Citation Nr: 21067818 Decision Date: 11/05/21 Archive Date: 11/05/21 DOCKET NO. 18-49 180 DATE: November 5, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disability other than PTSD, to include paranoid personality disorder and generalized anxiety, is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran had active service from July 1978 to May 1986 in the U.S. Navy. A virtual Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) hearing was held in February 2021 before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge and a copy of the hearing transcript has been added to the record. The Board notes that the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ) characterized the claim on appeal as entitlement to service connection for paranoid personality disorder (also claimed as posttraumatic stress disorder) throughout the appeal period. The Board next notes that, in Clemons v. Shinseki, 23 Vet. App. 1 (2009), the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court) held that claims for service connection for PTSD also encompass claims for service connection for all psychiatric disabilities afflicting a Veteran based on a review of the medical evidence. The Veteran filed his service connection claim for an acquired psychiatric disability other than PTSD, to include paranoid personality disorder (which he characterized as, "All Mental conditions to include but not restricted to Paranoid Personality Disorder"), in statements on a February 2017 VA Form 21 526EZ. He subsequently filed a service connection claim for PTSD in statements on a May 2017 VA Form 21-526EZ. The medical evidence indicates that he has been diagnosed as having paranoid personality disorder, PTSD, and generalized anxiety. Thus, the claims of service connection for PTSD and for an acquired psychiatric disability other than PTSD, to include paranoid personality disorder and generalized anxiety, are as stated above. 1. Entitlement to service connection for PTSD is remanded. After the Veteran filed his formal service connection claim for PTSD in May 2017, he submitted a letter dated in August 2017 (but not received by VA until November 2018) from T. W-G., a private licensed professional clinical counselor, in which this clinician stated that he was diagnosed as having PTSD. Although the AOJ characterized the claim on appeal as entitlement to service connection for paranoid personality disorder (also claimed as posttraumatic stress disorder), there has been no development of the service connection claim for PTSD. For example, the Veteran has not been asked to provide information concerning any alleged in-service stressors on which a valid diagnosis of PTSD must be based. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.304(f). Nor has he been provided with an examination to determine the nature and etiology of his diagnosed PTSD. Because he was diagnosed as having PTSD by a private clinician in August 2017, and because this diagnosis was not addressed in the March 2017 VA examination, the Board finds that the low threshold of McLendon has been met. See McLendon v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 79, 83 (2006). The Board also finds that, on remand, appropriate development of the service connection claim for PTSD should be conducted by the AOJ and the Veteran should be provided with an examination which addresses this matter. 2. Entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disability other than PTSD, to include paranoid personality disorder and generalized anxiety, is remanded. The Veteran finally contends that he incurred a paranoid personality disorder as a result of in-service persecution by other service members and experienced continuous post-service disability. The Board observes initially that a personality disorder is not considered a disability for VA adjudication purposes. See 38 C.F.R. § 4.9. The Board next observes that the March 2017 VA examiner found that the Veteran's only mental health diagnosis was paranoid personality disorder. This examiner also found that there were no other medical diagnoses "impacting psychological functioning" of the Veteran. A private clinician subsequently diagnosed him as having generalized anxiety in August 2017 although, as noted elsewhere, this evidence was not submitted to VA until November 2018. In other words, a review of the medical evidence of record suggests that the Veteran currently experiences additional acquired psychiatric disability (generalized anxiety) which was not diagnosed or present at the most recent VA examination (which occurred more than 4 years ago). Because he was diagnosed as having generalized anxiety by a private clinician in August 2017, and because this additional acquired psychiatric disability other than PTSD was not addressed by the March 2017 VA examination, the Board finds that the low threshold of McLendon has been met. See McLendon, 20 Vet. App. at 83. Thus, the Board also finds that, on remand, the Veteran should be provided with another examination which addresses this matter. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Conduct any appropriate development to obtain the Veteran's updated treatment records. 2. Contact the Veteran and/or his service representative and ask him to provide information concerning his alleged in-service stressors, including on a VA Form 21 0781. A copy of any letter(s) sent to the Veteran, and any reply, should be associated with the claims file. 3. Schedule the Veteran for examination to determine the nature and etiology of his claimed PTSD and/or any diagnosed acquired psychiatric disorder other than PTSD. The claims file and a copy of this REMAND should be provided for review. Based on a review of the claims file and the results of the Veteran's examination, the clinician is asked to state whether it is at least as likely as not (i.e., a 50 percent or greater probability) that PTSD, if diagnosed, is related to active service. If PTSD is diagnosed, then the clinician is asked to identify the in-service stressor(s) which support this diagnosis or if this diagnosis is related to fear of hostile military or terrorist activity. A rationale must be provided for any opinion(s) expressed. R. FEINBERG Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board Michael T. Osborne, 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.