Citation Nr: 1417215	
Decision Date: 04/17/14    Archive Date: 05/02/14

DOCKET NO.  11-247-17	)	DATE
	)
	)

On appeal from the
Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Columbia, South Carolina


THE ISSUE

Entitlement to an evaluation in excess of 50 percent for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD).


REPRESENTATION

Appellant represented by:	Disabled American Veterans


WITNESS AT HEARING ON APPEAL

Appellant


ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD

A. D. Jackson, Counsel


REMAND

The Veteran is claiming that an increased rating is warranted for PTSD.  A VA examination was conducted in May 2011.  At his videoconference, he described in detail how his symptoms worsened since this VA examination conducted nearly 3-years previously.  Therefore, the Board finds that the Veteran should be afforded another VA compensation examination to assess the current degree of disability of his PTSD.  See Snuffer v. Gober, 10 Vet. App. 400, 403 (1997).

Accordingly, the case is REMANDED for the following action:

1.  The RO is requested to furnish the Veteran the appropriate release of information forms in order to obtain copies of all VA and private medical records pertaining to treatment for his PTSD, which have not been previously obtained including records from the Counseling Consortium for PTSD, Dr. E. Hooper of Goldsboro, North Carolina, and VA facility in Rock Hill, South Carolina. 

2.  The Veteran should be afforded a VA examination to determine the severity of his service-connected PTSD.  The examiner is asked to report on the presence or absence of specific symptoms including but not limited to those set forth as examples in the general rating formula for mental disorders.  The examiner must assign a Global Assessment of Functioning Score consistent with the American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (4th ed.) (DSM-IV), and explain what the assigned score represents. 



A complete explanation for any opinion expressed must be provided.  The claims folder should be made available to the examiner for review in conjunction with the examination, and the examiner should acknowledge such review in the examination report.

3.  Thereafter, the RO should readjudicate the issue in appellate status.  The RO's attention is called to the holding in Rice v. Shinseki, 22 Vet.App. 447 (2009)((holding that 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)).

If the benefits sought remains denied, the Veteran and his representative should be furnished with a supplemental statement of the case and an opportunity to respond.

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. 2013).



_________________________________________________
Vito A. Clementi
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).