Citation Nr: 18151764 Decision Date: 11/20/18 Archive Date: 11/20/18 DOCKET NO. 14-24 049A DATE: November 20, 2018 November 20, 2018 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served honorably on active duty in the United States Navy from January 1993 to January 1994. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a September 2012, rating decision from the Department of Veterans’ Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). The Veteran requested a hearing before the Board; however, prior to its scheduled March 2018 date, the Veteran’s representative requested a postponement. A new hearing was scheduled for August 2018, but the Veteran did not to appear. To date, no good cause explanation for his absence or a request to reschedule the hearing has been received, therefore his hearing request is deemed withdrawn. 38 C.F. R. § 20.702 (d). According to June 2018 correspondence, the Veteran’s prior representative, Attorney P. Gronbeck, wrote to the Board seeking to withdraw her representation of the Veteran. The Board in August 2018 correspondence acknowledged and granted the representative’s motion to withdraw. Copies of both letters were sent to the Veteran. The Veteran has not selected a new representative. The Board finds that he wishes to represent himself in this claim. Remand The Boards finds that a remand is necessary to obtain an addendum as to the etiology of the Veteran’s currently diagnosed psychiatric disorders. The Veteran asserts that his acquired psychiatric disorder is related to his active military service. Specifically, the Veteran reported that things while stationed aboard ship he began experiencing problems with anger management, problems with his fellow sailors, and problems staying focused. He stated that things became worse when he arrived in Japan, i.e., he became depressed and had several altercations with MP’s and fellow soldiers. He stated that, after service, he was ineligible for VA health care and eventually began self-medicating with drugs and alcohol, and when he found employment, he sought private treatment in 2010. As indicated, the Veteran entered service in January 1993. His service treatment records dated in November 1993 show that he was referred from the ship for medical observation secondary to a series of problems he encountered on the ship. In December 1993, he was admitted to the psychiatric department where he remained for three days. The admission report shows an admitting diagnosis of adjustment reaction with mixed emotional features. In an associated handwritten note, diagnoses of life circumstance problem (P) and personality disorder were noted. In the remarks section, an administration separation was recommended and was to be expedited. Discharge diagnoses in December 1993 were antisocial personality disorder and psychological stress NEC. In approximately 2010, the Veteran sought psychiatric treatment from a private provider. In November 2010, he filed the instant claim. VA treatment records dated in 2011 show that the Veteran attempted to seek acute inpatient psychiatric hospitalization but did not meet the criteria. In June 2016, the Veteran was afforded a VA mental health disorders examination in connection with this claim. The examiner diagnosed the Veteran with an unspecified depressive disorder, a cannabis use disorder, and an antisocial personality disorder. The examiner stated that the Veteran’s primary problem is his antisocial personality, noting that it pre-existed his service. The examiner also determined that the Veteran’s unspecified depressive disorder is less likely as not related to his military service and more likely related to his financial problems, life stressor and regrets about past failures. However, the 2016 VA examiner did not address whether the Veteran’s antisocial personality disorder was subjected to a superimposed disease or injury during service, did not provide an opinion as to whether the Veteran’s cannibis use disorder is related to his service, and did not explain why the depressive disorder is more likely due to stressors other than his military service. Accordingly, the case is REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain any outstanding VA treatment records and associate them with the claims file. 2. Then, obtain an addendum from the examiner who conducted the June 2016 VA psychiatric examination, if at all possible. If that examiner is not available, obtain the addendum from another suitably appropriate examiner. If another examination is needed, one should be afforded to him. The claims file, including a copy of this Remand, must be made available to, and be reviewed by, the VA examiner. After reviewing the Veteran’s claims file, the examiner is asked to: (a) Provide an opinion as to whether the Veteran’s pre-existing antisocial personality disorder was subjected to a superimposed injury or disease in service that resulted in additional disability. (b) Provide an opinion as to whether the Veteran’s cannibis use disorder had its onset during active service or is otherwise related to it. (c) Also explain why the Veteran’s unspecified depressive disorder is more likely related to financial problems, life stressors and past failures than to his military service. In answering these questions, the examiner’s attention is called to the Veteran’s military records showing diagnoses of psychological stress and antisocial personality disorder, an administrative discharge due to personality disorder following multiple infractions, and the Veteran’s reports as to etiology. The examiner should include in the report an explanation for all opinions. If the examiner cannot respond to the inquiries posed without resort to speculation, he or she should further explain why it is not feasible to provide a medical opinion. (Continued on the next page)   3. Then, readjudicate the claim on appeal. S. B. MAYS Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD D. Wagner, Counsel