Citation Nr: 20032292 Decision Date: 05/07/20 Archive Date: 05/07/20 DOCKET NO. 18-22 302 DATE: May 7, 2020 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder, to include posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran had active service from December 1981 to December 1984. This case is before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a July 2016 Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) rating decision. In that rating decision, the RO denied entitlement to service connection for PTSD. The Veteran’s notice of disagreement (NOD) was received in August 2017. The RO issued the statement of the case (SOC) in March 2018, and the Veteran’s VA Form 9, substantive appeal was received in April 2018. In March 2020, the Veteran testified at a video conference hearing at the RO before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge (VLJ). A transcript of that testimony is of record. Service Connection Service connection will be granted if the evidence demonstrates that a current disability resulted from an injury or disease incurred in or aggravated by active military service. 38 U.S.C. § § 1110, 1131; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (a). Establishing service connection generally requires competent evidence of three things: (1) a current disability; (2) in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) a causal relationship, i.e., a nexus, between the claimed in-service disease or injury and the current disability. Holton v. Shinseki, 557 F.3d 1362, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2009); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a). In addition, service connection for PTSD, as opposed to other acquired psychiatric disorders, requires medical evidence diagnosing the condition in accordance with 38 C.F.R. § 4.125(a), a link, established by medical evidence, between current symptoms and an in-service stressor; and credible supporting evidence that the claimed in-service stressor occurred. 38 C.F.R. § 3.304(f). In the absence of clear and convincing evidence to the contrary, and provided the claimed stressor is consistent with the places, types, and circumstances of the veteran’s service, the veteran’s lay testimony alone may establish the occurrence of the claimed in-service stressor if (a) the stressor claimed by a veteran is related to fear of hostile military or terrorist activity; and, (b) a VA psychiatrist or psychologist, or a psychiatrist or psychologist with whom VA has contracted, confirms that the claimed stressor is adequate to support a diagnosis of PTSD and that the veteran’s symptoms are related to the claimed stressor. 38 C.F.R. § 3.304 (f)(3). Entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder, to include PTSD The Veteran contends that he has an acquired psychiatric disorder that is related to service. Initially, the record reflects diagnoses or positive screening results for several acquired psychiatric disorders, including major depressive disorder (MDD), anxiety disorder, stress and adjustment reaction, and PTSD. See progress note dated March 2020; see also May 2016 positive PTSD screen. Regarding a link to service, the Veteran contends that his disorders are related to his asserted October 1983 involvement in “Operation Fury,” a mission during which he reports he was attached with the 75th Ranger Regiment, 2nd Ranger Battalion in Grenada. See, e.g. March 2020 Board hearing testimony; September 2017 Decision Review Officer hearing transcript. See March 2020 Board hearing transcript. The Veteran reports that he was stationed at Fort Lewis in Washington State, when, in October 1983, he was told that he would be sent from Fort Lewis to Grenada. He reports that shortly after arriving in Grenada, he was ambushed along with a group of five others. See id.; see also Statement in Support of Claim for PTSD dated August 2016. He reports that one of the other soldiers, R.R., was killed in action, and that his group searched for, found, and killed the six enemy combatants who had ambushed them and killed R.R. In total, the Veteran reports that he was in Grenada for 14 days. The Veteran reports that he began experiencing symptoms of his acquired psychiatric disorder the same day that his group was ambushed in Grenada. See March 2020 Board hearing transcript, pp. 12, 14 (reporting that he feared for his life; reporting that his symptoms began while stationed in Grenada). Service treatment records (STRs) show that the Veteran reported depression/ excessive worry and frequent trouble sleeping at his entrance examination in October 1981, and at his separation examination in November 1984. The Veteran’s DD Form 214 shows that the Veteran had 1 year and 23 days of foreign service. The Veteran had a military occupational specialty (MOS) of TOW/Dragon repairman. Service personnel records do not show that the Veteran was sent to Grenada during service. Rather, records show that the Veteran was first stationed at Fort McClellan, Alabama until July 1982, when he was transferred to Fort Lewis. From Fort Lewis, the records show that he was deployed to Germany from November 1983 until November 1984, and then to Fort Dix, New Jersey. The record also shows that the Veteran previously reported an incident from when he was stationed in Germany as having contributed to his psychiatric disorder: a Defense Personnel Information Retrieval System (DPRIS) response document dated September 2016 shows that the Veteran reported that he was stationed in Germany from November 1983 to November 1984 with the 71st Ordnance company. Specifically, he reported that in October 1984 during a live fire exercise on Range 35 – B in Graffenuier [sic] Germany, he was awake in the middle of the night on the way to the latrine, when an amphibious engineer reconnaissance vehicle (APE) went off course and ran his tent over. He reports that if he did not get up, he would have been killed. Id. A search coordinated with the National Archives and Records Administration produced no unit records for the 71st Ordnance Company for 1984-1985, and there is no other evidence of record to corroborate this reported incident. The Veteran has not been afforded a VA examination to determine whether he has any acquired psychiatric condition that is related to service. In accordance with the duty-to-assist provisions codified at 38 U.S.C. § 5103A (d) and by regulation found at 38 C.F.R. § 3.159 (c)(4), a medical opinion or examination is required if the information and evidence of record does not contain sufficient evidence to decide the claim, but there is (1) competent evidence of a current disability or persistent or recurrent symptoms of a disability; and (2) evidence establishing that an event, injury, or disease occurred in service or establishing certain diseases manifesting during an applicable presumptive period for which the claimant qualifies; and (3) an indication that the disability or persistent or recurrent symptoms of a disability may be associated with the veteran’s service or with another service-connected disability. McLendon v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 79 (2006). As noted above, a separate set of requirements apply to a claim for service connection for PTSD—notably, a link, established by medical evidence, between current symptoms and an in-service stressor; and credible supporting evidence that the claimed in-service stressor occurred. 38 C.F.R. § 3.304(f). As noted above, the Veteran’s personnel records do not reflect service in Grenada. Under § 3.304(f), there must be credible supporting evidence that the in-service stressor occurred. Accordingly, a remand is necessary for two reasons: (i) to confirm that the Veteran was in fact deployed to Grenada during service, specifically in October 1983, and (ii) to obtain an opinion as to whether any of the Veteran’s acquired psychiatric disorders are related to service, to include as due to any reported incidents in Grenada. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Attempt to corroborate the Veteran’s reported deployment to Grenada, to include requests to Joint Services Records Research Center (JSRRC), DPRIS, and any other appropriate repository. A copy of all requests made, and any reply thereto, to include a negative reply, should be associated with the claims file. Importantly, undertake efforts to obtain all records related to any deployments of the 75th Ranger Regiment and 2nd Ranger Battalion from Fort Lewis to Grenada in 1983, and undertake all necessary efforts to verify whether the Veteran was attached to those units during such deployment, including as TOW/dragon repairman. Undertake the necessary efforts to verify the identity of R.R., the individual who the Veteran reports was killed in action in Grenada. See March 2020 Board hearing. If the identity of R.R. is verified, undertake all necessary steps to identify whether the Veteran was present with R.R. in Grenada, to include as attached to the same unit as TOW/Dragon repairman. If there is still insufficient information to verify that the Veteran was deployed to Grenada, a Formal Finding outlining the steps taken should be issued and the appellant notified. 2. Schedule the Veteran for a VA examination with an appropriate clinician in order to determine the nature etiology of any current psychiatric disability. The physician should identify all psychiatric disabilities that have existed since the date of the claim. The entire claims file, and a copy of this remand, must be provided to and reviewed by the examiner. As to any psychiatric disability with which the Veteran has been diagnosed, the clinician is asked to provide an opinion as to whether it is at least as likely as not (at least a 50 percent probability) that any such disability had its onset in service or within the one year following service, or is otherwise related to the Veteran’s active service. If the Veteran’s service in Grenada is verified, the examiner’s opinion should address whether it is at least as likely as not (at least a 50 percent probability) that any acquired psychiatric disorder is related to such service. If the Veteran’s report of service in Grenada cannot be verified through any appropriate channel, the examiner need not provide such an opinion. A complete rationale should accompany each opinion provided. L. B. CRYAN Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board B. KAYS HUKILL 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.