Citation Nr: 21075109 Decision Date: 12/17/21 Archive Date: 12/17/21 DOCKET NO. 15-08 418 DATE: December 17, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for acquired psychiatric disorder, to include anxiety attacks, depression, and posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran had active military service from August 1976 to December 1978. This matter comes to the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a May 2012 rating decision issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office. In his VA Form 9, dated in March 2015, the Veteran limited his appeal to the issue of service connection for PTSD. Nevertheless, the Veteran's claim for service connection has been recharacterized to include all psychiatric disorders reasonably raised by the record. Clemons v. Shinseki, 23 Vet. App. 1 (2009). In his March 2015 VA Form 9, the Veteran also requested a hearing before a Veterans Law Judge. A hearing at a local Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) office was initially scheduled for April 23, 2018. The Veteran asked for his hearing to be rescheduled. The record reflects that the hearing was rescheduled for October 19, 2021, and the Veteran received a letter in September 2021 informing him of the hearing date and indicating that he could request a virtual tele-hearing instead of waiting for a board hearing. Subsequently, the Veteran requested to convert his hearing to a virtual hearing, and VA accepted this request. Despite this change, the Veteran did not appear for his hearing. The Veteran has not submitted good cause for his failure to appear or requested his hearing to be rescheduled. Accordingly, the hearing request is deemed withdrawn. 38 C.F.R. § 20.704(d). Entitlement to service connection for acquired psychiatric disorder. The Veteran's primary contention is that he has a psychiatric disorder as a result of two explosions that occurred during his military service. Under applicable law, a medical examination and/or opinion is deemed "necessary" if the information and evidence of record does not contain sufficient competent medical evidence to decide the claim, but (1) contains competent lay or medical evidence of a current diagnosed disability or persistent or recurrent symptoms of disability; (2) establishes that the veteran suffered an event, injury, or disease in service, or has a disease or symptoms of a disease listed in 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.309, 3.313, 3.316, and 3.317 manifesting during an applicable presumptive period, provided the claimant has the required service or triggering event to qualify for that presumption; and (3) indicates that the claimed disability or symptoms may be associated with the established event, injury, or disease in service or with another service-connected disability. 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(c)(4); McLendon v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 79, 86 (2006). The threshold for determining whether the evidence "indicates" that there "may" be a nexus between a current disability and an in-service event, injury, or disease is a low one. Id. at 83. In the present case, the Veteran's VA treatment records indicate that he received a positive PTSD screen in December 2015, diagnosed with generalized anxiety disorder in December 2015, unspecified depressive disorder in January 2016, and major depressive disorder in January 2017. Furthermore, the Veteran has consistently reported that he believes that his current acquired psychiatric disorder is related to a September 1977 explosion that occurred while he was hauling diesel fuel and a January 1978 explosion during firing practice. The Veteran and is competent to relate events that have personally been observed. See Layno v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 465, 469 (1994). His statements, while not an adequate basis upon which to grant the claim, suggest that his conditions may be associated with service. As such, an examination is warranted. See, e.g., McLendon, 20 Vet. App. at 81; see also Colvin v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 171, 175 (1991) (the Board is not competent to substitute its own opinion for that of a medical expert). Because no examination has thus far been obtained, further development is necessary. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain copies of records pertaining to any relevant VA treatment the Veteran has received since the time that such records were last procured, following the procedures set forth in 38 C.F.R. § 3.159. The evidence obtained, if any, should be associated with the record. 2. After the foregoing development has been completed, arrange to have the Veteran scheduled for a VA mental disorders examination. The examiner should review the record. All indicated tests should be conducted and the results reported. After examining the Veteran and reviewing the record, together with the results of any testing deemed necessary, the examiner should indicate whether the Veteran has met the DSM-5 diagnostic criteria for PTSD since the time that the Veteran filed his claim for service connection. If it is the examiner's opinion that the diagnostic criteria for PTSD have been met, the examiner should provide an opinion as to whether it is at least as likely as not (i.e., whether it is 50 percent or more probable) that the diagnosis is related to the Veteran's period of active service, to include the in-service stressors he has described. If psychiatric disorders other than PTSD are diagnosed (or are found to have been present at any time pertinent to the present appeal), the examiner should provide an opinion, with respect to each such disorder, as to whether it is at least as likely as not that the disorder had its onset in, or is otherwise attributable to, service. A complete medical rationale for all opinions expressed must be provided. 3. After completing the above, and any other development as may be indicated by any response received as a consequence of the actions taken in the preceding paragraphs, the issue remaining on appeal should be readjudicated based on the entirety of the evidence. If any benefit sought remains denied, the Veteran and his representative should be issued a supplemental statement of the case. An appropriate period of time should be allowed for response. Richard Kettler Acting Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board R.M. Sachs, 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.