Citation Nr: 21076321 Decision Date: 12/23/21 Archive Date: 12/23/21 DOCKET NO. 17-28 775A DATE: December 23, 2021 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disability, to include posttraumatic stress disorder, and unspecified anxiety and depressive disorders, is remanded. Entitlement to a total disability rating based on individual unemployability is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served honorably on active duty in the United States Army from March 1976 to June 1976 as part of his Active Duty for Training (ACDUTRA) with additional reserve service thereafter. "Active duty for training" means, among other things, "full-time duty in the Armed Forces performed by Reserves for training purposes." 38 U.S.C. § 101(22)(A); 38 C.F.R. § 3.6(c). "Reserves" include members of a "Reserve component of one of the Armed Forces." 38 U.S.C. § 101(26); 38 C.F.R. § 3.1(c). This refers to the two weeks of annual training which each Reservist must perform each year. It may also refer to the Reservist's initial period of training. This appeal has been advanced on the Board of Veterans' Appeals' (Board) docket pursuant to 38 U.S.C. § 7107(b) and 38 C.F.R. § 20.902(c). This case comes before the Board on appeal from August 2014 decision by a Regional Office of the United States Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), which denied service connection for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and tinnitus, and which denied entitlement to a total disability rating based on individual unemployability (TDIU). The Veteran did not elect to testify before the Board. In February 2021, the Board remanded the case to the VA Regional Office for further development. Specifically, the Board directed the VA Regional Office to provide the Veteran the opportunity to submit additional evidence as to his claimed military sexual assault, which is the basis for his PTSD claim, and to afford the Veteran a VA examination to address the etiology of his psychiatric disorders. The VA Regional Office accomplished these directives. Unfortunately, remand is still required to comply with VA's duty to assist. The Board further notes that during the pendency of the appeal, the RO granted service connection for tinnitus in an October 2021 rating decision. The decision is considered a full grant of benefits. AB v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 35 (1993). Therefore, this issue is no longer in appellate status. 1. Service connection for an acquired psychiatric disability, to include posttraumatic stress disorder, and unspecified anxiety and depressive disorders, is remanded. The Board observes that the August 2021 VA-contracted examiner who evaluated the Veteran's psychiatric disorders diagnosed him with unspecified anxiety and depressive disorders. As such, the Board has recharacterized the Veteran's claim for PTSD as one for an acquired psychiatric disability, to include posttraumatic stress disorder, and unspecified anxiety and depressive disorders. See Clemons v. Shinseki, 23 Vet. App. 1, 5 (2009) (finding that the scope of a claim may include any disorder that may reasonably be encompassed by the claimant's description of the claim, reported symptoms, and other information of record). VA has the duty to "make reasonable efforts to assist a claimant in obtaining evidence necessary to substantiate the claimant's claim for a benefit under a law administered by the Secretary [of VA]." 38 U.S.C. § 5103A(a)(1); see also 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(c) (implementing regulation). Part of this duty includes obtaining "relevant records held by any Federal department or agency that the claimant adequately identifies and authorizes the Secretary to obtain." 38 U.S.C. § 5103A(c)(1)(C). Pertinent to this appeal, VA's implementing regulation specifically lists Social Security Administration (SSA) records among the Federal agency records that VA is obligated to attempt to obtain. 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(c)(2). In the Veteran's claims file is a "Social Security Administration Inquiry Results" document (received by VA October 27, 2021), which indicates under "SSI Disability Payment Code," the statements, "Final Determination Allowance," which is an indication that the Veteran was granted Social Security Income benefits. And there is a heading labeled, "LAF," which indicates "Disallowed Claim." The Board finds that a remand is necessary to verify whether the Veteran made a claim for Social Security Disability benefits and if any medical records are associated with his Social Security Administration records. The Board notes that the disallowance of a claim for Social Security Disability benefits is not dispositive of whether the records associated with such a claim are relevant. Thus, VA's duty to assist requires VA, at the least, check to see if there are any relevant associated documents. This is particularly important where a veteran is unrepresented, as is the case here. 2. Entitlement to a total disability rating based on individual unemployability is remanded. The Veteran claims that he is unemployable due to his psychiatric disabilities. As such, a decision on the remanded issue of service connection for an acquired psychiatric disability could significantly impact a decision on the issue of service connection for TDIU benefits. The issues are inextricably intertwined and a remand of the TDIU claim is required. Accordingly, the matters are REMANDED for the following actions: 1. Obtain any of the Veteran's outstanding VA medical records and associate them with the claims file. 2. Verify with the Social Security Administration whether the Veteran filed a claim for social security disability benefits and request all records associated with such claim from the Social Security Administration. 3. When readjudicating the claim for service connection for an acquired psychiatric disability, to include posttraumatic stress disorder, and unspecified anxiety and depressive disorders, the VA Regional Office is reminded that stressor-verification is not necessary under 38 C.F.R. § 3.304(f) for the psychiatric disorders of unspecified anxiety and depression when determining whether direction service connection may be granted. TIFFANY HANSON Acting Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board J. F. Sawka, 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.