Submitted my NoD and my VA form 9. The rating official made the decision on the GAF and dismissed any all evidence that was favorable for me.
In the NoD I wrote: …”.the evidence is clear the rating of 70 percent in the 2013 Rating Decision is in error. The rating official erred by only using the GAF 52 in making the final disability determination. There is no question that the GAF score and interpretations of the score are important considerations in rating a psychiatric disability. See Richard v. Brown, 9 Vet. App. 266, 267 (1996); Carpenter v. Brown, 8 Vet. App. 240 (1995). However, the GAF score, like an examiner's assessment of the severity of a condition at the time of a particular evaluation, is not altogether dispositive or determinative of the evaluation to be assigned; rather, the GAF score must be considered in light of the actual symptoms of the Veteran's disorder, which provide the primary basis for the rating to be assigned. 38 C.F.R. § 4.126(a); In evaluating mental disorders such as PTSD and Bipolar I Disorder, the rating official must consider all the evidence of record, determine the nature of the appellant's disability picture, and then look to the list of symptoms outlined in the diagnostic criteria as examples that can provide guidance in estimating the severity of the appellant's condition. See Mauerhan v. Principi, 16 Vet. App. 436, 442 (2002). More recently, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit explained that evaluation under § 4.130 is "symptom-driven," meaning that "symptomatology should be the fact-finder's primary focus (emphasis added) when deciding entitlement to a given disability rating" under that regulation. Vazquez-Claudio v. Shinseki, 713 F.3d 112, 116, 117 (Fed. Cir. 2013). In the context of determining whether a 100 percent disability evaluation is warranted, § 4.130 requires "not only the presence of certain symptoms [,] but also that those symptoms have caused occupational and social impairment in most of the referenced areas [;]" thus, it "requires an ultimate factual conclusion as to the veteran's level of impairment in 'most areas.'" Id. at 117, 118 (quoting 38 C.F.R. § 4.130, Diagnostic Code 9411). A rating official determination of the appropriate degree of disability under the rating code is a finding of fact subject to the "clearly erroneous" standard of review. 38 U.S.C. § 7261(a) (4); see Smallwood v. Brown, 10 Vet. App. 93, 97 (1997). Therefore, the evaluation by Dr. Li (his primary provider for the last 2-3 years) was completed closest to the date of his “4th” occurrence than the C&P’s examination 11 months later. Therefore, the Veteran claims the C&P does not provide any probative value of evidence in this case. After the review all the evidence of record dating to 1987, it must be clear to the Board of the Veteran's functional capacity, on January 2013 meets the criteria at the 100% permanent rating. The VA regulations state that "where there is a question as to which of two rating criteria shall be applied, the higher evaluation will be assigned if the disability picture more nearly approximates the criteria for that rating 38 C.F.R. § 4.7 (2012). The regulations also caution that "it is not expected . . . that all cases will show all the findings specified in the [applicable DC]." 38 C.F.R. § 4.21 (2012). Moreover, in Mauerhan v. Principi, the Court held that the symptoms listed in DC are "not intended to constitute an exhaustive list, but rather are to serve as examples of the type and degree of symptoms, or their effects, that would justify a particular rating." 16 Vet. App. 436, 442 (2006). Instead, the rating official is required to "consider all symptoms of a claimant's condition that affect the level of occupational and social impairment," not just those listed in the regulation.”
on stanby to see the SoC from RO if Denied---next step to VBA via VTC.