Citation Nr: 18158261 Decision Date: 12/14/18 Archive Date: 12/14/18 DOCKET NO. 16-55 406 DATE: December 14, 2018 ORDER As new and material evidence has been received, the previously denied claim of service connection for a right hip disability is reopened. As new and material evidence has been received, the previously denied claim of service connection for a right ankle disability is reopened. As new and material evidence has been received, the previously denied claim of service connection for an acquired psychiatric disability other than posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), to include depression, is reopened. As new and material evidence has not been received, the previously denied claim of service connection for a left hip disability is not reopened. As new and material evidence has not been received, the previously denied claim of service connection for residuals of a right arm contusion is not reopened. As new and material evidence has not been received, the previously denied claim of service connection for a left leg disability is not reopened. Entitlement to service connection for a bilateral ankle disability is denied. Entitlement to service connection for systemic lupus erythematosus is denied. Entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disability other than PTSD, to include depression, as due to service-connected radiculopathy of the right lower extremity, right shoulder osteoarthritis, and lumbosacral spine disability, is granted. REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for a right hip disability is remanded. Entitlement to an initial rating greater than 20 percent for right shoulder osteoarthritis is remanded. Entitlement to a disability rating greater than 10 percent for a lumbosacral spine disability is remanded. Entitlement to an initial rating greater than 20 percent for radiculopathy of the right lower extremity is remanded. Entitlement to a total disability rating based on individual unemployability (TDIU) is remanded. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. In a rating decision dated on November 3, 1993, the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ) denied, in pertinent part, the Veteran’s requests to reopen his previously denied claims of service connection for residuals of a right arm contusion and for an acquired psychiatric disability other than PTSD, to include depression; although the Veteran disagreed with this decision, he did not perfect a timely appeal and it became final. 2. The evidence received since November 1993 is either cumulative or redundant of evidence previously submitted in support of the Veteran’s claim of service connection for residuals of a right arm contusion and does not relate to an unestablished fact necessary to substantiate this claim. 3. The evidence received since the November 1993 AOJ decision relates to an unestablished fact necessary to substantiate the claim of service connection for an acquired psychiatric disability other than PTSD, to include depression, because it shows that this disability is related to active service. 4. In a rating decision dated on February 18, 1994, and issued to the Veteran and his service representative on March 11, 1994, the AOJ denied, in pertinent part, the Veteran’s claims of service connection for a bilateral hip disability and for a right ankle disability; this decision was not appealed and became final. 5. The evidence received since the March 1994 AOJ decision relates to unestablished facts necessary to substantiate the claims of service connection for a right hip disability and for a right ankle disability because it shows that the Veteran’s currently experiences each of these disabilities which may be related to active service. 6. The evidence received since the March 1994 AOJ decision is either cumulative or redundant of evidence previously submitted in support of the Veteran’s claim of service connection for a left hip disability and does not relate to an unestablished fact necessary to substantiate this claim. 7. In a rating decision dated on April 10, 2010, and issued to the Veteran and his service representative on April 13, 2010, the AOJ denied, in pertinent part, the Veteran’s claim of service connection for a left leg disability; this decision was not appealed and became final. 8. The evidence received since the April 2010 AOJ decision is either cumulative or redundant of evidence previously submitted in support of the Veteran’s claim of service connection for a left leg disability and does not relate to an unestablished fact necessary to substantiate this claim. 9. The record evidence shows that the Veteran does not experience any current left ankle disability or systemic lupus erythematosus which is attributable to active service. 10. The record evidence shows that the Veteran’s current right ankle disability is not related to active service. 11. The record evidence shows that the Veteran’s service-connected radiculopathy of the right lower extremity, right shoulder osteoarthritis, and lumbosacral spine disability caused his current acquired psychiatric disability other than PTSD, to include depression. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The November 1993 AOJ decision, which denied the Veteran’s requests to reopen previously denied claims of service connection for residuals of a right arm contusion and for an acquired psychiatric disability other than PTSD, to include depression, is final. 38 U.S.C. § 7105 (West 2012); 38 C.F.R. § 20.302 (2017). 2. Evidence received since the November 1993 AOJ decision in support of the claim of service connection for residuals of a right arm contusion is not new and material; thus, this claim is not reopened. 38 U.S.C. § 5108 (West 2012); 38 C.F.R. § 3.156 (2017). 3. Evidence received since the November 1993 AOJ decision in support of the claim of service connection for an acquired psychiatric disability other than PTSD, to include depression, is new and material; thus, this claim is reopened. 38 U.S.C. § 5108 (West 2012); 38 C.F.R. § 3.156 (2017). 4. The March 1994 AOJ decision, which denied the Veteran’s claims of service connection for a bilateral hip disability and for a right ankle disability, is final. 38 U.S.C. § 7105 (West 2012); 38 C.F.R. § 20.302 (2017). 5. Evidence received since the March 1994 AOJ decision in support of the claim of service connection for a left hip disability is not new and material; thus, this claim is not reopened. 38 U.S.C. § 5108 (West 2012); 38 C.F.R. § 3.156 (2017). 6. Evidence received since the March 1994 AOJ decision in support of the claims of service connection for a right hip disability and for a right ankle disability, is new and material; thus, these claims are reopened. 38 U.S.C. § 5108 (West 2012); 38 C.F.R. § 3.156 (2017). 7. The April 2010 AOJ decision, which denied the Veteran’s claim of service connection for a left leg disability, is final. 38 U.S.C. § 7105 (West 2012); 38 C.F.R. § 20.302 (2017). 8. Evidence received since the April 2010 AOJ decision in support of the claim of service connection for a left leg disability is not new and material; thus, this claim is not reopened. 38 U.S.C. § 5108 (West 2012); 38 C.F.R. § 3.156 (2017). 9. The criteria for entitlement to service connection for a bilateral ankle disability have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5103, 5103A, 5107 (West 2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303, 3.304 (2017). 10. The criteria for entitlement to service connection for systemic lupus erythematosus have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5103, 5103A, 5107 (West 2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303, 3.304 (2017). 11. The criteria for entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disability other than PTSD, to include depression, as due to service-connected radiculopathy of the right lower extremity, right shoulder osteoarthritis, and lumbosacral spine disability, have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5103, 5103A, 5107 (West 2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.304, 3.310 (2017). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The Veteran had active service from November 1974 to August 1976 in the U.S. Navy. The Board observes that, in a November 1993 rating decision, the AOJ denied the Veteran’s claims of service connection for residuals of a right arm contusion and for an acquired psychiatric disability other than PTSD, to include depression. Although the Veteran disagreed with this decision, he did not perfect a timely appeal; thus, the November 1993 rating decision became final. The AOJ subsequently denied the Veteran’s claims of service connection for a bilateral hip disability and for a right ankle disability in a March 1994 rating decision. The AOJ also denied the Veteran’s claim of service connection for a left leg disability in an April 2010 rating decision. The Veteran did not appeal either the March 1994 or April 2010 rating decisions and they became final. See 38 U.S.C. § 7104 (West 2012). He also did not submit any relevant evidence or argument within 1 year of the November 1993, March 1994, or April 2010 rating decisions which would render any of these rating decisions non-final for VA adjudication purposes. See Buie v Shinseki, 24 Vet. App. 242, 251-52 (2011) (explaining that, when statements are received within one year of a rating decision, the Board's inquiry is not limited to whether those statements constitute notices of disagreement but whether those statements include the submission of new and material evidence under 38 C.F.R. § 3.156 (b)). The Board does not have jurisdiction to consider a claim that has been adjudicated previously unless new and material evidence is presented. See Barnett v. Brown, 83 F.3d 1380 (Fed. Cir. 1996). Therefore, the issues of whether new and material evidence has been received to reopen claims of service connection for residuals of a right arm contusion, an acquired psychiatric disability other than PTSD, to include depression, a bilateral hip disability, a right ankle disability, and for a left leg disability are as stated on the title page. Regardless of the AOJ’s actions, the Board must make its own determination as to whether new and material evidence has been received to reopen these claims. That is, the Board has a jurisdictional responsibility to consider whether a claim should be reopened. See Jackson v. Principi, 265 F.3d 1366, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2001). The Veteran appointed his current attorney to represent him before VA by filing a completed VA Form 21-22 with the AOJ in April 2013. In an October 2016 rating decision, the AOJ assigned a higher initial 20 percent rating effective March 31, 2011, for the Veteran’s service-connected right shoulder osteoarthritis. This decision was issued to the Veteran and his attorney in November 2016. Thus, this issue is as stated above. Service Connection The Veteran essentially contends that new and material evidence has been received sufficient to reopen the previously denied claims of service connection for a bilateral hip disability, a right ankle disability, an acquired psychiatric disability other than PTSD, to include depression, residuals of a right arm contusion, and for a left leg disability. He also contends that he incurred a bilateral ankle disability, systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), and an acquired psychiatric disability other than PTSD, to include depression, during active service. 1. Whether new and material evidence has been received to reopen a claim of service connection for a right hip disability, a right ankle disability, and for an acquired psychiatric disability other than PTSD, to include depression The Board finds that the evidence supports reopening the Veteran’s previously denied claims of service connection for a right hip disability, a right ankle disability, and for an acquired psychiatric disability other than PTSD, to include depression. The Board agrees with the Veteran’s argument that new and material evidence has been received since the prior final rating decisions in November 2003 and in March 2004, respectively, sufficient to reopen each of these previously denied claims. The Board notes initially that claims of service connection may be reopened if new and material evidence is received. Manio v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 140 (1991). The Veteran requested that his previously denied service connection claims be reopened when he submitted a VA Form 21-256EZ which was dated on June 26, 2012, and date-stamped as received by the AOJ on July 23, 2012. New and material evidence is defined by regulation. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.156(a). In determining whether evidence is new and material, the credibility of the new evidence is to be presumed. Justus v. Principi, 3 Vet. App. 510, 513 (1992). With respect to the Veteran’s application to reopen the previously denied service connection claim for an acquired psychiatric disability other than PTSD, to include depression, the evidence before VA at the time of the prior final AOJ decision in November 1993 consisted of additional VA outpatient treatment records and the Veteran’s lay statements. The AOJ essentially concluded that this evidence, although new, was not material to the issue of whether the Veteran currently experienced an acquired psychiatric disability other than PTSD, to include depression, which was related to active service. Thus, the claim was denied. With respect to the Veteran’s application to reopen the previously denied service connection claims for a right hip disability and for a right ankle disability, the evidence before VA at the time of the prior final AOJ decision in March 1994 consisted of the Veteran’s service treatment records and a November 1993 VA examination report. The AOJ found that neither a right hip disability nor a right ankle disability was present at the November 1993 VA examination. The AOJ essentially concluded that this evidence, although new, was not material to the issue of whether the Veteran currently experienced either a right hip disability or a right ankle disability which was related to active service. Thus, the claims were denied. The newly received evidence shows that the Veteran currently experiences a right hip disability, a right ankle disability, and an acquired psychiatric disability other than PTSD, to include depression, which could be attributed to active service. For example, minimal arthritis changes to the right hip were noted on VA outpatient treatment in December 2015. VA ankle conditions Disability Benefits Questionnaire (DBQ) in October 2016 documented the presence of a right ankle disorder. Finally, the Veteran was diagnosed as having adjustment disorder following VA mental conditions DBQ in November 2016. With respect to the Veteran’s requests to reopen previously denied service connection claims for a right hip disability, a right ankle disability, and for an acquired psychiatric disability other than PTSD, to include depression,, the Board notes that the evidence which was of record at the time of the prior final AOJ decisions in November 1993 and in March 1994, respectively, did not indicate that the Veteran experienced current disability due to any of these claimed disabilities which could be attributed to active service. The newly received evidence suggests that the Veteran currently experiences all of these claimed disabilities which may be related to active service. The Board next notes that the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court) held in Shade v. Shinseki, 24 Vet. App 110 (2010), that the phrase “raises a reasonable possibility of substantiating the claim” found in the post-VCAA version of 38 C.F.R. § 3.156(a) must be viewed as “enabling” reopening of a previously denied claim rather than “precluding” it. All of the newly received evidence is presumed credible solely for the limited purpose of reopening the previously denied claim. See Justus, 3 Vet. App. at 513. Thus, the Board finds that the evidence submitted since November 1993 and March 1994 is new, in that it has not been submitted previously to agency adjudicators, and is material, in that it relates to unestablished facts necessary to substantiate the claims of service connection for a right hip disability, a right ankle disability, and for an acquired psychiatric disability other than PTSD, to include depression, respectively, and raises a reasonable possibility of substantiating each of these claims. Because new and material evidence has been received, the Board finds that the previously denied claims of service connection for a right hip disability, a right ankle disability, and for an acquired psychiatric disability other than PTSD, to include depression, are reopened. 2. Whether new and material evidence has been received to reopen a claim of service connection for a left hip disability, residuals of a right arm contusion, and for a left leg disability The Board next finds that the preponderance of the evidence is against granting the Veteran’s requests to reopen his previously denied claims of service connection for a left hip disability, residuals of a right arm contusion, and for a left leg disability. Despite the Veteran’s assertions to the contrary, the newly received evidence does not support reopening any of these previously denied claims. The Board again notes initially that claims of service connection may be reopened if new and material evidence is received. See Manio, 1 Vet. App. at 140. The Veteran requested that these previously denied service connection claims be reopened when he submitted a VA Form 21-256EZ (along with additional correspondence) which was dated on June 26, 2012, and date-stamped as received by the AOJ on July 23, 2012. New and material evidence is defined by regulation. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.156(a). In determining whether evidence is new and material, the credibility of the new evidence is to be presumed. See Justus, 3 Vet. App. at 513. With respect to the Veteran’s application to reopen his previously denied service connection claim for residuals of a right arm contusion, the evidence which was before the AOJ at the time of the prior final rating decision in November 1993 consisted of additional VA outpatient treatment records and the Veteran’s lay statements. The AOJ essentially concluded that this evidence, although new, was not material to the issue of whether the Veteran currently experienced any residuals of a right arm contusion which could be attributed to active service. Thus, the claim was denied. With respect to the Veteran’s application to reopen his previously denied service connection claim for a left hip disability, the evidence which was before the AOJ at the time of the prior final rating decision in March 1994 consisted of the Veteran’s service treatment records and a November 1993 VA examination report. The AOJ essentially found that a left hip disability was not diagnosed following the November 1993 VA examination and there was no other evidence demonstrating that the Veteran experienced this disability. Thus, the claim was denied. With respect to the Veteran’s application to reopen his previously denied service connection claim for a left leg disability, the evidence which was before the AOJ at the time of the prior final rating decision in April 2010 consisted of his service treatment records, post-service VA outpatient treatment records and examination reports, and his lay statements. The AOJ noted that, although the Veteran’s medical records showed complaints of and treatment for leg pain, there was no evidence of any chronic left leg disability which could be attributed to active service. Thus, the claim was denied. The newly received evidence still does not indicate that the Veteran experiences any current disability due to his claimed left hip disability, residuals of a right arm contusion, or left leg disability which could be attributed to active service. The evidence received since July 2012 (for a left hip disability and for residuals of a right arm contusion) and since October 2011 (for a left leg disability) consists of additional VA outpatient treatment records and lay statements. Although this evidence shows ongoing complaints of and treatment for left hip and left leg pain, this pain does not result in any functional impairment in the Veteran’s left hip or left leg such that his complaints of pain alone can be considered a disability for VA adjudication purposes. See Saunders v. Wilkie, 886 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (finding that pain alone may constitute a disability for VA disability compensation purposes if it results in functional impairment). This evidence also does not show that the Veteran experiences any current disability due to his claimed residuals of a right arm contusion which could be attributed to active service. In other words, the Board finds that the evidence received since October 2011 or July 2012, respectively, is duplicative of evidence previously considered by the AOJ in adjudicating the Veteran’s claims. The Board again notes that the Court held in Shade, 24 Vet. App 110 (2010), that the phrase “raises a reasonable possibility of substantiating the claim” found in the post-VCAA version of 38 C.F.R. § 3.156(a) must be viewed as “enabling” reopening of a previously denied claim rather than “precluding” it. All of the newly received evidence is presumed credible solely for the limited purpose of reopening the previously denied claim. See Justus, 3 Vet. App. at 513. With respect to the Veteran’s requests to reopen his previously denied service connection claims for a left hip disability, residuals of a right arm contusion, and for a left leg disability, the Board finds that there is no reasonable possibility that the newly received evidence would enable rather than preclude reopening any of these claims. Unlike in Shade, there is no evidence in this case – either previously considered in the November 1993 rating decision, which denied the Veteran’s request to reopen his previously denied service connection claim for residuals of a right arm contusion, the March 1994 rating decision, which denied the Veteran’s service connection claim for a left hip disability, the April 2010 rating decision, which denied the Veteran’s service connection claim for a left leg disability, or received since each of these decisions became final – which demonstrates that any of these disabilities is related to active service or any incident of service. Thus, the analysis of new and material evidence claims that the Court discussed in Shade is not applicable to the Veteran’s requests to reopen his previously denied service connection claims for a left hip disability, residuals of a right arm contusion, or for a left leg disability. In summary, as new and material evidence has not been received, the previously denied claims of service connection for a left hip disability, residuals of a right arm contusion, or for a left leg disability are not reopened. 3. Entitlement to service connection for a bilateral ankle disability The Board finds that the preponderance of the evidence is against granting the Veteran’s claim of service connection for a bilateral ankle disability. The Board notes initially that it reopened the Veteran’s previously denied service connection claim for a right ankle disability (as discussed above). The Board next notes that the Veteran’s service connection claim for a left ankle disability is on appeal on the merits (and not on the basis of new and material evidence). The Veteran essentially contends that he incurred a bilateral ankle disability during active service and experienced continuous disability since his service separation. The record evidence does not support his assertions that his current right ankle disability is related to active service. Nor does the record evidence support his assertions that he experiences any current left ankle disability which could be attributed to active service. It shows instead that, although the Veteran experiences current right ankle disability, it is not related to service and he does not experience any current left ankle disability which is related to service. For example, the Veteran’s available service treatment records show that, on outpatient treatment in December 1974, he complained of right ankle pain after twisting his ankle. Physical examination of the right ankle showed it was swollen, no discoloration, twisted inward, and a painful and limited range of motion. The impression was right ankle sprain. The Board notes that the absence of contemporaneous records does not preclude granting service connection for a claimed disability. See Buchanan v. Nicholson, 451 F.3d 1331, 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (finding lack of contemporaneous medical records does not serve as an "absolute bar" to the service connection claim); Barr v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 303 (2007) ("Board may not reject as not credible any uncorroborated statements merely because the contemporaneous medical evidence is silent as to complaints or treatment for the relevant condition or symptoms"). The post-service evidence also does not support granting the Veteran’s claim for a bilateral ankle disability. It shows instead that, although the Veteran currently experiences only a right ankle disability, it is not related to active service and he experiences no current left ankle disability which is attributable to service. For example, on VA ankle conditions DBQ in October 2016, the Veteran’s complaints included right ankle giving way. The VA examiner reviewed the Veteran’s electronic claims file, including his service treatment records and post-service VA treatment records. An in-service history of a right ankle injury was noted. The Veteran denied any flare-ups of the ankles. He avoided “vigorous physical use” and lifting more than 30 pounds “when his ankle is adversely affected. Otherwise, he reports no specific functional limitations.” Physical examination showed 5/5 strength in the right ankle, no muscle atrophy, no ankylosis in either ankle, suspected bilateral ankle instability, and a “fairly stiff and slow” gait “but no specific favoring.” The Veteran used a cane regularly for ambulation due to a back problem. X-rays showed traumatic arthritis. The VA examiner opined that it was less likely than not that the Veteran’s right ankle condition was related to active service. The rationale for this opinion was that the Veteran’s in-service right ankle injury was acute and resolved with treatment. The rationale also was that there were no records of any complaints of or treatment for a right ankle problem prior to 2010 “which is too remote from military service to be considered service connected.” The diagnosis was right ankle disorder. The Veteran contends that he incurred a bilateral ankle disability during active service and experienced continuous disability since his service separation. A service connection claim must be accompanied by evidence which establishes that the claimant currently has a disability. Rabideau v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 141, 144 (1992); Brammer v. Derwinski, 3 Vet. App. 223, 225 (1992). Service connection is not warranted in the absence of proof of current disability. The Board has considered whether the Veteran experienced a bilateral ankle disability at any time during the pendency of this appeal. Service connection may be granted if there is a disability at some point during the claim even if it later resolves or becomes asymptomatic. McClain v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 319 (2007). In this case, although there is evidence that the Veteran experiences current right ankle disability, the October 2016 VA examiner specifically found that this disability is not related to active service. All of these opinions were fully supported. See Stefl v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 120, 124 (2007) (finding that a medical opinion "must support its conclusion with an analysis that the Board can consider and weigh against contrary opinions"). There also is no evidence that the Veteran currently experiences any left ankle disability which is attributable to active service. The Veteran finally has not identified or submitted any evidence demonstrating his entitlement to service connection for a bilateral ankle disability. In summary, the Board finds that service connection for a bilateral ankle disability is not warranted. 4. Entitlement to service connection for systemic lupus erythematosus The Board next finds that the preponderance of the evidence is against granting the Veteran’s claim of service connection for systemic lupus erythematosus. The Veteran essentially contends that he incurred systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) during active service and experienced continuous disability due to his claimed SLE since his service separation. The record evidence does not support his assertions concerning the existence of any current disability due to his claimed SLE which is attributable to active service. The Board notes initially that the Veteran’s service treatment records show no complaints of or treatment for SLE at any time during active service although this is not necessarily fatal to this claim. See Buchanan, 451 F.3d at 1337, and Barr, 21 Vet. App. at 303. The post-service evidence also does not support granting the Veteran’s service connection claim for SLE. Contrary to the Veteran’s lay assertions, it shows that he does not experience any current disability due to his claimed SLE which is attributable to active service. For example, on VA rheumatology consult in June 2012, the Veteran’s complaints included constant burning pain radiating down the right leg in to the right foot. There was no family history of lupus noted. Physical examination showed no small joint swelling or tenderness and hip movements “are pain free.” The VA rheumatologist stated, “At this point, there is nothing to suggest Lupus on review or examination [and] no further workup or treatment [is] required.” A service connection claim must be accompanied by evidence which establishes that the claimant currently has a disability. See Rabideau, 2 Vet. App. at 144, and Brammer, 3 Vet. App. at 225. Service connection is not warranted in the absence of proof of current disability. The Board has considered whether the Veteran experienced systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) at any time during the pendency of this appeal. Service connection may be granted if there is a disability at some point during the claim even if it later resolves or becomes asymptomatic. See McClain, 21 Vet. App. at 319. In this case, however, there is no evidence – other than the Veteran’s lay assertions – demonstrating that he experiences any current disability due to his claimed SLE which could be attributed to active service. The Veteran finally has not identified or submitted any evidence demonstrating his entitlement to service connection for SLE. In summary, the Board finds that service connection for systemic lupus erythematosus is not warranted. 5. Entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disability other than PTSD, to include depression The Board finds that the evidence supports granting the Veteran’s claim of service connection for an acquired psychiatric disability other than PTSD, to include depression, as due to a service-connected disability. The Veteran essentially contends that he incurred an acquired psychiatric disability other than PTSD (which he characterized as depression) during active service and experienced continuous disability since his service separation. He alternatively contends that a service-connected disability caused or aggravated (permanently worsened) his current acquired psychiatric disability other than PTSD, to include depression. The Board finds that the record evidence supports the Veteran’s assertions concerning an etiological link between his current acquired psychiatric disability other than PTSD, to include depression, and a service-connected disability. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.310 (2017). The Board notes initially that the Veteran’s available service treatment records show that, in January 1976, he was referred “for evaluation of adjustment problems and alcohol abuse.” It was noted that the Veteran “is the product of a broken home which was continually filled with violence as a result of an alcoholic father.” The Veteran also admitted “to consuming large quantities of [alcohol] at irregular intervals each week because he has nothing better to do…He expressed great dissatisfaction with being in the Navy…He also stated that the only way to improve conditions was to blow up the ship.” Mental status examination of the Veteran showed he wore wrinkled, soiled clothes, “it very difficult to keep him on the subject,” looseness of associations, flight of ideas, “a very poor historian and extremely difficult to follow,” very poor insight and judgment. The impressions were inadequate personality, schizoid personality, situational anxiety, and alcohol abuse by history. In July 1976, the Veteran’s complaints included “he does not like the routine hassles of the Navy.” Mental status examination of the Veteran showed “no evidence of psychosis or significant neurosis.” The Veteran’s history was unchanged from January 1976. The impression was immature personality. The in-service clinician stated, “Although this man seems to cope reasonably well, it can be anticipated that [with] his continued lack of motivation, his work performance will be even more significantly impaired [and] administrative separation will be necessary.” The post-service evidence also supports granting the Veteran’s service connection claim for an acquired psychiatric disability other than PTSD, to include depression, as secondary to a service-connected disability. It shows that the Veteran’s service-connected radiculopathy of the right lower extremity, right shoulder osteoarthritis, and lumbosacral spine disability caused his current acquired psychiatric disability other than PTSD. For example, on VA mental conditions DBQ in September 2016, the Veteran stated, “I don’t have any problems.” The VA examiner reviewed the Veteran’s electronic claims file, including his service treatment records and post-service VA treatment records. The Veteran specifically denied experiencing any mental health problems. The examiner stated, “On several occasions, [I] had to interrupt interview and remind [the] Veteran [that] this examiner did not write the items in his military service records and he was asked to refrain from hostility.” Mental status examination of the Veteran showed he was clean, neatly groomed, unremarkable psychomotor activity, “sometimes mumbled, other times coherent” speech, suspicious and hostile attitude, intact attention, full orientation, rambling, circumstantial, and tangential thought processes with looseness of associations, preoccupation with his service discharge and in-service incidents, an inability to understand that he had a problem, and fair to poor impulsivity. The Veteran “does not desire close relationships, even with family members.” He took pleasure in few activities. He had no close friends “except first-degree relatives” and “has difficulty relating to others.” He was “indifferent to praise or criticism” and was “aloof and show[ed] little emotion.” The Veteran also “refuses responsibility for any of his actions of behavior [and] calls anyone a liar who write[s] negative things about him.” The VA examiner concluded that there were multiple discrepancies between what the Veteran reported in the 1970s and what he reported at the current examination. “It is unclear if this writer has [an] accurate picture of the Veteran pre-military nor post-military functioning. Regardless, the Veteran denied any affective disorder such as depression, anxiety, [or] trauma based disorder.” The diagnosis was rule-out personality disorder. On VA mental disorders DBQ in November 2016, no relevant complaints were noted. The VA examiner reviewed the Veteran’s electronic claims file, including his service treatment records and post-service VA treatment records. The Veteran was socially isolated and withdrawn. He had been married and divorced twice and had 1 adult daughter. “He denies being in a significant relationship and lives with his mother. He turns to his mother for emotional support.” The Veteran’s symptoms included a depressed mood, anxiety, suspiciousness, near-continuous panic or depression affecting the ability to function independently, appropriately, and effectively, mild memory loss, circumstantial or stereotyped speech, disturbances of motivation and mood, inability to establish and maintain effective relationships, persistent delusions or hallucinations, neglect of personal appearance and hygiene, and intermittent ability to perform activities of daily living. Mental status examination of the Veteran in November 2016 showed normal attention, variable concentration, reported “increased trouble with short-term memory,” difficulty remembering “basic information,” delayed speech flow, appropriate thought content, goal-directed thought process, reported overt hallucination, a depressed mood, anxiety, “vague with response, irritable, and seems rather despondent when speaking with this examiner.” The Veteran reported “delusions consisting of having premonitions about the future.” The examiner opined that the Veteran’s service-connected radiculopathy of the right lower extremity, right shoulder osteoarthritis, and lumbosacral spine disability all caused his adjustment disorder. The rationale for this opinion was a review of the Veteran’s medical records and relevant medical literature. The Axis I diagnoses included adjustment disorder with mixed anxiety and depressed mood. The Veteran contends that he incurred an acquired psychiatric disability other than PTSD (which he characterized as depression) during active service or, alternatively, a service-connected disability caused or aggravated (permanently worsened) his acquired psychiatric disability other than PTSD. The record evidence supports the Veteran’s assertions regarding an etiological link between a service-connected disability and his acquired psychiatric disability other than PTSD, to include depression (currently diagnosed as adjustment disorder with mixed anxiety and depressed mood). The November 2016 VA mental conditions DBQ examiner specifically opined that the Veteran’s service-connected radiculopathy of the right lower extremity, right shoulder osteoarthritis, and lumbosacral spine disability all caused his adjustment disorder. This opinion was fully supported. See Stefl, 21 Vet. App. at 124. In summary, and after resolving any reasonable doubt in the Veteran’s favor, the Board finds that service connection for an acquired psychiatric disability other than PTSD, to include depression, as due to service-connected radiculopathy of the right lower extremity, right shoulder osteoarthritis, and lumbosacral spine disability, is warranted. See also 38 C.F.R. § 3.102 (2017). REASONS FOR REMAND 1. Entitlement to service connection for a right hip disability is remanded. Having reopened the Veteran’s previously denied service connection claim for a right hip disability, the Board finds that additional development is required before the underlying claim can be adjudicated on the merits. As noted above, on VA outpatient treatment in December 2015, it was noted that right hip x-rays “showed minimal acetabular sclerosing and a spur.” The assessment included minimal arthritic changes to the right hip. To date, however, the Veteran has not received an examination to determine the nature and etiology of his right hip disability. The Board notes here that VA’s duty to assist includes providing an examination where necessary. Thus, the Board finds that, on remand, the Veteran should be scheduled for appropriate examination to determine the nature and etiology of his right hip disability. 2. Entitlement to an initial rating greater than 20 percent for right shoulder osteoarthritis, a disability rating greater than 10 percent for a lumbosacral spine disability, and to an initial rating greater than 20 percent for radiculopathy of the right lower extremity is remanded. The Veteran essentially contends that his service-connected right shoulder osteoarthritis, lumbosacral spine disability, and radiculopathy of the right lower extremity are all more disabling than currently evaluated. These disabilities were examined most recently for VA adjudication purposes in October 2012. The Court has held that when a Veteran alleges that his service-connected disability has worsened since he was examined previously, a new examination may be required to evaluate the current degree of impairment. See Snuffer v. Gober, 10 Vet. App. 400, 403 (1997); but see Palczewski v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 174, 182 (2007) (finding "mere passage of time" does not render old examination inadequate). Given the Veteran's contentions, and given the length of time which has elapsed since his most recent VA examinations in October 2012, the Board finds that, on remand, he should be scheduled for updated VA examinations to determine the current nature and severity of his service-connected right shoulder osteoarthritis, lumbosacral spine disability, and radiculopathy of the right lower extremity. 3. Entitlement to a TDIU is remanded. With respect to the Veteran’s TDIU claim, the Board notes that adjudication of the other claims being remanded in this decision likely will impact adjudication of the TDIU claim. Thus, the Board finds that these claims are inextricably intertwined and adjudication of the Veteran’s TDIU claim must be deferred. See Henderson v. West, 12 Vet. App. 11, 20 (1998), citing Harris v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 180, 183 (1991) (holding that two issues are inextricably intertwined when they are so closely tied together that a final Board decision on one issue cannot be rendered until the other issue has been considered). The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Schedule the Veteran for an examination to determine the nature and etiology of any right hip disability. The claims file should be provided for review. The examiner is asked to state whether it is at least as likely as not (i.e., a 50 percent or greater probability) that a right hip disability, if diagnosed, is related to active service or any incident of service. A rationale also should be provided for any opinions expressed. The examiner is advised that the absence of contemporaneous records showing complaints of or treatment for a right hip disability, alone, is insufficient rationale for a medical nexus opinion. 2. Schedule the Veteran for an examination to determine the current nature and severity of his service-connected right shoulder osteoarthritis. 3. Schedule the Veteran for an examination to determine the current nature and severity of his service-connected lumbosacral spine disability. 4. Schedule the Veteran for an examination to determine the current nature and severity of his service-connected radiculopathy of the right lower extremity. 5. Readjudicate the appeal. R. FEINBERG Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD Michael T. Osborne, Counsel