Citation Nr: 22018294 Decision Date: 03/28/22 Archive Date: 03/28/22 DOCKET NO. 17-39 817 DATE: March 28, 2022 REMANDED Entitlement to an initial disability rating in excess of 50 percent for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from August 2003 to May 2007. This matter comes before the Board of Veteran's Appeals (Board) from an August 2014 rating decision issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). It is observed the Veteran requested a hearing before the Board in his VA Form 9, Appeal to the Board, but did not appear for his scheduled hearing. An attempt to contact the Veteran by phone concerning the hearing was also unsuccessful. See VA 27-0820 of November 2021. Given these circumstances, the Veteran's request for a hearing is deemed withdrawn at this time; as the Veteran failed to report for the scheduled hearing, has not presented good cause for having failed to report, and has not requested the hearing be to be rescheduled. 38 C.F.R. §§ 20.703, 20.704. In finding the hearing request withdrawn, the Board acknowledges that the notification letter informing the Veteran of the scheduled hearing appears to have been returned to VA as undeliverable in January 2022. See returned mail associated with the claims file in January 2022. Notwithstanding, as it will be explained in more detail below, the Board finds the matter must be remanded for development prior to adjudication. As the Board is not adjudicating the matter on the merits, the Board finds no prejudice to the Veteran in deeming the requested hearing withdrawn at this time and remanding the matter to the agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ) for further development. Upon remand, the Veteran is free to submit additional evidence or argument in support of his claim for an increased rating. Additionally, the Veteran is advised that, if following completion of the requested development, the matter remains on appellate status in the legacy system and returns to the Board, he may request a new opportunity to provide testimony before a Veterans Law Judge at that time. 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.103; Quinn v. Wilkie, 31 Vet. App. 284 (2019). Entitlement to an initial disability rating in excess of 50 percent for PTSD, is remanded. By way of history, the Veteran was granted service connection for PTSD initially evaluated at 50 percent disabling, effective May 14, 2013. See August 2014 rating decision. The Veteran disagreed with the initial evaluation assigned to his PTSD in December 2014. See Notice of Disagreement (NOD) of December 2014. A Statement of the Case (SOC) was issued in June 2017 and the Veteran perfected his appeal by presenting a completed VA Form 9 in July 2017. The available medical records show the Veteran was afforded a VA examination for his PTSD in August 2014. The record does not reveal a more recent VA examination regarding the Veteran's psychiatric disorder. Additionally, the available evidence of record suggests the Veteran's PTSD may have changed in severity during the pendency of the appeal. Notably, in or around February 2019, the Veteran appears to have been hospitalized for psychiatric treatment. See medical records from March 2019 through June 2019; see also June 2019 rating decision granting a temporary evaluation of 100 percent. The available medical records also note the Veteran was experiencing homelessness at the time and had plans to move back to Europe. There are no more recent medical records, and it is unclear from the record whether the Veteran is currently experiencing homelessness and/or is currently residing in the continental United States. Thus, in view of the above and the Veteran's pro se status in the current appeal, the Board finds the matter must be remanded to afford the Veteran the opportunity of a VA examination to determine the current severity of his service-connected PTSD. Caffrey v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 377, 381 (1994); Allday v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 517, 526 (1995). The Board observes that recent VA notification letters to the Veteran have been returned as undeliverable by the postal service in 2021 and 2022. See returned mail in the claims file. The Board is unable to determine whether the returned VA letters were sent to the Veteran's most recent address of record. Notably, the Veteran's mailing address appears to have been changed at some time between June 2019 and February 2021. The record reflects that in June 2019 a VA letter was sent to the Veteran's last known address of record, per the VA 21-526EZ form submitted by the Veteran that same month, and is presumed to have been delivered, as it was not returned by the postal service. It is unclear from the record exactly when or why was the Veteran's mailing address changed after June 2019, as subsequent notifications have been mailed to an address different than the one specified in the VA 21-526EZ of June 2019 and have been returned to VA as undeliverable. The Board notes that appellants bear the burden of keeping VA apprised of their whereabouts; where they do not, "there is no burden on part of the VA to turn up heaven and earth to find [them]." See Hyson v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 262, 265 (1993). In the instant appeal, however, the record is unclear as to whether VA's most recent notification letters have been sent to the Veteran's last known address of record. Further, the record suggests that if so, this address may no longer valid as recent VA notifications have been returned as undeliverable. Moreover, the record suggests there may be unusual or extraordinary circumstances that may have resulted in the Veteran's inability to maintain VA informed of his whereabouts; in view of the 2019 medical records suggesting the Veteran may have been experiencing homelessness at the time and also suggesting his psychiatric disorder may have changed in severity. It is in consideration of these circumstances that the matter is being remanded for additional attempts to contact the Veteran to verify his mailing address and an examination to determine the current severity of his PTSD disability. Still, the Board acknowledges that while VA's duty to assist includes making reasonable efforts to assist a veteran in obtaining evidence necessary to substantiate his claim, such duty is not boundless in its scope nor a one-way street. Wamhoff v. Brown, 8 Vet. App. 517, 522 (1996); Zarycki v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 91, 100 (1993); Wood v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 190, 193 (1991). Appellants also have a duty to assist as they must cooperate with the development of their claims and must keep VA appraised of their whereabouts. Hyson v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 262, 265 (1993). Accordingly, the Veteran is advised that if following completion of the requested development herein, the Veteran fails to report, without good cause, to a VA examination in connection with his claim for an increased rating for his PTSD disability, the matter will be adjudicated based on the available evidence of record. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.655 (b); Turk v. Peake, 21 Vet. App. 565, 570 (2008) (a claim for a higher initial rating is an "original compensation claim" and not a "claim for increase" for purposes of 38 C.F.R. § 3.655 (b)). The matter is REMANDED for the following actions: 1. Determine the Veteran's last known (most recent) mailing address of record and determine whether recent VA notifications have been mailed to the correct address. Please associate with the claims file a memorandum to that effect. 2. To the extent possible, attempt to verify the Veteran's current mailing address, even if recent VA notifications are found to have been mailed to the Veteran's last known (most recent) mailing address of record. Attempt to verify his address by telephone, email, mail, and/or any other appropriate means available. Any attempt to contact the Veteran to obtain this information, and/or any attempts to confirm the Veteran's information through any available alternate means, should be noted in the claims file. 3. Obtain any outstanding VA medical record. 4. After obtaining any outstanding VA medical record, schedule the Veteran for a VA examination to determine the current severity of his service-connected psychiatric disability. (Continued on the next page) Notice to the Veteran regarding the scheduled examination must be clearly documented in the claims file. The AOJ should notify the Veteran that it is his responsibility to report for any scheduled VA examination and to cooperate in the development of the claim, and the consequences for failure to report for a VA examination without good cause. 38 C.F.R. § 3.655. In the event that the Veteran does not report for the scheduled VA examination, documentation must be obtained which shows that notice scheduling the examination was sent to the Veteran. 5. After completing the above requested actions, and any additional notification and/or development deemed warranted, readjudicate the issue on appeal. If the benefit sought on appeal remains denied, furnish to the Veteran an appropriate supplemental statement of the case that includes clear reasons and bases for all determinations, and afford him the appropriate time period for response before the claims file is returned to the Board for further appellate consideration. KRISTI L. GUNN Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board B. Gonzalez-Maldonado 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.