Citation Nr: 21068709 Decision Date: 11/12/21 Archive Date: 11/12/21 DOCKET NO. 17-13 700 DATE: November 12, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder, to include posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) due to military sexual trauma (MST) is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty with the Navy from March 1980 to March 1984. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a March 2016 rating decision issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). The Veteran's claim was remanded by the Board in August 2019 for further development. However, the Board finds that its prior directives were not substantially complied with and as will be discussed further, an additional remand is necessary. A remand by the Board confers on the Veteran or other claimant, as a matter of law, the right to substantial, but not strict, compliance with the remand orders. See Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268 (1998). Entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder, to include posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) due to military sexual trauma (MST) is remanded. Although the Board regrets the additional delay, a remand is necessary to ensure that due process is followed and that there is a complete record upon which to decide the Veteran's claim so that she is afforded every possible consideration. 38 U.S.C. § 5103A; 38 C.F.R. § 3.159. VA's duty to assist includes a duty to provide a medical examination or obtain a medical opinion where it is deemed necessary to decide on the claim. 38 U.S.C. § 5103A (d); 38 C.F.R. § 3.159 (c)(4); Duenas v. Principi, 18 Vet. App. 512 (2004); Robinette v. Brown, 8 Vet. App. 69 (1995); McLendon v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 79 (2006). The Veteran contends that she has a diagnosis of PTSD that is attributable to being sexually assaulted during her active service. See February 2016 Correspondence. Upon remand, the agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ) sent the Veteran a Subsequent Development Letter in November 2019 specifying what information is needed to verify her claim. Additionally, the AOJ sent the Veteran Subsequent Development Letters in October 2019 and January 2020 notifying her that a VA examination would be scheduled. The Veteran failed to attend the scheduled January 2020 VA examination. However, in the September 2021 Appellate Brief, the Veteran's representative indicated that the Veteran had moved to a new address and did not receive the Subsequent Development Letters or the notice regarding the scheduled VA examination. Additionally, the Board notes that the AOJ attempted to call the Veteran in November 2019, but her phone number was disconnected. The Veteran's representative further indicated in the September 2021 Appellate Brief that the AOJ should contact the representative if they are unable to contact the Veteran via telephone. Therefore, the Board finds that another remand is necessary to further assist the Veteran with verifying her reported MST incident and scheduling another VA examination. Additionally, a January 2016 Deferred Rating in the Veteran's claim file indicates that there are no service treatment records available. However, the claims file does not include a Formal Finding of Unavailability indicating that the AOJ has exhausted all efforts to obtain the Veteran's service treatment records. Therefore, the Board finds that a remand is necessary to attempt to obtain the Veteran's service treatment records. The matters are REMANDED for the following actions: 1. Obtain the Veteran's complete service treatment records. Any and all records obtained must be associated with the claims file. If the service treatment records are unavailable, the RO should so specifically state, and the documentation used in making that determination should be set forth in the claims file. All attempts to obtain these records, including those which may ultimately prove unsuccessful, must be documented in the claims folder. 2. Provide the Veteran with notice of VA's duties to notify and assist under 38 U.S.C. § 5103 (a) and 38 C.F.R. § 3.304 (f)(5). The Veteran should be properly notified of how to substantiate a claim based upon MST and informed of alternative sources of evidence that can be used to verify claimed MST stressors. The Veteran should be requested to provide additional information (dates and places) regarding being assaulted during service, including an MST, or any other traumatic events during service. Attempt to verify the Veteran's claimed stressors and document such attempts in the claims file. If the Veteran is unavailable via telephone or the phone number of record is disconnected, the AOJ should contact the Veteran's representative to request the needed information or for an updated phone number. 3. Schedule the Veteran for a psychiatric examination to determine the nature and etiology of any PTSD. If the Veteran is diagnosed with PTSD, the examiner must explain how the diagnostic criteria are met and opine whether it is at least as likely as not related to a verified in-service stressor. The examiner must opine whether the evidence of record, including the Veteran's lay statements, statements made by the Veteran's spouse, and the Veteran's service records, corroborate the claim that a personal assault occurred in service (38 C.F.R. § 3.304(f)(5)). If the examiner finds that evidence indicates that a personal assault occurred during the Veteran's active service, the examiner must opine whether any PTSD is at least as likely as not related to the in-service personal assault. If any other acquired psychiatric disorders are diagnosed, the examiner must opine whether each diagnosed disorder is at least as likely as not related to an in-service injury, event, or disease, to include the Veteran's reported sexual assault in 1984. L. M. BARNARD Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board M. Hartford, 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.