Citation Nr: 18146866 Decision Date: 11/01/18 Archive Date: 11/01/18 DOCKET NO. 17-67 858 DATE: November 1, 2018 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disability, to include posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from August 1980 to August 1984. This appeal has been advanced on the Board’s docket pursuant to 38 C.F.R. § 20.900 (c); 38 U.S.C. § 7107 (a)(2). A claim for service connection for a psychiatric disability is deemed to encompass all psychiatric diagnoses reasonably presented in the record. See Clemons v. Shinseki, 23 Vet. App. 1 (2009). Pursuant to Clemons, the Board has expanded the service connection claim for PTSD as reflected on the title page of this decision. Although the Board regrets the delay, this matter must be remanded for further development. In denying the Veteran’s service connection claim, the RO The Veteran seeks service connection for PTSD as a result of his active duty service. The Veteran has asserted that he was exposed to snakes in his tent while he was in the field during active service. The Veteran also noted that he was fearful of not being able to leave the United States Marine Corps to attend to his father’s serious health condition and possible death. On August 14, 2017, during the pendency of this appeal, the Veteran was diagnosed with PTSD at the Fayetteville, North Carolina VA. At that time, the Veteran reported additional stressors including repeated near misses while in flight, that he nearly fell out of an airplane. It does not appear that the Veteran reported these additional stressors previously and they have not been developed. On remand the Veteran should be afforded an additional opportunity to submit more specific stressor information and the AOJ should attempt to verify the Veteran’s asserted in-service stressors The Veteran has not been afforded a VA examination for any acquired psychiatric disorder, to include PTSD. In light of the August 2017 PTSD diagnosis, the Board finds that enough favorable medical evidence is of record to satisfy the relatively low threshold of McLendon v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 79, 81 (2006), as to when VA is required to assist the Veteran by affording her an examination in effort to properly develop her claim. Accordingly, the matter is REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain copies of all relevant outstanding VA treatment records. If possible, the Veteran should submit these records himself. 2. Provide the Veteran with another opportunity to verify the dates his stressors occurred and to provide more specific information regarding the circumstances of the reported stressors. He should be notified that specific dates (or within a timeframe of 2-3 months), locations and names of the people involved will better allow for verification of these stressors. The Veteran must cooperate in the matter by providing any further identifying information that may be needed to seek stressor verification. 3. If the Veteran responds with an updated stressor statement, the AOJ should assess whether this information is adequate to provide to the Joint Services Records Research Center (JSRRC). 4. Thereafter, the AOJ should arrange for the Veteran to be examined by an appropriate VA psychologist or psychiatrist to determine whether any psychiatric disorder found on examination is related to service (to include PTSD if a stressor event is found to be corroborated). The Veteran’s record (to include this remand and the AOJ’s findings regarding corroboration of alleged stressors) must be reviewed by the examiner in conjunction with the examination. Based on review of the entire record, and interview/examination of the Veteran, the examiner should provide an opinion that responds to the following: a) The examiner should identify all psychiatric disorders found to be present, to include PTSD. b) The examiner should specifically determine if the Veteran meets the diagnostic criteria for PTSD. If PTSD is diagnosed, the examiner should identify the specific stressor or stressors that support that diagnosis. If the Veteran does not meet the criteria for PTSD, the examiner should explicitly discuss which criteria for diagnosis are missing. c) Determine whether it is at least as likely as not (a probability of 50 percent or greater) that any current psychiatric disorder had onset during service, or is otherwise related to any aspect of the Veteran’s service. d) The examiner is advised that the Veteran is competent to report symptoms and history, and such reports must be specifically acknowledged and considered in formulating any opinions. If the examiner rejects the Veteran’s reports of symptomatology, he or she must provide a reason for doing so. All opinions expressed must be accompanied by a complete rationale. 5. Then, readjudicate the Veteran’s claim. If the benefits sought on appeal remain denied, the Veteran and her representative should be provided a supplemental statement of the case. Allow an appropriate period of time for response. John Crowley Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD V. Woehlke, Associate Counsel