Citation Nr: 21010203 Decision Date: 02/24/21 Archive Date: 02/24/21 DOCKET NO. 13-17 833 DATE: February 24, 2021 REMANDED Issue of entitlement to an effective date earlier than August 24, 2011, for the grant of an increased evaluation of 70 percent for an acquired psychiatric disorder (diagnosed as posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and previously evaluated as anxiety disorder, not otherwise specified) is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran honorably served on active duty in the United States Marine Corps from January 1967 to May 1969, to include service in the Republic of Vietnam. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on a Joint Motion for Partial Remand (JMPR) from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC). In December 2019, the Board denied the Veteran’s appeal for an effective date earlier than August 24, 2011, for the grant of an increased evaluation of 70 percent for an acquired psychiatric disorder. In September 2020, the CAVC granted a JMPR and ordered this matter be returned to the Board for further development to set forth adequate reasons or bases for its findings and conclusions. CAVC ruled that the Board failed to review medical records that may suggest the Veteran was entitled to an earlier effective date for the grant of increased evaluation of 70 percent for an acquired psychiatric disorder. This matter is now properly before the Board. The Veteran contends that he is entitled to an effective date earlier than August 24, 2011, for the grant of an increased evaluation of 70 percent for an acquired psychiatric disorder. The Veteran’s claims file contains relevant evidence which may entitle an effective date prior to August 24, 2011. The evidence includes a September 2010 psychological evaluation included as part of the Appellant’s claim for social security disability benefits and VA treatment notes from February to August 2011. Because the evidence of record potentially supports an earlier effective date, the Board remands this matter ot the AOJ for further development and a new VA opinion to determine when it was factually ascertainable based on all evidence of record that an increase in disability had occurred. The Board finds that further development is necessary to allow the Veteran to submit additional evidence in support of his claim as well as to ascertain any and all relevant records and a new medical opinion as to whether the Veteran’s service-connected acquired psychiatric disability had increased in severity during the one-year period prior to August 24, 2011. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain any updated relevant treatment records and associate them with the claims file. 2. Forward the claims file to a qualified clinician to provide an opinion to determine whether the records within the claims file support a finding for an effective date prior to August 24, 2011. In offering the opinion, the examiner is asked to consider and discuss the September 2010 psychological evaluation conducted as part of the Veteran’s Social Security disability benefits. Additionally, consider the VA treatment notes from February to August 2011 and the Veteran’s testimony before the Board in February 2018. The examiner must provide a rationale for each opinion given. The entire claims file should be made available to the examiner as well as this Remand and the CAVC Order. 3. Following the completion of the foregoing, and any other development deemed necessary, the AOJ should readjudicate the Veteran’s claim. If the benefit sought remains denied, furnish the Veteran and his representative with a supplemental statement of the case and allow an appropriate period of time for response. Thereafter, the case should be returned to the Board for further appellate review, if otherwise in order. B. MULLINS Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board Hellina Y. Hailu, 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.