Citation Nr: 21065749 Decision Date: 10/27/21 Archive Date: 10/27/21 DOCKET NO. 16-28 950 DATE: October 27, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder, claimed as depression, to include as secondary to post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), obstructive sleep apnea and service-connected right upper extremity scar, is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran had honorable active service from June 1979 to February 1983. He also served on active duty from February 1983 to November 1983, which resulted in a discharge under other than honorable conditions and is considered dishonorable for VA compensation purposes. Therefore, the Veteran is only entitled to receive VA benefits based on his first period of service. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a March 2014 rating decision be the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Indianapolis, Indiana. This matter has previously been before the Board, most recently in February 2020. At that time, the Board, among other things, denied the Veteran's claim for service connection for depression. The Veteran appealed to the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC), which granted the Veteran and VA's Joint Motion for Partial Remand (JMPR) vacating that part of the February 2020 Board decision to the extent it denied service connection for depression. Pursuant to the terms of the JMPR, the Board is to consider whether the Veteran's reported symptoms of nightmares and flashbacks of witnessing a suicide in service and being in fear of deployment are credible and, if so, whether a new examination is warranted to address those symptoms as they relate to the Veteran's depression. As noted in the JMPR, the Veteran submitted a June 2019 statement in support of his claim alleging that he still had nightmares and flashbacks about witnessing a suicide while in basic training in 1979. The Board does not afford this statement credibility as it is not supported by the record evidence. Rather, the Veteran's treatment records reflect that, when seeking treatment for his nightmares and flashbacks, he consistently described them as related to his fear of deployment. Specifically, the Veteran reported in January 2012 that his nightmares were of being on the flight line getting ready for deployment. The Veteran reported in June 2015 that his nightmares were related to his trauma of having to leave his family while in service. In October 2015 the Veteran reported that his flashbacks were "always the same" and were related to getting ready to load up for deployment. Based on the foregoing, the Board finds that the Veteran's claim that his nightmares and flashbacks were related to his fear of deployment is credible. A review of the August 2019 VA examination for mental disorders reveals that the examiner did not specifically address whether the Veteran' depression was related to the nightmares and flashbacks he experienced with respect to his fear of deployment. Accordingly, the Board finds that remand is warranted to obtain an addendum opinion addressing this issue. The matter is REMANDED for the following action: Return the file to the August 2019 VA examiner for an addendum opinion. If the examiner is unavailable, the opinion should be provided by another examiner. The claims file, JMPR and a copy of this remand must be reviewed by the examiner. Following review of the file, the examiner should address whether the Veteran's reports of nightmares and flashbacks regarding his fear of deployment are related to and sufficient to support the diagnosis of depression. All findings and conclusions should be supported with a complete rationale based on consideration of the medical and lay evidence of record. If it is not possible to provide an opinion without resort to speculation, the reason that is so should be explained, indicating whether there is additional evidence that could enable an opinion to be provided or whether the inability to provide an opinion is based on the limits of medical knowledge in general or of the examiner. If the inability to provide an opinion without resorting to speculation is due to a deficiency in the record (additional facts required), the RO should develop the claim to the extent necessary to cure any such deficiency. If the inability to provide an opinion is due to the examiner's lack of requisite knowledge or training, then the RO should obtain an opinion from a medical professional who has the knowledge and training needed to render such an opinion. S.C. KREMBS Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board M. Snyder, Associate 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.