Citation Nr: 21075476 Decision Date: 12/20/21 Archive Date: 12/20/21 DOCKET NO. 03-15 643 DATE: December 20, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disability, to include posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from November 1984 to November 1990. The Veteran died in November 2016. In May 2020, the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ) formally recognized the Appellant, who is the Veteran's surviving daughter, as a valid substitute claimant in this matter. This matter initially came before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a December 2002 rating decision of the AOJ. This matter was most recently before the Board in March 2021, when it remanded the Appellant's claim in order to obtain an addendum opinion addressing the etiology of the Veteran's acquired psychiatric disability. Unfortunately, an additional remand is required to ensure substantial compliance with the Board's March 2021 remand directives. See Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268, 271 (1998). The Board's March 2021 remand required the addendum opinion to conform to the criteria set forth in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, Fourth Edition (DSM-IV), rather than only to those set forth in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, Fifth Edition (DSM-V). The March 2021 remand explained that the DSM-IV applied rather than the DSM-V because the Veteran's appeal was originally certified to the Board before August 4, 2014. While an addendum opinion was provided in May 2021, the examiner cited only the DSM-V, rather the DSM-IV, as the Board had instructed. The Board must again remand the Appellant's claim to obtain an additional etiological opinion that is in conformity with the DSM-IV. The Board's March 2021 remand additionally instructed the examiner to address the Veteran's lay statements regarding the onset of his symptoms and his assertions regarding his two tours of duty in isolated duty stations (specifically in Adak, Alaska from December 1985 to April 1987 and in Guam from December 1987 to August 1989). Contrary to the Board's directives, the May 2021 opinion did not address the Veteran's lay statements, including his assertions regarding his two tours of duty in isolated duty stations. The Board must again remand the Appellant's claim to obtain an additional etiological opinion that addresses the Veteran's lay statements. The matter is REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain an addendum opinion from a VA psychologist or psychiatrist, but not the clinicians who provided the January 2021 and May 2021 medical opinions. The examiner should address the nature and etiology of any diagnosed psychiatric disorders, to specifically include PTSD, during the pendency of the claim on appeal according to the criteria set forth in the DSM-IV. The examiner must identify all psychiatric disorders found during the pendency of the appeal and indicate whether the Veteran met the diagnostic criteria for PTSD under the DSM-IV or DSM-V. In doing so, the examiner should discuss the previous diagnoses of probable PTSD, major depressive disorder, bipolar disorder, psychosis, psychiatric disorder not otherwise specified (NOS), adjustment disorder NOS, schizophrenia, and possible infestation delusions. If the Veteran did not meet the diagnostic criteria for PTSD under DSM-IV or DSM-V, the examiner must detail which criterion were and were not met, and why. If PTSD is diagnosed, the examiner must identify the specific stressor or stressors that caused PTSD. For each psychiatric diagnosis present during the pendency of the appeal, the examiner must opine whether it is at least as likely as not (50 percent probability or greater) that it had its onset in active service, was caused by or related to active service, or, in the case of any diagnosed psychosis, whether it manifested within one year of the Veteran's separation from service. The examiner is asked to specifically address the Veteran's lay statements regarding the onset of his symptoms and his assertions regarding his two tours of duty in isolated duty stations (in Adak, Alaska from December 1985 to April 1987 and in Guam from December 1987 to August 1989). The examiner must explain the rationale for all opinions given. If unable to provide the requested opinions without resorting to speculation, it should be so stated, and an explanation should be provided. 2. After completing the above development, readjudicate the issue on appeal. If any benefit sought on appeal remains denied, provide an additional supplemental statement of the case to the Appellant, and return the appeal to the Board for appellate review, after the Appellant has had an adequate opportunity to respond. Jennifer A. Flynn Acting Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board E. Fairlie, 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.