Citation Nr: 20021628 Decision Date: 03/26/20 Archive Date: 03/26/20 DOCKET NO. 07-01 919 DATE: March 26, 2020 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disability, to include posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), including as due to an undiagnosed illness, is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran had active service from September 1990 to May 1991, including in the southwest Asia theater of operations during the Persian Gulf War, and from February 1993 to September 1994, with additional service in the Reserves. This appeal has a long procedural history. Most recently, the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) denied the currently appealed claim in a February 2018 decision. The Veteran, through his attorney, and VA’s Office of General Counsel appealed the Board’s February 2018 decision to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court) by filing a Joint Motion for Partial Remand (JMPR) in October 2018. In November 2018, the Court issued an Order granting the JMPR and remanding this claim to the Board. The Board notes that, in Clemons v. Shinseki, 23 Vet. App. 1 (2009), the Court held that claims of service connection for PTSD also encompass claims for service connection for all psychiatric disabilities afflicting a Veteran based on a review of the medical evidence. Thus, the currently appealed claim has been recharacterized as stated above. The JMPR set forth multiple grounds for sending the case back to the Board for additional development. First, the JMPR indicates that the Board erred when it did not ensure that the VA complied with its duty to assist under the requirements of 38 U.S.C. § 5103A and 38 C.F.R.§ 3.159(c) to provide an adequate medical opinion. The JMPR indicates that the Board also erred when it failed to obtain the Veteran’s Social Security Administration (SSA) records. Consistent with the directives in the Court’s Order granting the JMPR, the Veteran’s representative submitted additional evidence to the Board in February 2020 including a February 2020 private psychiatric evaluation report, an October 2019 negative response for records from the Social Security Administration (SSA), and an Appellant’s Brief characterizing the currently appealed claim as a claim of service connection for PTSD. Additionally, the Veteran, through his attorney, waived RO consideration of this evidence and waived further efforts to obtain SSA records noting that the effort would be a waste of time and resources. Although the February 2020 private examiner confirmed a diagnosis of PTSD and noted the reported character of the Veteran’s active service, this examiner did not provide an etiology opinion linking PTSD to active service. Thus, the Board finds that another VA examination is necessary to clarify whether the Veteran has any psychiatric diagnoses which are related etiologically to service. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Conduct any appropriate development to obtain the Veteran’s updated VA and private treatment records. 2. Schedule the Veteran for an examination with an appropriate clinician to determine the nature and etiology of any acquired psychiatric disability, to include PTSD. The claims file should be provided to the clinician for review. Based on a review of the claims file and the results of the Veteran’s examination, the clinician is asked to state whether it is at least as likely as not (i.e., a 50 percent or greater probability ) that any acquired psychiatric disability, to include PTSD, if diagnosed, is related to active service. If PTSD is diagnosed, then the clinician is asked to identify the alleged in-service stressors supporting this diagnosis. The clinician next is asked to state whether it is at least as likely as not (i.e., a 50 percent or greater probability) that any acquired psychiatric disability, if diagnosed, is a manifestation of a medically unexplained chronic multisymptom illness. A rationale must be provided for any opinion(s) expressed. A separate opinion and rationale should be provided for each acquired psychiatric disability currently experienced by the Veteran, if possible. 3. Readjudicate the appeal. MICHAEL T. OSBORNE Acting Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board B. Banks, 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.