BVA9505283 DOCKET NO. 93-10 020 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Cleveland, Ohio THE ISSUE Entitlement to an increased evaluation for schizophrenia, paranoid type, currently evaluated as 30 percent disabling. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: The American Legion ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD Christine E. Puffer, Associate Counsel INTRODUCTION The veteran had active service from July 1981 to June 1983. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a December 1992 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Cleveland, Ohio, Regional Office (RO) which denied entitlement to the benefit sought on appeal. The veteran's representative indicated in November 1993 written argument that the veteran was contesting the June 1991 reduction of his service-connected schizophrenia, paranoid type, rating from 50 to 30 percent. The Board notes that the RO's June 1991 rating decision became final in June 1992; thus the veteran's January 1993 notice of disagreement was untimely with respect to the rating decision implementing the noted reduction. See 38 U.S.C.A. § 7105(c) (West 1991); 38 C.F.R. § 20.302(a) (1994). The notice of disagreement, however, is timely with respect to the December 1992 rating decision denying entitlement to a rating in excess of 30 percent for the veteran's service-connected psychiatric disorder. Id. Thus, only the issue certified on appeal, entitlement to an increased rating, is properly before the Board. REMAND At the time of a November 1992 VA examination, the veteran reported that he had been psychiatrically hospitalized on several occasions, with his last hospitalization spanning more than one year. It is unclear when this hospitalization took place or where, as no associated medical records have been obtained. Although the examination report indicated that the veteran had last been on psychotropic medication in September 1991, the veteran reported in a March 1993 statement that he had been taken off his medication for only two months before his medicinal regimen was reinstated by a private physician. It is not clear whether the veteran is still receiving treatment from that physician. In the veteran's statement, he reported that he was receiving psychiatric treatment at the VA Mental Hygiene Clinic in Dayton, Ohio. The most recent outpatient treatment records from that facility are from July 1988. The veteran had also notified that VA that he had been incarcerated beginning in January 1993, and was receiving treatment for his psychiatric condition. However, none of these records have been obtained. The Board finds that the veteran has submitted a well-grounded claim, thus triggering the VA's duty to assist him in development of the same. See 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107(a) (West 1991); Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 49, 55 (1990). The duty to assist includes obtaining all relevant medical records. Dyess v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 90, 92 (1991). As the veteran has put the VA on notice of the existence of various relevant treatment records that are not of record, a REMAND is required in order to associate the same with his claims file. In November 1993 written argument, the veteran's representative requested that the instant case be remanded for further development. As the Board concurs with the representative's suggestion, this case is therefore REMANDED for the following actions: 1. The RO should contact the veteran and request that he provide a listing of all private caregivers and facilities from whom he has received psychiatric treatment since 1992. The veteran should specifically be requested to provide the name of the facility at which he was hospitalized for psychiatric care for over a year, as reported at his November 1992 VA examination. After receiving any necessary authorization, the RO should obtain all available treatment records of the veteran and associate the same with the claims folder. 2. The RO should obtain all available treatment records of the veteran from the Dayton VA Mental Hygiene Clinic, including both outpatient and hospitalization reports, from 1988 to the present. 3. After obtaining any necessary authorization, the RO should contact the Auglaize County Jail and obtain all available treatment records of the veteran, including both outpatient and hospitalization reports. 4. After the above development has been completed, the veteran should be afforded a psychiatric examination for the purpose of evaluating the nature and severity of his service-connected schizophrenia, paranoid type, and any other psychiatric condition he may manifest. Any and all tests deemed necessary should be performed. The examination should include an analysis of the veteran's level of functioning as measured by the Global Assessment of Functioning (GAF) Scale, pursuant to the American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (3rd ed. revised, 1987); an explanation of the numerical GAF value assigned; and an opinion as to the degree of impairment of the veteran to perform substantially gainful employment. The complete rationale for all opinions rendered should be stated. The claims folder must be made available to the examiner for review prior to, and during, the examination. When the development requested in the above paragraphs has been completed, the case should again be reviewed on the basis of the additional evidence. Unless the veteran is satisfied with any favorable action and withdraws his appeal, an appropriate supplemental statement of the case should be furnished the appellant and his representative. They should then be afforded the appropriate period of time to respond. Thereafter, the case should be returned to the Board for further consideration. The purpose of this REMAND is to assist the veteran in the development of his claim, and the Board does not intimate any opinion as to the merits of this case, either favorable or unfavorable, at this time. No action is required of the veteran until he is notified. JACQUELINE E. MONROE 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 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).