Citation Nr: 21032429 Decision Date: 05/27/21 Archive Date: 05/27/21 DOCKET NO. 16-38 678 DATE: May 27, 2021 ORDER Entitlement to an evaluation in excess of 30 percent for posttraumatic stress disorder is denied. FINDING OF FACT The Veteran failed to report for a VA examination. The Veteran has failed to cooperate with rescheduling an examination. Good cause is not shown. CONCLUSION OF LAW The claim of entitlement to a rating more than 30 percent for posttraumatic stress disorder is denied. 38 C.F.R. § 3.655(b) (2019). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty from July 2003 to February 2005. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a rating decision dated June 2015 by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). The Board remanded the claim on appeal in November 2018. The Veteran's claim has been returned to the Board for further appellate consideration. 1. Evaluation of PTSD The issue before the Board is not an original claim for compensation. Under 38 C.F.R. § 3.655(a), when entitlement to a benefit cannot be established without a current VA examination or reexamination and a claimant, without good cause, fails to report for such examination or reexamination, action shall be taken in accordance with 38 C.F.R. § 3.655(b) or (c) as appropriate. When a claimant fails to report for a medical examination scheduled in conjunction with an original compensation claim, without good cause, the claim shall be rated based on the evidence of record. 38 C.F.R. § 3.655(b). "When the examination was scheduled in conjunction with any other original claim, a reopened claim...or a claim for increase, the claim shall be denied." It is important to note that section 3.655 addresses original claims for compensation and does not use the term service connection. An original claim is the initial complete claim for one or more benefits on an application form prescribed by the Secretary. 38 C.F.R. § 3.160. Here the claim for increased rating for PTSD stems from a subsequent claim, rather than the original claim for compensation that was received in July 2005. As explained in the Board's November 2018 remand, an examination was necessary to determine the current severity of the disability. On April 23, 2019, the Veteran canceled his PTSD VA examination. The Veteran stated that he was going to be out of the country for the next several months. On October 18, 2019 a VA employee called Veteran to reschedule the examination. The employee noted that there was no answer and a message was left on the Veteran's machine. On September 2, 2020 the Veteran was mailed a SSOC (Supplemental Statement of the Case). The SSOC detailed that the VA had attempted to reschedule Veteran for his examination but there was no evidence of Veteran showing willingness to report to the examination. A SSOC notice response was mailed to Veteran along with the SSOC. The notice response provided Veteran 30 days from the date of the SSOC to elect to submit additional evidence or elect to not submit additional evidence. A response from Veteran was never received. Here, the Veteran may have had good cause for not appearing for the first examination. However, he has failed to cooperate with an attempt to reschedule an examination. The attempts to conduct an examination have spanned over a year in time. The VA attempts to schedule are adequate. His decision to not reschedule is tantamount to a failure to appear. As the Veteran failed reschedule the VA examination without good cause, the claim is denied. 38 C.F.R. § 3.655. We again note that section 3.655 and 3.160 define original compensation claims. The issues on appeal did not stem from the original claim for compensation. The duty to assist is not a one-way street or a blind alley. The Veteran is at liberty to file another claim and cooperate. We also note that the Veteran has remained in contact with VA as far as other benefits such as dependency. H. N. SCHWARTZ Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board Konieczny, Adam 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.