Citation Nr: 18142612 Decision Date: 10/17/18 Archive Date: 10/16/18 DOCKET NO. 15-37 156 DATE: October 17, 2018 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from January 1967 to January 1971. The Veteran contends that his PTSD is due to his period of service. Specifically, the Veteran competently and credibly reported severe traumatic experiences in a November 2011 statement. The Veteran contends that while stationed at Elmendorf Air Force Base, Alaska, he witnessed wounded Service Members transiting from Vietnam in route to the United States. The Regional Office found in a March 2013 VA Memorandum, that the Veteran’s lay testimony that he was working in the supply department while stationed in Alaska was insufficient evidence to seek further corroborating information relating to the Veteran’s claim that he witnesses injured Service Members. However, an internet search confirms that, during the Veteran’s time at Elmendorf Air Force Base, Alaska, it was used as the transfer point for wounded Service Members transiting home from Vietnam. See U.S. Army Medical Department, Office of Medical History, http://history.amedd.army.mil/booksdocs/vietnam/ medicalsupport/chapter4.html. Although normally the Board cannot rely upon outside information without providing the claimant notice of such evidence, since this information is used to effectuate a finding in favor of the Veteran, this normal prohibition need not apply. See Thurber v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 119 (1993). The Board finds that that the evidence is at least in equipoise regarding evidence of a verifiable in-service stressor for PTSD, and will resolve reasonable doubt in favor of the Veteran. See 38 U.S.C. § 5107; Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49 (1990). Furthermore, VA has a duty to provide a VA examination when the record lacks evidence to decide the veteran’s claim and there is evidence of (1) a current disability, (2) an in-service event, injury, or disease, and (3) some indication that the claimed disability may be associated with the established event, injury, or disease. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(c)(4) (2016); see also McLendon v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 79 (2006). Since the Veteran provided creditable evidence in his November 2011 statement that he is suffering from symptoms that may be related to PTSD and indicated that these symptoms are related to an in-service event, a VA examination is warranted under McLendon to establish possible service connection. The matter is REMANDED for the following action: 1. Please obtain all outstanding VA and non-VA treatment records with respect to the claim on appeal. 2. Thereafter, please arrange for a psychiatric examination of the Veteran to determine the nature and likely etiology of his psychiatric disabilities. The entire record (to include this remand) must be reviewed by the examiner in conjunction with the examination. Based on such review of the record and examination of the Veteran, the examiner should respond to the following: a. Please identify (by medical diagnosis) each psychiatric disability entity found since the claim was filed in 2011. b. If PTSD is diagnosed, please discuss whether it is at least as likely as not (i.e., a 50% or better probability) related to the Veteran’s witnessing wounded Service Members returning from combat in Vietnam to the United States. For the purpose of responding to this question, the examiner should take as fact that the Veteran witnessed wounded Service Members returning from combat in Vietnam to the United States. c. If PTSD is not diagnosed, please explain why the criteria for such diagnosis are not met. d. As to any psychiatric disability entity other than PTSD diagnosed, with respect to each such disorder please opine whether such is at least as likely as not (a 50% or greater probability) related to the Veteran’s active service, to include witnessing wounded Service Members returning from combat in Vietnam to the United States. The examiner must explain the rationale for all opinions, citing to supporting clinical data as appropriate. The appellant has the right to submit additional evidence and argument on the matter or matters the Board has remanded. Kutscherousky v. West, 12 Vet. App. 369 (1999). This claim must be afforded expeditious treatment. The law requires that all claims that are remanded by the Board of Veterans’ Appeals or by the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims for additional development or other appropriate action must be handled in an expeditious manner. See 38 U.S.C. §§ 5109B, 7112 (2012). M. C. GRAHAM Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD B. Herdliska