Citation Nr: 19161970 Decision Date: 08/09/19 Archive Date: 08/09/19 DOCKET NO. 19-04 772 DATE: August 9, 2019 ORDER The reduction in the disability rating for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) from 10 percent to 0 percent, effective September 1, 2015, was not proper, and is void ab initio. FINDING OF FACT The rating reduction for the Veteran’s assigned disability rating for PTSD was not carried out in accordance with applicable procedures and is void ab initio. CONCLUSION OF LAW The rating reduction for PTSD from 10 percent to 0 percent was not proper and is void ab initio. 38 U.S.C. § 1155, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 4.104, Diagnostic Code (DC) 9411. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The Veteran served on active duty from April 2004 to September 2008. Rating Reduction 1. The reduction in the disability rating for PTSD from 10 percent to 0 percent, effective September 1, 2015, was not proper, and is void ab initio In an August 2014 rating decision, the RO proposed to reduce the Veteran’s service-connected PTSD from 10 percent to 0 percent. In June 2015, the RO reduced the Veteran’s PTSD rating to 0 percent, effective September 2015. The Veteran asserts that his overall reduction was not proper. As an initial matter, where a reduction in an evaluation is warranted, and results in a reduction of overall compensation payments, a rating proposing the reduction or discontinuance must be prepared setting forth all material facts and reasons. Moreover, the Veteran must be notified that he has 60 days to present additional evidence showing that compensation should be continued at the present level and that he has a right to a hearing to present evidence if he wishes. 38 C.F.R. § 3.105(e). Here, the Veteran was sent a letter in January 2015 accompanying the rating decision informing him of the proposed action, the reasons and bases therefore, and presented him with 60 days to present additional evidence and to testify at a hearing before the RO if he so wished. Therefore, he was properly notified of his rights and given the appropriate time to submit evidence before his rating was reduced effective September 1, 2015. As such, VA met the due process requirements under 38 C.F.R. § 3.105(e) and (i). In addition to the due process requirements discussed above, prior to reducing a Veteran’s disability rating, VA is required to comply with several regulations applicable to all rating-reduction cases, regardless of the rating level or the length of time that the rating has been in effect. See 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.1, 4.2, 4.10, 4.13; see Brown v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 413, 420 (1993). These provisions impose a clear requirement that VA rating reductions be based upon review of the entire history of a Veteran’s disability. See Schafrath v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 589, 594 (1991). Such review requires VA to ascertain, based upon review of the entire recorded history of the condition, whether the evidence reflects an actual change in the disability and whether the examination reports reflecting such change are based upon thorough examinations. Thus, in any rating-reduction case, not only must it be determined that an improvement in a disability has actually occurred, but also that the improvement actually reflects an improvement in the Veteran’s ability to function under the ordinary conditions of life and work. See Faust v. West, 13 Vet. App. 342, 350 (2000). In certain rating reduction cases, VA benefits recipients are to be afforded greater protections, set forth in 38 C.F.R. § 3.344(a) and (b). These provisions provide that rating agencies will handle cases affected by change of medical findings to produce the greatest degree of stability of disability ratings consistent with the laws and VA regulations governing disability compensation and pension. The provisions of 38 C.F.R. § 3.344(c) specify that these considerations are required for ratings that have continued for long periods at the same level (five years or more), and that they do not apply to disabilities which have not become stabilized and are likely to improve. Reexaminations disclosing improvement in these disabilities will warrant a reduction in rating. Here, the additional protections under 38 C.F.R. § 3.344(a) and (b) are applicable. After a review of the evidence, the Board determines that the reduction in the disability rating for the Veteran’s PTSD was not proper. Specifically, it does not appear to the Board that the Veteran has worsened from the time the 10 percent rating was originally assigned. When comparing the VA examinations in September 2009 and his most recent examination in June 2017, there are some aspects of improvement, but the overall level of impairment is, in the Board’s view, largely the same. Accordingly, the action to reduce the Veteran’s disability rating for PTSD is void, and the 10 percent rating is restored as though the reduction had not occurred. See 38 U.S.C. § § 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.102.   The Board’s decision in this case is binding only with respect to the instant matter decided. This decision is not precedential, and does not establish VA policies or interpretations of general applicability. 38 C.F.R. § 20.1303. B.T. KNOPE Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board I. McGee, Associate Counsel