Citation Nr: 21062771
Decision Date: 10/12/21	Archive Date: 10/12/21

DOCKET NO. 15-03 320
DATE: October 12, 2021

REMANDED

Entitlement to an evaluation in excess of 30 percent for anxiety disorder, not otherwise specified (NOS)(excluding a period of temporary total evaluation) is remanded.

REASONS FOR REMAND

The Veteran served on active duty from December 2003 to November 2004 and had a period of active duty for training (ACDUTRA) from July 2002 to December 2002.  

This matter comes before the Board of Veteran's Appeals (Board) from a January 2013 rating decision by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO).  The matter was remanded by the Board in a May 2018 decision for additional development and has now returned for further appellate review.

A review of the record indicates that the Veteran receives treatment for his psychiatric disability through the VA and the Vet Center.  However, the most recent treatment notes contained in the record are from 2017.  Consequently, there is a reasonable basis to find that additional relevant records exist, but have not been associated with the evidence of record.  Notably, both VA treatment records and Vet Center records are deemed in the constructive possession of VA.  Dunn v. West, 11 Vet. App. 462, 466-67 (1998) (citing to Bell v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 611 (1992) and Department of Veterans Affairs, Federal Benefits for Veterans and Dependents, 85 (1997 ed.) for determining that Vet Center records are generated by VA agents or employees which are deemed within the Secretary's control and, thus, are deemed constructively of record).  As such, a remand to obtain these records and associate them with the record is warranted.

The matter is REMANDED for the following action:

The AOJ shall associate the Veteran's most recent outstanding VA medical treatment records with his file, specifically those records from July 2017 to the present as well as all records from the Pensacola Vet Center.

 

 

T. REYNOLDS

Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans' Appeals

Attorney for the Board	D. Gorum, 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 This decision is not precedential and does not establish VA policies or interpretations of general applicability. 38 C.F.R. § 20.1303.