Citation Nr: 21075921 Decision Date: 12/21/21 Archive Date: 12/21/21 DOCKET NO. 18-53 376 DATE: December 21, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder, to include posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from October 1964 to October 1990. The matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a June 2017 rating decision by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). The Board notes that the Veteran had requested a personal hearing before a Veterans Law Judge (VLJ). See November 2018 VA Form 9. However, he cancelled his hearing and has not since requested that it be rescheduled. Accordingly, his hearing request is considered withdrawn. Additionally, the Veteran's representative submitted an appellate brief in November 2021. Thus, the Board finds that there is no prejudice to the Veteran, and it will proceed with adjudication of the claim. The Board has recharacterized the Veteran's claim for PTSD more broadly to an acquired psychiatric disorder, to include PTSD, in order to clarify the nature of the benefit sought and ensure complete consideration of the claim. See Clemons v. Shinseki, 23 Vet. App. 1, 5-6 (2009). Entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder is remanded. Although further delay is regrettable, the Board finds that additional development is necessary prior to appellate review. The RO obtained an April 2017 VA examination. The examiner did not diagnose PTSD or any other acquired psychiatric disorder. However, VA treatment records indicate that a mood disorder is listed as one of the Veteran's active problems. See CAPRI records received by VA in May 2017 (noting a mood disorder among his active problems in May 2017); and CAPRI records received by VA in January 2021 (noting a mood disorder among his active problems in July 2020). The April 2017 VA examination is inadequate as it does not address these treatment records or a possible diagnosis of mood disorder. Moreover, the RO only sought a VA examination for PTSD but not for mental disorders other than PTSD. Thus, the case must be returned to obtain a VA examination regarding the presence, nature and etiology of any acquired psychiatric disorder. See Barr v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 303 (2007) (holding that once VA undertakes an examination, it must provide an adequate one). The matter is REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain updated VA treatment records. 2. Thereafter, schedule the Veteran for a VA examination to determine the nature and etiology of any acquired psychiatric disorder that existed at any point during the appellate period. The claims file, as updated, must be made available to and reviewed by the examiner. The examiner is asked to opine on whether it is as least as likely as not (a 50 percent probability or greater) that any acquired psychiatric disorder, currently diagnosed or diagnosed at any time during the appellate period, is etiologically related, in whole or in part, to the Veteran's active service. The Board calls the examiner's attention to the June 2017 rating decision, which concedes an in-service stressor related to fear of hostile military or terrorist activity as due to the Veteran's service in the Republic of Vietnam, as well as VA treatment records noting the presence of a mood disorder. See CAPRI records received by VA in May 2017 (noting a mood disorder among his active problems in May 2017); and CAPRI records received by VA in January 2021 (noting a mood disorder among his active problems in July 2020). A complete rationale should be given for all opinions and conclusions expressed. If the examiner cannot provide an opinion without resort to speculation, the examiner should provide an explanation as to why this is so and must state whether there is additional evidence that would permit the necessary opinion to be made. 3. Readjudicate the claim. D. Martz Ames Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board M. Minaya, 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.