Citation Nr: 18151497 Decision Date: 11/20/18 Archive Date: 11/19/18 DOCKET NO. 15-34 747 DATE: November 20, 2018 REMANDED Entitlement of service connection for acquired psychiatric disorder is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty in the US Army from February 1978 to January 1980 and received an honorable discharge. The Veteran is appealing a June 2012 Rating Decision. A hearing was conducted in July 2018. Entitlement of service connection for acquired psychiatric disorder is remanded. The Veteran contends that he is entitled to a grant of service connection for Post- Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) resulting from an incident at Fort Carson, Colorado, involving an alleged gun fight with the Ku Klux Klan (KKK) during his time on active duty. The Veteran has claimed service connection for PTSD, which requires medical evidence diagnosing the condition in accordance with VA regulations; a link, established by medical evidence, between current symptoms and an in-service stressor; and credible supporting evidence that the claimed in-service stressor occurred. 38 C.F.R. § 3.304 (f) (2017). The Veteran’s VA treatment records reflect a current diagnosis of PTSD related to a childhood trauma, but not related to service. However, a private September 2018 opinion from a Licensed Clinical Social Worker (LCSW) has related the Veteran’s PTSD to service. Specifically, the LCSW provides a contextual background of the turbulent racial tensions during the time of the Veteran’s service. Further, the LCSW’s opinion details the activities of the KKK in and around Fort Carson in the time frame of the Veteran’s service there. Consequently, the LCSW concludes based on history and lay statements regarding the Veteran’s memory of the Veteran’s alleged altercation with the KKK that it is at least as likely as not that the Veteran’s current mental health diagnosis, including PTSD, was caused by or related to one of his experiences during his military service. Nevertheless, 38 C.F.R. 3.304(f)(3) specifically requires the opinion of a VA or VA-contracted psychiatrist or psychologist to affirm the Veteran’s lay statement. However, the record does not currently contain medical evidence diagnosing PTSD because the Veteran failed to report to his scheduled PTSD C&P Examination. A claimant failing to report for a scheduled examination must show good cause for not doing so. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.655; see also Engelke v. Gober, 10 Vet. App. 396, 399 (1997); Ashley v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 307, 311 (1992). In the month after the scheduled examination, the Veteran reported that his apartment building had a fire, which caused his mail to be delayed; therefore, the Veteran claims that he did not receive notice of the examination. The Veteran has further requested that the examination be rescheduled. An apartment fire constitutes good cause for missing the examination, therefore, the Veteran may be rescheduled for his examination in accordance with this Remand. The matter is REMANDED for the following action: The Veteran should be afforded a VA examination by a psychiatrist or psychologist. The examiner must specify in the report that the record has been reviewed. All pertinent symptomatology and findings should be reported in detail. Any indicated diagnostic tests and studies should be accomplished. The examiner should identify all chronic psychiatric disorders since the Veteran filed his claim in October 2011 and for each disorder identified, provide an opinion as to whether it is at least as likely as not that any such disorder had its onset in service, was caused by service, or is otherwise related to service. The examiner should specifically review and discuss the private opinion dated September 2018 submitted in this matter by the LCSW, in the examiner’s opinion. It would be helpful if the examiner would use the following language, as may be appropriate: “more likely than not” (meaning likelihood greater than 50%), “at least as likely as not” (meaning likelihood of at least 50%), or “less likely than not” or “unlikely” (meaning that there is a less than 50% likelihood). The term “at least as likely as not” does not mean “within the realm of medical possibility.” Rather, it means that the weight of medical evidence both for and against a conclusion is so evenly divided that it is as medically sound to find in   favor of that conclusion as it is to find against it. The examiner should provide a complete rationale for any opinion provided. MICHAEL D. LYON Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD K. Scanlan. Associate Counsel