Citation Nr: 18151787 Decision Date: 11/20/18 Archive Date: 11/20/18 DOCKET NO. 16-50 280 DATE: November 20, 2018 REMANDED The issue regarding a rating in excess of 50 percent for bipolar disorder and borderline intellectual functioning is remanded. The issue regarding the propriety of a reduction in rating from 100 to 50 percent for bipolar disorder and borderline intellectual functioning is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from March to December 2001. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal of a March 2016 rating decision by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). 1. The issue regarding a rating in excess of 50 percent for bipolar disorder and borderline intellectual functioning is remanded. This claim must be remanded for issuance of a statement of the case (SOC). In the March 2016 rating decision on appeal, the RO reduced from 100 to 50 percent the rating assigned for acquired psychiatric disability. In January 2017, the Veteran’s representative filed a notice of disagreement (NOD) with the assigned 50 percent rating. In October 2017 correspondence, the representative reiterated the NOD with regard to the increased rating claim. A SOC should be issued for this claim. See Manlincon v. West, 12 Vet. App. 238 (1999). 2. The issue regarding the propriety of the reduction in rating is remanded. This issue must be remanded because it is inextricably intertwined with the claim remanded pursuant to Manlincon. See Smith v. Gober, 236 F.3d 1370, 1372 (Fed.Cir. 2001). In response to the May 2016 decision to reduce the rating assigned for acquired psychiatric disability, the Veteran filed a NOD July 2016. The RO issued a SOC in August 2016 against which the Veteran filed a substantive appeal in October 2016. This particular issue is on appeal before the Board. Nevertheless, the question regarding the propriety of the reduction may be impacted by the increased rating claim pending before the RO. See Peyton v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 282, 286 (1991) (a rating reduction case focuses on the propriety of the reduction and is not the same as an increased rating issue). This is particularly true given that the record is unclear regarding whether the Veteran has been deemed incompetent for pay purposes since the May 2016 rating decision, and since the reduction in rating effective August 1, 2016. See Dofflemyer v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 277, 279-80 (1992) (post-reduction medical evidence may be considered in the context of evaluating whether the condition had demonstrated actual improvement). Service connection has been in effect for acquired psychiatric disability since December 2001. The disorder was rated 100 percent disabling until the reduction at issue here in August 2016. The RO proposed reducing the rating in an August 2014 rating decision and notification letter. It appears that the August 2014 proposal and May 2016 decision followed notification procedures required when reducing the evaluations. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.105(e). This was necessary because the reduced rating resulted in a reduction in the amount of compensation payable to the Veteran. Nevertheless, the question regarding whether the reduction was warranted based on the medical and lay evidence of record dated prior to and since August 2016 cannot be decided until the higher rating claim has been decided. See Manlincon and Smith, both supra. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Undertake appropriate development to obtain any outstanding records pertinent to the Veteran’s claims to the extent possible. Include in the record any outstanding VA treatment records. All records/responses received must be associated with the claims file. 2. Issue a SOC regarding the increased rating claim noted in the January 2017 NOD. The Veteran must be provided with information about his rights and responsibilities in perfecting an appeal on this claim and be given an opportunity to respond. Only if the Veteran responds by submitting a timely substantive appeal should the issue be returned to the Board along with the issue regarding the propriety of the rating reduction. BISWAJIT CHATTERJEE Acting Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD Christopher McEntee, Counsel