Citation Nr: 21042254
Decision Date: 07/12/21	Archive Date: 07/12/21

DOCKET NO. 11-23 129
DATE: July 12, 2021

REMANDED

A rating higher than 40 percent for fibromyalgia is remanded.

Entitlement to a total disability rating based upon individual unemployability (TDIU) is remanded.

REASONS FOR REMAND

The Veteran served on active duty from February 1987 to April 1988 and from November 1990 to May 1991. These matters come to the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a rating decision issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in October 2013. A transcript of the Veteran's April 2015 testimony at a videoconference hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge is of record. 

The claims were last before the Board in October 2020. Following the October 2020 Board decision, service connection was subsequently established for depressive disorder, also claimed as anxiety and posttraumatic stress disorder, in a January 2021 rating decision. Therefore, that issue is no longer before the Board.

1. Entitlement to a rating higher than 40 percent for fibromyalgia is remanded.

2. Entitlement to a TDIU is remanded.

The Veteran submitted a VA Form 21-4142a in February 2021 authorizing the release of medical records from an identified private facility. VA's Private Medical Records Retrieval Center rejected the request because the information was incomplete. The Veteran was not notified that the information was not complete, nor was any further action undertaken by the RO. This must be rectified on remand pursuant to 38 U.S.C. § 3.159. 

The issue of entitlement to a TDIU is inextricably intertwined with the increased rating claim and adjudication will be deferred.

The matters are REMANDED for the following action:

1. Ask the Veteran to provide complete information for VA to request records from the private facility identified in the VA Form 21-4142a received in February 2021 and obtain records if the information is provided.

2. If the claims remain denied, issue a supplemental statement of the case.

 

K. A. BANFIELD

Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans' Appeals

Attorney for the Board	D. Van Wambeke, 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 This decision is not precedential and does not establish VA policies or interpretations of general applicability. 38 C.F.R. § 20.1303.