Citation Nr: 20042007 Decision Date: 06/19/20 Archive Date: 06/19/20 DOCKET NO. 17-23 732 DATE: June 19, 2020 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder, to include major depressive disorder (MDD), post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and anxiety disorder is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for varicose veins is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD)/acid reflux (hereinafter, GERD) is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from November 1971 to August 1973. In February 2020, the Veteran testified before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge (VLJ). A transcript of the hearing is of record. The Board notes that the agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ) denied service connection for MDD and anxiety. Considering Clemons v. Shinseki, 23 Vet. App. 1 (2009), the Board finds that it is appropriate to recharacterize the claim as entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder, to include MDD, PTSD, and anxiety. The Veteran contends that his psychiatric disorder is due to military service. In his September 2013 Correspondence and/or March 2020 Board hearing, the Veteran stated in 1972, he was stationed at Fort Polk, LA where he trained for deployment to Vietnam. During this period and as a way to avoid deploying to Vietnam, some of the men shot themselves in the foot. The Veteran stated that one of the men committed suicide. The Veteran found the suicide to be “very very dramatic.” In August 2015, the Veteran’s PTSD screen was positive. The Board notes that the Veteran’s service treatment records do not confirm his assertion and no attempts to verify his claimed stressor have been made. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.304(f)(1). As such, further development should be undertaken to verify the Veteran’s stressor. The Veteran has been diagnosed with varicose veins. He contends that his disability is related to service. On his July 1973 ETS examination, the Veteran’s vascular system was noted to be abnormal. He was diagnosed with varicocele. The Board notes that Dorland’s Illustrated Medical Dictionary (30th ed. 2003) defines “varicocele” as “a condition in males characterized by varicosity of the veins of the pampiniform plexus. . ..” Id. at 2008. In March 2015, the Veteran submit a statement from his physician. The physician stated that the Veteran was in the military and during that time, the Veteran sat for long periods of time driving a truck in a convoy. Additionally, the Veteran worked with heavy packs for four to five days at a time without breaks. The physician stated that these situations could be contributing factors to the Veteran’s venous insufficiency. The Board notes that the opinion contains no rationale, and as such, is insufficient to grant the claim. Nieves- Rodriguez v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 295 (2008). However, the opinion suggests a relationship between the Veteran’s varicose veins and service. Regarding GERD, the Veteran has been diagnosed with GERD. In May 2015, the Veteran was afforded a VA examination to determine the nature and etiology of his GERD. The examiner opined that the claimed condition is less likely than not related to the Veteran’s military service. In September 2016, the Veteran was diagnosed with gastritis. The Board notes during service, the Veteran was seen for stomach issues and had a suspected diagnosis of gastritis. However, the Veteran has not been afforded a VA examination to determine whether his post-service gastritis diagnosis is related to his suspected in-service gastritis. As such, the Board finds that a remand is necessary to afford the Veteran a VA examination to determine the nature and etiology of his varicose veins and gastritis. See 38 U.S.C. § 5103A(d); McLendon v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 79, 81-83 (2006). The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain and associate all outstanding relevant VA and private treatment records with the claims file. 2. Conduct the appropriate development to verify any reported stressors. The AOJ should advise the Veteran that he may submit lay statements that may tend to corroborate his claimed stressors, including the dates and locations thereof. All attempts to verify the Veteran’s reported stressors must be documented in the claims file. If any records or information sought are unavailable, the AOJ should issue a formal finding documenting such fact and the reason for such unavailability. 3. After the preceding development is completed, schedule a VA examination to determine the nature and etiology of the Veteran’s psychiatric disorder. The complete record, to include a copy of this remand and the claims folder, must be made available to and reviewed by the examiner in conjunction with the examination. The examination report must include a notation that this record review took place. Based on a review of the entire record, the examiner should respond to the following: i. Identify any psychiatric disorder. ii. Determine if it is at least as likely as not (a 50 percent or greater probability) that any psychiatric disability had its onset during active service or is etiologically related to the Veteran’s active duty service? iii. If PTSD is diagnosed, is it at least as likely as not (a 50 percent or better probability) that such disability is related to the Veteran’s service, to include his reported stressor? The supporting rationale for all opinions expressed must be provided. The examiner should consider the Veteran’s lay statements. 4. Schedule VA examinations to determine the nature and etiology of the Veteran’s varicose veins and gastritis. The complete record, to include a copy of this remand and the claims folder, must be made available to and reviewed by the examiner in conjunction with the examination. The examination report must include a notation that this record review took place. Based on a review of the entire record, the examiner should respond to the following: i. Opine as to whether it is at least as likely as not (50 percent or more probability) that the Veteran’s varicose veins had its onset in or is otherwise related to his active service, to include his prolong sitting and working with heavy packs. ii. Opine as to whether it is at least as likely as not (50 percent or more probability) that the Veteran’s gastritis had its onset in or is otherwise related to the Veteran’s active service, to include his in-service suspected gastritis diagnosis. The supporting rationale for all opinions expressed must be provided. The examiner should consider the Veteran’s lay statements. 5. Then, readjudicate the issues on appeal. If the benefits sought remain denied, furnish the Veteran and his representative a Supplemental Statement of the Case and afford them the opportunity to respond before the file is returned to the Board for further consideration. MICHAEL LANE Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board T. Moore 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.