Citation Nr: 18150586 Decision Date: 11/15/18 Archive Date: 11/15/18 DOCKET NO. 16-38 153 DATE: November 15, 2018 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder, to include posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Appellant served on active duty in the U.S. Army from November 1973 to January 1975. Entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder, to include PTSD, is remanded. The Appellant contends that he has an acquired psychiatric (specifically PTSD) due to his active service in Light Weapons Infantry. Specifically, the Appellant contends that during service in Korea he was stationed near the Demilitarized Zone (DMZ) and that he was placed on point during patrols in and around the DMZ. In that regard, if a stressor claimed by a veteran is related to the veteran’s fear of hostile military or terrorist activity and a VA psychiatrist or psychologist, or a psychiatrist or psychologist with whom VA has contracted, confirms that the claimed stressor is adequate to support a diagnosis of PTSD and that the veteran’s symptoms are related to the claimed stressor, in the absence of clear and convincing evidence to the contrary, and provided the claimed stressor is consistent with the places, types, and circumstances of the veteran’s service, the veteran’s lay testimony alone may establish the occurrence of the claimed in-service stressor. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.304(f)(3). Service personnel records document over 9 months of service in Korea with Company C of the 1st Battalion, 17th Infantry Regiment, 2nd Infantry Division and in Companies A and C of the 1st Battalion (M) 31st Regiment, 2nd Infantry Division. Both assignments included a principal duty of Light Weapons Infantry. Personnel Records from his time with Company C of the 1st Battalion 31st Regiment, 2nd Infantry Division noted service at Camp Giant. The locations of duty assignments shown in several Article 15 disciplinary records are near the DMZ, such as Freedom Bridge, but do not indicate the nature of his duties at that time; specifically, the records do not show guard or patrol duties. No determination as to whether the Appellant’s assertions as to mental health problems associated with patrolling in the vicinity of the DMZ are verified. Specifically, the Appellant has reported problems due to fear of being attacked, assaulted in a fight with other soldiers, and/or stepping on an old mine. In light of the foregoing, the Board concludes that a remand is required to attempt to determine the nature of the Appellant’s service in and around the DMZ and, in the event sufficient corroboration of such service can be made, to afford the Appellant a VA mental health examination. The Board recognizes that in January 2009 the Appellant was found to have no Axis I psychiatric diagnosis. In addition, during a September 2010 VA general medical examination, the Appellant denied any mental health problems on questioning and a mental health evaluation was normal. The foregoing does not preclude the possibility of the subsequent development of an acquired psychiatric disorder during the pending period of the appeal. The matter is REMANDED for the following action: 1. Contact all appropriate service department(s) regarding verification of the proximity of the Appellant’s service units to the DMZ, specifically in an effort to verify the Appellant’s actual duties of patrolling in and around the DMZ. If it is determined that there are no records in any appropriate service department that can confirm the units’ duties during the relevant time periods, or that the Appellant was assaulted or experienced other life threatening traumatic events, then a memo should be created documenting all efforts made. 2. If the Appellant’s unit(s) service patrolling in the vicinity of the DMZ can be confirmed or that he experienced life threatening personal assaults, schedule the Appellant for an examination by a VA psychiatrist or psychologist knowledgeable in evaluating PTSD to determine the nature of any psychiatric disorder(s) found to be present. Psychological testing should be conducted with a view toward determining whether the Appellant in fact has PTSD. The electronic claims file must be made available to the examiner for review. The examiner is requested to state whether the Appellant’s reported stressors are related to his fear of in-service hostile military or terrorist activity and, if so, whether the claimed stressor(s) is adequate to support a diagnosis of PTSD and whether the Appellant’s symptoms are related to the claimed stressor(s). A rationale must be provided for each opinion offered. (Continued on the next page)   3. After the above is complete, readjudicate the Appellant’s claim. If a complete grant of the benefits requested is not granted, issue a supplemental statement of the case (SSOC) to the Appellant. J.W. FRANCIS Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD C. J. Houbeck, Counsel