Citation Nr: 20004644 Decision Date: 01/21/20 Archive Date: 01/21/20 DOCKET NO. 14-36 902 DATE: January 21, 2020 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for acquired psychiatric disorder is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran had active service from January 1991 to April 1991 and from January 1992 to October 1994. The Veteran and his brother-in-law testified before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge in a January 2018 hearing. A transcript of the hearing is of record. The Veteran is seeking service connection for PTSD and a February 2018 Disability Benefits Questionnaire (DBQ) completed by Dr. P.K.C. includes a diagnosis of PTSD. VA treatment records also document diagnoses of major depressive disorder, generalized anxiety disorder, and anxiety disorder not otherwise specified. Thus, pursuant to the holding in Clemons, the Board will characterize the Veteran’s claim of entitlement to service connection for PTSD to include any acquired psychiatric disorder. Clemons v. Shinseki, 23 Vet. App. 1, 5 (2009). Entitlement to Service Connection for Acquired Psychiatric Disorder Is Remanded. The Veteran contends that his acquired psychiatric disorder is due to his active service. According to an April 2013 statement, the Veteran witnessed multiple deaths of guerilla force members due to artillery fire during the Balikatan Exercises in either 1991 or 1992. In a second event, seemingly at the same exercise, a Philippine officer attempted to detain a guerilla force member at gun point in proximity to the Veteran. The Veteran reported that the gun was very close to him and put him in fear for his life. In a May 2014 statement, the Veteran elaborated that he feared for his life when the high-caliber pistol was trained on the detained fighter. He adds that he suffered wounds to his legs due to a fall into a hole while pursuing the escaped fighter. Third, the Veteran testified in January 2018 that his duties in the Philippines included maintaining regular guard of the base perimeter and personnel quarters to prevent infiltration and thefts. The Veteran submitted web materials related to Balikatan Exercises. However, the web materials do not show that events like those claimed by the Veteran occurred during the exercises in either 1991 or 1992. They focus on the exercises after they were resumed in 1999. The Board notes that the web materials suggest that U.S. armed forces were involved in hostilities with guerilla forces; however, those assertions are with respect to the post-1999 Balikatan Exercise. In addition, the Veteran’s claims file does not provide enough context for the Board to evaluate the accuracy of these materials as the claims file does not document the nature of the Balikatan Exercises or whether the Veteran’s unit engaged in hostilities with guerilla forces during those exercises. In response to the Board’s June 2018 remand directives, the AOJ submitted requests to the Joint Services Records Research Center (JSRRC) through the Defense Personnel Records Information Retrieval System (DPRIS) to verify the Veteran’s reported in-service stressor events. The JSRRC responded in October 2018 that it was unable to verify them. However, another remand is required to obtain additional documentation, to include unit histories, to determine the nature and context of the Veteran’s service during the Balikatan Exercises. Unrelated to the Balikatan Exercises, the Veteran reported an event during active service involving abandonment by his unit during field exercises. For instance, when the Veteran sought care for an anxiety disorder in October 2015, he reported anxiety related to abandonment by his unit commander. He states he was left behind several times by his platoon and had no transportation to return to the barracks. The Veteran reported that these episodes made him feel as though he had no purpose and others simply dismissed him. The occurrence of these event is reasonable and there is nothing in the record that contradicts the Veteran’s report. The record does not include evidence on whether there is an etiological relationship between these conceded episodes in which the Veteran was abandoned and his current psychiatric disorders. Accordingly, the Veteran must be afforded an examination. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain unit histories relevant to periods when the Veteran was attached to those particular units. 2. An appropriate inquiry should be made to the service department as to whether any US personnel engaged with hostile enemy or terrorist forces or were otherwise under fear of the same during the 1991 and/or 1992 Balikatan exercise in the Philippines. 3. Schedule the Veteran for an examination by an appropriate clinician to determine the nature and etiology of any acquired psychiatric disorder. After reviewing the claims file and examination of the Veteran, opinions should be offered that address the following: a. Identify/diagnose any acquired psychiatric disorder that presently exists or that has existed during the appeal period. A specific finding as to whether the criteria for a diagnosis of PTSD have been met. If a diagnosis of PTSD is not made, rationale must be provided. b. If a diagnosis of PTSD is made, the examiner must identify the stressor(s). Specific consideration should be given to the conceded episodes in which the Veteran was abandoned in the field without transportation to return to barracks c. For any diagnosed acquired psychiatric disorder, opine whether it is at least as likely as not related to an in-service injury, event, or disease, including conceded episodes in which the Veteran was abandoned in the field without transportation to return to barracks. MICHAEL A. HERMAN Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board Douglas M. Humphrey, 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.