Citation Nr: 19123775 Decision Date: 03/29/19 Archive Date: 03/29/19 DOCKET NO. 15-32 587 DATE: March 29, 2019 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric condition, to include major depressive disorder (MDD) and posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from December 1970 to September 1972. In November 2018, the Veteran testified at a Board video-hearing before the undersigned. A transcript is of record. Although the Veteran submitted a claim for depression, the Board has recharacterized the issue as a claim for an acquired psychiatric disability, generally. The Veteran cannot be required to know whether the symptoms he is claiming service connection for are related to depression or another psychiatric disability. See Clemons v. Shinseki, 23 Vet. App. 1, 5 (2009). Upon review of the record, the Board finds that the issue must be remanded. The Board sincerely regrets the additional delay caused by this remand, but wishes to assure the Veteran that it is necessary for a full and fair adjudication of his claim. 1. Entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric condition is remanded. The Board notes that the Veteran has not been afforded a VA examination with respect to his current claim for service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder. VA’s duty to assist includes providing a medical examination when it is necessary to make a decision on a claim. 38 U.S.C. § 5103A(d); 38 C.F.R. § 3.159. Such development is necessary if the information and evidence of record does not contain sufficient competent medical evidence to decide the claim, but (1) contains competent evidence of diagnosed disability or symptoms of disability, (2) establishes that the Veteran suffered an event, injury or disease in service, or has a presumptive disease during the pertinent presumptive period, and (3) indicates that the claimed disability may be associated with the in-service event, injury, or disease, or with another service-connected disability. 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(c)(4); McLendon v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 79, 83-86 (2006). Here, the Veteran’s June 2018 VA treatment record indicates a diagnosis of MDD and adjustment disorder; the Veteran has asserted that this condition began in service; and has provided lay evidence that this condition has continued since service; however, there is insufficient evidence of record to decide the claim. Consequently, remand for examinations and etiology opinions is warranted. See id.; Locklear v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 410 (2006). With respect to PTSD, the Board finds that further attempts must be made to corroborate the Veteran’s reported in-service stressor. The record includes an February 2017 memorandum reflecting the determination that the information of record was “insufficient” to warrant further research. Since that time, however, the Veteran has provided more specific evidence regarding his claimed stressor, including the year and location of the events of his stressor. See November 2018 Hearing Transcript. In light of the evidence discussed above, the RO should take additional steps to verify the claimed stressor. The matter is REMANDED for the following action: 1. Assist the Veteran in associating with the claims folder updated treatment records. 2. Complete any necessary efforts to corroborate the Veteran’s stressors, including the incident described in the Veteran’s November 2018 hearing transcript involving a parachuting accident at Fort Bragg in 1971. If it is not possible to corroborate the stressor, enter a formal finding outlining all efforts to corroborate the stressor. 3. After any additional records are associated with the claims file, schedule the Veteran for a VA examination to determine the nature and etiology of the Veteran’s acquired psychiatric disorder. The claims file should be made available to the examiner for review in connection with the examination. Based on review of the record and examination of the Veteran, the examiner should respond to the following: a) Does the Veteran meet the diagnostic criteria for PTSD? If so, please identify the stressor(s) upon which the diagnosis is based. b) Is it at least as likely as not (probability of 50 percent or more) that the current PTSD had its onset in or is related to service? c) Is it at least as likely as not (probability of 50 percent or more) that the current acquired psychiatric disorder, to include MDD, had its onset in or is related to service? The examiner is advised that the Veteran is competent to report symptoms, treatment, and injuries, and that his reports must be taken into account in formulating the requested opinions, including, but not limited to the Veteran’s statements of experiencing rumination and sleeplessness during his active service. 4. The examiner must provide the rationale for all proffered opinions. If the examiner is unable to provide any required opinion, he or she should explain why. If the examiner cannot provide an opinion without resorting to mere speculation, he or she shall provide a complete explanation as to why this is so. If the inability to provide a more definitive opinion is the result of a need for additional information, the examiner should identify the additional information that is needed. A. S. CARACCIOLO Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD R. Gandhi, Associate Counsel