Citation Nr: 18145074 Decision Date: 10/26/18 Archive Date: 10/25/18 DOCKET NO. 16-35 133 DATE: October 26, 2018 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder, to include anxiety and depressive disorders is remanded. Whether new and material evidence has been received to reopen a previously denied claim for service connection for chronic fatigue is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from July 1987 to July 1991, to include service in Southwest Asia. The Board notes that the RO certified two separate issues on appeal, namely, entitlement to service connection for depressive disorder, and entitlement to service connection for anxiety disorder; however, for efficiency purposes, the Board recharacterized the Veteran’s claims to an acquired psychiatric disorder in order to contemplate the Veteran’s psychiatric symptoms, however diagnosed. See Clemons v. Shinseki, 23 Vet. App. 1, 5 (2009). The Board finds that a remand is necessary to provide the Veteran with a VA examination to determine the nature and etiology of his psychiatric disorders. In addition, a remand is necessary for the RO to issue a statement of the case (SOC) for the issue of whether new and material evidence has been received to reopen a previously denied claim for service connection for chronic fatigue. An Acquired Psychiatric Disorder The Board notes that the Veteran’s initial claim included a claim for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD); however, in a correspondence received by VA in November 2011, the Veteran stated that his provider explained to him that he does not meet the criteria for PTSD, but rather is diagnosed with anxiety. He noted, “we may need to remove PTSD from the claim she is a professional and I have to go with her opinion. Our goal is for the truth not just ot name disorders in a claim.” He conveyed the following message during a phone conversation documented in a report of general information dated in October 2012. Nevertheless, the RO scheduled the Veteran for a VA examination for PTSD later in October 2012, at which time the examiner concluded that he did not have a diagnosis of PTSD, but diagnosed the Veteran with anxiety disorder, NOS. The examiner provided no opinion as to the etiology of the Veteran’s anxiety disorder. An addendum opinion was not obtained, and the Veteran was not provided with a new VA examination. The Board finds that the record contains sufficient information, which suggests that the Veteran’s psychiatric disorder may be related to his active duty service. Accordingly, a new VA examination with nexus opinion is necessary prior to deciding the claim on the merits. Chronic Fatigue A SOC is needed with respect to the issue of whether new and material evidence has been received to reopen a previously denied claim for service connection for chronic fatigue. In a December 1996 rating decision, the RO denied the Veteran’s service connection claim for fatigue. Thereafter, subsequent to his petition to reopen in November 2010, the RO continued to deny the claim in a January 2013 rating decision. In February 2013, the Veteran filed a timely notice of disagreement (NOD) for the issue on appeal as well as for his claim for service connection for chronic fatigue. Nevertheless, while the RO adjudicated the claim on appeal, among other claims, in a July 2016 SOC, the issue of whether new and material evidence has been received to reopen a previously denied claim for service connection for chronic fatigue was not adjudicated. In his July 2016 substantive appeal, the Veteran noted that he would like to appeal the issues of depression, anxiety, and fatigue. Subsequently, in a December 2016 rating decision, the RO continued to deny service connection for fatigue; however, a SOC was never issued. Hence, the claim must be remanded for issuance of an SOC that addresses the Veteran’s request to reopen the previously denied claim for service connection for chronic fatigue. See Manlincon v. West, 12 Vet. App. 238, 240 (1999). Thus, the Board accepts limited jurisdiction over the chronic fatigue issue for the sole purpose of remanding it to order issuance of a SOC along with information about the process for perfecting an appeal as to this claim, if the Veteran so desires. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Ensure that all outstanding VA treatment records since the September 2017 SSOC are associated with the claims file. 2. Provide the Veteran with a VA mental health examination to determine the nature and etiology of any currently diagnosed mental health disorder. The claims file and a copy of this Remand must be made available to the examiner, and the examiner shall indicate in the examination report that the claims file was reviewed. After a review of the claims file and examination of the Veteran, the examiner is asked to respond to the following: (a) Identify all psychiatric disorder diagnosed since the November 2010 date of claim, to include anxiety and depressive disorder. If certain diagnoses are no longer present, explain how they have resolved. (b) For any acquired psychiatric disorder diagnosed since the November 2010 date of claim, provide an opinion as to whether it, at least as likely as not (50 percent probability or greater), had its onset in service or is otherwise related to it. **In doing so, please address the Veteran’s lay assertions as to the circumstances of his service and onset of symptoms, to include his reports of exposure to combat noted in an October 31, 2011 VA mental health telemedicine note and letters written from the Veteran to his family during service. In addition, address the Veteran’s mother’s statement that she noted depression upon his return from the Persian Gulf. See VBMS entry on 11/23/2011 titled “correspondence” and VBMS entry on 04/28/2012 titled “CAPRI” p.34. The examiner should provide a complete rationale for all opinions. (Continued on the next page)   3. Issue a SOC pertaining to the issue of whether new and material evidence has been received to reopen a previously denied claim for service connection for chronic fatigue in response to a timely February 7, 2013 NOD to the January 2013 rating decision. This claim will not be certified to the Board unless the Veteran perfects an appeal by filing a timely substantive appeal. S. B. MAYS Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD A. Yaffe, Associate Counsel