Citation Nr: 18146189
Decision Date: 10/31/18	Archive Date: 10/30/18

DOCKET NO. 16-37 750
DATE:	October 31, 2018
REMANDED
The issue of service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder, to include posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), is remanded.
REASONS FOR REMAND
The Veteran had active duty service from November 1973 to June 1975.
This appeal is before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) from a March 2015 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in St. Petersburg, Florida.
Although the Veteran has only claimed entitlement to service connection for PTSD, the Board has broadened the claim to include any acquired psychiatric disorder that may be reasonably encompassed by the Veteran’s description of the claim, the Veteran’s symptoms, and other information of the record, so as not to improperly limit the claim.  See Clemons v. Shinseki, 23 Vet. App. 1, 6, (2009).
1. An acquired psychiatric disorder
The Board has determined that additional development is necessary and the appeal is, therefore, REMANDED as directed below:
1. Reasons for the Remand: Remand is necessary to attempt to corroborate the Veteran's reported in-service stressor.
2. Conduct development to: Attempt to corroborate the Veteran's reported in-service stressor of witnessing a bear attack and kill a fellow service member, Private L. (first name unknown).  According to the Veteran, the bear attack occurred between January 23, 1974, and May 20, 1975, while he was stationed at Fort Richardson, Alaska.  The RO should investigate the entire timeframe indicated above.  
THE VETERAN MAY BE REQUESTED TO PROVIDE THE SERVICEMEMBER’S UNIT INFORMATION, LOCATION (TO INCLUDE CITY AND/OR MILITARY BASE), AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS INCIDENT TO ENABLE VA TO INVESTIGATE THE CLAIM. 
3. Following this development, the RO should conduct any other medical development is deems appropriate.  If an examination is scheduled, all indicated tests and studies should be accomplished and the findings reported in detail.  Thorough explanations must be provided for any opinions rendered.  If the examiner cannot provide an opinion without resorting to speculation, he or she should expressly indicate this and provide supporting rationale as to why an opinion cannot be made without resorting to speculation.

If an examination is scheduled, all relevant medical records must be made available to the examiner for review of pertinent documents.  The examination report should specifically state that such a review was conducted.  
4. After completing all indicated development, readjudicate the claim of the evidence.  If the benefit sought on appeal remains denied, a supplemental statement of the case must be provided to the Veteran and his representative.  After they have had an adequate opportunity to respond, the appeal should be returned to the Board for further appellate review, if in order.
The Veteran has the right to submit additional evidence and argument on the matter or matters the Board has remanded.  Kutscherousky v. West, 12 Vet. App. 369 (1999).  The Veteran is also advised that a claimant has the responsibility to present and support a claim for benefits under laws administered by the VA.  38 U.S.C. § 5107(a).  While VA has a duty to assist the veteran in substantiating his claim, that duty is not a one-way street.  Woods v. Gober, 14 Vet. App. 214, 224 (2000); see also Hurd v. West, 13 Vet. App. 449, 452 (2000) (the Veteran cannot passively wait for help from VA).





(CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE)
This claim must be afforded expeditious treatment.  The law requires that all claims that are remanded by the Board of Veterans’ Appeals or by the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims for additional development or other appropriate action must be handled in an expeditious manner.  See 38 U.S.C. §§ 5109B, 7112 (2012).
 
Vito A. Clementi
Veterans Law Judge
Board of Veterans’ Appeals
ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD	Carolyn Colley, Associate Counsel