BVA9503926 DOCKET NO. 93-13 099 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in St. Petersburg, Florida THE ISSUE Entitlement to an increased rating for a bipolar disorder, currently rated 10 percent disabling. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: Disabled American Veterans WITNESS AT HEARING ON APPEAL Appellant ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD Mark J. Swiatek, Counsel INTRODUCTION The veteran had active duty from March 1982 to July 1984. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) from a September 1991 decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in St. Petersburg, Florida. The record reflects that in a January 1992 communication to the RO, the veteran asserted that he was unemployable on account of his psychiatric disability. The Board also notes that at the hearing, argument was presented regarding service-connection for the veteran's alcohol/substance abuse. These matters are referred to the RO for consideration. REMAND This case was received at the Board in June 1993. Additional evidence was submitted to the RO and transferred to the Board in June 1994. The records include August and September 1993 psychiatric admissions to Florida Hospital and transfer to a VA hospital at the conclusion of the September 1993 admission. In addition to the service-connected bipolar disorder, the record reflect multiple other Axis I and Axis II diagnoses, including probable trans-sexualism, alcohol dependence, passive aggressive personality features, mixed personality disorder, and schizo- affective disorder. Additional data is needed to determine the degree of impairment attributable to the service-connected bipolar disorder. In view of the foregoing, it is the opinion of the Board that further development, as outlined below, is warranted. Accordingly, the case is REMANDED to the RO for the following action: 1. The veteran should be provided with an application for increased compensation based on individual unemployability due to service- connected disability. He should also be requested to identify all sources of recent treatment for his service-connected psychiatric disability. With any necessary authorization from the veteran, the RO should attempt to obtain copies of all indicated records which have not been previously secured. 2. A VA social and industrial survey should be conducted in order to clarify the veteran's medical, social, educational, and employment history. The social worker should elicit and set forth pertinent facts regarding the veteran's medical history, education, employment history, social adjustment, and current behavior and health. The social worker should offer an assessment of the veteran's current functioning and identify the conditions which limit his employment oppor- tunities. Any potential employment opportunities should be identified. The claims folders must be made available to the social worker in conjunction with the survey as it contains important historical data. 3. Following completion of the above development, the veteran should be accorded a VA psychiatric examination to determine the severity of the bipolar disorder. The claims folder must be made available to the examiner prior to the evaluation so that the examiner may review the pertinent historical data contained therein. The examiner should utilize the social work service report as well as pertinent data in the claims folder in order to obtain a true picture of the progress of the veteran's psychiatric disorder. The examination should be comprehensive enough to determine the nature and extent of all psychiatric symptoms. Any relationship between the service-connected psychosis and any other psychiatric disorder or substance abuse disorder should be identified. The psychiatrist should utilize any psychological testing deemed pertinent in making a complete diagnostic evaluation and in differentiating the bipolar disorder symptoms from those attributable to other conditions. Primary personality disorders should be fully described and classified. Based upon a review of the record and the examination, the physician should provide a Global Assessment of Functioning (GAF) scale code and discuss the meaning of the GAF scale code assigned. In addition, the examiner should also discuss the impairment attributable to the psychosis as distinct from impairment attributable to other conditions. 4. When the above development has been completed the RO should readjudicate the veteran's claim. If it has not been rendered moot, the claim for a total rating based on individual unemployability on account of service-connected psychiatric disability should also be adjudicated. The rating should reflect consideration of the applicability of the provisions of 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.321(b)(1) and 4.16(b) or 4.16(c), whichever may be applicable. If any benefit sought on appeal is not granted to the veteran's satisfaction, a supplemental statement of the case addressing all issues in appellate status should be prepared and furnished to the veteran and his representative. They should be provided the applicable period in which to respond. Thereafter, in accordance with the proper appellate procedures, the case should be returned to the Board for further appellate review, if otherwise in order. In taking this action, the Board implies no conclusion, either legal or factual, as to any final outcome warranted. No action is required of the veteran until he is otherwise notified by the RO. GARY L. GICK Member, Board of Veterans' Appeals The Board of Veterans' Appeals Administrative Procedures Improvement Act, Pub. L. No. 103-271, § 6, 108 Stat. 740, ___ (1994), permits a proceeding instituted before the Board to be assigned to an individual member of the Board for a deter- mination. This proceeding has been assigned to an individual member of the Board. Under 38 U.S.C.A. § 7252 (West 1991), only a decision of the Board of Veterans' Appeals is appealable to the United States Court of Veterans Appeals. This action has been taken in accordance with the Veterans' Benefits Improvements Act of 1994, Pub. L. No. 103-446, § 303, 108 Stat. 4645, (1994) and is in the nature of a preliminary order and does not constitute a decision of the Board on the merits of your appeal. This remand is in the nature of a preliminary order and does not constitute a decision of the Board on the merits of your appeal. 38 C.F.R. § 20.1100(b) (1994).