Citation Nr: A25035141 Decision Date: 04/16/25 Archive Date: 04/16/25 DOCKET NO. 190914-31418 DATE: April 16, 2025 REMANDED Entitlement to an initial disability rating in excess 50 percent for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran had active service from June 2001 to December 2001, and January 2003 to August 2003, with additional Reserve service. This matter comes to the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from an August 2019 Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) rating decision. In September 2019, the Veteran filed a VA Form 10182, Decision Review Request: Board Appeal, and elected the evidence submission docket. As such, the Board may only consider the evidence of record at the time of the rating decision on appeal, as well as any evidence submitted by the Veteran, or his representative, with, or within 90 days from receipt of, the VA Form 10182. 38 C.F.R. § 20.303. In March 2021, the Board denied the Veteran's claim of entitlement to an initial disability rating in excess of 50 percent for PTSD. The Veteran then appealed the Board's decision to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court). In a September 2022 memorandum decision, the Court vacated and remanded the Board's decision. Thereafter, in April 2023, the Board again denied the Veteran's claim of entitlement to an initial disability rating in excess of 50 percent for PTSD. The Veteran again appealed the April 2023 Board decision. In August 2024, the Court issued a memorandum decision to vacate and remand the Board's April 2023 decision for readjudication of the claim consistent with the considerations discussed in the memorandum decision. Entitlement to an initial disability rating in excess 50 percent for PTSD is remanded. In accordance with the August 2024 Court decision, the Board must remand the matter to obtain clarification of the July 2019 VA examination. Specifically, the Court noted that it is unclear why the July 2019 examiner did not indicate that the Veteran had impaired impulse control as a symptom of the Veteran's PTSD despite the examiner's indication that the Veteran suffered from "irritable behavior and angry outbursts (with little or no provocation) typically expressed as verbal or physical aggression toward people or objects" under criterion E of the criteria for PTSD. As the Board is unable to reconcile the examiner's findings without clarification, remand is necessary to obtain an addendum to the July 2019 examination, or if necessary, a new examination to determine the severity of the Veteran's PTSD. The matter is REMANDED for the following action: Obtain an addendum to the July 2019 VA examination of the Veteran's PTSD that clarifies the Veteran's PTSD symptoms in light of the examiner's assessment of the Veteran's disability based on the PTSD diagnostic criteria. If the examiner deems it necessary, schedule the Veteran for an examination. A copy of the Veteran's claims file, to include this REMAND, should be made available to and reviewed by the examiner. The examiner is directed to clarify why the July 2019 examination did not indicate the Veteran's PTSD was productive of impaired impulse control despite indicated that the Veteran's PTSD manifested in "irritable behavior and angry outbursts (with little or no provocation) typically expressed as verbal or physical aggression toward people or objects" under criterion E of the criteria for PTSD. In providing an opinion, the examiner is directed to consider the Veteran's report that he experienced some road rage and described throwing something out of his vehicle at another moving vehicle. See July 2019 VA examination. Any opinion expressed by the examiner should be accompanied by a complete rationale. If the examiner is unable to offer an opinion without resorting to speculation, a thorough explanation as to why an opinion cannot be rendered should be provided, including whether it is due to a limitation of general medical knowledge, the examiner's knowledge, or information about the Veteran's medical history. L. CHU Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board D. Shorafa 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.