Citation Nr: 20044909 Decision Date: 07/06/20 Archive Date: 07/06/20 DOCKET NO. 15-09 421 DATE: July 6, 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 qualifying service from August 1965 to January 1969. In April 2018, the Veteran testified at a Board videoconference hearing before a Veterans Law Judge other than the undersigned. In a September 2018 Decision, the Board, in pertinent part, denied the issue herein. In an August 2019 Joint Motion for Partial Remand (JMPR), the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court) vacated the part of the September 2018 Board Decision that denied the issue herein and remanded for further development and adjudication. In February 2020, the Veteran was notified that the Veterans Law Judge who conducted his April 2018 hearing was no longer employed at the Board; the Veteran was also notified of his right to request another hearing, but, in a February 2020 response, the Veteran declined another hearing. In an April 2020 Decision, the Board remanded the issue herein. Unfortunately, for the reasons discussed below, the Board finds that the agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ) did not substantially comply with the Board’s April 2020 Remand directives, and, as such, the Board still requires further development to comply with the August 2019 Court JMPR. See Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268, 271 (1998) (Board remand confers a right on a claimant to compliance with the remand order); Dyment v. West, 13 Vet. App. 141, 147 (1999) (clarifying that substantial compliance with Board remand is required). 1. Service Connection for an Acquired Psychiatric Disorder The August 2019 Court JMPR found that the Board erred by relying on a 2012 VA examination that based its lack of an underlying PTSD diagnosis on the Fourth Edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV) because the Veteran’s claim was subject to the revised guidelines of the Firth Edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5). The April 2020 Board Remand directed the AOJ to: (a) examine whether the Veteran has any psychiatric diagnoses pursuant to the DSM-5 and, if so, whether any such diagnoses are etiologically related to the Veteran’s service; and then (b) readjudicate the claim considering the comprehensive evidence, including the evidence which the Veteran requested the AOJ review in the first instance (see October 2019 Waiver Form). Crucially, although the AOJ seemed to have requested an examination thrice (on April 13, 2020, April 14, 2020, and April 30, 2020), there is no indication in the claims file that any psychiatric examination was performed. Further, there is no Supplemental Statement of the Case (SSOC) in the claims file, so there is no indication that the AOJ readjudicated the claim considering the comprehensive evidence, including the evidence which the Veteran requested the AOJ review in the first instance. It seems that the AOJ prematurely recertified the appeal to the Board without having completed the required development or readjudication; thus, the Board must remand to obtain compliance with the April 2020 directives. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Examine whether the Veteran has any psychiatric diagnoses pursuant to the DSM-5 and, if so, whether any such diagnoses are etiologically related to the Veteran’s service. 2. Readjudicate the appeal considering the comprehensive evidence, including the evidence which the Veteran requested the AOJ review in the first instance (see October 2019 Waiver Form). R. FEINBERG Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board H. Daus, 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.