Citation Nr: 21068900 Decision Date: 11/15/21 Archive Date: 11/15/21 DOCKET NO. 15-18 127 DATE: November 15, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service-connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder, claimed as post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty with the United States Army from August 1973 to August 1976. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a March 2013 rating decision issued by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). In May 2019, the Veteran testified at a hearing before the undersigned. This matter was most recently before the Board in September 2019, where it was remanded for additional development. Entitlement to service-connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder, claimed as post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), is remanded. The Board's September 2019 remand included a directive ordering that the AOJ obtain a new VA psychiatric evaluation for the Veteran. The subsequent February 2020 VA medical examination and opinion reported that the Veteran has two current diagnoses of PTSD with obsession rituals and substance abuse disorder. As to PTSD, the examiner addressed two specific stressors related to the Veteran's PTSD diagnosis: (1) an incident where the Veteran witnessed the death of a fellow servicemember who had accidentally dropped a hand grenade; and (2) an incident where the Veteran witnessed a fellow servicemember being run over and killed by a tank. The examiner confirmed that these stressors are adequate to support a PTSD diagnosis. However, per 38 C.F.R. § 3.304(f), a claim for PTSD requires "credible supporting evidence" that the in-service stressor occurred. See Cohen v. Brown, 10 Vet. App. 128, 142 (1997). Lay testimony alone is not sufficient to establish that a stressor occurred. Id. The AOJ appears to have conducted an investigation to confirm these stressors, as evidenced by a July 2021 Research Records Response memorandum. The report states that no evidence was recovered to corroborate the occurrence of these stressors. The Board also reviewed the extent of the Veteran's military personnel records and could not find evidence to support the occurrence of these stressors. The Board notes, however, that the Veteran's medical treatment records suggest that the Veteran witnessed more stressors than the two discussed in the February 2021 report. A March 2005 VA medical record notes that, during a PTSD screening, the Veteran discussed how, during his service, military hostiles would throw fireworks or firecrackers on his base, causing him to fear attack. VA received multiple buddy statements in August 2012 from third parties detailing the Veteran's apparent paranoia that he would be attacked by Korean opposition after returning from service in South Korea during the Vietnam War. At a March 2013 VA examination, the Veteran also detailed how there would always be "trouble" at the camp whenever someone important from the United States visited the camp where he was stationed, and they were "put on alert many times." Records of the Veteran's psychiatric history repeatedly note the Veteran's history of exaggerated startle responses, paranoia, and hypervigilance. The Board finds it necessary to remand for an addendum opinion considering whether the Veteran's apparent history of fear of hostile military attack after his service in South Korea, or any additional identified stressors, is also adequate to support the Veteran's current PTSD diagnosis. The matter is REMANDED for the following action: Forward the claims file to an appropriate clinician and, following review of the claims file by the clinician, obtain an addendum opinion from the selected clinician opining whether the Veteran has experienced any additional stressors which may support his current diagnosis of PTSD, to include a history of fear of hostile military attack following his service in South Korea. This includes consideration of statements made during a March 2005 PTSD screening; reports from multiple buddy statements obtained in August 2012; statements made during a March 2013 VA psychiatric examination; and the numerous notations of exaggerated startle responses, paranoia, and hypervigilance across the entirety of the Veteran's medical record. The examiner is advised that the Veteran is competent to report his symptoms and history, and such reports must be specifically acknowledged and considered in formulating any opinion. If the examiner rejects the Veteran's reports, he or she must provide a reason for doing so. (Continued on the next page) All findings must be reported in detail and all opinions must be accompanied by a clear rationale. If any of the above issues cannot be resolved without resorting to speculation, then a detailed medical explanation as to why this is so must be provided. M. HYLAND Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board Narnor, Harriyah 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.