Citation Nr: 21073227 Decision Date: 12/07/21 Archive Date: 12/07/21 DOCKET NO. 17-51 643 DATE: December 7, 2021 ORDER The appeal to reopen a claim of service connection for residuals of a first metatarsal base osteotomy of the right foot is granted. The appeal to reopen a claim of service connection for a mental condition to include depression and anxiety, previously claimed as posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) (psychiatric disability), is granted. The appeal to reopen a claim of service connection for posterior disc bulge with foraminal stenosis, L4-5, and foraminal stenosis L5-S1 (back disability) is granted. Entitlement to service connection for residuals of a first metatarsal base osteotomy of the right foot is denied. Entitlement to service connection for a back disability is denied. REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for a psychiatric disability is remanded. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. New and material evidence has been received and the claim of service connection for residuals of a first metatarsal base osteotomy of the right foot may be reopened. 38 U.S.C. §§ 5108, 7105; 38 C.F.R. § 3.156. 2. New and material evidence has been received and the claim of service connection for a psychiatric disability may be reopened. 38 U.S.C. §§ 5108, 7105; 38 C.F.R. § 3.156. 3. New and material evidence has been received and the claim of service connection for residuals of a back disability may be reopened. 38 U.S.C. §§ 5108, 7105; 38 C.F.R. § 3.156. 4. The Veteran's claimed residuals of a first metatarsal base osteotomy of the right foot was not manifested during his service; and the preponderance of the evidence is against a finding any such disability is etiologically related to his service. 5. The Veteran's claimed back disability was not manifested during his service; and the preponderance of the evidence is against a finding any such disability is etiologically related to his service. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. New and material evidence has been received and the claim of service connection for residuals of a first metatarsal base osteotomy of the right foot may be reopened. 38 U.S.C. §§ 5108, 7105; 38 C.F.R. § 3.156. 2. New and material evidence has been received and the claim of service connection for a psychiatric disability may be reopened. 38 U.S.C. §§ 5108, 7105; 38 C.F.R. § 3.156. 3. New and material evidence has been received and the claim of service connection for a back disability may be reopened. 38 U.S.C. §§ 5108, 7105; 38 C.F.R. § 3.156. 4. Service connection for residuals of a first metatarsal base osteotomy of the right foot is not warranted. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1112, 1131, 1137, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.304, 3.307, 3.309. 5. Service connection for a back disability is not warranted. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1112, 1131, 1137, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.304, 3.307, 3.309. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The appellant is a Veteran who served on active duty from July 1974 to July 1976. This matter is before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a May 2014 rating decision which declined to reopen claims of service connection for a psychiatric disability and a back disability, and reopened but denied a claim of service connection for residuals of a first metatarsal base osteotomy of the right foot. The Veteran originally requested a hearing on his October 2017 VA Form 9. In October 2019 correspondence, his attorney withdrew their request for a hearing in this matter. Although the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ) reopened the claim of service connection for residuals of a first metatarsal base osteotomy of the right foot and decided it on the merits, the Board must make its own determination as to whether new and material evidence to reopen the claim was received, in order to establish its jurisdiction to review de novo the merits of previously denied claim. See Barnett v. Brown, 83 F. 3d 1380 (Fed. Cir. 1996); Jackson v. Principi, 265 F. 3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2001). 1., 2., 3. The appeal to reopen a claim of service connection for residuals of a first metatarsal base osteotomy of the right foot, a psychiatric disability, and a back disability are granted. Generally, when a claim is disallowed, it may not be reopened and allowed, and a claim based on the same factual basis may not be considered. 38 U.S.C. § 7105. However, a claim on which there is a final decision may be reopened if new and material evidence is submitted. 38 U.S.C. § 5108. "New" evidence means existing evidence not previously submitted to agency decision-makers. "Material" evidence means existing evidence that, by itself or when considered with previous evidence of record, relates to an unestablished fact necessary to substantiate the claim. New and material evidence can be neither cumulative nor redundant of the evidence of record at the time of the last prior final denial of the claim, and must raise a reasonable possibility of substantiating the claim. 38 C.F.R. § 3.156 (a). In determining whether the claim should be reopened, credibility of newly submitted evidence is presumed. Fortuck v. Principi, 17 Vet. App. 173, 179-80 (2003). The United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) has held that the requirement of new and material evidence raising a reasonable possibility of substantiating the claim is a low threshold requirement. The CAVC interpreted the language of 38 C.F.R. § 3.156(a) as "enabling rather than precluding reopening." See Shade v. Shinseki, 24 Vet. App. 110 (2010). For the purpose of establishing whether new and material evidence has been received, the credibility of newly submitted evidence is presumed. Justus v. Principi, 3 Vet. App. 510, 513 (1992). A July 2003 rating decision denied claims of service connection for residuals of a first metatarsal base osteotomy of the right foot, a psychiatric disability, and a back disability on the basis that the evidence of record does now that the disabilities were incurred in or caused by military service. The Veteran submitted October 2003 correspondence requesting a de novo review of July 2003 rating decision. In March 2004, VA issued a statement of the case (SOC). A substantive appeal (Form 9) was filed in May 2005, but was untimely (not filed within sixty days from the date of the SOC), and the July 2003 decision became final. 38 U.S.C. § 7105. In an August 2013 supplemental claim, the Veteran filed to reopen a claim for entitlement to service connection for a back disability and a mental health condition to include depression and anxiety. The regional office liberally construed a January 2014 statement in support of claim as a claim to reopen entitlement to service connection for a right foot disability. Evidence of record at the time of the July 2003 rating decision included VA treatment records from 1992 to July 2003, June 2002 and July 2003 VA examination reports, and the Veteran's lay statements. As the claims were previously denied for residuals of a first metatarsal base osteotomy of the right foot, a psychiatric disability, and a back disability on the basis that the evidence of record does now that the disabilities were incurred in or caused by military service, for evidence to be new and material, it must relate to that unestablished fact (tend to show that the Veteran's residuals of a first metatarsal base osteotomy of the right foot, a psychiatric disability, and a back disability may be related to his service). Notably, STRs were not associated with the record at the time of the July 2003 rating decision (and were in fact determined to be unavailable). Evidence received since the July 2003 rating decision includes testimony at the June 2016 decision review officer (DRO) hearing. The Veteran testified that he fell off a truck inservice, hurt his foot, and landed on his back. On January 2006 (non-service connected pension) examination, the examiner noted that the Veteran reported back pain that has existed for thirty years. In January 2017, the Veteran submitted four buddy lay statements from his relatives attesting to a change in his demeanor post service. His oldest sister, with the initials L. G., stated that she did not remember her brother as a teenager, but does recall a lot of moodiness, spur of the moment anger, and crazy talking when he got older. His sister, with the initials C.S., stated that her brother changed a lot after his military service and did not act or thing normally. An individual with an unknown relation to the Veteran, with the initials A.D., stated that she remembered the Veteran as normal prior to joining Army, and remembered misbehavior, anger, difficulties getting along with his family/friends post service. His youngest sister, with the initials M. L., stated that he changed from a happy, fun person preservice to a withdrawn person who was difficult to depend on and wanted to be left alone by friends and family. The statements from the Veteran and his relatives are new evidence, as they were not in the record in July 2003, and are material, as they are evidence (presumed credible for the purpose of reopening) that pertains to the unestablished facts necessary to substantiate the claim, namely that the Veteran disabilities were incurred in or caused by military service (these statements are particularly material as the Veteran's STRs are missing and presumed lost.) Consequently, and considering the "low threshold" standard for reopening endorsed by the CAVC in Shade, the Board finds that the evidence received is both new and material, and that the claims of service connection for residuals of a first metatarsal base osteotomy of the right foot, a psychiatric disability, and a back disability may be reopened. Factual Background A December 1992 VA treatment record notes the Veteran's reports of "service connected dreams" related to his combat from 1969 to 1970. The treating provider also noted the Veteran's reports of alcohol dependence, reports of major depression single episode, reports of schizoaffective disorder, and back pain due to slipped discs and migraine headaches. An April 1995 VA treatment record notes the Veteran's initial report of serving in the Marine Corps later changed to Army special forces. He reported onset of alcohol use at the age of fourteen, onset for marijuana, nicotine, amphetamines, heroin, sedatives/hypnotics use as seventeen, onset for hallucinogens use as twenty-seven, and onset for cocaine use as twenty-nine. The provider noted that Veteran is a poor historian, manipulative, and appears to withhold information. The treating physician also noted the Veteran's poor memory for dates and a tendency to make dates up. The provider noted a musculoskeletal history of "injury back @ work? Herniated disc lower back may need surgical repair" The provider noted a prior surgery to address the Veteran's herniated disc in his back. The provider diagnosed the Veteran with alcohol dependence, cannabis dependence, nicotine dependence, methamphetamine dependence in questionable remission, cocaine dependence in remission, chronic low back pain due to work injury, and hepatitis C. The provider noted stressors of homelessness, unemployment, and lack of social support. A May 1995 VA treatment record notes the Veteran's report of serving as a Marine from 1973 to 1976 with service in Vietnam. The treating provider noted the lack of consistency and inaccuracies in the Veteran's responses. A May 1995 VA treatment record notes the Veteran's history of degenerative joint disease in his lumbar spine arising eight to nine years ago. The provider noted mild intervertebral osteochondrosis of L5-S1, and the Veteran's report of pain radiating down into his right buttocks. A January 1997 private medical opinion addressed the Veteran's psychiatric disability for an application for social security disability benefits. The psychologist noted the Veteran's reports regarding his military service, suffering several injuries over the years due to heavy lifting, and his mother's long history of arthritis. The psychologist noted the Veteran's reports of serving in Vietnam and his description of PTSD symptoms related to that experience. The psychologist diagnosed bipolar mood disorder, alcohol dependence, polysubstance dependence, and major limitations attributable to his physical pain. A June 1997 VA treatment record notes the Veteran's report to his provider that he suffers insomnia due to memories of an incident in Korea. He reported "these Caucasians guys got behind me I guess they were trying to kill me. A July 1997 VA treatment record notes the Veteran's report that he sustained a back injury while working as welder in 1980. He also reported serving three months TDY in Vietnam near "Seoul," onset of drug use in the Army, being beaten up inservice after learning the existence of a drug ring, and receiving three Article 15's inservice for fighting. A VA social worker noted that he changed his response to war zone service during his July visit and he appeared to over endorse symptoms. A July 1997 VA treatment record notes the Veteran's report of sustaining an on-the-job injury in 1980 while employed in his usual trade of welding. He reported an honorable discharge from the Army at the rank of E-2, three Article 15's for fighting, and suffering a traumatic incident at Fort Huachuca. An August 1997 VA treatment record notes the Veteran's reports to a VA social worker that he never left the United States of America while in the military, received numerous Article 15's for fighting/AWOL, and being discharged at the rank of E-2 due to disciplinary action. He reported inservice trauma described as an incident when the Veteran and a friend followed a "drug dealer" and witnessed an alleged drug pickup. He related that he did not report it and showed the social worker a "scar" on his head where a private physician stitched the wound. A September 1997 VA treatment record includes a report of a physical examination of the Veteran conducted for an application for state disability benefits. The examiner noted that the Veteran reported being struck in the back by a large steel object in 1980. He related to the examiner that at the time of the accident he experienced flares of back pain that progressed to constant pain on the day of the examination. A September 1997 VA treatment record notes that a psychologist met with the Veteran to discuss the inconsistencies contained in his reported military history. The Veteran stated that he has not claimed service in Vietnam and reported his confusion regarding why the entries were made. The psychologist noted that the Veteran may be reluctant to admit that he has presented his military history differently to others, or he may suffer from a cognitive impairment. A September 1997 VA treatment record notes the Veteran's report to his treating provider that while stationed at Fort Huachuca near the Mexico border, he rode on horseback around the fort and came across other Soldiers who were most likely transporting drugs. He reported being severely beaten by those Soldiers, but he was able to run away. He reported that he did not seek medical attention for this incident or report it. A July 1998 VA treatment record notes the Veteran's psychologist's request that the Veteran be transferred to another provider's care. The psychologist noted that he confronted the Veteran regarding discrepancies in his record and a transfer would allow the Veteran to establish non-adversarial treatment. A September 1998 VA treatment record notes the Veteran's report of PTSD symptoms related to an assault which occurred while he was stationed in Arizona. He related that the assault occurred near the Mexican border when he inadvertently stumbled onto a drug smuggling operation. He reported that he was beaten up, threatened, and managed to escape. He related that he worked as a certified welder for fourteen years, but suffered a herniated disc and began receiving state disability benefits. He also reported that he did not serve in Vietnam and only identifies as a Vietnam era Veteran. A November 1998 VA treatment record notes the Veteran's report to his treating provider that he dropped a seven-gauge steel object across his right foot metatarsophalangeals (MTPs) in 1995 and visited his boss's own doctor who told him he had a "sprain." The Veteran related that he never received an x-ray and over time his second toe on his right foot began to lay across his third toe and is bothersome. A provider interpreted a November 1998 x-ray to show a healed fracture of the Veteran's mid shaft of second metatarsal, with hallux valgus and degenerative change seen at the first MTPs joint space. A December 1998 VA treatment record notes the Veteran's reports of dropping a steel bar on his right foot in 1993 and being told that he "sprained his foot." A May 2002 VA treatment record notes a diagnosis of the Veteran with schizoid and avoidant personality traits with depression. A May 2002 VA treatment record notes the Veteran's status post osteotomy on his right foot. The provider noted that the fractures in his first and fifth MTPs were well healed. On June 2002 VA (non-service-connected pension foot and spine) examination, the examiner noted the Veteran's reports of dropping a two hundred and fifty pound steel plate inservice in 1991 on his right foot. The examiner noted that a fracture was not discovered initially, but x-rays from December 2001 show an old fracture of the shaft of the second metatarsal bone. The Veteran underwent a bunionectomy of the first metatarsal head and an osteotomy of the fifth toe in December 2001. The Veteran reported an onset of low back pain in the late 1980's and stated that he was doing a significant amount of lifting at that time. He denied any other specific trauma to his low back and reported that his low back pain increased over the years. The provider diagnosed low back pain secondary to an L4-L5 annular tear and L5-S1 degenerative disc disease. In a May 2003 statement in support of claim for PTSD, the Veteran reported that he witnessed the death of his friend in White Sands, New Mexico while replacing telephonic/electric poles. He related that the incident occurred between 1974 and 1975 and provided the Soldier's name. On July 2003 VA (non-service-connected pension) examination, the examiner noted that the Veteran reported never serving in Vietnam. The Veteran related that his unit at Fort Huachuca had a lot of drugs being using by Soldiers and there were fears of Soldiers being informants. He reported that he saw one Soldier tied to his bunk and severely beaten and then thrown out a third-floor window resulting in a fractured leg. He stated that after marijuana was seized from a vehicle, he was accused of being an informant, severely beaten, and feared for his life. He related a severe sprain to his right leg that required an emergency room visit and required a nine-month profile. He also reported a fellow Soldier dying while on TDY at White Sands, New Mexico installing poles. He related that he began self-medicating heavily in the Army with alcohol, marijuana, amphetamines, and narcotics. The provider diagnosed PTSD, polysubstance dependence in remission, and alcohol dependence in remission. On January 2006 (non-service-connected pension) examination, the examiner noted that the Veteran reported back pain that has existed for thirty years. The Veteran related that he worked physical jobs until around 1995 and stated that he was not working when he developed this condition. The provider interpreted an x-ray to diagnose degenerative disc disease of the lumbar spine. At a March 2006 Board hearing, the Veteran's representative argued that his client fell of a truck inservice injuring his foot, but acknowledged that paperwork was not presented/pending regarding that claim. A March 2007 VA treatment record notes the Veteran's reports to his provider that inservice he fractured his foot, served on the U.S. Mexican border, and claimed to be involved in firefights. An August 2007 VA treatment record notes the Veteran's request to see a different provider after alleging inaccuracies being written about him. An August 2007 VA treatment record notes the Veteran's expression of his frustration to his provider that his previous providers were charting negative information. The provider noted that the Veteran described his life willingly without a lot of detail and was unable to clarify what type of information he would like in the chart besides his devotion to the truth. A January 2008 VA treatment record notes the Veteran's reports to his provider of an inservice drug related incident in which he was threatened for being a snitch and the death of his friend while installing phone lines. A July 2013 VA treatment record notes the Veteran's treatment for low back pain and left pseudo radiculopathy. His provider noted that his history of polysubstance abuse and his embellished presentation of symptoms complicates his care. In a January 2014 statement in support of claim, the Veteran reported that while stationed at Fort Huachuca he fell off the back of a truck injuring his right foot and back. He related that a friend took him to the Raymond W. Bliss Army Health Clinic. A May 2016 VA treatment record notes that a provider interpreted an MRI of the Veteran's lumbar spine to show multilevel short pannicular distances consistent with congenital spinal stenosis. The examiner diagnosed the Veteran with moderate multilevel discogenic and facet degenerative spondylosis noting that this is not considered a surgical condition. At the June 2016 DRO hearing, the Veteran testified that he fell off a truck inservice hurting his foot and landing on his back. He also reported inservice PTSD stressors of witnessing a fellow serviceman die and being assaulted. The Veteran's attorney requested that VA attempt to corroborate the Veteran's stressor(s) and locate the Veteran's military records. The DRO noted that VA needed more specific details and a sixty-day timeframe of the alleged event to undertake further development regarding the alleged stressor(s). The DRO also noted that a final attempt letter for the STRs was mailed to the Veteran in May 2014. A September 2016 VA treatment record notes that the Veteran sent an email objecting to the May 2016 provider's findings and requested a new provider. In four January 2017 buddy lay statements submitted by the Veteran, the Veteran's relatives attested to changes in his demeanor post service. SERVICE CONNECTION Service connection may be granted for a disability resulting from a disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by active military service. See 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. To substantiate a claim of service connection, there must be evidence of: (1) a current disability (for which service connection is sought); (2) incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) a nexus between the disease or injury in service and the present disability. See Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1166-67 (Fed. Cir. 2004). The determination as to whether these requirements are met is based on analysis of all the evidence of record and an evaluation of its credibility and probative value. Baldwin v. West, 13 Vet. App. 1 (1999); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a). A disease first diagnosed after service may be service connected if all the evidence, including pertinent service records, establishes that it was incurred in service. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(d); Combee v. Brown, 34 F.3d 1039, 1043 (Fed. Cir. 1994). Certain chronic diseases (to include arthritis), may be presumed to be service-connected if manifested to a compensable degree within a specified period post service (one year for arthritis). 38 U.S.C. § 1112; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.307, 3.309(a). Nexus of a chronic disease listed in § 3.309(a) to service may be established by showing continuity of symptomatology. Walker v. Shinseki, 708 F.3d 1331, 1338-40 (Fed. Cir. 2013). Under 38 U.S.C. § 5103A(d), an examination or medical opinion is necessary when there is: (1) competent evidence that the veteran has a current disability (or persistent or recurrent symptoms of a disability); (2) evidence that an event, injury, or disease occurred in service; (3) an indication that the current disability or symptoms may be associated with service; and (4) there is not sufficient medical evidence to make a decision on the claim. See Mclendon v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 79 (2006). Lay evidence may be competent evidence to establish incurrence. See Davidson v. Shinseki, 581 F. 3d 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2009). Competent medical evidence is necessary where the determinative question is one requiring medical knowledge. Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2007). 5., 6. Entitlement to service connection for residuals of a first metatarsal base osteotomy of the right foot and a back disability are denied. Initially, the Board notes that the Veteran's STRs are unavailable (the regional office documented their numerous attempts to locate the STRs in the record). See March 2017 VA correspondence (noting efforts in August 2002, April 2003, June 2003, and July 2016 to request the Veteran's military records from the National Personnel Records Center.) Notably, when a Veteran's STRs are unavailable, VA has a heightened duty to assist in the development of the Veteran's claim. The Veteran has alleged that he fell of a truck inservice suffering an injury to his right foot and landing on his back. Alternatively, he alleges that he dropped a two-hundred-and-fifty-pound steel plate inservice in 1991 on his right foot (notably, not a period of active service substantiated by the Veteran's DD 214.) The Veteran's private and VA treatment records notes numerous reports by the Veteran that he served in Vietnam and/or engaged in combat (to include alleging firefights along Arizona's border with Mexico.) He has not alleged that his right foot or back disabilities were incurred engaging in combat, his DD-Form 214 does not show any awards or decorations that connote combat service, and there is nothing in his claims file that otherwise shows or suggests that he served in combat. Therefore, the relaxed evidentiary requirements afforded under 38 U.S.C. § 1154(b) do not apply. Following service, the initial mention of a back injury is in a December 1992 VA treatment record. The Veteran's reported to his December 1992 provider that he served from 1969 to 1970 and took part in combat. While these statements are not supported by the record (the Veteran's DD 214 and later statements contradict service from 1969 to 1970 and show no Vietnam/combat service), the provider noted the Veteran's reports of back pain, in pertinent part, as he seeks service connection for such disability. The initial mention of a right foot injury is in a November 1998 VA treatment record (that noted the Veteran's reports of dropping a steel gauge on his foot at his civilian workplace and ordered x-rays that were interpreted to show a healed mid shaft of the second metatarsal, hallux valgus and degenerative change seen at the first MTPs joint space.) At the outset of the analysis of this claim, the Board notes that while the record does not include a medical opinion in this matter (addressing the possibility of a nexus between the current right foot disability and/or back disability and the Veteran's service, because there is no competent evidence in the record indicating that the right foot disability and/or back disability might be related to the Veteran's service (disease or in jury therein), development for any advisory medical opinion in the matter is not necessary, as even the generally accepted low threshold standard for when development for a medical opinion is necessary is not met. See McLendon v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 79 (2006). There is no indication in his post service medical records that his back or right foot arthritis were diagnosed inservice, or within one year of service (nor does he allege the onset of arthritis inservice or within one year of service.) Consequently, service connection for right foot or back arthritis on the basis that such disability manifested in service and persisted, or on a chronic disease presumptive basis is not warranted. See § 3.309(a). While noting that a herniated disc of the low back and a right foot metatarsal fracture are not listed as a chronic diseases in § 3.309(a), for which service connection may be established based on continuity, the Board has considered the Veteran's lay reports that he fell of a vehicle inservice injuring his right foot and landing on his back (i.e., whether they raise a reasonable possibility that a current right foot/back disability may be related to service.) Acknowledging that STRs are unavailable, and the consequent heightened duty to assist, the Board notes that there is no evidence of a diagnosis of/treatment for a back disability post service prior to 1992 (some 16+ years following service) or a right foot disability post service prior to 1998 (22+ years following service), and the interim treatment records, do not show a notation of a right foot fracture or injury (from 1992 until the complaint in 1998). It is not in dispute that the Veteran now, more than 45 years after service, has a back disability and a right foot disability. It is also not in dispute that he served in the United States Army from July 1974 to July 1976 as a 36 Charlie Lineman and did not serve overseas. See DD214. However, there is no competent evidence in the record indicating, or suggesting, that his current right foot disability or back disability may be etiologically related to his service, or a related disease of injury therein (as none is shown). Regarding the Veteran's own assertion that he suffered a right foot injury inservice and landed on his back, the Board observes that the etiology of a current right foot or back disability (whether it may be related to a disease or injury in over sixteen years postservice is a medical question that requires medical expertise. See Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372, 1377 n.4 (Fed. Cir. 2007). The Veteran is a layperson, and does not cite to support clinical data, or medical opinion or treatise evidence. Furthermore, the Veteran's recollection of his right foot/back disabilities onset has changed over the years. In the 1990s, he attributed his back injury to heavy lifting/a civilian workplace injury, and his right foot fractures to dropping a large steel gauge on his foot (notably, these reports were made for purposes of applying for non-VA disability benefits and for treatment.) Numerous VA providers have observed the Veteran's difficulty in recalling his branch of service, service dates, inservice experiences, and his geographic locations (i.e. to include several notes in the record noting the Veteran's inaccurate reports of serving in Vietnam/Korea and the September 1997 psychologist's note that the Veteran's inconsistencies regarding his reported military history may be attributable to his reluctance to admit that he has presented his military history differently to others, or he may suffer from a cognitive impairment.) Considering the self-serving nature of the Veteran's more recent allegations regarding an inservice right foot injury were not accompanied by a medical provider's opinion supporting the claim, the Board finds the Veteran's allegations that he fell off a vehicle inservice hurting his right foot, landing on his back, and suffered back pain for thirty years are not credible and lacking in probative value (especially in light of the April 1995 treating provider's note that the Veteran is manipulative, withholds information, and is a poor historian.) Considering the foregoing, the Board finds that the preponderance of the evidence is against the Veteran's claim. There is simply no probative evidence that his current right foot disability/back disability (diagnosed as status post status post osteotomy/bunionectomy on his right foot and moderate multilevel discogenic and facet degenerative spondylosis respectively during the claim period) may be related to a disease or injury in service. Accordingly, the appeal in this matter must be denied. REASONS FOR REMAND Entitlement to service connection for a psychiatric disability is remanded. As noted above, VA has a heightened duty to assist in the development of the Veteran's claims. The Veteran has not been afforded a VA examination to determine whether his alleged psychiatric disability is etiologically related to service. The record shows March 2016 psychiatric diagnoses of possible subsyndromal PTSD, depressive disorder dysthymia, alcohol dependence in remission, and cannabis dependence in remission. As such, the first prong of McLendon is met. The Veteran contends that he experienced traumatizing stressor events in service such as being beaten for viewing a drug transaction and watching a fellow servicemember pass away. The record contains a formal finding of a lack of information to forward the record to the JSRRC for stressor verification, and the Board finds the Veteran's alleged stressors are insufficient to meet the second prong of McLendon due to the above discussed issues with credibility. However, the Board finds that record is sufficient to indicate that the symptoms may be associated with service, as the four January 2014 buddy lay statements report a drastic change in the Veteran's demeanor post service (and the Board has no reason to doubt their credibility at this time.) In light of the heightened duty to assist, the low threshold of the third prong of McLendon is met; development for an examination to obtain a medical opinion is necessary. See McLendon v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 79 (2006). The matters are REMANDED for the following action: Arrange for a psychiatric examination of the Veteran examination to determine the nature and likely etiology of his current psychiatric disability. Upon review of the record (with particular attention to the accounts of his family members) and clinical psychiatric examination of the Veteran, the examiner should provide opinions that respond to the following. (a) Identify (by diagnosis) each psychiatric disability entity found, or shown by the record during the pendency of the instant claims, specifically confirming whether he has the diagnoses of subsyndromal PTSD, depressive disorder dysthymia, alcohol dependence in remission, and cannabis dependence in remission which is noted in the record. [The examiner is advised that several of the Veteran's treating providers have noted his inability to relate accurate historical timelines, manipulative behavior, and conflicting facts.] (b) Identify the likely etiology for each psychiatric disability entity diagnosed. Specifically, whether it is at least as likely as not (a 50% or better probability) that the disability was incurred in service? If not, identify the etiology for the disability that is considered to be more likely, and explain why that is so. [The examiner should consider the four buddy lay statements submitted by the Veteran.] A complete rationale, with citation to appropriate medical principles, is requested. L. Baskerville Acting Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board Lederman, Michael 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. .