Citation Nr: 18144732 Decision Date: 10/25/18 Archive Date: 10/25/18 DOCKET NO. 16-29 932 DATE: October 25, 2018 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder, to include posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran, who is the appellant, served on active duty from September 1989 to March 1990 and from May 1, 1992, to May 9, 1992. He had additional periods of reserve duty. As an initial matter, the Board notes that, while the Veteran is claiming service connection for PTSD, a claim of service connection for a mental disability may encompass claims for service connection of any mental disability that may reasonably be encompassed by several factors, including the claimant’s description of the claim, the symptoms the claimant describes and the information the claimant submits or that the Secretary obtains in support of the claim. Clemons v. Shinseki, 23 Vet. App. 1, 5 (2009). Accordingly, the Board has taken an expansive view of the Veteran’s claim pursuant to Clemons. The Veteran contends that he has an acquired psychiatric disorder, specifically claimed as PTSD, as a result of service. He has stated that his short second period of active duty was to help contain riots that occurred in Los Angeles, California (LA). It is asserted that the circumstances of this service are sufficient to cause the acquired psychiatric disorder that has been diagnosed. The question for the Board is whether the Veteran has a current disability that began during service or is at least as likely as not related to an in-service injury, event, or disease. To address this question, the Veteran was provided a VA examination in April 2015. During this examination, it was determined that although the Veteran’s claimed in-service stressor event of serving during the LA riots was adequate to support the diagnosis of PTSD, he did not have such a diagnosis. As rationale, the VA examiner stated that the Veteran had no history of mental health treatment and the information gathered from her clinical interview of the Veteran did not appear to meet the diagnostic criteria for PTSD. Instead, she found he met the criteria for an unspecified psychotic disorder (questionably schizoaffective versus Cluster A personality disorder). She further stated that she was unable to determine without speculation whether the Veteran’s mental condition was at all related to his military service as he presented with a few potentially trauma-related symptoms of hypervigilance and paranoia that could be related to multiple traumas in his life, some occurring prior and subsequent to his military service, as well as his service during the LA riots. It was also noted that the Veteran’s symptoms might be psychotic in nature. Given the speculative nature of the April 2015 VA examiner’s medical opinion, the Board finds that another VA examination for a medical opinion would be helpful. The matter is REMANDED for the following actions: 1. Contact the Veteran and ask that he identify the provider(s) of any mental health treatment or evaluation he has received, and to provide any releases necessary for VA to secure such records of treatment or evaluation. Obtain complete records of all such treatment or evaluation from all sources identified by the Veteran. 2. After any additional records are received, schedule the Veteran for a VA psychiatric examination to determine the nature and likely etiology of his acquired psychiatric disorder. The Veteran’s claims file (to include this remand) must be reviewed by the examiner in conjunction with the examination. Upon examination/ interview of the Veteran, and review of pertinent medical history (to include the April 2015 VA examiner’s opinion), the examiner should provide opinions responding to the following: (a) What is (are) the diagnosis(es) for the Veteran’s current psychiatric disability(ies), if any? (b) For each psychiatric disability diagnosed, please provide an opinion as to whether such disability is, at least as likely as not (50 percent or better probability), related to the Veteran’s service and, in particular, his service during the LA riots. (Continued on the next page)   The examiner must provide a detailed rationale for any opinion expressed. If an opinion cannot be rendered without resorting to speculation, the examiner must state whether the need to speculate is caused by a deficiency in the state of general medical knowledge (i.e. no one could respond given medical science and the known facts) or by a deficiency in the record or the examiner (i.e. additional facts are required, or the examiner does not have the needed knowledge or training). A. ISHIZAWAR Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD Joseph P. Gervasio