Citation Nr: 20021968 Decision Date: 03/30/20 Archive Date: 03/30/20 DOCKET NO. 17-06 872 DATE: March 30, 2020 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for a psychiatric disability (to include posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), major depressive disorder, and anxiety disorder) is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The appellant is a Veteran who served on active duty from November 1969 to September 1971. This matter is before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal of an October 2014 Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) rating decision. In his substantive appeal, the Veteran requested a videoconference hearing before the Board. In November 2019, his representative withdrew the hearing request. The appeal has been advanced on the Board’s docket pursuant to 38 C.F.R. § 20.900(c). 38 U.S.C. § 7107(a)(2). The claim of service connection for a psychiatric disability was developed limited to the diagnosis of PTSD. However, medical evidence in the record shows diagnoses of various other psychiatric disorders (to include major depressive disorder and anxiety disorder). To afford the Veteran the broadest possible scope of review of this claim, and in accordance with Clemons v. Shinseki, 23 Vet. App. 1 (2009), the claim is recharacterized as stated above. The Veteran asserts that he has PTSD related to events in service. The occurrence of an alleged stressor event in service a threshold adjudicatory determination that must be made in a claim seeking service connection for PTSD. Initially, he reported stressors including witnessing a fellow soldier die in a fire on the U.S.S. Simon Lake, hearing about a recruit attempt to commit suicide in basic training, being informed a friend committed suicide on the U.S.S. Simon Lake, and riding in C-130s that were transporting wounded and deceased soldiers. A January 2017 formal finding by the United States Army and Joint Services Records Research Center (JSRRC) notes the information required to verify the stressful events described by the Veteran was insufficient to send to the JSRRC. In February 2020 statements in support of his claim, the Veteran raised a new allegation (that he served on the U.S.S. Simon Lake when it was attacked on 3 different occasions while docked (in Panama, Dominican Republic, and Cuba), that there were 3 attempts to sabotage the ship, and that he was in fear of hostile military or terrorist activity). In November 2015 and February 2020, two private providers diagnosed PTSD and major depressive disorder; however, the stressor events underlying those diagnoses are either uncorroborated or not clearly identified. Development for verification of the alleged stressor events in service is necessary. Furthermore, a VA examination to ascertain the Veteran’s psychiatric diagnosis(es) and determine whether any is etiologically related to his service is necessary The matters are REMANDED for the following: 1. Ask the Veteran to provide a detailed description of all of his alleged stressor events in service relating to the attacks on the U.S.S. Simon Lake (alleged in February 2020 correspondence). Information provided must include the location of the U.S.S. Simon Lake and dates of all alleged stressor events. If the Veteran fails to provide sufficient information to pursue verification, advise him of what further information is necessary. Then, arrange for verification of his alleged stressor events (those capable of verification), including if necessary, from ships logs accounts. Make findings for the record addressing: (a) whether the Veteran served in combat, (b) whether there is credible corroborating evidence of a specific alleged stressor event (if so identify each such event, and the corroborating evidence it occurred); and (c) whether the Veteran served in circumstances consistent with a fear of hostile action/terrorist activity. 2. Then, arrange for the Veteran to be examined by an appropriate VA psychiatrist or psychologist to ascertain/clarify the nature and etiology of his psychiatric disability. The examiner should be advised of the agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ) findings regarding whether the Veteran served in combat or in circumstances consistent with a fear of hostile enemy action, and whether there is credible corroborating evidence of an alleged stressor event in service. The examiner should review the Veteran’s claims file, and upon examination/interview of the Veteran provide responses to the following: (a.) Identify (by diagnosis) each psychiatric disability entity found. Does the Veteran have a diagnosis of PTSD in accordance with DSM-V based on (i) service under circumstances consistent with a fear of hostile military action/terrorist activity or, (ii) a stressor event in service that the AOJ found to be corroborated? If not, identify the criteria for such diagnosis that are not met and reconcile the finding with the diagnoses of PTSD noted in his treatment records and by private providers. (b.) Regarding each diagnosed psychiatric disability entity other than PTSD, opine whether it is at least as likely as not (a 50% or better probability) that it is etiologically related to his service/events therein? (c.) Regarding any psychiatric disability diagnosed that is determined to be unrelated to service, identify the likely etiology (and explain why that is so). All opinions must include rationale. GEORGE R. SENYK Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board A. Naumovich, 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.