Citation Nr: 21069691
Decision Date: 11/19/21	Archive Date: 11/19/21

DOCKET NO. 14-10 651
DATE: November 19, 2021

REMANDED

Entitlement to an initial evaluation in excess of 50 percent for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is remanded.

Entitlement to a total disability evaluation based upon individual unemployability due to service-connected disability (TDIU) is remanded.

REASONS FOR REMAND

The Veteran served on active duty from March 1966 to December 1968. 

This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from an April 2012 rating decision.  

The Veteran testified at a hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge in March 2016.  A transcript is of record. 

The Board remanded the case for further development in August 2016, December 2017, and May 2019.  The case has since been returned to the Board for appellate review.

The Board notes that additional evidence, including a December 2019 VA PTSD examination report and VA treatment records, has been associated with the claims file since the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ) last adjudicated the issue of entitlement to a higher initial evaluation for PTSD in a March 2019 supplemental statement of the case (SSOC).  Although the AOJ later issued a SSOC in August 2020, that SSOC only addressed the issue of entitlement to TDIU. 

In September 2021, the Board sent a letter to the Veteran and his representative informing them that additional evidence had been associated with the claims file.  They were also provided the opportunity to waive the AOJ's initial consideration of such evidence.  However, in October 2021, the Veteran requested that the case remanded to the AOJ for review of the additional evidence.  

Moreover, the Board finds that the issue issued of entitlement to TDIU is inextricably intertwined with the issue of entitlement to a higher initial evaluation for PTSD.  

The matters are REMANDED for the following action:

The AOJ should review the case on the basis of additional evidence, including all evidence received since the March 2019 supplemental statement of the case.  

If the benefits sought are not granted, the Veteran and his representative should be furnished an SSOC and be afforded a reasonable opportunity to respond before the record is returned to the Board for further review.

 

J.W. ZISSIMOS

Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans' Appeals

Attorney for the Board	K.M. Walker

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.