Citation Nr: 21075696 Decision Date: 12/21/21 Archive Date: 12/21/21 DOCKET NO. 17-22 235A DATE: December 21, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to a rating in excess of 50 percent for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from June 2009 to October 2012. This matter is before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from an August 2014 rating decision of a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). A Board hearing was held before the undersigned in January 2020. A transcript of the hearing is of record. This matter was previously before the Board in February 2020 and December 2020 when it was remanded for further development. Entitlement to a rating in excess of 50 percent for PTSD is remanded. Although the additional delay is regrettable, the Board finds an additional remand is required before a decision can be made on the Veteran's claim. In the December 2020 Board remand, the Board directed the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ) to schedule the Veteran for a VA examination to assess the current severity of his service-connected PTSD. A January 2021 Request for Physical Examination shows a VA examination request was initiated on January 13, 2021. Email correspondence dated January 24, 2021 indicates that the examination request was cancelled because the Veteran failed to RSVP for the examination. Thus, in February 2021, the AOJ readjudicated the claim based on the existing evidence of record and, in a February 2021 Supplemental Statement of the Case, continued to deny entitlement to a rating in excess of 50 percent for PTSD, noting specifically that the Veteran did not RSVP to the request to schedule the examination. However, the record does not contain any letter or other documentation reflecting that the Veteran was notified of an examination or asked to RSVP for an examination. Therefore, the Board finds the Veteran should be provided another opportunity to undergo the VA examination. Additionally, the Board notes that the December 2020 Board remand directed the AOJ to obtain any updated VA treatment records for the period from July 2017 to the present. In February 2021, VA treatment records for the period from June to July 2017 were added to the file. No records for the period after July 2017 were added to the file. In light of this, the Board finds it is unclear whether the AOJ failed to obtain any updated VA treatment records, as requested, or if the Veteran has not received any VA treatment since July 2017 (the date of the most recent records in the file). Therefore, remand is needed to ensure substantial compliance with the above prior remand directives. See Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268 (1998) (holding that where the remand orders of the Board are not substantially complied with, the Board errs as a matter of law when it fails to ensure substantial compliance). The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain any outstanding VA treatment records for the period from July 2017 to the present. Any negative search result should be noted in the record. 2. After obtaining any additional records, schedule the Veteran for a VA examination with an appropriate clinician to determine the current severity of his service-connected PTSD. Notify the Veteran of the examination date and the consequence of failing to appear without good cause via an examination notification letter. Associate the examination notification letter with the claims file. The entire claims file should be made available to the examiner in conjunction with this request. The examiner is asked to provide a full description of the Veteran's PTSD 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 his PTSD. M. SORISIO Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board S. Jiggetts 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.