Citation Nr: 21001329 Decision Date: 01/07/21 Archive Date: 01/07/21 DOCKET NO. 11-29 658 DATE: January 7, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for a psychiatric disability, to include posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran had active service from September 1972 to September 1974, and from January 1991 to March 1991. He also had periods of active duty for training (ACDUTRA) and inactive duty for training (INACDUTRA) in the Army Reserve. This case initially came before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a February 2011 rating decision issued by a Regional Office (RO) of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). This claim has been before the Board and the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court) on multiple occasions. Most recently, in an April 2017 decision, the Board denied entitlement to service connection for a psychiatric disability and the Veteran appealed to the Court. In May 2018, pursuant to a Joint Motion for Remand, the Court vacated the Board’s decision. In September 2018 and October 2019, the Board remanded the claim for additional development. The case has since been returned to the Board for further appellate review. In February 2020, a VA examiner opined that the Veteran met the criteria for a diagnosis of PTSD under the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) IV and V. During the examination, the Veteran reported that while on post in 1990, he had to stand guard over two dead soldiers who had a troop carrier roll over and crush them. The examiner indicated that the stressor met criterion A and was adequate to support the diagnosis of PTSD. The Board notes that the stressor is not related to combat and does not involve fear of hostile military or terrorist activity. Therefore, there must be credible supporting evidence that the stressor actually occurred. 38 C.F.R. § 3.304(f) (2019). In December 2008, the Veteran reported that the motor vehicle accident (MVA) where he witnessed two dead soldiers occurred while he was on drill at Fort Knox in September or October 1988. The United States Army Combat Readiness/Safety Center indicated that there were no MVAs as described by the Veteran at Fort Knox from August 1988 to November 1988, but that there was an MVA in January 1988 that resulted in one fatality and one injury. The investigative reports and the Veteran’s leave and earning statements do not indicate that he was on duty at the time of the January 1988 MVA. In November 2011, the Veteran indicated that the MVA occurred in September or October 1990 while he was on a weekend drill at Fort Knox. During the February 2020 VA examination, he also reported that the MVA occurred in 1990. To date, however, there has been no attempt to corroborate whether the stressor occurred in September or October 1990. Therefore, the Board finds that a remand is necessary. Additionally, current treatment records should be identified and obtained before a decision is made with regard to the issue on appeal. The matter is REMANDED for the following action: 1. Identify and obtain any pertinent, outstanding VA and private treatment records and associate them with the claims file. 2. Attempt to verify the Veteran’s claimed in-service stressor through the Joint Services Records Research Center (JSRRC) and/or any other appropriate sources. Specifically, the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ) should verify whether a MVA, as described by the Veteran, occurred at Fort Knox in September or October 1990 and whether he on duty there at that time. 3. Then, readjudicate the claim on appeal. If a decision is adverse to the Veteran, issue a supplemental statement of the case and allow an appropriate time for response. Then, return the case to the Board. Kristin Haddock Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board S. Mishalanie, 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.