Citation Nr: 21068500 Decision Date: 11/10/21 Archive Date: 11/10/21 DOCKET NO. 18-27 083 DATE: November 10, 2021 REMANDED Service connection for an acquired psychiatric disability is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from April 1968 to March 1970 in the United States Army. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a June 2017 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office. In July 2021, the Veteran testified before the undersigned during a virtual hearing. A transcript of the hearing is included in the electronic claims file. While the appeal has been developed as a claim for generalized anxiety disorder, pursuant to Clemons v. Shinseki, 23 Vet. App. 1 (2009), the Board has recharacterized it more broadly to include a claim for any acquired psychiatric disability. Additionally, in characterizing the claim, the Board considered the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Federal Circuit) in Boggs v. Peake, 520 F. 3d 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2008), which provides that a claim premised on a diagnosis not considered in prior decisions is treated as a new claim without the need for new and material evidence. The RO last denied service connection for a nervous condition in September 1979. Since then, psychiatric disabilities, such bipolar disorder I, have been diagnosed. As the record reveals that these diagnoses were not present when the claim was previously denied, the Board finds that the current claim may be considered without regard to whether new and material evidence has been received. Service connection for an acquired psychiatric disability is remanded. At the July 2021 hearing, the Veteran testified that during military service, his duty assignments were changed numerous times. He testified, for example, that while initially he was in charge of the mess hall, he was then reassigned to work at a swimming pool as a lifeguard, and was then reassigned to duties involving the printing press. It is unclear from his testimony whether these changes occurred because of behavioral issues, and the Veteran testified that he has no understanding of why or how these reassignments took place. He reported having a complete loss of memory from this time period, and made reference to an in-service psychiatric hospitalization. Prior to appellate adjudication, the Board finds that the Veteran's personnel file and any in-service hospitalization records must be obtained. Should the records indicate any psychiatric complaints or treatment, behavioral changes, or disciplinary problems during service, the file should be forwarded to the March 2018 psychiatric examiner, if available, for an addendum opinion. The matter is REMANDED for the following action: 1. Contact the National Personnel Record Center and/or the appropriate service entity to respond to the requests for the information below. Document all requests for information as well as all responses received in the claims file. (a.) Forward records of any in-patient psychiatric treatment received during the Veteran's period of service from April 1968 to March 1970. (b.) Forward the Veteran's complete military personnel file. 2. Should the above-obtained records indicate any psychiatric complaints or treatment, behavioral changes, or disciplinary problems during service, provide the Veteran's electronic claims file, including all records obtained in response to the remand directive above, to the March 2018 VA psychiatric examiner, or if not available, to another appropriately qualified examiner, for an addendum opinion. Unless determined otherwise by the VA examiner, an actual examination of the Veteran is not required. Upon review of the newly-obtained records, the examiner must opine on whether it is at least as likely as not that the Veteran's current acquired psychiatric disability began during active service or is related to an in-service injury, event, or disease. A rationale must be provided for all conclusions reached. M. Tenner Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board J. Smith, 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.