Citation Nr: 21014033 Decision Date: 03/11/21 Archive Date: 03/11/21 DOCKET NO. 09-38 657 DATE: March 11, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to an initial rating in excess of 50 percent for service-connected posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) from May 15, 2008 to November 19, 2013, and in excess of 70 percent from November 20, 2013 is remanded. Entitlement to a total disability rating due to individual unemployability (TDIU) is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran had active service from July 1966 to July 1968. These matters come before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a November 2008 rating decision. Subsequent rating decisions during this appeal have awarded increased ratings during the stages assigned as indicated above. In November 2013, the Veteran testified at a hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge (VLJ), and a transcript of that hearing has been associated with the claims file. This matter was previously before the Board in April 2014, March 2016, January 2017, March 2020, and November 2020. Unfortunately, for the reasons set forth below, this appeal is once again being remanded for further evidentiary development. The Board sincerely regrets the delay caused by this remand but finds that the development requested herein is necessary prior to a final adjudication of this appeal. Entitlement to an initial rating in excess of 50 percent for service-connected PTSD from May 15, 2008 to November 19, 2013, and in excess of 70 percent from November 20, 2013 This matter has been repeatedly remanded for compliance with the Board’s directive for the Veteran to be provided with a VA examination applying the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (4th ed. 1994) (DSM-IV) criteria and not the DSM 5 criteria, based on the date that this claim was certified to the Board. Regrettably, the most recent VA examination, in December 2020, while providing a Global Assessment of Functioning (GAF) score appears to have simultaneously applied the DSM 5 criteria. Therefore, because the previous remand instructions directed that the DSM-IV criteria and a GAF score were required, the Board finds that this matter must once again be remanded for an additional examination to comply with previous remand instructions. Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268, 271 (1998). Entitlement to TDIU Finally, because a decision on the remanded issue of entitlement to an increased rating for PTSD could significantly impact a decision on the issue of entitlement to TDIU, the issues are inextricably intertwined. A remand of the claim for TDIU is, therefore, required. Accordingly, these matters are REMANDED for the following actions: 1. Schedule the Veteran for an examination by an appropriate clinician to determine the current severity of his service-connected PTSD. The examiner should provide a full description of this disability and report all signs and symptoms necessary for evaluating this disorder. The examiner should elicit information regarding the severity, frequency, and duration of the relevant symptoms. To the extent possible, the examiner should identify the extent of any social and occupational impairment due to the Veteran’s PTSD alone. Specifically, the examiner must apply the DSM-IV criteria in evaluating the PTSD and provide a Global Assessment of Functioning (GAF) score with an explanation of the significance of the score assigned. The examiner is advised that the Veteran is competent to report his symptoms/history and that such reports must be acknowledged and considered in formulating any opinion. If his reports are discounted, the examiner should provide a reason for doing so. A rationale for all requested opinions shall be provided. If the examiner cannot provide an opinion without resorting to mere speculation, he or she shall provide a complete explanation stating why this is so. In so doing, the examiner shall explain whether the inability to provide a more definitive opinion is the result of a need for additional information or whether he or she has exhausted the limits of current medical knowledge in providing an answer to that particular question. 2. After the above development, and any additionally indicated development, has been completed, readjudicate the issues on appeal, as are listed on the title page of this Remand. If any of the benefits sought are not granted to the Veteran’s satisfaction, send the Veteran and his representative a Supplemental Statement of the Case and provide an opportunity to respond. If necessary, return the case to the Board for further appellate review. No action is required of the Veteran until he is notified by VA. However, he is advised of his obligation to cooperate in ensuring the duty to assist is satisfied. Kowalski v. Nicholson, 19 Vet. App. 171 (2005). His failure to report for a VA medical examination may impact the determination made. 38 C.F.R. § 3.655. The Veteran also is advised that he has the right to submit additional evidence and argument with respect to this matter. Kutscherousky v. West, 12 Vet. App. 369 (1999). This appeal must be afforded prompt treatment. THERESA M. CATINO Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board Steven H. Johnston, 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.