Citation Nr: 21005070 Decision Date: 01/28/21 Archive Date: 01/28/21 DOCKET NO. 16-56 813 DATE: January 28, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder, to include posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The appellant was a member of the Army National Guard until February 1987. He had a period of Active Duty for Training (ACDUTRA) from October 1982 to March 1983. This issue was originally denied in a May 2013 rating decision. The appellant submitted new and material evidence, including private medical records, within one year of this decision. As such, the May 2013 rating decision did not become final. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.156 (b). The Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ) reconsidered and continued to deny the claim in an April 2014 rating decision, which the appellant appealed to the Board. As such, there is no need for the Board to reopen the claim prior to appellate review of the matter on the merits. The appellant testified at a personal hearing before a Decision Review Officer at the AOJ in August 2016. The appellant also testified at a Board hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge in June 2020.   Entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder, to include PTSD, is remanded. The appellant asserts that he has PTSD due to a training incident that occurred during basic training while on ACDUTRA. He has stated that he has experienced PTSD symptoms since the incident. Specifically, the appellant reports that while stationed at Ft. Jackson, South Carolina for basic training, he was rushed into a helicopter and did not know if his seatbelt was fastened. He had his weapon in his hand and the communication radio on his back. The appellant indicates that since he was being rushed, he was not secured in the helicopter; his buttocks were hanging off the seat and the helicopter turned on its side in order to make a turn. There were no doors on the helicopter and they went up very fast. The appellant reports that he was in fear of his life and screamed until the helicopter landed. He stated that he was shaking so bad it was hard for him to contain himself. He has indicated that he felt like the training session had become real. The appellant has submitted statements from his wife and friend who both indicated that the appellant had described to them the in-service helicopter incident. Importantly, the Veteran also submitted a statement from his mother who recalls receiving a letter concerning the helicopter incident a month after it occurred. In support of his claim, the appellant also submitted a November 2011 private opinion where the examiner opined that it was more likely than not that the appellant’s PTSD was related to his military experiences. The examiner noted that the helicopter experience had caused the appellant to have a fear of heights, causing increased stress on his life today. However, the examiner did not review the claims file, including the relevant service records, or offer a detailed rationale in support of their opinion. As such, this opinion is inadequate and cannot be the basis for the award of service connection. See Nieves-Rodriguez, 22 Vet. App. 295 (2008). The claims file also includes a July 2013 statement from a private physician and a July 2014 PTSD disability Benefits Questionnaire (DBQ) completed by another private physician. The private statement indicated that the Veteran was being treated for major depression recurrent, severe without psychosis, PTSD, and panic disorder without agoraphobia. The DBQ stated that the Veteran was diagnosed with generalized anxiety disorder, PTSD, major depressive disorder, and panic disorder without agoraphobia. However, neither physician provided an etiological opinion with rationale. A September 2016 physician statement indicated that the Veteran was treated for anxiety disorder and PTSD. The examiner noted that the Veteran continued to wake up at night sweating profusely and his heart beating fast fearing that he was falling out of a helicopter. Although the examiner appeared to indicate that the Veteran experienced symptoms associated with the in-service incident, the examiner did not offer a clear etiological opinion with rationale. Likewise, again, there is no indication that the examiner reviewed the claims file. As such, this opinion is also inadequate to be the basis for an award of service connection. Although the AOJ determined that the appellant’s in-service stressor could not be corroborated, the Board finds that the appellant’s described stressor is consistent with the places, types, and circumstances of his ACDUTRA. Accordingly, in light of the Veteran’s lay statements as well as the medical evidence showing a current diagnosis and a possible link to the in-service incident, the Board finds that he should be afforded a VA examination to determine the etiology of any acquired psychiatric disorder. See McLendon v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 79 (2006). Further, the appellant has indicated the he has received private treatment for his disorder. The most recent records in the claims file date from 2016. In light of the need to remand, the AOJ should take appropriate steps to obtain any additional private clinical records. . The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Ask the appellant to complete a VA Form 21-4142 for any outstanding private treatment records. Make two requests for any identified authorized records, unless it is clear after the first request that a second request would be futile. 2. Schedule the appellant for VA psychiatric examination to determine the nature and etiology of any acquired psychiatric disorder, to include PTSD. The claims file must be reviewed. The examiner should clearly delineate all psychiatric disorders. The examiner should specifically indicate whether the appellant meets the diagnostic criteria for PTSD and if so, the examiner should opine whether such disorder is at least as likely as not (e.g., a 50 percent or greater probability) related to the reported helicopter incident that occurred during the appellant’s basic training while on ACDUTRA. If any other acquired psychiatric disorders are diagnosed, the examiner must opine whether each diagnosed disorder is at least as likely as not related to an in-service injury, event, or disease, to include the reported in-service helicopter incident. A rationale must be provided for all opinions. L. M. BARNARD Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board J.N. Moats 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.