Citation Nr: 18143359 Decision Date: 10/18/18 Archive Date: 10/18/18 DOCKET NO. 15-03 151 DATE: October 18, 2018 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder, to include posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and dysthymic disorder is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from May 1969 to February 1973. These matters come before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a rating decision of April 2014 issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in St. Paul, Minnesota, which denied the benefit being sought. In June 2018, the Veteran testified at a videoconference hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge (VLJ). A transcript of the hearing is of record. The VLJ agreed to hold the record open for 60 days to allow the Veteran time to supplement the record with additional evidence. He did not submit additional medical evidence. Entitlement to service connection for PTSD and an acquired psychiatric disorder, to include dysthymic disorder, is remanded. The Veteran seeks service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder, to include dysthymic disorder. During his December 2015 VA examination, the examiner found that the Veteran’s unspecified depressive disorder was in remission. The examiner then stated that there was no mental order diagnosis. Based on this evidence, the RO denied the Veteran’s claim. An October 2017 post-service treatment note shows that the Veteran was prescribed duloxetine for his depression, indicating that it was not in remission. As there is conflicting evidence that there is a current diagnosis of depression during the appeal period, the Veteran should be afforded a VA examination to determine the nature and etiology of all acquired psychiatric disabilities that have been present during the pendency of the appeal. Regarding PTSD, in his January 2016 Form 9, the Veteran contended that he was unfairly evaluated at his VA examination for PTSD. The examiner found that the Veteran’s symptoms did not meet the diagnostic criteria for PTSD under the DSM-5 criteria. An August 2017 treatment record shows a current diagnosis of mood disorder and PTSD, prolonged. The Veteran competently and credibly testified at his June 2018 hearing that while in Vietnam, he was stationed at Da Nang, and was in charge of the motor pool, checking in/out the locals who worked on base. He was soon reassigned to the ammo depot, where he took ammunition to the flight line, and offloaded and helped the morgue bring back bodies. The Board notes that at the time of the December 2015 PTSD evaluation, he did not recount these stressors to the examiner. Further, as the hearing testimony was the first time the Veteran had relayed this stressor, the RO has yet to undertake any effort to corroborate the non-combat related stressor. Establishing service connection requires competent evidence of (1) a current disability; (2) in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) a nexus between the claimed in-service disease or injury and the present disability. Davidson v. Shinseki, 581 F.3d 1313, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2009). Service connection for PTSD requires (1) medical evidence diagnosing PTSD in accordance with 38 C.F.R. § 4.125 (a); (2) a link, established by medical evidence, between a veteran’s present symptoms and an in-service stressor; and (3) credible supporting evidence that the claimed in-service stressor occurred. 38 C.F.R. § 3.304 (f) (2017); Cohen v. Brown, 10 Vet. App. 128, 139 (1997). For an in-service stressor not related to participation in combat, independent corroboration by outside evidence is required beyond a veteran’s lay testimony. The record must contain credible supporting information from an independent source that corroborates his testimony or statements, such as service records. Cohen, 10 Vet. App. at 146-47; Moreau v. Brown, 9 Vet. App. 389 (1996). The available sources for corroboration of a claimed stressor are not necessarily limited to service records, but may also include other sources of evidence such as lay statements from third-party individuals. Cohen, 10 Vet. App. at 143. Here, the record shows that the Veteran served in-country in Vietnam. However, because the claimed stressor is not related to combat, the Veteran’s testimony alone is not enough to establish the occurrence of the alleged stressor. Zarycki v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 91, 98 (1993). Nonetheless, given the credible hearing testimony of his non-combat stressor, and the August 2017 VA psychiatric examination diagnosis of prolonged PTSD and mood disorder, the Board finds that corroboration of the in-service stressor as well as a new examination is warranted. Accordingly, these matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Take all appropriate steps to verify the Veteran’s claimed in-service stressor of having to assist with the retrieval of dead bodies from aircraft and bring them to the morgue while in the Republic of Vietnam. If the Veteran provides sufficient information to make a request to the Joint Services Records Research Center (JSRRC), sequential requests must be made to cover the period of time set forth by the Veteran. See Gagne v. McDonald, 27 Vet. App. 397 (2015). 2. Then, schedule the Veteran for a VA examination a VA examination determine the nature and etiology of any acquired psychiatric disability identified during the period on appeal. The entire claims file and a copy of this remand must be made available to the examiner for review. The examiner should provide opinions as to the following: (a.) Identify the Veteran’s psychiatric disorder(s) present during the appeal period. (b.) If PTSD is diagnosed, identify the specific stressor(s) and comment upon the link between the current symptomatology and the Veteran’s stressor(s). (c.) Determine whether it is as likely as not (50 percent probability or greater) that any identified acquired psychiatric disability had its onset during active service or is related to any incident of service, including his service in the Republic of Vietnam. The examiner must provide all findings, along with a complete rationale for his or her opinion(s), in the examination report. If any of the above-requested opinions cannot be made without resort to speculation, the examiner must state this and provide a rationale for such a conclusion. (Continued on the next page)   2. Then, readjudicate the claim. If any decision is adverse to the Veteran, issue a supplemental statement of the case and allow the applicable time for response. Then, return the case to the Board. D. Martz Ames Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD N. Stevens, Associate Counsel