Citation Nr: 21076300 Decision Date: 12/23/21 Archive Date: 12/23/21 DOCKET NO. 17-43 670 DATE: December 23, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder, to include bipolar disorder, persistent depressive disorder, and intermittent explosive disorder, is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty in the Army from May 1971 to September 1971. This matter is before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a(n) May 2014 rating decision of a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). In the Substantive Appeal filed in August 2017, the Veteran requested a live videoconference hearing. The RO scheduled a hearing for September 13, 2021, and in March 2021 sent written notice of this hearing to the Veteran. The RO also sent a copy of the notice to the Veteran's representative. The Veteran did not appear for the September 2021 videoconference hearing. The Veteran did not show good cause for his absence or request a new hearing within 15 days, and therefore the case will be processed as though the request for a hearing has been withdrawn. 38 C.F.R. § 20.704. In addition to the February 2013 claim for service connection for bipolar disorder, the record also reflects a June 2017 diagnosis of persistent depressive disorder and intermittent explosive disorder. As such, the Board has expanded the Veteran's claim to include the matter of entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder other than bipolar disorder and has recharacterized the issue accordingly. See Clemons v. Shinseki, 23 Vet. App. 1 (2009). The Veteran contends that he has an acquired psychiatric disorder, originally claimed as bipolar disorder, which warrants service connection. The Veteran separated from service after four months in September 1971 after being diagnosed with severe immature personality. He filed the present claim in February 2013 and a January 2014 VA examination diagnosed avoidant personality disorder. A second VA examination was performed in June 2017. The second examination diagnosed schizotypal personality disorder, persistent depressive disorder, and intermittent explosive disorder. In July 2017, the RO requested an addendum to clarify whether the diagnosed persistent depressive disorder and intermittent explosive disorder were superimposed upon the personality disorder. See 38 C.F.R. § 4.127. A July 2017 addendum opinion stated that "the Veteran's Intermittent Explosive Disorder, and Persistent Depressive Disorder are at least as likely as not (50 percent or greater probability) related to his Schizotypal Personality Disorder." Service connection is not available for personality disorders because personality disorders, in and of themselves, are not compensable disabilities. 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303(c), 4.9, 4.127. However, disability resulting from a mental disorder that is superimposed upon a personality disorder may be service connected. Id. The examiner's opinion did not clearly address whether the diagnosed intermittent explosive disorder and persistent depressive disorder were superimposed on the diagnosed schizotypal personality disorder during service, or whether any additional diagnosis is related to service. As such, remand is necessary to obtain an adequate opinion addressing this question. The matter is REMANDED for the following action: Schedule the Veteran for a psychiatric examination. The examination can be held via telehealth during social distancing restrictions. The claims file should be made available and fully reviewed by the examiner. The examiner's attention is directed to the June 2017 diagnosis of schizotypal personality disorder, persistent depressive disorder, and intermittent explosive disorder. The examiner is asked to provide an opinion on the following: (a.) Is it at least as likely as not that the Veteran has one or more acquired psychiatric disorders that are superimposed upon a personality disorder? (b.) For any diagnosis found other than a personality disorder, is it as likely as not that the disorder had its onset during or is otherwise related to military service? A complete rationale for all opinions must be provided. If the clinician cannot provide a requested opinion without resorting to speculation, it must be fully explained why. Mary E. Rude Acting Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board R. Dean, 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.