Citation Nr: 21069480 Decision Date: 11/18/21 Archive Date: 11/18/21 DOCKET NO. 16-63 255 DATE: November 18, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder, also claimed as anxiety, depression, and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), is remanded. INTRODUCTION The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Marine Corps from July 1977 to July 1980. This case comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal of a January 2016 rating decision by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) San Juan Regional Office (RO). In a November 2020 statement, the Veteran informed the Board that he desired to withdraw his prior request for a Board hearing. He has not requested a new hearing, and as such, his prior request is deemed withdrawn. REASONS FOR REMAND The Board finds additional development is required before the Veteran's claim is decided. When VA undertakes to provide a VA examination or obtain a VA opinion, it must ensure the examination or opinion is adequate. Barr v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 303, 312 (2007). To be considered adequate, medical examination reports must contain not only clear conclusions with supporting data, but also a reasoned medical explanation connecting the two. See Nieves-Rodriguez v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 295 (2008). Examiners are not free to ignore a veteran's statements related to lay observable symptoms. See Dalton v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 23 (2007). Further, an absence of contemporaneous service treatment records does not preclude granting service connection for a claimed disability. See Buchanan v. Nicholson, 451 F.3d 1331, 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2006). The Veteran underwent a VA mental disorders examination in January 2016 and a PTSD examination in September 2017. Following both examinations, the Veteran was diagnosed with unspecified anxiety disorder. The September 2017 examiner stated the Veteran's symptoms do not meet the diagnostic criteria for PTSD under the DSM-5 criteria. The January 2016 VA examiner indicated the Veteran's unspecified anxiety disorder was not incurred in service. To support this conclusion, the examiner noted there was no evidence of in-service treatment for psychiatric complaints or follow-up treatment after service. However, the examiner acknowledged a service treatment record from 1980 in which the Veteran made psychiatric complaints. The examiner failed to discuss the Veteran's competent lay statements regarding the symptoms he experienced during service and following his release from active duty. The September 2017 examiner also stated the Veteran's unspecified anxiety disorder was not incurred in service, noting the Veteran did not obtain treatment for his acquired psychiatric disorder until 36 years following his separation from service. Like the January 2016 medical opinion, the September 2017 examiner also failed to discuss the Veteran's competent lay statements. Specifically, the Veteran has stated he initially experienced symptoms of anxiety in service which developed as a result of his constant fear of dying. He has also reported that his anxiety has continued since his separation from service. Unfortunately, both medical opinions are inadequate because they failed to address and discuss the Veteran's competent lay statements. Accordingly, this matter is REMANDED for the following action: The RO should obtain an addendum medical opinion from an examiner with sufficient expertise to comment on the etiology of the Veteran's acquired psychiatric disorder. All pertinent evidence of record must be made available to and reviewed by the examiner. Another examination of the Veteran should be performed only if deemed necessary by the examiner providing the opinion. The examiner should state an opinion as to whether it is at least as likely as not (i.e., at least 50 percent probable) that the Veteran's acquired psychiatric disorder originated in service or is otherwise etiologically related to service. In this regard, the examiner must discuss and consider the Veteran's competent lay statements and the November 2014 statement from his spouse. The examiner must provide a complete rationale for any proffered opinion. If the examiner is unable to provide the required opinion, he or she should explain why. If the examiner cannot provide an opinion without resorting to mere speculation, he or she shall provide a complete explanation as to why this is so. If the inability to provide a more definitive opinion is the result of a need for additional information, the examiner should identify the additional information that is needed. T. REYNOLDS Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board Nestander, Jessica S. 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.