Citation Nr: 18145825 Decision Date: 10/30/18 Archive Date: 10/30/18 DOCKET NO. 15-18 609A DATE: October 30, 2018 ORDER The previously denied claim of entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder, to include posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), intermittent explosive disorder, and schizoaffective disorder is reopened. REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder, to include posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), intermittent explosive disorder, and schizoaffective disorder is remanded. FINDING OF FACT New and material evidence was received to reopen the previously denied claim of entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder, to include posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), intermittent explosive disorder, and schizoaffective disorder. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria to reopen the previously denied claim of entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder, to include posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), intermittent explosive disorder, and schizoaffective disorder have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 5108, 7105 (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.156, 20.200, 20.201, 20.302, 20.1103 (2017). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran had honorable active duty service in the United States Marine Corps from September 1980 through September 1983. The Veteran died during the pendency of the appeal. The appellant is the Veteran’s son who requested and was granted substitution. The Veteran’s claims for various psychiatric conditions are consolidated and broadened to encompass possible mental disorder diagnoses in the record. See Clemons v. Shinseki, 23 Vet. App. 1, 5 (2009) (holding that VA must construe a claim for service connection to include any disability that may reasonably be encompassed by the claimant’s description of the claim, the symptoms the claimant describes, and the information the claimant submits or the Secretary obtains in support of the claim). 1. New and material evidence was received to reopen the previously denied claim of entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder, to include posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), intermittent explosive disorder, and schizoaffective disorder. A final decision cannot be reopened unless new and material evidence is presented. 38 U.S.C. § 5108; 38 C.F.R. § 3.156(a). Evidence is considered “new” if it was not previously submitted to agency decision makers; “material” evidence is existing evidence that, by itself or when considered with previous evidence of record, relates to an unestablished fact necessary to substantiate the claim; “new and material evidence” can be neither cumulative nor redundant of the evidence of record at the time of the last prior final denial of the claim sought to be reopened, and must raise a reasonable possibility of substantiating the claim. 38 C.F.R. § 3.156(a). In determining whether evidence is new and material, the “credibility of the evidence is to be presumed.” Justus v. Principi, 3 Vet. App. 510, 513 (1992). New and material evidence is not required as to each previously unproven element of a claim in order to reopen. Shade v. Shinseki, 24 Vet. App. 110, 120 (2010). There is a low threshold for determining whether evidence raises a reasonable possibility of substantiating a claim. Id. at 117-18. The Veteran’s claim for service connection for a psychiatric disorder was first denied in an August 1996 rating decision on the bases that there was no clear diagnosis of PTSD, and that the Veteran did not have a confirmed stressor. The Veteran subsequently sough to reopen his claim for service connection numerous times, but each time he was denied for a failure to present new and material evidence. The subsequent rating decisions all became final, and now, the claim may be considered on the merits only if new and material evidence has been received since the time of the prior adjudication. 38 U.S.C. § 5108; 38 C.F.R. § 3.156(a); Jackson v. Principi, 265 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2001). New evidence associated with the file, includes, inter alia, stressor statements and accounts of in-service incidents, the claimed impact of such, as well as various treatment records documenting various mental health diagnoses and medications. See, e.g., November 2005 VA treatment note; January 2016 VA treatment records; November 2014 Statement in Support of Claim. This evidence relates to the basis for the prior denial(s) and is thus new and material. Presuming the credibility of the evidence for the purposes of this analysis, the Board finds the new evidence associated with the record has the possibility of substantiating the claim of entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder, to include posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), intermittent explosive disorder, and schizoaffective disorder. Accordingly, the claim is reopened. 38 U.S.C. § 5108; 38 C.F.R. § 3.156(a) REASONS FOR REMAND Entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder, to include posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), intermittent explosive disorder, and schizoaffective disorder is remanded. The Veteran sought service connection for a mental disorder prior to his death. There are a variety of diagnoses noted in the treatment notes of record, including anxiety conditions, alcohol use disorder, anxiety disorder, and the record contains references to schizophrenia, and schizoaffective disorder. The Veteran claimed, in various correspondence, that his mental condition was related to his active service. Although his service treatment records do not show any diagnosis or treatment for any mental condition, the Veteran related his symptoms and conditions to various experiences during active-service, and reported auditory hallucinations relating to his military service in various treatment records. It does not appear that the Veteran was provided with a VA examination after 1995. On review, it is unclear to the Board what the nature of the Veteran’s mental disability was during the period on appeal, and it is unclear if any mental disability had any relationship to his active service. The Board notes that even if a PTSD stressor was not verified, the Veteran could still have received direct service-connection for another psychiatric condition—as noted above, the claim warrants a broad reading, and to the extent there was a prior final decision on a psychiatric claim, reopening of such was warranted in light of the additional treatment records. There exists ambiguity in the record as to what diagnosis or diagnoses applied to the Veteran during the period on appeal, and the etiology of psychiatric conditions is a complicated question for which a medical opinion is particularly helpful. VA must provide a claimant a medical examination or obtain a medical opinion when such an examination or opinion is necessary to decide on a claim for compensation. Weighing the various considerations, the Board finds it would be helpful to have a retrospective VA examination to assess the Veteran’s psychiatric disability or disabilities, and to provide a medical opinion as to whether any confirmed diagnoses are related to his active service. As such, remand for a retrospective VA examination is warranted. The matter is REMANDED for the following action: 1. Arrange for a retrospective psychiatric examination to determine the nature and etiology of any psychiatric disorder during the period on appeal. For each confirmed psychiatric disorder, the examiner must opine whether each diagnosed disorder is at least as likely as not related to an in-service injury, event, or disease. A fully articulated medical rationale for each opinion expressed must be set forth in the medical report. The medical professional should discuss the particulars of this Veteran’s medical history and the relevant medical sciences that apply to this case, which may reasonably make clear the medical guidance in the study of this case. If any requested opinion cannot be provided without resort to mere speculation, the examiner should explain in full why this is the case. Evan Deichert Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD T. C. King, Associate Counsel