Citation Nr: 18143876 Decision Date: 10/22/18 Archive Date: 10/22/18 DOCKET NO. 16-31 351 DATE: October 22, 2018 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder, to include posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and depressive disorder, is remanded. Entitlement to an increased rating for left knee degenerative joint disease, post meniscectomy, currently rated 10 percent disabling, is remanded. Entitlement to an increased rating for right knee degenerative joint disease, post meniscectomy, currently rated 10 percent disabling, is remanded. Entitlement to an increased rating for left knee post cartilage removal, currently rated 10 percent disabling, is remanded. Entitlement to an increased rating for right knee post cartilage removal, currently rated 10 percent disabling, is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from May 1978 to May 1981 and from October 1981 to September 1991. This appeal to the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) arose from a March 2015 rating decision by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). See June 2015 Notice of Disagreement (NOD); June 2016 Statement of the Case (SOC); June 2016 Substantive Appeal (VA Form 9). The record reflects that in a June 2016 rating decision, the RO granted service connection for right and left knee scars rated as noncompensable. In a December 2016 rating decision, the RO denied service connection for obstructive sleep apnea; and, in September 2018, the RO denied an additional dependency allowance for the Veteran’s current spouse. The Veteran filed NODs in July 2016, March 2017, and October 2018, respectively, in which he contested the noncompensable rating assigned for the right and left knee scars, the denial of service connection for sleep apnea, and the denial of additional compensation for his current spouse. Notably, however, the record also reflects that the RO duly acknowledged each of the Veteran’s NODs in letters dated in July 2016, January 2018, and October 2018; and is undertaking initial action and development in accordance with 38 C.F.R. § 19.26(a), as well as in accordance with the Veteran’s election pursuant to 38 C.F.R. § 3.2600. As such, any action by the Board pursuant to the Court’s ruling in Manlincon v. West, 12 Vet. App. 238 (1999), would be premature at this time. 1. Entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder, to include PTSD and depressive disorder 2. Entitlement to increased ratings for bilateral knee degenerative joint disease, post meniscectomy, and for bilateral knee cartilage removal, each rated 10 percent disabling Upon review, the record reveals that the Veteran has been in receipt of Social Security Administration (SSA) disability benefits since 2012. See VA Outpatient Treatment Records, dated February 2018 to August 2018 (with July 2018 entry indicating SSA benefits awarded in part based on the Veteran’s knees). As the SSA records may also contained information pertinent to both the psychiatric and knee disorders, the Board is of the opinion that additional development is warranted to undertake efforts to obtain the Veteran’s Social Security Administration records. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.159 (c)(2); Golz v. Shinseki, 590 F.3d 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2010). The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Make appropriate efforts to obtain from the Social Security Administration any records associated with the Veteran’s claim for disability benefits. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.159 (c)(2). Any negative response must be included in the record, and the Veteran must be notified of such inability and informed that he may submit any records he may have in his possession. (Continued on the next page)   2. After completing the above requested action, review the record, conduct any additional development deemed warranted (including any additional VA examinations if required), and re-adjudicate the claims. If the benefits sought on appeal remained denied, the Veteran and his representative should be furnished a supplemental statement of the case and allowed an opportunity to respond thereto. The case should be returned to the Board for further appellate consideration, if otherwise in order. DEBORAH W. SINGLETON Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD Tiffany N. Hanson, Associate Counsel