Citation Nr: 23040604 Decision Date: 07/25/23 Archive Date: 07/25/23 DOCKET NO. 18-28 171 DATE: July 25, 2023 REMANDED Entitlement to an increased rating in excess of 50 percent for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) prior to April 28, 2022, and in excess of 70 percent thereafter, is remanded. Entitlement to a total disability rating based on individual unemployability due to service-connected disabilities (TDIU) is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from August 2006 to January 2007, and from May 2009 to May 2010. This matter came before the Board of Veterans Appeals (Board) on appeal from a January 2018 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). The Veteran testified before the undersigned Veteran's Law Judge during an October 2021 hearing. The transcript of the hearing is of record. The Board previously remanded these issues for further development in February 2022. The Board notes that a higher rating (less than the maximum available benefit) has been granted for the Veteran's PTSD during the pendency of this appeal. See April 2022 Rating Decision. Because higher ratings for this disability are assignable during the relevant time period and the Veteran is presumed to seek the maximum available benefit, the issue remains on appeal and has been recharacterized to reflect the new staged rating. See AB v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 35, 38 (1993). 1. Entitlement to an increased rating in excess of 50 percent for PTSD prior to April 28, 2022, and in excess of 70 percent thereafter The Board's review of the record indicates that there may be outstanding treatment records relevant to the issue on appeal. VA treatment records from 2016 and 2017 refer to private psychiatric treatment records that were scanned into VISTA Imaging. The Board does not have access to records scanned into VISTA imaging. Remand is therefore required to obtain these records. 2. Entitlement to TDIU The Board notes that the record contains conflicting information about the Veteran's employment history. The Veteran has indicated that he has not had full time employment since 2017, but he listed two different dates on his application forms. See March 2020 TDIU Application (listing March 2017 as the last date of full-time employment); see also May 2022 TDIU Application (listing May 2017 as the last date of full-time employment). During the October 2021 hearing, the Veteran stated that he worked in crowd management until March 2017, but he listed on the May 2022 TDIU application that he worked in crowd management from January 2011 to January 2012 with no reference to any later employment outside of his National Guard service. In his February 2020 Social Security application, the Veteran reported that he worked for an event management company from 2015 to 2017 and stopped working May 2017 because of his disabilities. A May 2018 treatment note states that the Veteran was unemployed, that he had been working for a crowd management company for the past 2 years, and that he quit due to his psychiatric disability. As the record contains multiple different reported dates for the Veteran's last date of employment, his work history and earnings remain unclear. The Board notes that the record does not contain a Social Security earnings report. In order to clarify the Veteran's earnings, Social Security records regarding his earnings history for the period from November 2016 to the present should be obtained. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain copies of the 2016 and 2017 private psychiatric treatment records that are in "VISTA Imaging." If these cannot be obtained, the Agency of Original Jurisdiction must detail its attempts to obtain the records and state why they could not be obtained. 2. Obtain the Veteran's records from the Social Security Administration regarding his earnings from November 2016 to the present. Document all requests for information as well as all responses in the claims file. 3. If upon completion of the above action the appeal remains denied, the case should be returned to the Board after compliance with appellate procedures. E. I. VELEZ Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board E. Bock 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.