Citation Nr: 21029161 Decision Date: 05/12/21 Archive Date: 05/12/21 DOCKET NO. 17-64 986 DATE: May 12, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to an evaluation in excess of 50 percent for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is remanded. Entitlement to a total disability rating based on individual unemployability due to service-connected disabilities (TDIU) is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served in active duty service with the United States Navy from September 1966 to April 1968. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from an August 2017 Rating Decision by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). The Board first remanded this case to the RO for additional development in November 2019. It has now returned to the Board for appellate review. Pursuant to the November 2019 remand, the RO obtained the Veteran's updated VA treatment records and scheduled the requested VA examination. The RO thus substantially complied with the Board's remand instructions. See D'Aries v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 97, 104-106 (2008); Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268 (1998). This appeal has been advanced on the Board's docket pursuant to 38 C.F.R. § 20.902(c). 38 U.S.C. § 7107(b)(1). Regrettably, another remand is nonetheless required because VA's duty to assist has not been satisfied. The Increased Rating PTSD Claim As noted above, the Board finds that the RO substantially complied with the November 2019 remand. However, after conducting the development requested in the most recent remand, the Veteran's October 2020 correspondence revealed the existence of outstanding and pertinent VA treatment records. Specifically, in the October 2020 correspondence, the Veteran identified VA treatment records from Malcom Randall VA Medical Center (VAMC) from September 2020 that he would like to be addressed in his appeal. However, the referenced September 2020 VAMC treatment records are not of record. Pursuant to 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(c)(2), "VA will make as many requests as are necessary to obtain relevant records from a Federal department or agency," including VA treatment records. Accordingly, the Board finds that another remand is necessary in order to obtain these outstanding and pertinent VA treatment records identified by the Veteran in his October 2020 correspondence. The TDIU Claim With respect to the Veteran's claim for a TDIU, the Board finds that this claim is inextricably intertwined with his pending higher rating for PTSD claim. Harris v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 180, 183 (1991) (holding that where a decision on one issue would have a "significant impact' upon another and that impact in turn could render any appellate review on the other claim meaningless and a waste of judicial resources the two claims are inextricably intertwined). Therefore, the adjudication of the TDIU claim must be deferred pending adjudication of the Veteran's claim for an increased rating for his PTSD disability. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain all outstanding VA treatment records and associate them with the claims file. If any newly obtained VA outpatient treatment records reference mental health treatment located in records systems other than CAPRI, then the AOJ is to obtain these records as well. All records/responses received must be associated with the electronic claims file. 2. Obtain the Veteran's complete treatment records from the Malcom Randall VAMC and all associated outpatient clinics to include all mental health treatment records. If the Malcom Randall VAMC records identified by the Veteran in his October 2020 correspondence are not available, then document the file accordingly and notify the Veteran per 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(e). (Continued on the next page) If possible, the Veteran should get these records himself and send them to the RO. 3. Review the medical evidence added to the claims file since the July 2020 SSOC. If the benefits sought on appeal remain denied, the Veteran and his representative should be furnished a supplemental statement of the case and given the opportunity to respond thereto before the case is returned to the Board, if otherwise proper. John J. Crowley Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board Christopher M. Davidson 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.