Citation Nr: 18141190 Decision Date: 10/09/18 Archive Date: 10/09/18 DOCKET NO. 16-50 975 DATE: October 9, 2018 REMANDED Service connection for a psychiatric disorder is remanded.   REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from August 1981 to January 1986. The case is on appeal from a September 2013 rating decision. Service connection for a psychiatric disorder. The Veteran seeks service connection for a psychiatric disorder. He asserts that it is the result of his military service by pointing out that his experience in the military was a physically and emotionally challenging one. The Veteran also makes reference to an interpersonal incident in which he had to report a platoon sergeant right before his military discharge and negatively impacted his occupational performance. As a result, he asserts his peers avoided him after the incident and it caused him a lot of distress. To that extent, service treatment records (STRs) show that the Veteran reported depression or excessive worry on his separation exam in December 1985. Considering the above evidence, and since VA treatment records show a current diagnosis of bipolar disorder, a VA examination for mental disorders was afforded in August 2013. However, the Board finds that the August 2013 VA examination is not adequate for adjudicating the claim as the examiner failed to provide an adequate rationale for the proffered opinion. When VA undertakes to provide a VA examination or obtain a VA opinion, it must ensure that the examination or opinion is adequate. Barr v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 303, 312 (2007). To be considered adequate, a medical examination report must contain not only clear conclusions and supporting data, but also a reasoned medical explanation connecting the two. See Nieves-Rodriguez v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 295 (2008). The August 2013 VA examiner stated, among other conclusions, that “since the Veteran enlisted in the military with no preliminary mental health issues, since the Veteran reports excessive depression or worry on exit exam which indicates onset of mood disorder while on active duty and since he reports that the onset of his mood disorder was the result of an investigation into a PLT SGT’s behavior which the Veteran reported that resulted in him being ostracized by peers for several weeks, since he reports agitation and mood symptoms that impacted his marriage to include breaking his wife’s nose that started while on active duty which does support the evidence of symptoms while on active duty, since he meets criteria for bipolar disorder and he is diagnosed by qualified VA mental health professionals, it would be resorting to mere speculation for this clinician to state that this gentleman’s Bipolar was incurred or caused by an event that occurred on active duty.” The examiner failed to adequately address the Veteran’s competent lay statements regarding in-service events and symptomatology and to provide a reasoned conclusion as to how his findings, which in the examiner’s own words support evidence of symptoms while on active duty, can resort to mere speculations if stating that the Veteran’s bipolar disorder was incurred or possibly incurred or caused by an event while on active duty. Thus, the Board finds a remand is warranted to obtain an adequate VA examination and opinion. In light of the remand, updated VA treatment records should be obtained. The matter is REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain updated VA treatment records dated since July 2016. 2. Schedule the Veteran for a VA psychiatric examination by an appropriate medical professional. The examiner should first determine whether the Veteran has a current psychiatric disorder. The examiner should then provide an opinion as to whether any identified psychiatric disorder at least as likely as not (50 percent or greater possibility) had its onset during, or is otherwise related to, his military service. The examiner should consider the Veteran’s contentions that (1) an in-service interpersonal incident in which he had to report a platoon sergeant right before his military discharge, negatively impacting his occupational performance for which the Veteran asserts his peers avoided him after the incident causing him a lot of distress; (2) his military experience was a physically and emotionally challenging one; and (3) the report of a history of depression on the December 1985 separation examination. The examiner must provide a complete rationale for all proffered opinions. RYAN T. KESSEL Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD William Pagan, Associate Counsel