Citation Nr: 21002795 Decision Date: 01/15/21 Archive Date: 01/15/21 DOCKET NO. 16-59 134 DATE: January 15, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for a psychiatric disability is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran had active service from May 2001 to October 2001, and from January 2003 to August 2003 in the United States Marine Corps (USMC). This case comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a November 2015 rating decision issued by a Regional Office (RO) of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). In August 2020, the Veteran testified before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge. A transcript of the hearing is of record. The Veteran maintains that his current psychiatric disability is related to his medical discharge from service. During the Board hearing, he stated that he felt humiliated and ashamed that he was unable to service after the 9/11 terrorist attacks. He stated that he felt isolated while waiting to be discharged and was unable to join his platoon and unable to go home to his family. He stated that he started self-medicating with alcohol. The Board notes that the Veteran is a licensed social worker and has training and expertise regarding the nature and etiology of psychiatric disabilities. In addition, on his July 2003 post-deployment health assessment, he reported that sometimes felt down, depressed, or hopeless. Post service, VA treatment records indicated that the Veteran first sought treatment for psychiatric symptoms in September 2012. At that time, he complained of sleeping difficulties, losing interest in things, and lack of concentration. He stated that he had anxiety over finding a job and was depressed because a girl he was seeing broke things off with him. He was diagnosed with depressive disorder, panic disorder, and generalized anxiety disorder. Later records noted that he reported a history of traumatic brain injury (TBI) and posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) from childhood sexual abuse. The Board notes that the evidence needed to trigger VA’s duty to furnish an examination is low. McLendon v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 79, 83 (2006). Given the foregoing evidence, the Board finds that a remand is necessary to obtain a VA examination to determine the nature and etiology of the Veteran’s claimed psychiatric disability. Finally, the Board finds that current treatment records should be obtained and associated with the claims file. 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. Then, schedule the Veteran for a VA examination with an examiner with sufficient expertise to determine the nature and etiology of his claimed psychiatric disability. The claims file must be made available to, and reviewed by the examiner. Any indicated test or studies should be provided. Based on the examination results and a review of the record, including any additionally received treatment records, the examiner should provide an opinion as to whether it is at least as likely as not (50 percent probability or better) that any currently present psychiatric disability was incurred in or is causally related to service. The examiner should also provide an opinion as to whether it is at least as likely as not (50 percent probability or better) that any currently present psychiatric disability was caused or is aggravated by his service-connected left wrist disability. A rationale for all opinions expressed must be provided. 3. Confirm that the VA examination report and all opinions provided comport with this remand and undertake any other development found to be warranted. 4. Then, readjudicate the issue on appeal. If a decision is adverse to the Veteran, issue a supplemental statement of the case and allow 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.