Citation Nr: 20008064 Decision Date: 01/30/20 Archive Date: 01/30/20 DOCKET NO. 17-16 726A DATE: January 30, 2020 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for acquired psychiatric condition claimed as post-traumatic stress disorder, depression, and memory loss is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty with the United States Coast Guard from May 1976 to May 1980. This matter comes to the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from March 2014 and May 2016 rating decisions by the Regional Office (RO) of the United States Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). The Veteran testified at an August 2019 hearing at the RO held before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge (VLJ) via videoconference. A transcript of the hearing is associated with the electronic claims file. Under 38 C.F.R. § 3.156(c), at any time after VA issues a decision on a claim, if VA receives or associates with the claims file relevant official service department records that existed and had not been associated with the claims file when VA first decided the claim, VA will reconsider the claim. This includes service records that are related to a claimed in-service event, injury or disease. 38 C.F.R. § 3.156(c)(i). The Veteran has submitted new and material evidence to the file, to include service records received, in August 2019. Accordingly, the prior claim for an acquired psychiatric condition is reconsidered, not reopened, under 38 C.F.R. § 3.156(c). The Veteran contends that he is entitled to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disability. Although the Veteran has received a Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) examination, the Veteran has not yet been scheduled for a VA examination for his claimed acquired psychiatric disability. The Board finds that evidence warrants such examination. Where there is evidence of a current disability, an in-service incident, and a potential link between them, examination is required. 38 U.S.C. § 5103A(d); 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(c)(4). The threshold for determining a possibility of a nexus to service is a low one. McLendon v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 79 (2006). The Veteran has been receiving psychiatric treatment from the VA and private service providers, showing current disability. During the Veteran’s Board hearing, the Veteran discussed an in-service stressor during which he and his crew entered a burning building. The Veteran recalled that during the incident, he feared that he was either going to blow up or burn alive and felt genuine fear for his life. The Veteran recalled having been hosed down because he was “on fire.” The USCG Station Coos Bay received a unit citation for their actions during this incident, which has been associated with the Veteran’s file. The citation corroborates the Veteran’s description of the events, indicating that the crewmen were required to remove explosive freon cylinders from a burning plant, and that, “[a]t times the heat was so intense, fire parties had to hose each other down in order to continue their duties.” The citation references specific Motor Lifeboats that were involved in this incident, including one which the Veteran’s representative claims he served on. Although the Veteran’s personnel records do not confirm his service on this particular craft, his service records do confirm that he was stationed at Coos Bay at the time of the incident, and that he served as a fireman throughout his time in the Coast Guard. Accordingly, the Board does not dispute this stressor, establishing an in-service incident or injury. As there is a realistic possibility of a connection between the event and current psychiatric complaints, remand is required for an examination. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Schedule the Veteran for a VA mental disorders/initial PTSD examination; the claims file must be reviewed by the examiner. The examiner must identify all currently diagnosed psychiatric disorders, and for each, must opine as to whether it is at least as likely as not related to military service. Full and complete rationales are required for all opinions expressed. 2. Then, readjudicate the remanded issue. If the benefit sought remains denied, the Veteran should be provided with a supplemental statement of the case. The case should then be returned to the Board for appellate review if otherwise in order. WILLIAM H. DONNELLY Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board S.P. Faris 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.