Citation Nr: 21068603 Decision Date: 11/11/21 Archive Date: 11/10/21 DOCKET NO. 19-09 238 DATE: November 11, 2021 REMANDED The issue of entitlement to service connection for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is remanded. The issue of entitlement to service connection for unspecified trauma stressor related disorder is remanded. The issue of entitlement to service connection for anxiety condition is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran had active duty in the United States Air Force from August 1993 to December 1997. These matters come before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) from rating decisions issued in September 2017 and January 2019 by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). The Veteran submitted a Notice of Disagreement (NOD) in September 2018 and a Statement of the Case (SOC) was issued in January 2019. The Veteran perfected an appeal by submitting a timely VA Form 9 in March 2019. The Veteran, her spouse, and her representative appeared in a February 2021 hearing. A transcript of that hearing has been associated with the record. 1. The issue of entitlement to service connection for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) 2. The issue of entitlement to service connection for unspecified trauma stressor related disorder 3. The issue of entitlement to service connection for anxiety condition The Veteran contends that she was stalked during service while living in an Air Force dormitory in Okinawa from June 1994 to March 1995 and that it caused her current acquired psychiatric disabilities. During the Board hearing, the Veteran testified that she did report the stalking to her superiors and to police but because the identity of the stalker was unknown, she was only advised safety precautions. She is currently diagnosed as having multiple psychiatric disorders that meet the DSM-V criteria. The Veteran's service personnel records were obtained including performance evaluations but are silent for any markers or indicators of the contended stalking or onset of behavioral or performance abnormalities. VA requested records of reports to police from a Freedom of Information Act office in the Pentagon with no response. However, records of law enforcement response to reports such as this are more likely held, if at all, by military law enforcement including civilian investigation agencies (Department of Air Force Police) or judge advocate offices. VA's duty to assist includes obtaining a medical examination or opinion when such is necessary to decide on the claim. 38 U.S.C. § 5103A(d); 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(c)(4). An examination or medical opinion is necessary if the evidence of record (1) contains competent evidence that the claimant has a current disability, or persistent or recurrent symptoms of disability; and (2) establishes that the claimant suffered an event, injury, or disease in service; or has a presumptive disease or symptoms of such a disease manifesting during an applicable presumptive period; and (3) indicates that the claimed disability or symptoms may be associated with the established event, injury, or disease in service; but (4) does not contain sufficient medical evidence for the Secretary to make a decision on the claim. Id.; see also McLendon v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 79 (2006). With respect to the claims above, the statutory duty to assist has been triggered, as the Veteran contended that her current psychiatric disabilities are causally related to a stalking incident while in Japan. She has not yet been afforded an examination for these claims. Although the Veteran submitted a private medical opinion in September 2020 that very briefly attributed her current psychiatric disorders to the stalking in service, the Board finds that the private medical opinion is inadequate as it is based on inaccurate, or contradictory, factual basis. Specifically, the private practitioner noted that the Veteran "started to have anxiety since the middle 20s" in March 2020, but in her opinion, she explained that the Veteran "has had anxiety prior to her military service." As the Veteran was born in December 1973 and entered active duty in August 1993, she could not have had anxiety both "prior to her military service" and "since the middle 20s." As there are no adequate medical opinions of record, the Board finds that the Veteran should be afforded an appropriate examination with respect to her service connection claims. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Identify the proper department to contact to obtain investigative reports related to the Veteran's claimed incident between June 1994 and August 1995, and attempt to obtain said reports. All attempts must be documented and associated with the Veteran's file. 2. Schedule the Veteran for an examination by a VA clinician to determine the nature and etiology of any acquired psychiatric disorders. The clinician should review the virtual file. The clinician is to address the following: (a.) Whether it is at least as likely as not (50 percent or greater probability) that an acquired psychiatric disability, if diagnosed, manifested during, or is otherwise caused by the Veteran's period of active service including the written and hearing testimony of stalking in 1994-95 in Japan. (b.) Whether it is at least as likely as not that an acquired psychiatric disability, if diagnosed, was aggravated or caused by a service-connected disability. Rationales for all opinions are to be provided. All pertinent evidence, including both lay and medical, should be considered. The examiner may not rely on the absence of complaints, treatments, or diagnoses in the service treatment records. The examiner may also not rely on his/her assessment of the Veteran's credibility but may discuss inconsistencies in her statements. J.W. FRANCIS Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board H.S. Yun, 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.