Citation Nr: 20021320 Decision Date: 03/25/20 Archive Date: 03/25/20 DOCKET NO. 20-08 956 DATE: March 25, 2020 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder, including an anxiety disorder, substance abuse disorder, and posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Marine Corps from October 2002 to June 2014. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a March 2018 rating decision by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). A claim for service connection for a psychiatric disability is deemed to encompass all psychiatric diagnoses reasonably presented in the record. See Clemons v. Shinseki, 23 Vet. App. 1 (2009). Pursuant to Clemons, the Board has expanded the service connection claim for an acquired psychiatric disorder as reflected on the title page of this decision. Regrettably, additional development is necessary before the Veteran’s claim for entitlement to service connection can be adjudicated. The Veteran contends that he has an acquired psychiatric disorder, to include an anxiety disorder, substance abuse disorder, and PTSD, that manifest during or is otherwise related to active service. The Veteran was provided a VA examination for mental conditions in March 2018. The Veteran was diagnosed with an unspecified anxiety disorder and alcohol use disorder. The examiner found that the Veteran’s conditions were less likely than not incurred in or caused an in-service injury, event, or illness. The examiner noted that the Veteran’s service records contained no reports of mental health issues during service and found that there is no nexus between the Veteran’s military service and his current symptoms. The Veteran has raised several concerns regarding the adequacy of the March 2018 VA examination. The Veteran’s primary contention is that the examiner failed to address or discuss the circumstances of his service, including his deployment to Iraq during the Iraq War. The Board notes that the March 2018 VA examination contains only a single sentence regarding the Veteran’s deployment during the Iraq War and does not address the circumstances of the Veteran’s service in the brief rationale for the etiological opinion. Subsequent to the March 2018 VA examination and December 2019 statement of the case, the Veteran submitted additional documents regarding the circumstance of his service and nature of his mental health conditions. The Veteran submitted lay statements and treatment records, including a letter from mental health professional associating his current mental health symptoms with his experiences during active service. Considering the above, the Board finds that the VA examination was not adequate and that a remand is required to obtain an addendum medical opinion. See 38 U.S.C. § 5103(a); Barr v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 31 (once VA undertakes the effort to provide an examination when developing a claim for service connection, even if not statutorily obligated to do so, it must provide an adequate one). The matter is REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain the Veteran’s updated VA treatment records and associate them with the evidence of record. If possible, the Veteran himself should submit these records (if any), and any other new treatment for this problem, himself, to expedite the case. Any assistance on this issue would be appreciated. 2. Schedule the Veteran for an examination by an appropriate clinician to determine the nature and etiology of the Veteran’s acquired psychiatric disorder, including an anxiety disorder, substance abuse disorder, and PTSD. Specifically, the examiner should opine whether it is at least as likely as not (a 50 percent or greater probability) that the Veteran’s acquired psychiatric disorder had its onset during or is otherwise related to active service. A complete rationale for any opinions expressed should be provided. The report should set forth all complaints, findings, and diagnoses relating to the Veteran’s mental health conditions and provide a rationale for all conclusions reached. If the requested opinion cannot be rendered without resorting to speculation, the examiner must state whether the need to speculate is caused by a deficiency in the state of general medical knowledge, i.e., no one could respond given medical science and the known facts, or by a deficiency in the record or the examiner, i.e., additional facts are required, or the examiner does not have the needed knowledge or training.   3. After completion of the aforementioned, the AOJ should readjudicate the issues on appeal. If the benefit sought on appeal is not granted, then the AOJ should provide the Veteran with a supplemental statement of the case and afford him the appropriate opportunity to respond thereto. Thereafter, the case must be returned to the Board for further appellate review. John J. Crowley Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board E. E. VanValkenburg, Associate Attorney 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.