Citation Nr: 18142324 Decision Date: 10/15/18 Archive Date: 10/15/18 DOCKET NO. 11-18 593 DATE: October 15, 2018 REMANDED Entitlement to a rating in excess of 50 percent for psychoneurotic disorder with anxiety, depressive features, and posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is remanded. Entitlement to an earlier effective date prior to June 1, 1977, for the award of service connection for PTSD is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty in the U.S. Army from January 1955 to March 1975, during which his awards and declarations included the Purple Heart. The Veteran requested a hearing before a member of the Board in his June 2011 Substantive Appeal. Although a hearing was scheduled for January 24, 2017, the Veteran cancelled his request for a hearing in a statement received by VA in January 2015. Consequently, the Veteran’s request for a personal hearing was deemed withdrawn. See 38 C.F.R. § 20.702(e); July 2017 and February 2018 Board Remands. 1. Increased Rating Unfortunately, there has not been substantial compliance with the Board’s previous remand directives regarding obtaining any outstanding VA treatment records for the Veteran. Another remand is required to ensure substantial compliance with the Board’s July 2017 Remand. Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268, 271 (1998). Additionally, there evidence suggests that a complete the Veteran’s VA treatment records dated from the date of his claim to present have not been included in the evidence of record. Notably, January 2013 and December 2013 VA psychiatric progress notes reported that the Veteran had been followed by the SUD clinic, in which he was seen by a VA psychiatrist. VA treatment records associated with the file do not contain any treatment notes from the SUD clinic. Accordingly, on remand the AOJ should ensure that the Veteran’s complete VA treatment records are obtained for the entire appeal period. 2. Earlier Effective Date Regarding the claim of entitlement to an effective date prior to June 1, 1977, for the award of service connection PTSD, the Veteran submitted a timely notice of disagreement to a February 2010 rating decision, but a statement of the case has not yet been issued. A remand is required for the AOJ to issue a statement of the case. 38 C.F.R. § 20.200; Manlincon v. West, 12 Vet. App. 238, 240-41 (1999). The matter is REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain the Veteran’s VA treatment records for the period from 2008 to present, to include psychiatric and SUD clinic records. 2. Send the Veteran and his representative a statement of the case that addresses the issue of an earlier effective date for the award of service connection for PTSD. If the Veteran perfects an appeal by submitting a timely VA Form 9, the issue should be returned to the Board for further appellate consideration. DELYVONNE M. WHITEHEAD Acting Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD A. Dellarco, Associate Counsel