Citation Nr: 18158203 Decision Date: 12/14/18 Archive Date: 12/14/18 DOCKET NO. 16-25 021 DATE: December 14, 2018 REMANDED The issue of whether the severance of service connection for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) was proper is remanded. Entitlement to a total disability rating based on individual unemployability (TDIU) is remanded. PRELIMINARY MATTERS The Veteran had active service from May 1999 to February 2001, active duty for training from December 2004 to June 2005, and active service from October 2005 to March 2011. These matters come before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from the November 2014 and January 2018 rating decisions issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). In August 2017, the Veteran testified regarding the issue of entitlement to a TDIU at a Video Conference hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge. A transcript of the hearing has been associated with the record. As it pertains to the issue of whether severance of service connection for PTSD was proper, the Board notes that an April 2017 rating decision proposed to sever service connection for PTSD. In August 2017, the Veteran filed a Notice of Disagreement (NOD) on a VA Form 21-0958, specifically indicating that he was in disagreement with the proposed severance. In an August 2017 rating decision, the RO severed service connection for PTSD, effective November 1, 2017. Thereafter, in December 2017, the Veteran filed a statement outlining his psychiatric symptoms and stating his reasons for why his PTSD symptoms were still present and remained unchanged. A January 2018 rating decision confirmed and continued the severance for service connection for PTSD. While the Veteran’s December 2017 statement was not explicitly a formal NOD, it was certainly implicit, based on his previously filed NOD in August 2017 and his clear discontent with the RO’s determination to sever his PTSD disability. Considering the Veteran’s mental health symptoms and the pro-veteran nature of VA’s claims adjudication process, the RO should have construed the Veteran’s December 2017 statement as a NOD with the August 2017 rating decision. REASONS FOR REMAND As noted above, the Board finds that the Veteran’s December 2017 statement should have been construed as a timely and proper NOD with the August 2017 rating decision that severed service connection for PTSD. Notably, no further action has been completed by the RO and the Veteran’s NOD has not been acknowledged by the RO. Accordingly, a Statement of the Case (SOC) must be sent to the Veteran on this issue. See Manlincon v. West, 12 Vet. App. 238 (1999). Further, entitlement to a TDIU requires an accurate assessment of the impairment associated with all the service-connected disabilities. As discussed above, the question of severance of service connection for PTSD is being remanded for the issuance of a SOC. The outcome of the AOJ’s determination may have an effect on the adjudication of the TDIU issue currently before the Board. As such, the TDIU issue on appeal is being remanded because it is intertwined with the question of severance of service connection for PTSD. See Harris v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 180, 183 (1991) (issues are “inextricably intertwined” when a decision on one issue would have a “significant impact” on a veteran’s claim for the second issue). The matter is REMANDED for the following actions: 1. Issue an SOC to the Veteran and his representative concerning the issue of whether the severance of service connection for PTSD was proper. **The Veteran’s December 2017 statement should have been construed as a NOD with the August 2017 rating decision. The Veteran must be advised of the necessity of filing a timely substantive appeal if he wants the Board to consider this issue. Only if an appeal is timely perfected, should the issue be returned to the Board for further appellate consideration, if otherwise in order. 2. Then, readjudicate the claim for a TDIU currently on appeal. S. B. MAYS Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD R. Casadei, Counsel