Citation Nr: 21069937 Decision Date: 11/22/21 Archive Date: 11/22/21 DOCKET NO. 18-38 590 DATE: November 22, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from February 1980 to February 1984. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (BVA or Board) on appeal from a March 2014 rating decision. Although this rating decision addressed claims for service connection for psychiatric disorders other than PTSD, the current appeal is limited to the issue of entitlement to service connection for PTSD due to military sexual trauma (MST) in accordance with the single issue perfected on the Veteran's July 2018 VA Form 9. In March 2020, the Veteran testified before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge at a Travel Board hearing; a transcript of the hearing is of record. In a May 2020 decision, the Board reopened the previously denied claim for service connection for PTSD and denied the reopened claim on the merits. The Veteran appealed the Board's May 2020 decision to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court). In August 2021, pursuant to a Joint Motion for Partial Remand (Joint Motion), the Court vacated and remanded that part of the Board's May 2020 decision which denied service connection for PTSD for compliance with the instructions in the Joint Motion. 1. Entitlement to service connection for PTSD is remanded. The Veteran contends that she has PTSD as a result of in-service sexual assaults. The Joint Motion instructed that remand is warranted for the Board to ensure that the Veteran is provided an adequate VA examination. It noted that a January 2011 VA examiner appeared to have made a determination of the Veteran's credibility and how the Board should weigh the evidence in its decision. However, it is the duty of the Board to make such determinations. D'Aries v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 97, 107 (2008) (it is the responsibility of the Board to assess the credibility and weight to be given to evidence). The January 2011 examiner also opined that the Veteran did not have a diagnosis of PTSD; however, the Board conceded that she had been diagnosed with PTSD by various clinicians since 2007. The examiner did not reconcile the discrepancy between these diagnoses. For these reasons, the parties agreed that the January 2011 VA examination was inadequate, and a new examination and opinion are warranted. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: Schedule the Veteran for a psychiatric examination to determine the nature and etiology of the claimed 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. [If the Veteran is not diagnosed PTSD, the examiner must reconcile such finding in light of the evidentiary record showing she has been diagnosed with PTSD by various clinicians since 2007 and fully explain his or her reasoning.] The Veteran's claimed stressors are based on in-service personal assaults; therefore the examiner must opine as to whether the evidence of record, including the Veteran's lay statements and service records (which show multiple screenings for sexually transmitted infections within a three-year period as well as treatment for vaginal infections in May 1983, June 1983, and July 1983) corroborate the claim that a personal assault occurred in service. See 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 her PTSD is at least as likely as not related to the in-service personal assault. A complete rationale must be provided. D. JOHNSON Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board M. G. Mazzucchelli, 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.