Citation Nr: 21005052 Decision Date: 01/28/21 Archive Date: 01/28/21 DOCKET NO. 17-38 750 DATE: January 28, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to an initial increased rating in excess of 70 percent for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is remanded. Entitlement to an effective date prior to July 9, 2009; for the grant of service connection for PTSD is remanded. Entitlement to a total disability rating based on individual unemployability (TDIU) is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from January 1980 to March 1982. This matter initially came before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from June and August 2016 rating decisions of a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). The Veteran testified at a Board hearing before the undersigned in March 2020; a transcript of that hearing is associated with the claims file. 1. Entitlement to an initial increased rating in excess of 70 percent for PTSD is remanded. 2. Entitlement to an effective date prior to July 9, 2009; for the grant of service connection for PTSD is remanded. Here, the Veteran testified at the March 2020 Board hearing that he currently receives social security disability benefits. A review of the record indicates all records from the Social Security Administration (SSA) have not been associated with the claims file. Additionally, the Veteran testified that he received treatment from the Raymond Murphy VA medical center in 2018. The record contains medical treatment records dated through 2017 only. A remand is required to allow VA to request these records. Moreover, the Veteran was last afforded a VA examination with respect to his claim of increased rating for PTSD in May 2016. The Board finds that the May 2016 examination is too remote in time to adequately support a decision for an increased disability rating for service-connected PTSD. As there may have been changes his service-connected disability since 2016, and to ensure that the Veteran’s own complaints are sufficiently considered by a VA examiner, the Board finds that a remand is necessary to afford the Veteran a current VA examination. Palczewski v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 174, 181 (2007); Snuffer v. Gober, 10 Vet. App. 400, 403 (1997); VAOPGCPREC 11-95 (1995) (VA examination required in increased rating claim where Veteran asserts condition worsened since most recent VA examination); Caffrey v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 377, 381 (1994) (the Board should have ordered a contemporaneous examination of the veteran because a 23-month old examination was too remote in time to adequately support the decision in an appeal for an increased rating). 3. Entitlement to a TDIU. Finally, because a decision on the remanded issues could significantly impact a decision on the issue of TDIU, the issues are inextricably intertwined. A remand of the claim for is required. Additionally, the Board finds that further development is required prior to adjudicating this claim. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain the Veteran’s federal records from SSA and any outstanding VA treatment records. Document all requests for information as well as all responses in the claims file. 2. Develop the issue of entitlement to a TDIU, to include providing the Veteran with a formal TDIU application form (VA Form 21-8940) to obtain information about his previous employment. (Continued on the next page)   3. After the above development, schedule the Veteran for an examination by an appropriate clinician to determine the current severity of his service-connected PTSD. The examiner should provide a full description of the disability and report all signs and symptoms necessary for evaluating the Veteran’s disability under the rating criteria. The examiner must attempt to elicit information regarding the severity, frequency, and duration of symptoms. To the extent possible, the examiner should identify any symptoms and social and occupational impairment due to his service-connected PTSD alone. 4. Then, readjudicate the Veteran’s claims on appeal. If the benefits sought on appeal remain denied, the Veteran and his attorney should be provided a supplemental statement of the case. C. TRUEBA Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board K. McDuffie, 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.