Citation Nr: 21071737 Decision Date: 12/01/21 Archive Date: 12/01/21 DOCKET NO. 18-10 669 DATE: December 1, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to an increased initial rating in excess of 30 percent for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is remanded. Entitlement to a total disability evaluation based on individual unemployability due to service-connected disabilities (TDIU), is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from December 1987 to November 1991. This case comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal of a June 2016 rating decision by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). The Veteran testified before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge (VLJ) in an August 2021 Board hearing. The Veteran contends that he is entitled to a rating in excess of 30 percent for his service-connected PTSD. The Veteran was rated at 30 percent for his initial rating for PTSD in an August 2016 rating decision. The Veteran submitted a statement in January 2018. The statement described episodes of rage and anger against his family. The Veteran also stated that he had panic attacks three times a week and not "weekly" as stated by the June 2016 VA examiner. The Veteran and his representative testified at an August 2021 Board hearing. The Veteran stated that he has had PTSD since the early 1990s. The Veteran's representative cited VA medical records from September 2016c, when the Veteran was experiencing peripheral visual movement perceptions meaning that he would think he was seeing things that were not there. The Veteran also stated that he reported social isolation, difficulty controlling his anger, frustration, and that social engagement was difficult. The Board notes the Veteran's rating was based on a June 2016 VA examination, over five years ago. Based on the above, the Board finds a remand is necessary to determine the current severity of the Veteran's service-connected PTSD, as the evidence supports a finding that his condition has worsened. The Veteran also testified in August 2021 that he lost his job in 2016 due to PTSD. He was unable to socialize and interact with people and customers. The Veteran stated he was working part time at the post office at the time of the hearing. The Board finds that the issue of entitlement to TDIU has been raised by the record. See Rice v. Shinseki, 22 Vet. App. 447 (2009). Additionally, the issue of TDIU is inextricably intertwined with the increased rating claim for PTSD that is also being remanded. See Harris v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 180, 183 (1991). As such, the issue will be remanded for further development. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Furnish the Veteran with a notice letter, including a VA Form 21-8940, informing him of the evidence necessary to substantiate a TDIU claim. Allow a reasonable period time to respond and to return the VA Form 21-8940. If new information is received, and in accordance with the provisions of 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(c)(1), make efforts to obtain any outstanding VA and private treatment records to update the claims file. 2. Schedule the Veteran for a VA mental health examination, with a psychiatrist or psychologist, to evaluate the severity of his PTSD. The entire claims file, to include a complete copy of this remand, the August 2021 hearing transcript, and the Veteran's submitted statements, must be made available to the examiner, and the examination report must include discussion of the Veteran's documented medical history and assertions relating to any symptoms of his PTSD. The examiner must identify and describe in detail all effects and limitations to employment and daily life attributable to the Veteran's PTSD. Furthermore, in providing the above opinion, the VA examiner must specify what kind of work, if any, the Veteran would be able to perform. The examiner is asked to take the Veteran's level of education, special training, and previous work experience into consideration, but must disregard the Veteran's age or any impairment caused by any other disability. The examiner must provide a detailed rationale which explains the reasoning for any opinion rendered and discusses the relevant evidence. A. C. MACKENZIE Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board D. Hetman 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.