Citation Nr: 22013391 Decision Date: 03/09/22 Archive Date: 03/09/22 DOCKET NO. 18-35 056 DATE: March 9, 2022 REMANDED The appeal regarding entitlement to higher evaluations for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), rated as 50 percent disabling prior to January 6, 2019 and as 70 percent disabling from that date, is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran had active service from March 2005 to December 2008. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) from a July 2017 rating decision by the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ) that continued a 30 percent evaluation for PTSD. A September 2018 rating decision awarded a 50 percent evaluation effective April 19, 2017, the date of receipt of the Veteran's claim for increase. In May 2020, the Board denied a rating higher than 50 percent for the period prior to January 7, 2019. The appeal regarding a rating higher than 50 percent for the period from January 7, 2019 was remanded. The Veteran appealed the Board's decision to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court). In October 2021, the Court granted the parties' Joint Motion for Partial Remand (JMR), vacating the Board's decision regarding the evaluation of PTSD prior to January 7, 2019 and remanding the matter for readjudication consistent with the terms of the JMR. Regarding the evaluation of PTSD from January 2019, the Board notes that, in an October 2020 rating decision, the AOJ awarded a 70 percent evaluation for PTSD from January 6, 2019, the date of a VA psychiatric examination. The matter was then recertified to the Board by the AOJ. Thus, the evaluation of PTSD for the entire period on appeal is currently before the Board. In the October 2021 JMR, the parties agreed that the Board erred by failing to ensure that VA had satisfied the duty to assist the Veteran in obtaining treatment records. They specified that the record reflected that the Veteran had sought treatment at the Sepulveda Vet Center, and that records of that treatment had not been obtained. The Board's current review of the record indicates that the Veteran appears to have secured an initial appointment at the Vet Center in January 2012. See January 2012 VA Specialty Clinic Social Work Assessment and Referral. In January 2017, the Veteran reported that he had returned to the Vet Center for talk therapy. See January 2017 VA Psychiatric Resident Note. In June 2018, the Veteran reported that he had previously been seen at the Vet Center, and that he would seek treatment again if necessary. See June 2018 VA Psychiatric Resident Note. The AOJ must attempt to obtain all outstanding Vet Center records. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Contact the Sepulveda Vet Center and request all relevant treatment records. If, after making reasonable efforts to obtain named records the AOJ is unable to secure same, it must notify the Veteran and his representative and (a) identify the specific records the AOJ is unable to obtain; (b) briefly explain the efforts that the AOJ made to obtain those records; (c) describe any further action to be taken by the AOJ with respect to the claim. The Veteran must then be given an opportunity to respond. 2. Then, readjudicate the Veteran's claim, with application of all appropriate laws, regulations, and case law, and consideration of any additional information obtained as a result of this remand. If the decision remains adverse to the Veteran, he and his representative should be furnished a supplemental statement of the case (SSOC) and afforded an appropriate period within which to respond thereto. DONNIE R. HACHEY Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board J. Barone, 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.