Citation Nr: 21075270 Decision Date: 12/20/21 Archive Date: 12/20/21 DOCKET NO. 17-06 163 DATE: December 20, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to an increased initial rating for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is remanded. Entitlement to a total disability based upon individual unemployability (TDIU) is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran had active service from May 1990 to August 1992. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a July 2015 rating decision by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). The Board acknowledges that the Veteran, on his substantive appeal, requested to appear at a videoconference hearing. The Veteran was scheduled for a hearing in October 2021. The Veteran requested that the hearing be rescheduled after he failed to appear for a scheduled hearing stating that he forgot the hearing date. As of the date of this decision has not submitted a motion for a new hearing date or provided a statement of good cause for failing to appear. As such, his request for a hearing before the Board is considered withdrawn. 38 C.F.R. § 20.704 (d). In an October 2021 letter, the Veteran's attorney attempted to withdraw as the Veteran's representative, stating that the law firm has not had communication with the Veteran in several years. The Board finds that there is good cause for the withdrawal of representation. 1. Entitlement to an increased initial rating for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is remanded. There may be outstanding, relevant private treatment records. The Veteran has submitted multiple letters from his treatment provider, L.G., M.A. at Psychological Consulting Services and from Dr. E.H. at Goldsboro Psychiatric Clinic. Additionally, at his February 2014 hearing the Veteran reported that he received treatment from both Ms. L.G. and Dr. E.H. The Board finds the Veteran identified relevant outstanding private treatment records. Accordingly, VA has been put on notice of the existence of such records and has a duty to assist the Veteran in substantiating the claim by making efforts to obtain them. 38 U.S.C. § 5103A (b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.159 (c)(1). A remand is required to allow VA to obtain authorization and request these records. As the Board is remanding the claim for further development, the Veteran should be provided an opportunity to report for a VA examination to ascertain the current severity and manifestations of his PTSD disability. 2. Entitlement to a total disability based upon individual unemployability (TDIU) is remanded. The TDIU issue was raised by the Veteran at his February 2014 hearing as part of the claim for PTSD. Rice v. Shinseki, 22 Vet. App. 447 (2009). Because a decision on the remanded issue of an increased rating for PTSD could significantly impact a decision on the issue of entitlement to a TDIU, the issues are inextricably intertwined. A remand of the claim for entitlement to a TDIU is required. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Ask the Veteran to complete a VA Form 21-4142 for Ms. L.G., at Psychological Consulting Services and for Dr. E.H. at Goldsboro Psychiatric Clinic. Make two requests for the authorized records from L.G., at Psychological Consulting Services and for Dr. E.H. at Goldsboro Psychiatric Clinic, unless it is clear after the first request that a second request would be futile. 2. After associating any pertinent, outstanding records with the claims file, 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 PTSD alone. J. NICHOLS Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board D. Lauritzen, 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.