Citation Nr: 18143883 Decision Date: 10/22/18 Archive Date: 10/22/18 DOCKET NO. 11-02 837 DATE: October 22, 2018 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for hypertension is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder, to include depression, is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Navy from January 1991 to November 1993. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a May 2010 rating decision of a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). In June 2015, the Veteran testified at a Travel Board hearing before a Veterans Law Judge (VLJ) who is no longer employed by the Board. In September 2015, the Board reopened the Veteran’s previously denied claim for an acquired psychiatric disorder, and remanded the merits determination on that claim, as well as the claim for hypertension, for further development. In July 2018, the Veteran was mailed notice that the VLJ who conducted the June 2015 hearing was no longer at the Board. The Veteran was mailed notice that he could request another hearing before a different VLJ, and he did not respond. In January 2018, the Veteran was advised that he would be scheduled for a VA examination. See January 2018 Notification Letter. That examination was subsequently cancelled due to the Veteran’s failure to RSVP. See February 2018 Examination Inquiry. The Board observes that the Veteran has not responded to any notifications sent to his address of record or otherwise been in contact with VA since late October 2017, shortly after he reported that he was homeless and shortly before he was scheduled to be released from incarceration. See September 2017 VA Form 27-0820; VA Form 27-0820e. This includes not responding to a notification of the proposed termination of his VA benefits, despite the proposed termination being based on an incorrect factual premise. See March 2018 Termination Notification; June 2018 Notification Letter (cancelling proposed termination of benefits on VA’s initiative). Thus, it appears that the Veteran may not have received important VA notices, including the January 2018 notice of his scheduled VA examinations. As the evidence of record suggests that the Veteran may have had good cause for failure to RSVP for his VA examinations, the Board will remand his claims to afford the Veteran another opportunity to attend the VA examinations ordered in the September 2015 remand directives. The Veteran is advised that he should always try to provide both the RO and the VA Medical Center (VAMC) with a current address, if possible, and keep it updated. Moreover, if that is not possible, VA has specific procedures in place for contacting homeless veterans, such as delivering correspondence to the Agent Cashier of a VA medical facility, if the Veteran attends that facility or is likely to attend that facility. See 38 C.F.R. § 1.710. The Veteran is further advised that when a claimant, without good cause, fails to report for a VA examination or reexamination, then the claim shall be rated based on the evidence of record. Examples of good cause include, but are not limited, to, illness or hospitalization, death of a family member, etc. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.655. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Ascertain the Veteran’s current mailing address. Document all efforts in this regard in the Veteran’s claim file. 2. If homeless status is confirmed, inform the Veteran of the notification options available in 38 C.F.R. § 1.710. 3. Obtain any outstanding VA treatment records. 4. With any necessary assistance from the Veteran, attempt to obtain any outstanding relevant private treatment records. 5. Then schedule the Veteran for an appropriate VA examination to determine the nature, extent, and etiology of any acquired psychiatric disorder found to be present. The claims file should be made available to and should be reviewed by the examiner. The examiner should diagnose any acquired psychiatric disorders present, to include depression. For each acquired psychiatric disorder identified, state whether it is at least as likely as not (a 50 percent or greater probability) that such disorder: (a) had its onset during active service, or is otherwise etiologically related to the Veteran’s service; or (b) is proximately related to the Veteran’s service-connected bilateral knee disorder; or (c) has been aggravated (worsened beyond its natural progression) by the Veteran’s bilateral knee disorder. The examiner should discuss the Veteran’s reports of substance use during his active duty, his period of unauthorized absence in 1992, and his bilateral knee disorder. A complete rationale must be provided for all opinions, including a discussion of any evidence or medical principles relied upon by the examiner. If the requested opinion cannot be provided without resorting to speculation, the examiner should so state and explain why an opinion would be speculative. 6. Schedule the Veteran for a VA examination to determine the nature and etiology his claimed hypertension. The claims file should be made available to and should be reviewed by the examiner. The examiner should perform any tests and studies he or she deems necessary. Based on the results of the examination and any tests, the examiner state whether it is at least as likely as not (a 50 percent or greater probability) the Veteran’s hypertension had its onset during active service or is otherwise etiologically related to the Veteran’s service. In addressing this question, the examiner should discuss elevated blood pressure readings during the Veteran’s active duty (to include January 1993 (138/86), July 1993 (138/96), July 1993 (142/89), July 1993 (144/88), August 1993 (149/87)), and whether such readings are reflective of an in-service onset of hypertension. A complete rationale must be provided for all opinions, including a discussion of any evidence or medical principles relied upon by the examiner. If the requested opinion cannot be provided without resorting to speculation, the examiner should so state and explain why an opinion would be speculative. S. BUSH Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD D.M. Badaczewski, Associate Counsel