Citation Nr: 20050142 Decision Date: 07/28/20 Archive Date: 07/28/20 DOCKET NO. 16-54 212 DATE: July 28, 2020 REMANDED Service connection for a psychiatric disability, to include an adjustment disorder with mixed anxiety and depressed mood, is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Navy from October 2009 to September 2013. This matter is before the Board of Veterans’ Appeal (Board) on appeal from a July 2014 rating decision issued by the Department of Veteran Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). Service connection for a psychiatric disability, to include an adjustment disorder with mixed anxiety and depressed mood, is remanded. The Veteran is seeking service connection for a psychiatric disability. Review of the Veteran’s service treatment and personnel records revealed that the underwent a June 2013 Competency for Duty Examination and was admitted to Stonington Institute for substance abuse, specifically related to alcohol abuse. The Veteran reported in his August 2013 Report of Medical History that he received treatment for anxiety, depression, and alcohol dependency at the Stonington Institute. He also indicated that he suffered from in-service panic attacks. The Veteran was afforded a VA examination in March 2014 to determine the nature and etiology of his claimed mental disorder. The examiner diagnosed the Veteran with alcohol use disorder and an adjustment disorder with mixed anxiety and depressed mood. However, the examiner did not find the Veteran’s adjustment disorder with anxiety and a depressed mood was related to his active duty service. The VA examiner based her decision primarily on the absence of a diagnosis and treatment in the Veteran’s service treatment record of a psychiatric disability. The VA examiner failed to address the Veteran’s lay contentions regarding the Veteran’s claimed psychiatric disability. Specifically, the Veteran has expressed that his claimed psychiatric disability is related to the stress and rigors of serving on a submarine, in which required working long hours and working around nuclear equipment. The Veteran also contends that his abuse of alcohol was his attempt to self-medicate underlying psychiatric disabilities. As the VA examiner failed to address the Veteran’s lay contentions, further medical guidance is needed to address the etiology of the Veteran’s claimed psychiatric disability. Under these circumstances, the Board will not proceed with final adjudication of the claims until a competent medical opinion with supporting rationale is obtained that adequately addresses the etiology of the Veteran’s claimed disability. Moreover, review of the record indicates that the Veteran’s treatment notes for his hospitalization at the Stonington Institute from July 2013 to August 2013 have not been included with claim file. As such, further development is needed to ensure those treatment notes are obtained and associated with claim file. The matters are REMANDED for the following actions: 1. With any necessary assistance from the Veteran, obtain private treatment records regarding his hospitalization at the Stonington Institute, from July 2013 to August 2013. 2. Obtain an opinion as to whether the Veteran’s claimed psychiatric disability is related to his active service. Whether an examination is needed prior to rendering this opinion is left to the discretion of the examiner. Regardless of whether an examination is performed, the examiner is to state: (a) Provide diagnoses for all current psychiatric disabilities, to include those noted during the appeal period. (b) Whether it is at least as likely as not that this disorder or disorders had their onset during or are otherwise related to the Veteran’s active service. The VA examiner should consider the Veteran’s contentions that his claimed psychiatric disability is due to the stress and rigors of serving on a submarine, which included working long hours and around nuclear materials. Additionally, the examiner should also consider the Veteran’s contention that he used alcohol to self-mediate. Evan M. Deichert Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board J.R. Higgins, 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.