Citation Nr: 19157331 Decision Date: 07/24/19 Archive Date: 07/24/19 DOCKET NO. 16-22 073 DATE: July 24, 2019 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder, diagnosed as adjustment disorder NOS, is granted. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The Veteran’s adjustment disorder NOS had its onset in service. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The criteria for entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder, diagnosed as adjustment disorder NOS, have been met. 38 U.S.C. § 1110; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The Veteran served on active duty from June 1985 to October 1985, and from January 1986 to January 1992, with service in the Southwest Asia Theater of Operations. He also served in the Reserves. Although the Veteran’s claim was initially limited to the question of entitlement to service connection for PTSD, the medical evidence reflects a diagnosis of an acquired psychiatric disorder other than PTSD. Therefore, the Board broadened the appeal to include service connection for that issue. See Clemons v. Shinseki, 23 Vet. App. 1, 9 (2009). Service Connection 1. Entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder, diagnosed as adjustment disorder NOS The Board finds that service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder, diagnosed as adjustment disorder NOS, is warranted. The Veteran had service in the Persian Gulf during the Persian Gulf War. In a February 2014 written statement, the Veteran reported an incident in which the M8 chemical detection alarms sounded, and his unit “went into MOPP level 4” requiring that they wear complete chemical protection suits. He reported that he feared for his life during this incident. Additionally, during the August 2014 VA examination, the Veteran reported that he went out on missions at night to refuel helicopters and this resulted in him being afraid for his life because Scud missile attacks usually occurred at night. Service connection connotes many factors but basically it means that the facts, shown by evidence, establish that a particular injury or disease resulting in disability was incurred coincident with service in the Armed Forces, or if preexisting such service, was aggravated therein. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a). This may be accomplished by affirmatively showing inception during service. Id. Significantly, each disabling condition for which a veteran seeks a service connection must be considered on the basis of the places, types and circumstances of his service as shown by service records, the official history of each organization in which he served, his medical records and all pertinent medical and lay evidence. Id. Determinations as to service connection will be based on review of the entire evidence of record, with due consideration to the policy of the VA to administer the law under a broad and liberal interpretation consistent with the facts in each individual case. Id. Here, the Board finds the Veteran’s reports concerning his experiences in service credible. His Form DD 214 Certificate of Release from Discharge from Active Duty shows that his MOS was petroleum supply specialist and motor transport operator, and his service personnel records confirm that he served in Saudi Arabia from October 1990 to April 1991. Consequently, the Board finds the Veteran’s reports concerning the in-service stressful events and his reactions to them to be competent and credible, as his reports are consistent with the places, types and circumstances of his service as shown by service records. In August 2014, a VA examiner diagnosed the Veteran as having an adjustment disorder NOS and opined that this adjustment disorder was due to the Veteran’s exposure to the military stressors he described. The Board finds the August 2014 VA examiner’s opinion highly probative as it is based on a review of the Veteran’s pertinent medical history and contains clear conclusions with supporting data and a reasoned medical explanation connecting the two. See Nieves-Rodriguez v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 295, 301 (2008). Thus, all three elements necessary to establish service connection for a psychiatric disorder, diagnosed as adjustment disorder NOS, have been met. Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1166-67 (Fed. Cir. 2004); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a). REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for a back disorder is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for diabetes mellitus type II (diabetes) is remanded Entitlement to service connection for a left eye disorder, to include as secondary to diabetes, is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for a heart disorder is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND 1. Entitlement to service connection for a back disorder is remanded. 2. Entitlement to service connection for diabetes is remanded. 3. Entitlement to service connection for a left eye disorder, to include as secondary to diabetes, is remanded. 4. Entitlement to service connection for a heart disorder is remanded. A February 2014 statement from the Veteran indicates that he is treated for all of his disorders at Leavenworth VA Medical Center (VAMC). Additionally, the November 2014 rating decision indicates that the Veteran received treatment for his claimed disorders at Leavenworth VAMC. Those records do not appear to be part of the electronic claims file. A remand is required to allow VA to obtain them and associate them with the claims file. Sullivan v. McDonald, 815 F.3d 786 (2016). Private medical records indicate that the Veteran has received treatment for his left eye disorder at Kansas University Hospital. See, e.g., May 2014 Private Medical Records. A remand is required to allow VA to obtain authorization and request these records. 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(c)(1). Finally, the claims file does not contain the Veteran’s service treatment records. A May 2014 VA letter indicates that the Veteran’s military records from the National Personnel Records Center (NPRC) have been uploaded to the claims file, and they do not contain service treatment records other than the Veteran’s enlistment examination. A remand is required to allow VA to take additional steps to obtain the Veteran’s service treatment records. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain all of the Veteran’s VA treatment records, including those from Leavenworth VAMC, and associate them with the claims file. 2. Contact the appropriate service department or other entity to obtain the Veteran’s service treatment records. The Board notes that the 102nd Quartermaster Company is now located at Fort Campbell, Kentucky, and may have copies of the Veteran’s service treatment records. If the AOJ cannot locate all relevant Federal government records, it must specifically document the attempts that were made to locate them and explain in writing why further attempts to locate or obtain any Federal government records would be futile. The AOJ must then: (a) notify the claimant of the specific records that it was unable to obtain; (b) explain the efforts VA has made to obtain the evidence; and (c) describe any further action it will take with respect to the claim. The claimant must then be given the opportunity to respond. 3. Ask the Veteran to complete a VA Form 21-4142 for any private medical records from Kansas University Hospital for the treatment of his left eye disorder, or for any other private medical records he would like VA to request in connection with his appeal. Make two requests for the authorized records from the treatment provider(s) identified by the Veteran, unless it is clear after the first request that a second request would be futile. All attempts to procure the records should be documented in the file. If the records cannot be obtained, any negative responses should be associated with the claims file, and the Veteran and his representative should be notified of unsuccessful attempts to obtain the records, in order to allow the Veteran the opportunity to obtain and submit those records for review. If private records are identified, but not obtained, the RO must notify the Veteran of (1) the identity of the records sought, (2) the steps taken to obtain them, (3) that the claim will be adjudicated based on the evidence available, and (4) that if the records are later obtained, the claim may be readjudicated. TRACIE N. WESNER Acting Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD C. Howell, Associate Counsel The Board’s decision in this case is binding only with respect to the instant matter decided. This decision is not precedential, and does not establish VA policies or interpretations of general applicability. 38 C.F.R. § 20.1303.