Citation Nr: 18158117 Decision Date: 12/14/18 Archive Date: 12/14/18 DOCKET NO. 15-18 781A DATE: December 14, 2018 REMANDED Entitlement to an evaluation in excess of 30 percent disabling for service-connected major depressive disorder for the period prior to November 2, 2015, is remanded. Entitlement to an evaluation in excess of 50 percent disabling for service-connected major depressive disorder for the period beginning November 2, 2015, and thereafter, is remanded. Entitlement to a total disability rating based on individual unemployability (TDIU) for the period prior to September 21, 2014, is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from July 2000 to February 2001, and from August 2005 to November 2006. The June 2015 statement of the case (SOC) addressed the issue of entitlement to a compensable evaluation for neurodermatitis of the scalp; symptomatic dermatographism, claimed as skin condition due to environmental hazard exposure. In responsive correspondence, dated June 2015, submitted in lieu of a VA Form 9, the Veteran’s attorney states that this claim was withdrawn in July 2013, and that there was no need for VA to adjudicate this claim. The Board recognizes a signed withdrawal statement by the Veteran, dated April 2013, and received in April 2018, indicating a wish to withdraw his claim for a compensable rating for neurodermatitis. Accordingly, the Board does not take up this issue on appeal. In November 2018 correspondence, the Veteran’s representative stated that the Veteran was completely disabled due to his service-connected major depressive disorder, prior to September 21, 2014. As of that date, however, he obtained a job at a VA medical center and has been able to sustain his employment. Therefore, a TDIU is requested only for the period prior to September 21, 2104. The issue has been added to the appeal. Rice v. Shinseki, 22 Vet. App. 447, 454 (2009). 1. Entitlement to an evaluation in excess of 30 percent disabling for service-connected major depressive disorder for the period prior to November 2, 2015, is remanded. 2. Entitlement to an evaluation in excess of 50 percent disabling for service-connected major depressive disorder for the period beginning November 2, 2015, and thereafter, is remanded. 3. Entitlement to a TDIU for the period prior to September 21, 2014, is remanded. The Board finds that additional development is needed prior to final adjudication of the issues on appeal. First, the Board finds that there may be outstanding treatment records that should be obtained and associated with the claim file. In July 2013 correspondence, associated with the record in September 2018, the Veteran’s representative “requested that VA ensure that it obtains any outstanding treatment records from the [M] VA Outpatient Clinic and [FHP] prior to further adjudication.” It does not appear that any additional records from these facilities were sought or obtained. Therefore, upon remand, the Board asks that the additional records, identified by the Veteran’s representative, be associated with the claim file. In addition, the Board notes at least one document in the file that has not been translated from Spanish to English, specifically a Notice of Disagreement from July 2012. Before proceeding with adjudication, the file should be reviewed, and untranslated documents should be identified and submitted to a translator for translation into English. Finally, the Board notes that the issue of TDIU is inextricably intertwined with the issue remaining on appeal. See Parker v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 116 (1994); Harris v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 180, 183 (1991) (two issues are “inextricably intertwined” when they are so closely tied together that a final Board decision cannot be rendered unless both are adjudicated). Therefore, the Board finds it necessary to remand this issue. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. After securing any necessary consent forms from the Veteran, obtain any outstanding treatment records, to include any VA and/or private treatment records, pertaining to the issues on appeal. In particular, the Board notes the Veteran’s representative’s request “that VA ensure that it obtains any outstanding treatment records from the [M] VA Outpatient Clinic and [FHP] prior to further adjudication.” All efforts to obtain these records should be documented in the claim file. If any records could not be obtained, this should be noted in the claim file. In addition, there appear to be documents in Spanish that have not been translated. In particular, the Board notes a Notice of Disagreement from July 2012 that is in Spanish. Before proceeding with adjudication, the file should be reviewed, untranslated documents should be identified and then translated appropriately. 2. If upon completion of the above action the issues are denied, the case should be returned to the Board after compliance with appellate procedures. E. I. VELEZ Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD K. Foster