Citation Nr: 18143076 Decision Date: 10/18/18 Archive Date: 10/17/18 DOCKET NO. 12-15 468 DATE: October 18, 2018 REMANDED Whether new and material evidence has been received to reopen the claim of entitlement to service connection for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is remanded. Whether new and material evidence has been received to reopen the claim of entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder, other than PTSD, is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran had active service from September 1978 to September 1981. This matter is before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from an RO rating decision dated February 2010. In April 2015, the Board denied the Veteran’s claims. The Veteran appealed that decision to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court). In March 2016, the Court vacated the Board’s decision and remanded the Veteran’s claims for action consistent with the directives of a joint motion for remand (JMR). In June 2017, the Board remanded the case to the RO for further development consistent with the JMR. The Board’s remand instructions included asking the Veteran to identify the location, facility, and dates of any in-service psychiatric treatment the Veteran claims to have received, and then to make efforts to obtain any “mental health treatment records directly from the military facility” at which the Veteran alleges treatment. See June 2017 Board remand order (emphasis in original removed). The case has since been returned for appellate review. The Board finds there has not been substantial compliance with the remand instruction regarding development of the Veteran’s alleged in-service mental health treatment records. See Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268, 271 (1998); see also Dyment v. West, 13 Vet. App. 141, 146-47 (1999) (noting that Stegall requires substantial compliance with remand orders, rather than absolute compliance). The record shows the Veteran’s attorney submitted a letter in July 2017 identifying two in-service mental health treatment locations: Naval Hospital Beaufort, near Parris Island, South Carolina, at which the Veteran claims to have received evaluation and treatment between March 13, 1980 and September 13, 1981; and at Marine Corps Air Station (MACS) Iwakuni, Japan, at which the Veteran claims to have been seen for treatment on approximately December 14, 1979. The record does not show the RO attempted to obtain these records directly from either of these facilities as set forth in the June 2017 Board remand order, thus necessitating remand. In March 2018, the RO obtained the Veteran’s service personnel records and associated them with the claims file. On remand, the RO should consider whether receipt of these military records mandates reconsideration of the claims, rather than requiring the submission of new and material evidence. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.156(c)(1), (2).   The case is REMANDED for the following action: 1. The RO should request the Veteran’s mental health treatment records directly from the following facilities and/or from NPRC to expressly include a search of the following facilities/dates: • Naval Hospital Beaufort, between March 13, 1980 and September 13, 1981 • Marine Corps Air Station (MACS) Iwakuni, Japan, approximately December 14, 1979 If all procedurally appropriate actions have been taken to locate and secure these records and it is determined such records do not exist, or further efforts to obtain those records would be futile, make a formal finding to that effect. 2. After completing the above and any other development deemed necessary, readjudicate the claims. In doing so, the RO should consider whether receipt of the Veteran’s military personnel records mandates reconsideration of the claims, rather than requiring the submission of new and material evidence. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.156(c); see September 2018 letter from the Veteran’s attorney (asserting the Veteran’s in-service misconduct noted in the records was due to the in-service events the Veteran contends give rise to his claimed PTSD and other non-PTSD acquired psychiatric disorders).   If the benefit sought on appeal is not granted, the Veteran and his representative should be provided a supplemental statement of the case and an appropriate period of time for response. MICHELLE L. KANE Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD D. Leamon, Associate Counsel