Citation Nr: 21025228 Decision Date: 04/27/21 Archive Date: 04/27/21 DOCKET NO. 18-53 615 DATE: April 27, 2021 REMANDED An initial rating in excess of 30 percent for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), from March 8, 2007 to June 27, 2013 is remanded. A rating in excess of 50 percent for PTSD, from June 27, 2013 to April 21, 2015 is remanded. A rating in excess of 50 percent for PTSD, from September 1, 2015 to September 27, 2018 is remanded. A rating in excess of 70 percent for PTSD, from September 27, 2018, forward, is remanded. An earlier effective date for the assignment of a total disability rating based on individual unemployability due to service-connected disabilities (TDIU), prior to September 10, 2018 is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from March 1968 to October 1970. The Veteran provided testimony before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge (VLJ) at an August 2020 Board hearing. A complete transcript is of record. These issues were previously before the board in January 2021. The January 2021 Board decision remanded the Veteran’s appeal because his representative challenged and requested the qualifications of the VA examiners of record. See Correspondence dated July 21, 2020 and November 16, 2020. Specifically, the Veteran’s representative sought the qualifications of the September 30, 2010 and June 27, 2013 VA psychiatric examiners. The Veteran has submitted a medical opinion from a private psychologist and the representative asserts that the private report must be accepted over the VA examiner’s opinions because the September 2010 and June 2013 VA examiner’s qualifications are unknown. The Veteran’s earlier effective date for the assignment of a TDIU was found to be inextricably intertwined with the increased rating claim, and a remand was also necessary so that the claim could be submitted to the Director of the Compensation and Pension Service for extraschedular consideration, because the Board could not award a TDIU rating, prior to June 27, 2013, under 38 C.F.R. § 4.16 (b), in the first instance. The Veteran’s claims file does not show that any of the requested development has taken place. The regional office (RO) was asked to provide the Veteran and his representative the qualifications of the September 30, 2010 and June 27, 2013 VA examiners for PTSD, to include a curriculum vitae or other similar material and to include copies of the information provided to the Veteran in the claims file. Documentation of this action should be placed in the claims file. However, a careful review of the Veteran’s claims file does not contain the requested qualifications or the documentation that the qualifications were unavailable. Further, it does not appear that the Veteran’s TDIU claim was referred to the Under Secretary for Benefits or the Director of the Compensation and Pension Service for a determination as to whether his disability picture warrants the assignment of a TDIU prior to September 10, 2018, on an extraschedular basis. Here, the Board regrets that another remand will further delay a decision in the Veteran’s case, but finds that it is necessary because there was no compliance with the January 2021 Board remand directives. Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268, 271 (1998). The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Provide the Veteran and his representative the requested information regarding the qualifications of the September 30, 2010 and June 27, 2013 VA examiners for PTSD, to include a curriculum vitae or other similar material and include copies of the information provided to the Veteran in the claims file. Documentation of this action should be placed in the claims file. 2. Refer the case to the Under Secretary for Benefits or the Director of the Compensation and Pension Service for a determination as to whether the Veteran’s disability picture warrants the assignment of a TDIU prior to September 10, 2018, on an extraschedular basis. MATTHEW W. BLACKWELDER Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board E. Fu, 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.