Citation Nr: 18142600 Decision Date: 10/16/18 Archive Date: 10/16/18 DOCKET NO. 16-27 543 DATE: October 16, 2018 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from February 1968 to November 1969. Although the Veteran has expressly claimed service connection for schizophrenia, the scope of a claim may include other diagnoses that could reasonably be encompassed by the claimant’s description of the claim, reported symptoms, and the other information of record. See Clemons v. Shinseki, 23 Vet. App. 1, 5 (2009). Notably, in this case, the record also reflects other psychiatric diagnoses, including bipolar disorder. Thus, the issue has been modified broadly as a claim for an acquired psychiatric disorder. The Board notes that the issue of entitlement to service connection for schizophrenia was previously denied in a March 1972 Board decision. However, subsequent to that decision, VA received service personnel records in March 2015 that are relevant to the claim. Therefore, the Board will reconsider this claim under 38 C.F.R. § 3.156(c)(i) as part of the claim for an acquired psychiatric disorder as opposed to requiring the submission of new and material evidence. Entitlement to Service Connection for an Acquired Psychiatric Disorder is Remanded. The Veteran contends that he is entitled to service connection for schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder, bipolar type. He maintains that a psychiatric disorder began in service and has continued to the present. A July 1969 Mental Hygiene Consultation Service form reflects that the Veteran was evaluated because of a 635-212. During that time period, Army Regulation (AR) 635-212 provided that commanders would separate a member for unfitness where there was evidence of frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities. November 1969 service personnel records reflect that the Veteran had several periods in which he went AWOL, and that he was court-martialed twice. It also reflects that he had been recommended for psychiatric evaluations twice. An Army psychiatrist had examined the Veteran in July 1969 and found no evidence of any mental condition that would warrant treatment, hospitalization, or other disposition via medical channels. The psychiatrist found no disease or personality disorder that would warrant separation under regulation 635-212. The Veteran received a general discharge under honorable conditions. The Veteran was not diagnosed with schizophrenia until March 1971. See March 1971 private treatment records. The associated medical statement with the diagnosis was very brief, noting only symptoms of confusion and poor social adjustment. The statement was included in a petition to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade to an honorable discharge for medical reasons which was denied in February 1972. During an April 1971 psychiatric consultation, the Veteran reported that during his time in the service he was admitted to the hospital for nephritis because of considerable body swelling. He said that this caused him to feel nervous and uptight, which led to fits of rage and an incident in which he threatened to strike his commander. He reported that he received medication from psychiatrists at that time. The Veteran reported that while in the service an Army psychologist told him that he had a character or behavior disorder and recommended he seek an administrative discharge. He also said he thought he had a mental problem at that time and Army doctors did not take the time to properly examine or diagnose him. See May 1971 correspondence. In March 1972, the Board considered the evidence above and denied service connection for schizophrenia. The Veteran sought to reopen a claim for service connection for schizophrenia in November 2014. As noted above, the RO received additional service personnel records in March 2015. The RO continued to deny service connection in a May 2015 decision that is on appeal. A July 2015 VA mental health note stated that the Veteran was misdiagnosed in service with schizophrenia, and that he actually suffers from schizoaffective disorder, bipolar type, which should be service-connected. However, the Veteran’s service treatment records fail to reflect any mental health diagnosis, and as noted above, the Veteran was not formally diagnosed with a mental health condition until more than a year following separation from service. The Board cannot make a fully-informed decision on the issue of entitlement to service connection for an aquired psychiatric disorder because no VA examiner has provided an opinion. The Veteran has also raised the theory of secondary service connection. He is presently service-connected for glomerulonephritis. As discussed above, he stated that he became nervous and angry when he started treatment for that disability. The matter is REMANDED for the following action: Schedule the Veteran for an examination by an appropriate clinician to determine the nature and etiology of any current psychiatric disorder. (a.) The examiner must opine whether any psychiatric disorder is at least as likely as not onset in service with a continuity of symptoms since service or was caused by an in-service injury or disease. The examiner is asked to discuss the referenced behavioral issues and psychiatric evaluations found in the November 1969 military personnel record including the July 1969 mental health examination. (Continued on the next page)   The examiner is also asked to discuss the Veteran’s statement that an Army psychologist told him that he had a character or behavior disorder, and the July 2015 VA mental health note concluding that the Veteran’s psychiatric disorder should be service-connected. (b.) The examiner must also opine whether any psychiatric disorder is at least as likely as not (1) proximately due to service-connected disability, or (2) aggravated beyond its natural progression by service-connected disability. J.W. FRANCIS Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD T. Fitzgerald, Associate Counsel