Citation Nr: 21001570 Decision Date: 01/11/21 Archive Date: 01/11/21 DOCKET NO. 17-33 200 DATE: January 11, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder, to include posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from December 1967 to November 1969. This matter is before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a September 2014 rating decision of a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). A Board hearing was held before the undersigned in February 2020. A transcript of the hearing is of record. This matter was previously before the Board in April 2020 when it was remanded for further development.   Entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder, to include PTSD, is remanded. Although further delay is regrettable, the Board finds another remand is needed before a decision can be made regarding the Veteran’s claim. In accordance with the April 2020 remand order, the Veteran underwent a VA examination in May 2020 to determine the nature and etiology of any diagnosed psychiatric condition. Following a clinical interview with the Veteran, the examiner indicated that the Veteran did not meet DSM-5 criteria for a diagnosis of PTSD but noted a diagnosis of schizoaffective disorder, bipolar type. The examiner then opined that there was no nexus between the Veteran’s diagnosed psychiatric condition and his experiences in service. In support of the opinion, the examiner noted that the Veteran did not report any psychiatric difficulties or treatment during his service and that his medical records indicated he did not report any psychiatric difficulties until around 1973, which was four years after his discharge from service, when he was first hospitalized for a psychotic disorder. However, the Board finds the opinion inadequate as the examiner’s rationale does not clearly address whether the Veteran’s psychiatric disorder is related to in-service events related to fear of hostile military or terrorist activity, as requested by the Board’s remand. Additionally, although the examiner found the Veteran did not currently meet the criteria for a diagnosis of PTSD, the Veteran’s VA treatment records, including in November 2018, reflect that the Veteran has been diagnosed with PTSD under DSM-5 during the appeal period. As there is a diagnosis of PTSD during the appeal period, the Board’s prior remand had requested an opinion as to whether the Veteran’s PTSD is related to a fear of hostile military or terrorist activity and such was not provided by the May 2020 examiner. Consequently, as there was not substantial compliance with the Board’s prior remand instructions, remand for an addendum opinion is necessary. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: Return the claims folder to the May 2020 VA examiner, or another examiner if the May 2020 examiner is unavailable, for an addendum opinion. An examination should only be scheduled if the examiner determines an examination is necessary to provide the requested opinion. The examiner is requested to respond to the following questions: (a) As PTSD under DSM-5 has been diagnosed during the appeal period, is it at least as likely as not (a 50 percent or greater probability) that such PTSD is caused by, or is otherwise related to, stressors related to the fear of hostile military or terrorist activity during service in Vietnam? (b) For the diagnosed schizoaffective disorder, bipolar type, is it at least as likely as not (a 50 percent or greater probability) that such disability is related to the Veteran’s active service? In providing the requested opinion, the examiner should address the Veteran’s report of in-service events related to fear of hostile military or terrorist activity during service in Vietnam. A complete rationale for all opinions must be provided. If the clinician cannot provide a requested opinion without resorting to speculation, it must be so stated, and the clinician must provide the reasons why an opinion would require speculation. The clinician must indicate whether there was any further need for information or testing necessary to make a determination. Additionally, the clinician must indicate whether any opinion could not   be rendered due to limitations of knowledge in the medical community at large and not those of the particular clinician. M. SORISIO Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board S. Jiggetts 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.