Citation Nr: 20005461 Decision Date: 01/22/20 Archive Date: 01/22/20 DOCKET NO. 17-07 976 DATE: January 22, 2020 REMANDED The issue of service connection for depression is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran had active service from April 1974 to December 1975. The issue of service connection for depression is remanded. The Veteran has not been afforded a VA examination regarding his claim for service connection. Under McLendon v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 79 (2006), in initial service connection claims, the VA must provide a VA medical examination where there is (1) competent evidence of a current disability or persistent or recurrent symptoms of a disability; (2) evidence establishing that an event, injury, or disease occurred in service; (3) an indication that the disability or persistent or recurrent symptoms of a disability may be associated with the Veteran's service; and (4) insufficient competent medical evidence on file for VA to make a decision on the claim. The Board finds that this Remand is necessary to afford the Veteran with a VA examination. The matter is REMANDED for the following action: 1. Ensure that all outstanding VA and private treatment records are associated with the claims file. 2. Schedule the Veteran for a VA examination with an appropriate VA examiner regarding the nature and etiology of the Veteran's depression. The claims file and a copy of this remand will be made available to the examiner, who will acknowledge receipt and review of these materials. After a review of the record, the examiner is asked to respond to the following: (a.) Provide an opinion as to whether the Veteran’s depression had its onset during active duty service or is otherwise causally or etiologically related to it. The examiner’s attention is drawn to the following: * In the Veteran's April 1974 enlistment evaluation, the Veteran stated that he was in good health. There is no mention of depression or any other mental health condition. * In the Veteran's November 1975 separation evaluation, the Veteran stated that he was in fair health. The examiner noted "no major medical problems." There is no mention of depression or any other mental health condition. * A May 1975 military personnel record indicates that the Veteran was counseled for operating a military vehicle in a careless and reckless manner. * A July 1975 military personnel record indicates that the Veteran was punished under Article 15 of the UCMJ for failure to present at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty. * A September 1975 military personnel record indicates that the Veteran was counseled for being missing from a detail. It was noted that the Veteran stated that he could not cope with certain aspects of military life. He was counseled on his personal appearance and his substandard attitude. * An October 1975 military personnel record indicates that the Veteran was punished under Article 15 of the UCMJ for failure to present at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty. * A November 1975 military personnel record indicates that the Veteran was counseled for arriving late to guard duty. Closer supervision was recommended. * A November 1975 military personnel record indicates that the Veteran was jailed by civil authorities in November 1975 for failure to pay a bail bondsman. * Military personnel records indicate that the Veteran was discharged under honorable conditions in December 1975. The reason for separation was noted as failure to maintain acceptable standards for retention. * In a December 2015 statement, the Veteran stated that he was depressed throughout his military service. He stated that his depression stemmed from an inability to adapt to military life and back and neck pain that he contends he suffered during his service. * In a January 2017 statement, the Veteran stated that he believes that his depression was caused by his inability to adapt to military life and by what he believes was very adverse treatment received while in the military. * In his November 2019 Board hearing, the Veteran indicated that he felt degraded by the treatment he received during his service. * In a November 2019 statement, VA Dr. S.M., stated that she has been treating the Veteran in psychiatry/psychotherapy since July 2019. She stated that the Veteran had been treated by a different provider prior to that. Dr. S.M. stated that, based on her evaluation, it is more likely than not that the Veteran suffered from depression during and associated with the Veteran’s time in-service. Dr. S.M. stated that the Veteran has endorsed having experienced symptoms of depression during his service, such as low mood, feeling worthless and guilty, anhedonia, poor sleep, and feeling hopeless. Dr. S.M. stated that the Veteran detailed specific incidents during service which led to his symptoms of depression. * VA medical treatment records indicate treatment for depression since at least 2007. A thorough explanation must be provided for the opinion rendered. If the examiner cannot provide the requested opinion without resorting to speculation, s/he should expressly indicate this and provide supporting rationale as to why the opinion cannot be made without resorting to speculation. The examiner is advised that by law, the mere statement that the claims folder was reviewed and/or the examiner has expertise is not sufficient to find the examination/opinion sufficient. 3. Following the review and any additional development deemed necessary, re-adjudicate the claim. Should the claim not be granted in its entirety, issue an appropriate supplemental statement of the case (SSOC) and forward the claim to the Board for adjudication. The Veteran has the right to submit additional evidence and argument on the matters the Board has remanded. Kutscherousky v. West, 12 Vet. App. 369 (1999). (Continued on the next page) This claim must be afforded expeditious treatment. The law requires that all claims that are remanded by the Board or by the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court) for additional development or other appropriate action must be handled in an expeditious manner. See 38 U.S.C. §§ 5109B, 7112 (2014). Vito A. Clementi Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board Timothy T. Emmart 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.