Citation Nr: 21069225 Decision Date: 11/17/21 Archive Date: 11/17/21 DOCKET NO. 17-64 168 DATE: November 17, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for a chronic acquired psychiatric disorder is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served in the United States Army from May 1972 to March 1974. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from an April 2015 rating decision issued by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) regional office. The Veteran testified before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge at a videoconference hearing in July 2021. A transcript of the hearing is in the claims file. Regarding the Veteran's claim of entitlement to service connection for a chronic acquired psychiatric disorder, the Board notes that the issue on appeal was characterized by the agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ) as entitlement to service connection for major depressive disorder and/or generalized anxiety disorder. However, the Veteran has been diagnosed with depression, alcohol abuse, polysubstance abuse. See October 2002 San Francisco General Hospital. Furthermore, VA treatment records dated in August 2013 note "other psychotic disorders, affective disorder, and personality disorder". See August 2013 San Francisco VA Medical Records. Therefore, the Board has recharacterized the issue more broadly to include any acquired psychiatric disorder reasonably raised by the record. See Clemons v. Shinseki, 23 Vet. App. 1, 5-6, 8 (2009). 1. Entitlement to service connection for major depressive disorder and/or generalized anxiety disorder is remanded. The Veteran contends that he is entitled to service connection for major depressive disorder and/or anxiety as a result of his military service. Specifically, the Veteran asserts that shortly before his separation form service (January February 1974) he suffered a mental breakdown, resulting in an expeditious discharge. The Veteran contends that his mental disabilities have continued since service manifesting in an inability to maintain employment resulting in nine years of homelessness and numerous psychiatric hospitalizations. See February 2015 Veteran Correspondence; January 2016 Notice of Disagreement. The Veteran further contends that his mental state declined, and he became suicidal in service after being attacked by a fellow service member with a knife who stabbed him in the right hand. After being stabbed the Veteran sought emergency treatment for his wounded hand and informed the attending physician that he was suicidal and had intentions. The Veteran states that these events took place in Manheim, Germany and that he was treated at the Army clinic on base. Lastly, the Veteran acknowledges that he was found to be in good health at separation and that his mental health evaluation at that time is without notations. See January 2016 Statement in Support of Claim; July 2021 Board Videoconference Hearing. The Board notes that the Veteran's claims file reflects that he had service in Germany. See May 1972 to March 1974 Military Personnel Record at 10. Specifically, the Veteran's service treatment record (STR) contains treatment records from Sandhofen, Germany dated in 1973 and 1974. See 1973 trough 1974 STR at 5-8. Furthermore, the Veteran has requested these records in January 1998. See January 1998 Request for Information at 14. VA is obligated to make as many requests as necessary to obtain the records. The claimant must provide enough information to identify and locate the existing records, including the agency holding the records, the approximate time frame covered by the records, and the condition for which medical treatment was obtained. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(c); Sullivan v. McDonald, 815 F. 3d 786 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Given that the Veteran has provided the location (Manheim/Sandhofen Germany), agency (Department of Defense), approximate time frame (January/February 1974), and condition for which medical treatment was obtained (stab wound to right hand). See January 2016 Statement in Support of Claim; July 2021 Board Videoconference Hearing. Furthermore, the Veteran's claims file notes that he had service in Germany in early 1974. See May 1972 to March 1974 Military Personnel Record at 10. As such, on remand the RO should obtain any outstanding STRs, specifically, any outstanding treatment records during the Veteran's service in Manheim/Sandhofen Germany. The matter is REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain and associate with the Veteran's electronic claims file any outstanding STRs relevant to his claim, specifically to include treatment records from Manheim/Sandhofen Germany dated in January and February 1974. 2. If any records cannot be obtained after reasonable efforts have been made, issue a formal determination that such records do not exist or that further efforts to obtain such records would be futile, which should be expressly documented in the Veteran's claim file. The Veteran must be notified of the attempts made to obtain the records, why further attempts to obtain the records would be futile, and allowed the opportunity to produce such records, as provided in 38 U.S.C. § 5103A(b)(2) and 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(e). 3. If STRs are associated with Veteran's claims file that establish an in-service injury or illness schedule the Veteran for an examination to determine: (a.) Identify the Veteran's current diagnosable chronic acquired psychiatric disorders (b.) For each disability identified, opine whether they are at least as likely as not (a 50 percent or greater probability) had there onset in service or were otherwise related to military service, to include discussion of the lay statements provided by Veteran indicating symptomatology. (c.) The VA examiner is asked to explicitly consider in the rationale portion of the opinion, the Veteran's lay statements and all other relevant evidence regarding each disability, and comment specifically on whether the Veteran's statements and all other relevant evidence make sense from a medical point of view. The term "at least as likely as not" does not mean "within the realm of medical possibility." Rather, it means that the weight of medical evidence both for and against a conclusion is so evenly divided that it is as medically sound to find in favor of the conclusion (e.g., etiology) as it is to find against the conclusion. The examiner is advised that the Veteran is competent to report his symptoms and history, and such reports must be acknowledged and considered in formulating any opinion. If medical literature is relied upon in rendering this determination, the VA examiner should identify and specifically cite each reference material utilized. A complete rationale for all opinions offered must be provided. THE EXAMINER SHOULD ADDRESS ANY AND ALL TREATISES OF RECORD. 4. THE AOJ MUST REVIEW THE CLAIMS FILE AND ENSURE THAT THE FOREGOING DEVELOPMENT ACTION HAS BEEN COMPLETED IN FULL. IF ANY DEVELOPMENT IS INCOMPLETE, APPROPRIATE, CORRECTIVE ACTION MUST BE IMPLEMENTED. IF ANY REPORT DOES NOT INCLUDE ADEQUATE RESPONSES TO THE SPECIFIC OPINIONS REQUESTED, IT MUST BE RETURNED TO THE PROVIDING EXAMINER FOR CORRECTIVE ACTION. YVETTE R. WHITE Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board David B. Scheirich, 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.