BVA9504831 DOCKET NO. 93-14 533 ) DATE ) ) Received from the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Oakland, California THE ISSUE Entitlement to an increased evaluation for post-traumatic stress disorder, currently evaluated as 30 percent disabling. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: Disabled American Veterans ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD Robert E. O'Brien, Counsel REMAND The veteran had active service from April 1968 to April 1972. This case comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a November 1991 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in San Francisco, California, which confirmed and continued a 30 percent schedular rating for the veteran's psychiatric disability, classified for rating purposes as dysthymic disorder with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Service connection is also in effect for residuals, postoperative status, puncture wound to the right foot with cellulitis, rated as noncompensably disabling. Statements by the veteran and his representative have been construed as a claim for a total rating based on unemployability by reason of the veteran's service-connected psychiatric disorder. This issue has not been developed or adjudicated by the RO, and it is inextricably intertwined with the current appellate issue. The United States Court of Veterans Appeals (Court) has held that the Board must address all issues that have been reasonably raised by the record. EF. v Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 324 (1991). The Board notes that the veteran has not received a VA examination for his service-connected psychiatric disability for several years. The VA has the duty to assist the veteran in the development of facts pertinent to his claim under 38 C.F.R. § 3.103(a)(1994). The Court has held that fulfillment of the VA's duty to assist the veteran includes providing him with a thorough and contemporaneous medical examination. Littke v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 90, 92 (1990). Through 1992 the veteran was being followed primarily at the VA Medical Center in San Francisco, California, and at the Vet Center, 25 Van Ness Avenue, San Francisco, California 94102. More current documentation from these facilities is desirable. In view of the foregoing, the case is REMANDED to the RO for the following actions: 1. The RO should contact the veteran and request that he provide the names and addresses of all health care providers who have treated him for psychiatric disability in the recent past and specify the approximate dates of treatment, if possible. Then, after any necessary authorization is obtained from the veteran, the RO should obtain copies of any treatment records identified. Of particular interest are records from the VA Medical Center, San Francisco, California, and the Vet Center, 25 Van Ness Avenue, San Francisco, California 94102, subsequent to 1992. 2. The RO should schedule the veteran for a comprehensive VA psychiatric examination. This study should be conducted in accordance with the VA's Physician's Guide for Disability Evaluation Examinations. A comprehensive social and industrial history should be recorded. All indicated tests, to include appropriate psychological studies with applicable subscales, should be conducted. The claims file must be made available to and reviewed by the examiner in connection with the examination. The diagnostic formulation should include a Global Assessment of Functioning (GAF) score and an explanation of what the assigned score represents. The examiner should be requested to provide an assessment of the extent to which the veteran's PTSD interferes with his initiative, flexibility, efficiency and reliability levels. 3. Following completion of the foregoing, the RO must review the claims folder and ensure that the foregoing development has been completed. If any development is incomplete, appropriate corrective action should be implemented. When the requested development is fully completed, the RO should readjudicate the claim for an increased rating and adjudicate the issue of the veteran's entitlement to a total compensation rating based on unemployability. The rating decision should reflect consideration of the applicability of the provisions of 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.321(b)(1), 4.7, 4.129 and 4.130 (1994). Thereafter, the veteran and his representative should be furnished with a supplemental statement of the case. They should then be afforded the applicable time in which to respond. The case should then be returned to the Board for further consideration, if otherwise in order. By this REMAND, the Board intimates no opinion as to any final outcome warranted. No action is required by the veteran until he is notified by the RO. CHARLES E. HOGEBOOM 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 determination. 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. 38 C.F.R. § 20.1100(b) (1994).