Columbia, South Carolina. The July 2010 decision granted service connection for PTSD and assigned a 30 percent rating, effective January 9, 2009. In the January 2011 rating decision, the RO assigned a 50 percent disability rating, effective January 9, 2009. In June 2012, the Veteran testified at a video-conference hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge. A transcript of this hearing is of record. The Board notes that, in addition to the paper claims file, there is a Virtual VA electronic claims file associated with the Veteran's claim. A review of the documents in the electronic file reveals that they are either duplicative of the evidence in the paper claims file or are irrelevant to the issues on appeal. 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 While the Board sincerely regrets the delay that inevitably will result from remanding, rather than immediately deciding, this claim, it is necessary to ensure the claim is fully developed and receives all due consideration. 38 U.S.C.A. § 5103A(a) (West 2002 & Supp. 2012); 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(c), (d) (2013). Specifically, pursuant to VA's duty to assist under the Veterans Claims Assistance Act of 2000 (VCAA), Pub. L. No. 106-475, 114 Stat. 2096 (2000), a new VA examination needs to be obtained and considered since relevant to the Veteran's claim for an increased rating. The Veteran was afforded a VA examination in July 2010 for his PTSD, so for his original claim of entitlement to service connection for PTSD. However, in his June 2012 video-conference hearing, the Veteran testified that his PTSD has worsened since then. So in this circumstance another VA examination is warranted. See Palczewski v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 174, 181-82 (2007), citing Caluza v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 498, 505-06 (1998) ("Where the record does not adequately reveal the current state of the claimant's disability... the fulfillment of the statutory duty to assist requires a thorough and contemporaneous medical examination."). See also Snuffer v. Gober, 10 Vet. App. 400 (1997); Caffrey v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 377 (1994); VAOPGCPREC 11-95 (1995). In addition, the Board notes that at his hearing the Veteran reported receiving treatment for his PTSD through the end of 2011 or beginning of 2012. The records on file only go through April 2011, therefore, any relevant VA or private treatment records post April 2011 must also be obtained on remand. Accordingly, the case is REMANDED for the following action: 1. Make arrangements to obtain the Veteran's VA treatment records, dated since April 2011. 2. Thereafter, schedule the Veteran for a VA psychiatric examination to determine the current severity of his service-connected PTSD. The claims file should be made available for review by the examiner in conjunction with the examination. The examiner must also discuss the effect, if any, of the Veteran's PTSD on his social and occupational functioning. The examiner should assign a Global Assessment of Functioning (GAF) score for the Veteran's PTSD consistent with the American Psychiatric Association Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition (DSM-IV) and explain the significance of the score. The examiner must provide a comprehensive report including complete rationales for all opinions and conclusions reached. 3. Next, review the claims file and ensure that the foregoing development actions have been conducted and completed in full. If any development is incomplete, appropriate corrective action must be implemented. If the examination report does not include adequate responses to the specific opinions request, it must be returned to the providing examiner for corrective action. 4. Finally, after completing the requested actions, and any additional notification and/or development deemed warranted, readjudicate the claim on appeal. If any benefit sought on appeal remains denied, furnish the Veteran and his representative, if any, with an SSOC and afford them the appropriate time period for response before the claims file is returned to the Board for further appellate consideration. 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). 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. 2013). _________________________________________________ P. M. DILORENZO 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) (2013).