Citation Nr: 21010029 Decision Date: 02/23/21 Archive Date: 02/23/21 DOCKET NO. 14-24 874A DATE: February 23, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to an initial rating in excess of 30 percent prior to December 22, 2010, and in excess of 50 percent thereafter for an acquired psychiatric disorder, to include anxiety disorder and posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from December 1970 to February 1974. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a rating decision issued in March 2012 by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). In March 2019, the Board, as relevant, denied the instant claim. Thereafter, the Veteran appealed such aspect of the Board’s decision to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court). During the pendency of that appeal, in October 2020, the Court granted a Joint Motion for Partial Remand (JMPR) that vacated the Board’s March 2019 decision as to the increased rating claim for the Veteran’s acquired psychiatric disorder and remanded it for further consideration. The parties to the October 2020 JMPR found that the Board erred by finding the duty to assist satisfied when it failed to ensure that all of the Veteran’s identified VA treatment records were obtained. In this regard, the parties noted that VA treatment records dated from September 2009 indicated that the Veteran was receiving counseling at the Post Oak Vet Center. The parties further noted that VA treatment records dated in 2011 demonstrated that the Veteran also attended the Richmond Vet Center. Consequently, a remand is necessary in order to obtain the Veteran’s outstanding VA treatment records from the Post Oak and Richmond Vet Centers, to include those dated from 2009 to the present. See Dunn v. West, 11 Vet. App. 462, 466 (1998) (Vet Centers are considered VA facilities for the purposes of the duty to assist in obtaining records, specifically citing Bell v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 611 (1992)). The Board also notes that the Veteran’s last VA examination of his psychiatric disability was in October 2018. Given the length of time since the last VA examination, in order to adequately address the current severity of the Veteran’s disability when the case is returned to the Board, on remand the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ) should also obtain a VA examination. See Palczewski v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App 174, 181-82 (2007); Snuffer v. Gober, 10 Vet. App. 400, 403 (1997); see also Bolton v. Brown, 8 Vet. App. 185, 191 (1995) (VA must provide a new examination where a veteran claims the disability is worse than when originally rated and the available evidence is too old to adequately evaluate the current severity); Caffrey v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 377, 381 (1995). The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain all outstanding treatment records from the Post Oak (Houston West) and Richmond Vet Centers, to include those dated from 2009 to the present. All reasonable attempts should be made to obtain such records. If any records cannot be obtained after reasonable efforts have been made, issue a formal determination that such records do not exist or that further efforts to obtain such records would be futile, which should be documented in the claims file. The Veteran must be notified of all the attempts made and why further attempts would be futile, and allowed the opportunity to provide such records, as provided in 38 U.S.C. § 5103A(b)(2) and 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(e). 2. Ensure that the Veteran is scheduled for a VA mental health examination to determine the current severity of his psychiatric disability and its effect on his social and occupational functioning. The claims file must be made available to and reviewed by the examiner. The examiner should indicate all symptomatology associated with the Veteran’s psychiatric disability and indicate the impact of such on his social and occupational functioning. All findings should be reported in detail and all opinions must be accompanied by a clear rationale. MARTIN B. PETERS Acting Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board Koria B. Stanton, 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.