Citation Nr: 21067754 Decision Date: 11/05/21 Archive Date: 11/05/21 DOCKET NO. 15-13 948 DATE: November 5, 2021 REMANDED Whether the character of the Veteran's second period of active service from September 25, 1999 through February 5, 2002 is dishonorable for Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) purposes and constitutes a bar to VA compensation benefits is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for a clotting disorder to include a pulmonary embolism is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from September 1996 to February 2002. The Veteran received the Army Good Conduct Medal for the period of service from September 25, 1996, to September 24, 1999. Although there is no DD Form 214 in the file, VA had determined the Veteran's period of service from September 25, 1996, to September 24, 1999, is honorable. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a February 2013 administrative decision and a May 2013 rating decision of a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). The February 2013 administrative decision deemed the period from September 25, 1999, to February 5, 2002, as dishonorable for VA purposes. In February 2021, the Veteran testified at a Board hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge. A transcript of the hearing is of record. In May 2021, the Board remanded the appeal for further development. 1. Whether the character of the Veteran's second period of active service from September 25, 1999 through February 5, 2002 is dishonorable for Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) purposes and constitutes a bar to VA compensation benefits is remanded. In a prior Board remand in May 2021, the Board found that a potential insanity defense had been reasonably raised by the Veteran's submitted arguments and sought a medical opinion on the matter. The examiner was instructed to provide the requested opinions, and if unable to provide such opinion without resort to speculation, he or she must explain why this is so and what, if any, additional evidence would be necessary before an opinion could be rendered. The requested VA opinion was rendered in July 2021. The examiner confirmed an in-service diagnosis of post-partum depression. She did not respond fully to each of the requested opinions stating that she could not confirm each element without resorting to speculation. She did not reply what additional evidence would be necessary before an opinion could be rendered, and the existing opinion is inadequate. Unfortunately, there has not been substantial compliance with the Board's previous remand directives regarding the requested insanity opinion. Another remand is required. Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268, 271 (1998). 2. Entitlement to service connection for a clotting disorder to include a pulmonary embolism is remanded. Finally, because a decision on the remanded issue of whether the character of the Veteran's second period of active service is honorable, and therefore could allow for service connection for that period of service, could significantly impact a decision on the issue of service connection for a clotting disorder to include a pulmonary embolism, the issues are inextricably intertwined. A remand of the claims for service connection for a clotting disorder to include a pulmonary embolism is required. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain an addendum opinion from a mental health clinician, other than the examiner providing the July 2021 opinion if possible, to determine whether the appellant was insane at the time of the criminal offenses that led to her civilian criminal conviction and subsequent discharge. The examiner should base his or her determination on all the evidence within the claims file. An in-person examination of the Veteran is not required unless the examiner determines such to be necessary. The examiner is asked to determine whether at the time of the offense that led to this discharge the Veteran: (a.) Exhibited signs or symptoms of mental disease, including post-partum depression? (b.) Exhibited, due to any such mental disease, a more or less prolonged deviation from his normal method of behavior? (c.) Interfered with the peace of society? (d.) Had so departed (become antisocial) from the accepted standards of the community to which by birth and education he belongs as to lack the adaptability to make further adjustment to the social customs of the community in which he resided? (e.) If the examiner is unable to provide a requested opinion without resort to speculation, he or she must explain why this is so and what, if any, additional evidence would be necessary before an opinion could be rendered or whether the inability to provide the opinion is based on the limits of medical knowledge (no one could respond given medical science and the known facts). R. Feinberg Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board Michael J. O'Connor, 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.