Citation Nr: 21000862 Decision Date: 01/06/21 Archive Date: 01/06/21 DOCKET NO. 16-17 125 DATE: January 6, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychological disorder, is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from July 1987 to July 1990. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a February 2013 rating decision by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). In July 2019, the Veteran testified at a Board hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge. This matter was previously remanded in July 2019. The Board finds that additional development is needed to evaluate the Veteran’s claim of service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder Entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychological disorder The Veteran contends that an in-service altercation, along with other in-service incidents including the repercussions of those altercations, led to his current psychological disorder. See September 2020 Appellant Brief. VA treatment records reflect a diagnosis of dysthymia, anxiety, and other psychological disorders. The Veteran testified that he and fellow servicemember argued while on a mission to pick up supplies, which caused them to return to camp late. See Hearing Transcript. He testified the repercussions for failure to return in a timely manner included a change of duties. The Veteran further testified that as a result of the incident and punishment, he experienced anxiety. Additionally, the Veteran contends that he was in an altercation with a fellow servicemember who was intoxicated and was punished with extra duties. See June 2017 Statement in Support of Claim. He further contends that his military occupational specialty (MOS) as a food service specialist caused him to be treated disrespectfully by his fellow servicemembers which lead to self-pity and anxiety. See July 2019 Statement in Support of Claim. The Veteran reported he received several Article 15 offenses. However, his personnel records contain only one Article 15, which is for failure to attend annual training. Despite this, the Board finds that the low threshold of McLendon v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 79, 81 (2006), has been met, and remand for VA examination is necessary. The Board notes that the Veteran reported having psychological issues as a child and possibly being diagnosed with bipolar disorder while in school. See Enlistment Report of History; May 2012 VA treatment records. However, the Veteran’s entrance examination was normal. See September 1994 Entrance Examination. Although there is indication that the Veteran may have had a pre-existing psychological disorder, there is no clear and unmistakable evidence that such disorder did indeed pre-exist service at this time and therefore, the Board will not seek an opinion regarding a pre-existing disability. See 38 U.S.C. § 1111; 38 C.F.R. § 3.304 (b). The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. The AOJ should arrange for a VA examination of the Veteran to determine the nature and cause of his acquired psychological disorder. The examiner should review the claim file (including this remand) and note such review was conducted. Based on review of the record and examination of the Veteran, the examiner should provide an opinion with detailed rationale that responds to the following: (a) Please identify, by diagnosis, all psychological disorders present during the appeal period (from March 2011). (b) For each psychological disorder diagnosed, is it at least as likely as not (50% or greater probability) that such disability was either incurred in or otherwise related to the Veteran’s military service? Please explain why. 2. If upon completion of the above action the issues remain denied, the case should be returned to the Board after compliance with appellate procedures. E. I. VELEZ Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board EJ Richardson 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.