Citation Nr: 20045014 Decision Date: 07/07/20 Archive Date: 07/07/20 DOCKET NO. 15-23 410 DATE: July 7, 2020 REMANDED Service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty with the U.S. Army from April 1948 to May 1957. This matter comes on appeal before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) from a May 2013 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office in Montgomery, Alabama (RO). In November 2018, the Veteran testified before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge in a videoconference hearing. A copy of the hearing transcript has been associated with the record. In February 2019, the Board remanded the claim for record development, however, substantial compliance was not obtained and an additional remand is necessary prior to rendering a decision on the appeal. See Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268, 270-71 (1998). The Board notes that evidence has been added to the record that was not previously considered by the RO, specifically a June 2020 statement submitted by the Veteran after the most recent May 2020 supplemental statement of the case (SSOC). Although recent statutory provisions allow for an automatic waiver of initial RO review of post-substantive appeal evidence, this evidence must be submitted by the Veteran for appeals filed after February 2, 2013. See 38 U.S.C. § 7105 (e) (2012); Disabled American Veterans v. Secretary of Veterans Affairs, 327 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2003); see also Honoring America’s Veterans and Caring for Camp Lejeune Families Act of 2012, Pub. L. No. 112-154, 126 Stat. 1165 (amending 38 U.S.C. § 7105 to provide for the automatic waiver of AOJ review of evidence submitted directly to the Board during the appeal period for substantive appeals filed after February 2, 2013). In this case, the Veteran’s appeal was filed after February 2, 2013 in July 2015, and additional evidence associated with the claims file was submitted by the Veteran. Therefore, the Board finds that the automatic waiver provisions apply to the evidence submitted by the Veteran since the most recent SSOC, and the Board may adjudicate the claim at this time. Entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder is remanded. In a February 2019 Board remand, the RO was directed to attempt to corroborate the Veteran’s in-service stressors, and to thereafter, schedule the Veteran for a VA examination to determine the nature and etiology of any acquired psychiatric disability, to include posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). As discussed within the Remand, the Veteran had reported throughout the record that he had seen several men die when their boat sank in rough waters during the Korean War, and that he had been severely injured after stepping on a landmine while on patrol duty in Korea. On remand, the RO requested the Veteran to provide additional details to include information regarding when the service stressors took place so that targeted research could be completed to develop his claim. Although he submitted a June 2020 letter, the record still lacks the necessary information so that additional evidentiary development can be completed. On remand, the Veteran should cooperate to the fullest extent so that VA can corroborate his in-service stressors.   The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. The AOJ should obtain additional details from the Veteran regarding the date of the Veteran’s service overseas in Iraq. Upon obtaining additional details and the requisite authorizations for release of information from the Veteran, the AOJ should send an inquiry to all appropriate sources to verify the Veteran’s stressors, including a) his report during the November 2018 videoconference hearing in which during the summer of 1950, under the direction of Colonel K as harbor master, the Veteran witnessed a boat sink and men die, and b) a report within August 1989 correspondence in which the Veteran stated he stepped on a landmine, severely hurting himself, while on patrol duty in Korea. The Veteran has reported service with the 347 Harbor Craft in the 8th Army in a June 2020 statement. Specifically, the AOJ should send each request, in 60-day increments to the JSRRC for verification of the Veteran’s stressors. The 60-day increments should be based on the additional details provided by the Veteran, if obtained, or in the alternative, for the time period from May 1, 1950 to October 1, 1950. The AOJ should make all available efforts to obtain such records, and all such attempts should be reflected in a written memorandum included in the claims file. The Board notes that the Veteran’s service personnel and treatment records were destroyed by fire and are not available, however, all verification attempts should be made to official sources based off of the Veteran’s statements throughout the record as to his in-service stressors. 2. The AOJ should refer the case to an appropriate VA examiner(s) for a VA examination to determine the nature and etiology any acquired psychiatric disorder, to include PTSD. The electronic claims file must be made available to, and be reviewed by, the examiner. The examiner must note such review in the examination report. All indicated tests should be accomplished, and all clinical findings should be reported in detail. Upon review of the claims file, the examiner is requested to determine any diagnosed psychiatric disorder, to include PTSD, and to determine whether it is at least as likely as not (50 percent probability or more) that any such disability had its clinical onset during the Veteran’s period of active service, or is otherwise related to his period of active service. If a diagnosis of PTSD is rendered, the examiner should identify the specific stressor or stressors supporting such a diagnosis. The term “at least as likely as not” does not mean “within the realm of medical possibility.” Rather, it means that the weight of medical evidence both for and against a conclusion is so evenly divided that it is as medically sound to find in favor of that conclusion as it is to find against it. A complete rationale for all opinions and conclusions should be provided with references to findings in the claims file. 3. After all the above development has been completed, the AOJ should review the appeal again based on the additional evidence. If the benefits sought are not granted, the AOJ should furnish the Veteran and his representative with a supplemental statement of the case, and should give the Veteran a reasonable opportunity to respond before returning the record to the Board for further review. K. Parakkal Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board M. R. Woodarek 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.