Citation Nr: 20003344 Decision Date: 01/14/20 Archive Date: 01/14/20 DOCKET NO. 12-16 563 DATE: January 14, 2020 REMANDED An initial rating of 70 percent for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) from July 27, 2010 to October 4, 2012 is remanded. A rating in excess of 30 percent for PTSD beginning on October 4, 2012 is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Marine Corps from September 1966 to April 1969. This matter was previously before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a November 2010 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in St. Louis, Missouri. In a July 2018 decision, the Board granted an initial rating of 70 percent for PTSD from July 27, 2010 to October 4, 2012 and denied a rating in excess of 30 percent for PTSD beginning on October 4, 2012. The Veteran appealed the Board’s July 2018 decision to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (the Court). In August 2019, the Court granted a Joint Motion for Partial Remand (JMPR) which vacated the Board’s July 2018 decision. 1. Entitlement to an initial rating in excess of 70 percent from July 27, 2010 to October 4, 2012 for PTSD. 2. Entitlement to a rating in excess of 30 percent for PTSD beginning on October 4, 2012. The August 2019 JMPR found that the Board had failed to ensure compliance with its prior remand directives in its July 2018 decision. Specifically, the JMPR found that VA psychiatric treatment records dated since October 2012 were not obtained and that treatment records from the Kansas City VA Medical Center (VAMC), Eisenhower VAMC and St. Augustine Community Based Outpatient Clinic (CBOC) were not obtained. In November 2019, the record was updated to include treatment records related to the Veteran’s VA psychiatric treatment since October 2012, including VA treatment notes dated June 2014 and August 2016, as specified in the JMPR and referenced in the October 2016 VA examination. Additionally, the Veteran’s St. Augustine CBOC psychiatric treatment records have been associated with the record, as they were contained within the Veteran’s submission of his Behavioral Health Medical Records from St. Augustine CBOC. See November 2019 Statement in Support of Claim. As to obtaining the Veteran’s 2008 VA treatment records from the Eisenhower VAMC, such treatments notes have yet to be associated with the record. As such, additional development is needed to afford the Veteran every possible consideration before adjudicating his appeal and to make reasonable efforts to assist him in obtaining evidence necessary to substantiate his claim for benefits. 38 U.S.C. § 5103A(a)(1). The Veteran stated that he sought VA psychiatric treatment at the Eisenhower VAMC in Kansas in 2008. However, the record does not contain 2008 treatment records from the Kansas VAMC, except for a list of prescription treatments. See VA Treatment Record printed on August 2016 VA. In compliance with VA duty to assist and the CAVC decision, a remand is required to attempt to obtain such VA records “without consideration of their relevance.” Sullivan v. McDonald, 815 F.3d 786, 792 (Fed. Cir. 2016); see also Turner v. Shulkin, 29 Vet. App. 207, 217-18 (2018). The matter is REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain updated VA treatment records. 2. Obtain the Veteran’s 2008 VA psychiatric treatment records from the Eisenhower VAMC in Kansas. All reasonable attempts should be made to obtain all VA treatment records regarding the Veteran, including his 2008 psychiatric care records, regardless of relevance perceived or year created. 3. After completing the above, and any other development as may be indicated, to include consideration of whether a new VA examination is warranted, the AOJ should readjudicate the claims. If the benefits sought on appeal are denied, the agency of original jurisdiction must furnish to the Veteran and his representative a supplemental statement of the case. An appropriate period of time should be allowed for response. KRISTY L. ZADORA Acting Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board K. Wilson, Associate Counsel 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.