Citation Nr: 20008459 Decision Date: 01/31/20 Archive Date: 01/31/20 DOCKET NO. 17-64 613 DATE: January 31, 2020 REMANDED Entitlement to an initial rating in excess of 30 percent disabling for service-connected depression is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from June 1993 to April 2013. This matter comes before the Board from a May 2015 rating decision which granted service connection for depression and assigned an initial 30 percent rating. Entitlement to an initial rating in excess of 30 percent disabling for service-connected depression is remanded. The Veteran contends that her depression is more severe than currently evaluated. Her most recent examination of this disability is shown to be the report of an August 2014 VA examination prior to the initial grant of service connection and is over five years old. Although the Veteran has not stated with specificity as to her symptoms worsening, she has continued this appeal arguing her symptoms more closely resemble the criteria for at least a 50 percent rating including in her June 2015 NOD and has perfected her appeal in a December 2017 substantive appeal. Given this, further examination is indicated. When a claimant alleges that his or her service-connected disability has worsened since the last examination, a new examination may be required to evaluate the current degree of impairment. See Snuffer v. Gober, 10 Vet. App. 400, 403 (1997); see also Allday v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 517, 526 (1995) (where the record does not adequately reveal current state of claimant’s disability, fulfillment of statutory duty to assist requires a contemporaneous medical examination - particularly if there is no additional medical evidence that adequately addresses the level of impairment of the disability since the previous examination); Caffrey v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 377, 381 (1994). While a new examination is not required simply because of the time that has passed since the last examination, VA’s General Counsel has indicated that a new examination is appropriate when there is an assertion of an increase in severity since the last examination. VAOPGCPREC 11-95 (1995). Consequently, a new examination is warranted for the purpose of determining the current severity of the Veteran’s service-connected depression. Additionally, an attempt needs to be made to obtain identified treatment records addressing her depression. In her September 2013 claim on appeal, the Veteran reported treatment at an apparently private facility in Baumholder, GE/Mach FJSC from January 2008 to February 2012. Of note, she was living in Germany as her VA RO was routed via Landstuhl, Germany, at the time she filed her claim in September 2013. None of the requests for records appear to include requests to obtain these records. Additionally, an attempt should be made to clarify any additional treatment for psychiatric disability including any treatment at a VA facility and obtain such records. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain any outstanding VA treatment records pertinent to this increased rating claim for depression and associate them with the claims file. 2. Ask the Veteran to complete a VA Form 21-4142 for records in Baumholder, GE/Mach FJSC from January 2008 to February 2012 and any additional private facilities treating her depression. Make two requests for the authorized records from these facilities unless it is clear after the first request that a second request would be futile. 3. Ensure that the Veteran is scheduled for an appropriate VA examination to determine the current nature and extent of her service-connected depression. The examiner must review the claims file in conjunction with the examination. The examiner is requested to identify the nature, frequency, and severity of all current manifestations of depression. The examiner must also comment on any functional impairment caused by the Veteran’s depression. A complete rationale for all opinions expressed is required. Eric S. Leboff Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board Carol Eckart 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.