Citation Nr: 20021083 Decision Date: 03/24/20 Archive Date: 03/24/20 DOCKET NO. 17-24 380 DATE: March 24, 2020 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder, to include posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), a panic disorder, and an unspecified anxiety disorder, is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from May 1966 to April 1968. Among other commendations, he was the recipient of the Vietnam Service Medal and the Vietnam Campaign Medal. This matter originally came before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a September 2016 rating decision by a Department of Veterans’ Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). In a January 2019 decision, the Board denied the Veteran’s claim for service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder, to include PTSD, a panic disorder, and an unspecified anxiety disorder. The Veteran appealed the Board’s January 2019 decision to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court). In an October 2019 Memorandum Decision, the Court vacated and remanded the Board’s January 2019 decision for readjudication. Entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder, to include PTSD, a panic disorder, and an unspecified anxiety disorder is remanded. The Board’s January 2019 decision denied the Veteran’s claim for service connection for a psychiatric disorder on the basis that an August 2016 VA examiner found that the Veteran did not meet the criteria for a diagnosis of a current psychiatric disorder, and that even if the Board assumed that the Veteran has a current diagnosis of a psychiatric condition, the record failed to show that his symptoms are causally related to active service. The Board conceded that the Veteran had served in Vietnam and that his duties were consistent with having fear of hostile enemy mortar, rocket, and sniper attacks. The Court’s decision noted that the Board’s January 2019 decision failed to provide an adequate statement of reasons or bases for its conclusion that service connection was not warranted. First, the Board did not account for evidence favorable to the Veteran’s claim, namely a July 2016 medical opinion that mental disorders were related to “military experiences” and to “his fears of hostile military activities or attack.” And second, the Board failed to adequately assess the probative weight of the August 2016 VA medical opinion, which said it was “unclear whether [the Veteran] currently meets criteria for any other anxiety order given his reported symptoms.” Given the equivocal nature of the August 2016 examiner’s opinion, which stated both that the Veteran did not meet the criteria for a diagnosis of PTSD or any other mental disorder, but also that it was “unclear whether [the Veteran] currently meets criteria for any other anxiety order given his reported symptoms”; and the July 2016 private opinion attributing the Veteran’s “depression, panic, and post-traumatic stress disorder” to his military service, the Board finds that another VA examination is necessary for proper evaluation of the claim. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: Schedule the Veteran for an appropriate VA examination with a VA psychiatrist or psychologist to determine whether the Veteran meets the diagnostic criteria for PTSD and/or any other acquired psychiatric disorder. The electronic claim file should be reviewed by the examiner in conjunction with the examination. Any necessary tests should be conducted. For each diagnosis made, the examiner must provide an opinion as to whether it is at least as likely as not (a degree of probability of 50 percent or higher) that the current acquired psychiatric disorder is etiologically related to service, to specifically include fear of hostile military activity in the Republic of Vietnam. The examiner should address the July 2016 statement from the Veteran’s private psychiatrist. If PTSD is diagnosed, the examiner must specifically state the stressor(s) upon which the diagnosis of PTSD was made. The examiner should provide an explanation for all elements of his/her opinion. D. JOHNSON Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board M. G. Mazzucchelli, 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.