Citation Nr: 21071338
Decision Date: 11/30/21	Archive Date: 11/30/21

DOCKET NO. 20-15 161A
DATE: November 30, 2021

REMANDED

Entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder is remanded.

Entitlement to service connection for bilateral foot disability is remanded.

REASONS FOR REMAND

The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Army November 1976 to November 1979.

1. Entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder is remanded.

2. Entitlement to service connection for bilateral foot disability is remanded.

The Veteran seeks to establish his entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder as well as bilateral foot disability. He has presented several medical opinions attributing an acquired psychiatric disorder to service. He also testified to undocumented foot problems during service which was not considered by VA examiners in arriving at unfavorable nexus opinions. 

The probative value of a medical opinion comes from its reasoning. Nieves-Rodriguez v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 295, 304 (2008). The "factually accurate, fully articulated, sound reasoning for the conclusion" contributes probative value to a medical opinion. Id. On the other hand, a medical opinion based on an inaccurate factual predicate has reduced probative value. Reonal v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 458, 461 (1993) (holding that the Board may reject a medical opinion based on an inaccurate factual basis).

The Board has thoroughly reviewed the evidentiary record, and notes significant contradictions and discrepancies in the Veteran's testimony that potentially affects the probative value of the opinions of record. Before any final factual findings are made, the Board observes that there are potentially relevant records not currently associated with the claims folder including the following: prison treatment records including substance abuse counseling; New Valley Hospital in approximately 2009; the Oakland Vet Center; and medical and legal documents pertaining to a reported award of disability benefits with the Social Security Administration (SSA).

The Board further observes that the Veteran has claimed that his military career was unfairly affected by some type of judicial process acquitting him of a drug possession charge. He has variously referred to military police, "VA police" and German police. His personnel records contain no reference to any type of proceeding mentioned by the Veteran, and it appears that any type of proceeding involved German authorities. The Veteran is invited to submit any evidence from German authorities on the charges/disposition of this event, and may ask VA to assist in obtaining any records if they provide information regarding how such records could be obtained.

The Board defers consideration of obtaining any further medical examination/opinion pending completion of the additional development above. See generally Kahana v. Shinseki, 24 Vet. App. 428 (2011) (discussing the "chicken-or-egg" dilemma faced by VA when requesting opinions and making credibility determinations with an undeveloped record, and recognizing that fact-finding is a responsibility that is ultimately committed to the Board and not a medical examiner).

The matters are REMANDED for the following action:

1. Associate with the claims folder the following records: 

a) prison treatment records including substance abuse counseling; 

b) New Valley Hospital in approximately 2009; 

c) the Oakland Vet Center; and 

d) medical and legal documents pertaining to a reported award of disability benefits with the Social Security Administration (SSA)

2. Advise the Veteran in writing that they may submit any evidence from German authorities on the charges/disposition of the reported criminal proceeding in service, and may ask VA to assist in obtaining any records if they provide information regarding how such records could be obtained.

 

 

T. MAINELLI

Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans' Appeals

Attorney for the Board	Adeleke, T.

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.