Citation Nr: 21012794 Decision Date: 03/05/21 Archive Date: 03/05/21 DOCKET NO. 14-11 081 DATE: March 5, 2021 REMANDED 1. Entitlement to a disability rating in excess of 10 percent for left upper extremity peripheral neuropathy prior to May 9, 2016, and in excess of 20 percent thereafter, is remanded. 2. Entitlement to a disability rating in excess of 10 percent for right upper extremity peripheral neuropathy prior to May 9, 2016, and in excess of 30 percent thereafter, is remanded. 3. Entitlement to a disability rating in excess of 10 percent for left lower extremity peripheral neuropathy is remanded. 4. Entitlement to a disability rating in excess of 10 percent for right lower extremity peripheral neuropathy is remanded. 5. Entitlement to a disability rating in excess of 70 percent for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) with major depression is remanded. 6. Entitlement to a total disability rating for compensation based on individual unemployability due to service-connected disabilities (TDIU) prior to October 16, 2014, is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from August 1969 to March 1971. In November 2017, the Veteran provided testimony in a Board video conference hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge. A copy of the hearing transcript is associated with the claims file. In April 2015 and June 2018, the Board remanded the claims for further development. In August 2019, the Board issued a decision that denied the Veteran’s claims. The Veteran appealed the Board’s decision to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court). In October 2020, the Veteran and the Secretary of VA (parties) filed a Joint Motion for Remand (JMR) with respect to the August 2019 Board decision to vacate and remand the claims back to the Board, which was granted by the Court. The parties to the October 2020 JMR found that the Board erred when it did not ensure that all of the Veteran’s VA treatment records were associated with his claims file. 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(c)(3); Sullivan v. McDonald, 815 F.3d 786 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Specifically, in the Veteran’s August 2016 VA Form 21-526EZ, he reported receiving treatment at the VA Medical Centers (VAMC) in Salisbury, Asheville, and Charlotte, North Carolina from 2010 to the present day. The parties also noted that the April 2019 rating decision noted VA treatment records from the Salisbury VAMC from August 2007 to April 2019, and such records are not associated with the claims file. Further, a January 2016 mental heath note indicated that the Veteran was to follow-up “in 1st available, or as needed.” Accordingly, the parties agreed as the record indicates outstanding VA treatment records, a remand is required for the Board to obtain these VA treatment records. Sullivan, 815 F.3d 786. The parties also agreed that remand is necessary for the Board to set forth an adequate statement of reasons or bases that addresses whether the Veteran’s service-connected bilateral upper and lower extremity peripheral neuropathy could be rated based on the evidence of record. 38 C.F.R. § 3.655(a). This will be addressed by the Board in a future decision once all reasonable efforts have been made to obtain the outstanding VA treatment records. 38 U.S.C. § 5103A(c)(2). The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain all outstanding VA treatment records, particularly records from the VA Medical Centers / Community-Based Outpatient Clinics in (1) Salisbury, (2) Asheville, and (3) Charlotte, North Carolina from August 2007 to current. 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 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. After all available evidence has been associated with the record, review the evidence and determine if further development is warranted. A. P. SIMPSON Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board D. Cheng, 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.