Citation Nr: 20021218 Decision Date: 03/25/20 Archive Date: 03/25/20 DOCKET NO. 19-33 821 DATE: March 25, 2020 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder to include post-traumatic stress disorder is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from December 1973 to December 1975 and from October 1976 to December 1982. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a November 2018 rating decision of a U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office in Phoenix, Arizona. The issue has been recharacterized to comport with the evidence of record. The issue of entitlement to service connection for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) has been recharacterized as service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder to include post-traumatic stress disorder in accordance with Clemons v. Shinseki, 23 Vet. App. 1 (2009).   Entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder is remanded. The evidence of record demonstrates that the Veteran has been diagnosed with several mental disorders including PTSD, anxiety and depression. No opinion has been obtained to determine if the Veteran has a mental disorder due to his military service. He has alleged such a link and that he had mental symptoms since military service. With regard to PTSD, the Veteran reported he experienced several in service stressors occurring between March 1974 and February 1975. He wrote that, while stationed in Germany, terrorists harassed U.S. missile sites and, in July 1974, his missile site received fire from terrorists, one of his fellow guards was nonfatally shot, and his unit returned fire. He also reported that, as an inexperienced warhead technician in December 1974, his unit had to disarm a malfunctioning live nuclear warhead. He reported that the incidents were both “classified incidences” and had never been declassified to the Veteran’s knowledge. In July 2017 and February 2018, the Veteran also reported to his healthcare providers at the VA his alleged in-service stressors, as well as being “stuck in a 3-day snowstorm in Korea.” There is no objective evidence of record documenting the occurrence of any of the Veteran's reported stressors with the exception of the allegation of being in a snowstorm in Korea. Service connection has been granted for frostbite of the lower extremities. This supports the occurrence of one of the alleged stressors. A opinion as to whether the Veteran has PTSD based on this stressor should be obtained. The matter is REMANDED for the following actions: 1. Obtain any outstanding VA or private treatment records relevant to the disability on appeal to the extent possible.   2. Schedule the Veteran for a psychiatric examination to determine the nature and etiology of any mental disorder found to be present during the appeal period (June 2018 to the present). For each mental disorder found to be present, the examiner should provide the following opinions: a.) Is it at least as likely as not (a 50% or greater probability) that the mental disorder found to be present during the appeal period was incurred in or aggravated by active duty service. b.) Is it at least as likely as not (a 50% or greater probability) that the Veteran has PTSD based on his reported stressor being in a snowstorm for three days. Please inform the examiner that this is the only verified stressor which can be used to determine if the Veteran has PTSD due to military service. If the Veteran is diagnosed with PTSD, the examiner must explain how the diagnostic criteria are met using DSM-V criteria. A rationale must be provided for each requested opinion. In rendering the requested opinion, the examiner should note that the Veteran is competent to attest to matters of which he has first-hand knowledge, including observable symptomatology. If there is a medical basis to support or doubt the history provided by the Veteran, the examiner should indicate this in the examination report and provide a rationale for that determination. If the examiner cannot provide an opinion without resorting to mere speculation, he or she shall provide a complete explanation for why an opinion cannot be rendered. In so doing, the examiner shall explain whether the inability to provide a more definitive opinion is the result of a need for additional information, or that he or she has exhausted the limits of current medical knowledge in providing an answer to that particular question(s). G. A. WASIK Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board James Hekel, 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.