Citation Nr: 21075631 Decision Date: 12/21/21 Archive Date: 12/21/21 DOCKET NO. 17-19 802 DATE: December 21, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to an initial rating in excess of 30 percent for an acquired psychiatric disorder, including Other Specified Trauma and Stressor-Related Disorder, Posttraumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), and Generalized Anxiety Disorder (GAD), claimed as mental health, from August 31, 2015, to September 30, 2019, is remanded. Entitlement to a rating in excess of 10 percent for an acquired psychiatric disorder, including Other Specified Trauma and Stressor-Related Disorder, PTSD, and GAD, claimed as mental health, from Oct 1, 2019, to May 15, 2020, is remanded. Entitlement to a rating in excess of 30 percent for an acquired psychiatric disorder, including Other Specified Trauma and Stressor-Related Disorder, PTSD, and GAD, claimed as mental health, from May 16, 2020, is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty in the U.S. Army from July 2007 to July 2013. This matter comes to the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from April 2016, April 2018, July 2019, and June 2020 rating decisions issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in St. Paul, Minnesota. In his April 2017 substantive appeal, the Veteran indicated, "I do not want an optional Board hearing." See April 2017 VA Form 9, Appeal to Board of Veterans' Appeals. In an April 2018 rating decision, the Veteran was granted service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder with an initial rating of 30 percent, effective August 31, 2015. See April 2018 VA Rating Decision Narrative. In a July 2019 rating decision, evaluation of the Veteran's acquired psychiatric rating was reduced to 10 percent, effective October 1, 2019. See July 2019 VA Rating Decision Narrative. In a June 2020 rating decision, evaluation of the Veteran's acquired psychiatric rating was increased to 30 percent, effective May 16, 2020. See June 2020 VA Rating Decision Narrative. The issues before the Board have been amended to reflect the current status of the appeal. The Veteran was previously represented in this appeal by the Military Order of the Purple Heart (MOPH); however, in June 2020, MOPH advised VA and the Veteran that it was no longer able to provide representation due to a reorganization that occurred within MOPH due to lack of funding. The Veteran was advised that he could obtain representation from another Veterans Service Organization or from an accredited attorney or claims agent. The process for obtaining such representation was explained in detail. The Veteran has not appointed a new representative and is therefore now considered to be unrepresented in this appeal. The Board finds that more development is necessary prior to final adjudication of the claims on appeal. After issuance of the Supplemental Statement of the Case (SSOC) in April 2018, additional VA treatment records including a June 2020 VA examination report pertaining to the above claims have been added to the record. On October 19, 2021, VA sent correspondence to the Veteran asking if he wished to waive initial agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ) review of this evidence. However, the letter indicated that if he did not respond within 45 days, it will be assumed that he does not wish to have the Board decide his appeal at this time and the Board will thus remand the appeal for AOJ for review. As of this date, the Board has not received a response. Therefore, given the expiration of the 45 day requirement to submit a waiver without a response from the Veteran, the Board is required to remand this matter. On remand, the agency of original jurisdiction should issue a new SSOC that considers the evidence received since the April 2018 SSOC. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: Readjudicate the issues on appeal. If they remain denied, issue an SSOC pertaining to the Veteran's claims. The matters should then be returned to the Board for appropriate appellate review, if otherwise in order. James A. DeFrank Acting Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board B. Small, Attorney Advisor 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.