Citation Nr: 21011048 Decision Date: 02/26/21 Archive Date: 02/26/21 DOCKET NO. 18-18 072 DATE: February 26, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to an evaluation higher than 30 percent for service-connected posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) with unspecified depressive disorder is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served in the Air Force from August 2002 to August 2008. This case comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from an August 2017 rating decision of the Department of Veteran Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in St. Paul, Minnesota. In August 2020 the Veteran presented testimony at a video hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge. 1. Entitlement to an evaluation higher than 30 percent for service-connected PTSD with unspecified depressive disorder is remanded. Remand is required to adequately assess the current severity of the Veteran’s service-connected PTSD with unspecified depressive disoder. When a claimant asserts, or the evidence shows, that the severity of a disability has increased since the most recent rating examination, an additional examination is appropriate. VAOPGCPREC 11-95 (April 7, 1995); Snuffer v. Gober, 10 Vet. App. 400 (1997). Here, the most recent VA examination was conducted in 2018. At the 2020 Board hearing, the Veteran and his wife provided testimony that indicated his disability had worsened since that time, to include suicidal thoughts. In a March 2018 statement, the Veteran asserted the VA examination was done in 15 minutes and was not as thorough as a 2017 private evaluation. Thus, it has been three years since an examination was conducted and it appears the PTSD has worsened. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: Provide the Veteran with an appropriate examination to determine the severity of the service-connected PTSD. The entire claims file must be made available and reviewed. Any indicated tests and studies must be accomplished and all clinical findings must be reported in detail and correlated to a specific diagnosis. An explanation for all opinions expressed must be provided. The relevant DBQ must be utilized. The examiner must address the following: 1) the September 2017 private evaluation; 2) the February 2018 DBQ; 3) the November 2019 buddy statements; 4) the August 2020 Board Hearing testimony, in particular from the Veteran’s wife; and 5) the private treatment record from Journey Points. K. MILLIKAN Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board D. Braxton, 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.