Citation Nr: 0000578 Decision Date: 01/07/00 Archive Date: 01/11/00 DOCKET NO. 99-03 545 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Detroit, Michigan THE ISSUE Entitlement to an increased evaluation for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), currently evaluated as 30 percent disabling. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: Vietnam Veterans of America ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD Jason R. Davitian, Associate Counsel INTRODUCTION The veteran served on active duty from January 1970 to December 1971. This case is before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (BVA or Board) on appeal from a January 1999 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office in Detroit, Michigan, (RO), which granted service connection for PTSD. The assigned evaluation was 100 percent from June 25, 1998 (38 C.F.R. § 4.29); 30 percent from August 1, 1998; 100 percent from October 1, 1998 (38 C.F.R. § 4.29); and 30 percent from December 1, 1998. REMAND The veteran maintains, in substance, that the current evaluation assigned for his PTSD does not adequately reflect the severity of that disability. Accordingly, a favorable determination is requested. The VA is required to extend a liberal reading to include issues raised in all documents submitted prior to a decision. See Douglas v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 435 (1992). In this regard, the Board notes that a claim for a total rating based on individual unemployability, due to service-connected disabilities, has reasonably been raised by the evidence of record. Specifically, in correspondence received in February 1999, it was contended on the veteran's behalf that because of his PTSD he missed a lot of work and was unemployable. This issue has been neither developed nor certified for appellate review, and is referred to the RO for appropriate action. The clinical records reflect the veteran has been assigned Global Assessment of Functioning (GAF) scores in conjunction with diagnoses of PTSD and alcohol abuse. In this regard, the Board notes that none of the veteran's VA medical records address the extent to which his assigned GAF score reflects psychiatric disability as the result solely of his service- connected PTSD, or the extent to which the veteran's psychiatric disability is the result of other, non-service- connected disabilities such as alcohol dependence. None of the veteran's VA medical records distinguish those symptoms currently caused by his service-connected PTSD from those symptoms currently caused by his non-service-connected alcohol abuse and dependence. 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 or alcohol dependence or abuse since 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 all current and recent employment. Thereafter, in light of the response received and after obtaining any necessary authorization, the RO should take appropriate action to obtain copies of any employment records indicated. 3. The RO should provide the veteran with a VA Form 21- 8940, which is the formal claim form for a total rating for compensation based on individual unemployability. The veteran should be requested to complete and return such form if he desires to claim entitlement to a total rating for compensation purposes based on individual unemployability. 4. Then, the RO should schedule the veteran for a VA examination by a qualified specialist to determine the nature and extent of all psychiatric disorders present. 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 identify all psychiatric disabilities, and address the effect of the service-connected PTSD on the veteran's social and industrial adaptability. The examiner is specifically requested to distinguish manifestations of the veteran's service- connected PTSD from symptoms caused by non-service-connected psychiatric disability, such as alcohol dependence or abuse. If the examiner is unable to dissociate nonservice-connected manifestations, an explanation should be provided. 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 PTSD. The RO should also adjudicate the issue of entitlement to total rating based on individual unemployability, due to service-connected disabilities, unless otherwise indicated by the veteran or his representative. If the benefits sought are 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 veteran 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 veteran 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).