Citation Nr: 0001422 Decision Date: 01/18/00 Archive Date: 01/27/00 DOCKET NO. 97-31 939A ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Detroit, Michigan THE ISSUE Entitlement to an increased evaluation for generalized anxiety disorder, currently evaluated as 30 percent disabling. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: Vietnam Veterans of America WITNESSES AT HEARINGS ON APPEAL Appellant and his parents ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD Jason R. Davitian, Associate Counsel INTRODUCTION The veteran served on active duty from December 1995 to August 1996. This case is before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (BVA or Board) on appeal from an October 1997 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office in Detroit, Michigan (RO), which granted the veteran service connection for generalized anxiety disorder, with an assigned evaluation of 30 percent. The assigned evaluation was effective the day after the veteran was separated from active duty. REMAND The veteran essentially contends that the RO was incorrect in not granting the benefit sought on appeal. The veteran maintains, in substance, that the current 30 percent evaluation assigned for his generalized anxiety disorder does not adequately reflect the severity of that disability. He contends that his service-connected psychiatric disability should be rated 70 percent. He contends that his psychiatric disability renders him isolated and unable to interact with others. Although the veteran is employed, he maintains that his psychiatric disability renders him unable to work with or around other people, results in poor performance, and has caused him to be terminated from several jobs. Therefore, a favorable determination has been requested. In testimony presented during a February 1998 personal hearing at the RO, and during a November 1999 hearing before a travel section of the Board, chaired by the undersigned Board member, the veteran and his parents testified that he has lost several jobs since active service due to his service-connected psychiatric disability. Specifically, the veteran noted he was terminated from L.V. Danado, also known as Lugari Enterprises. The veteran noted that at his current job for Smith Security he had been fired from various work sites. Despite this testimony, the claims file contains no employment records. The veteran also testified that in March 1997, police officers in Ecorse, Michigan, took him to a private hospital after he made a public suicide attempt. No police records regarding this incident have been obtained. Finally, after a careful review of the veteran's testimony it is still unclear to the Board whether the veteran is currently receiving psychiatric treatment from VA or private care-givers. In this regard, the Board also notes that the veteran's most recent VA psychiatric examination was conducted in June 1997. In light of the above, and in order to give the veteran every consideration with respect to the present appeal, it is the Board's opinion that further development is necessary. Accordingly, this case is REMANDED for the following action: 1. The veteran should be requested to provide the names, addresses, and dates of treatment for all VA and non-VA health care providers who have treated him for a psychiatric disability since October 1998. Thereafter, in light of the response received and after obtaining any necessary authorization, the RO should take appropriate action to obtain copies of any clinical records indicated, which have not been previously secured. 2. The veteran should be requested to provide the names, addresses, and dates of employment for all his employers since separation from service in August 1996, including L.V. Danado, Lugari Enterprises, Smith Security, and any current employer. Thereafter, in light of the response received and after obtaining any necessary authorization, the RO should take appropriate action to obtain copies of any personnel records indicated, to include the reason for termination of employment, if appropriate. 3. The RO should obtain from the Ecorse, Michigan, local law enforcement agency any police reports or other reports that have been filed in connection with the veteran, to include any reports filed in conjunction with the veteran's March 1997 hospitalization. If such records are not available, cannot be located, or cannot be obtained after a reasonable effort, documentation to this effect should be associated with the claims file. 4. The RO should schedule the veteran for a VA examination by an appropriate specialist to determine the nature and extent of the veteran's generalized anxiety disorder. All indicated tests must be conducted. The claims file must be made available to and reviewed by the examiner prior to the requested study. The examiner should specifically address the effect of the service-connected generalized anxiety disorder on the veteran's social and industrial adaptability. A complete rationale for all opinions expressed should be given. 5. Then, in light of the additional evidence obtained, the RO should readjudicate the veteran's claim for an increased evaluation for generalized anxiety disorder. If the benefit sought is not granted, where a timely notice of disagreement is of record, the veteran and his representative should be furnished a supplemental statement of the case, and be afforded a reasonable opportunity to respond before the record is returned to the Board for further review. The purpose of the REMAND is to obtain additional development, and the Board does not intimate any opinion as to the merits of the case, either favorable or unfavorable, at this time. The appellant has the right to submit additional evidence and argument on the matter or matters the Board has remanded to the regional office. Kutscherousky v. West, 12 Vet. App. 369 (1999). No action is required of the appellant until he is notified. U. R. POWELL Member, Board of Veterans' Appeals Under 38 U.S.C.A. § 7252 (West 1991 & Supp. 1999), only a decision of the Board of Veterans' Appeals is appealable to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. 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) (1999).