Citation Nr: 21030828 Decision Date: 05/19/21 Archive Date: 05/19/21 DOCKET NO. 17-22 269 DATE: May 19, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to a disability rating in excess of 10 percent for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) prior to November 26, 2019, and in excess of 30 percent thereafter is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from October 1965 to October 1968. This matter comes before the Board of Veteran's Appeals (Board) on appeal from an August 2015 rating decision issued by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). By way of background, this matter initially came before the Board in February 2019. In its decision, the Board remanded the issue for further development. Specifically, the Board remanded the issue to afford the Veteran an updated examination, and to obtain treatment records for group therapy from the facility where the Veteran is incarcerated. In an August 2020 rating decision, the RO increased the Veteran's disability rating for PTSD to 30 percent, effective November 26, 2019. As the grant of a 30 percent rating, did not constitute a full grant of the benefits sought, the increased rating issue remains on appeal. AB v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 35, 39 (1993). The appeal was subsequently returned to the Board in November 2020. In its decision, the Board remanded the issue for failure to comply with the Board's February 2019 remand directives. Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268 (1998). Specifically, the Board instructed the RO to obtain records from Reboot Recovery, a private organization. This matter is now returned to the Board again. Additionally, the Board has advanced the case on the docket pursuant to 38 C.F.R. § 20.902(c). Entitlement to a disability rating in excess of 10 percent for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) prior to November 26, 2019, and in excess of 30 percent thereafter is remanded. The Veteran is seeking an increased disability rating for his service-connected PTSD. Specifically, the Veteran contends that his PTSD is more severe than reflected by his assigned disability ratings. See November 2015 Notice of Disagreement (NOD; See September 2016 Statement in Support of Claim. On his April 2017 VA Form 9, the Veteran reported that he participated in group therapy at the facility where he is incarcerated. Specifically, the Veteran stated that he regularly engages in group therapy such as combat trauma healing and reboot, administered by credentialed volunteers meeting with Veterans twice monthly to learn coping skills and dialectic behavioral therapy. Additionally, the Board notes that a program transcript, received by VA in July 2018, indicated that the Veteran completed a 24-hour course for combat recovery, run by Reboot Recovery. According to its website, Reboot Recovery aims to help people overcome trauma through courses and trainings that blend clinical insight with faith-based support. See https://rebootrecovery.com/about. In November 2020, the Board notes that the Veteran was sent a Duty to Assist letter for the solicitation of the Veteran's treatment records organized by Reboot Recovery. In response, the Veteran did not provide the requested release for Reboot Recovery but instead submitted a statement that he completed group therapy session and wrote the Team Leader asking for additional records or notes he may have on record. The Veteran indicated he would also be contacting his mental health counselor for any additional supporting records to send to the VA. Subsequently in February 2021, a Supplemental Statement of the Case was issued, and the Veteran's claim was considered based on all the evidence of the record. The Veteran was notified at that time that he had 30 days to respond to the SSOC, and, in fact, did so in March 2021 by submitting VA Forms 21-4142/a for the Oregon State Penitentiary. Further development is currently being undertaken by the Regional Office (RO) to obtain these records. Given the ongoing development for records that may be relevant to the Veteran's claim, the Board finds that remand is again warranted. The Board notes that the VA Forms 21-4142/a submitted by the Veteran in March 2021 listed Oregon State Penitentiary as the provider, not Reboot Recovery. The Veteran is reminded that although the treatment by Reboot Recovery took place at Oregon State Penitentiary, Reboot Recovery is a private organization and records must be requested directly through its organization, not Oregon State Penitentiary. The Veteran's November 2020 correspondence indicates he was trying to obtain any relevant records from his Team Leader, presumably with Reboot Recovery. The Veteran is encouraged to furnish copies of such records directly or submit the VA Form 21-4142/a listing Reboot Recovery as the provider for the Veteran's Reboot Recovery treatment. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Ask the Veteran to submit VA Forms 21-4142/a for his Reboot Recovery treatment records. The notification letter should ensure the Veteran is made aware that he may submit the records himself or submit the requested release. The letter should also clearly state that Reboot Recovery appears to be a private entity separate from the Oregon State Penitentiary and separate release for Reboot Recovery is necessary. If the Veteran response, ensure two requests have been or are made for authorized records from Reboot Recovery unless it is clear after the first request that a second request would be futile. If the records for treatment by Reboot Recovery cannot be obtained, the Veteran should be so notified and advised that it is ultimately his responsibility to ensure that any available private records are received. When completing the foregoing, ensure that the requirements of 38 C.F.R. § 3.159 are complied with. 2. After completing the above, and any other development that may be indicated by the Veteran's response, the Veteran's claim should be readjudicated based on the entirety of the evidence. If any benefit sought remains denied, furnish the Veteran and his representative a supplemental statement of the case (SSOC) and return the case to the Board. Tiffany Dawson Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Law Clerk for the Board N. Jamordee 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.