Citation Nr: 20046545 Decision Date: 07/13/20 Archive Date: 07/13/20 DOCKET NO. 19-30 368 DATE: July 13, 2020 REMANDED Entitlement to an acquired psychiatric disability, to include posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran had active service from July 1953 to June 1955. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a June 2017 rating decision. The Veteran originally sought service connection for PTSD, but the Board has construed the claim more broadly to encompass any acquired psychiatric disorder. Clemons v. Shinseki, 23 Vet. App. 1 (2009). The Veteran seeks service connection for PTSD. However, both the May 2017 and September 2019 VA examinations indicate that he does not meet the diagnostic criteria for this condition. Further, the May 2017 examiner attributes the Veteran’s diagnosed other specified trauma and stressor related disorder to his fear of hostile military or terrorist activity. However, the regulations governing the adjudication of claims based on the fear of hostile military or terrorist activity require a diagnosis of PTSD. 38 U.S.C. § 1154(b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.304(f). Consequently, this opinion is not helpful in resolving this case. The September 2019 VA opinion provides essentially a retroactive opinion, indicating that the Veteran’s previously diagnosed other specified trauma or stressor related disorder was the result of his in-service combat experience. However, by the time of the 2019 examination, the Veteran had dementia, obscuring some symptoms that may have once been present. Moreover, his in-service combat experience has not yet been corroborated. Regrettably, his service treatment records have been lost to fire, and no records exist to permit VA to attempt to corroborate his claimed combat experiences. The Veteran reports that during his service he and his unit engaged Korean forces who got close enough to attack his location with a flame thrower sometime between December 1953 and March 1955. He reports that this event resulted in injury to both of his eyes, which required him to be evacuated to a hospital in Japan. Thus, despite the fact that the records do not exist to corroborate his combat experience, it may be possible to confirm at least part of his claim by substantiating his eye injuries. A remand is, therefore, necessary for an appropriate examination to determine if his eyes show evidence of a remote eye injury consistent with a flame thrower. This matter is, thus, REMANDED for the following actions: Schedule the Veteran for an examination by an appropriate clinician to determine whether any eye condition is consistent with a remote injury such as that incurred by a flame thrower. Then, undertake any other development that may be appropriate and readjudicate the claim for service connection for an acquired psychiatric condition utilizing any resulting evidence. THERESA M. CATINO Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board Steven Johnston, 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.