Citation Nr: 21005490 Decision Date: 02/01/21 Archive Date: 02/01/21 DOCKET NO. 14-37 364 DATE: February 1, 2021 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder, to include PTSD, is denied. FINDING OF FACT An acquired psychiatric disorder, to include PTSD, did not manifest during service and has not been shown to be related to service. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder, to include PTSD, have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.304. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty from May 1969 to June 1971. This matter is before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal of a November 2011 rating decision of the Nashville, Tennessee, Regional Office (RO) of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). In May 2018, the Board remanded the case for further development. Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268, 271 (1998). Service connection may be granted for a disability resulting from a disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by active service. See 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. “To establish a right to compensation for a present disability, a veteran must show: “(1) the existence of a present disability; (2) in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) a causal relationship between the present disability and the disease or injury incurred or aggravated during service” the so-called “nexus” requirement.” Holton v. Shinseki, 557 F.3d 1362, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (quoting Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2004)). Service treatment records show that the Veteran noted on the March 1969 pre-induction Report of Medical History that he was nervous, at times. An April 1971 correspondence from the Department of the Army shows that the Veteran had missed a psychiatric evaluation; however, it was the opinion of the Veteran’s commanding officer that the Veteran was suffering from emotional problems, to the extent that he had brought bodily harm upon himself. In a March 1999 statement, the Veteran noted that he experienced painful emotions, flashbacks, nightmares, insomnia, grief, anger and fear, panic attacks, and anxiety. A December 2003 VA examination report shows that the VA examiner noted that the Veteran had not appeared for the examination. However, a review of the Veteran’s claims file and medical records reflected symptoms indicative of PTSD, but further assessment was warranted. A March 2011 VA treatment record shows that the Veteran reported that during his active duty service in Vietnam, he was shot at by others, to include some of his “own men” and by people in the community. He described his symptoms as depression, social isolation and poor sleep. A November 2011 VA PTSD examination report shows that diagnoses of substance- induced mood disorder and alcohol dependence were provided. The Veteran reported being shot at while in Vietnam, seeing a corpse of a soldier who had committed suicide, and having to locate enemy troops and relay the information. Symptoms of depressed mood, anxiety, chronic sleep impairment, mild memory loss, and disturbances of motivation and mood were found. The VA examiner stated that the Veteran did not report enough symptoms of PTSD to receive a diagnosis of PTSD. A February 2017 VA treatment psychiatry consult note shows diagnostic impressions of unspecified depression and PTSD. Pursuant to the Board’s May 2018 remand, a new examination was to be scheduled for the Veteran. A review of the record, however, shows that examinations scheduled for December 2018, September 2019, and June 2020 were cancelled because the Veteran was not able to be contacted. An October 2019 Report of General Information memorandum shows that calls were placed, and letters were sent to all available numbers and addresses on file. Notations of the outcome of the phone calls are included in the file. Information regarding the scheduled June 2020 VA examination shows that attempts were made to contact the Veteran by phone to confirm the scheduled examination. In addition, returned mail from several addresses for locations in which VA attempted to contact the Veteran are included in the file. The Board notes that “the duty to assist is not always a one-way street.” A claimant cannot passively wait where he or she may or should have information that is essential in obtaining the putative evidence. See Wood v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 190, 193 (1991). The Veteran has not offered good cause for his failure to report, to include any recent change of address. While VA does have a duty to assist the Veteran in the development of the claim, that duty is not limitless, and the Veteran must be prepared to cooperate with VA’s efforts to obtain all relevant evidence. Olson v. Principi, 3 Vet. App. 480, 483 (1992). The Veteran is required to provide timely notice of his current mailing address, and his failure to do so is not an adequate reason for failing to report to a VA examination. See Hyson v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 262, 264 (1993). Since the Veteran failed to report to his scheduled VA examination, and the record reflects several VA attempts to contact the Veteran regarding the examinations, evidence expected from the examination which might have been material to the outcome of the claim cannot be considered. The Board has no legal recourse but to decide the Veteran’s claim on basis of the existing record. The Board finds that the preponderance of the evidence is against granting the claim of service connection. While VA medical treatment notes indicate mental health treatment, the record contains no medical opinion linking the Veteran’s acquired psychiatric disorder to his active service. To the extent that the Veteran himself believes that his claimed disability is connected to an in-service incident, as a lay person, the Veteran has not shown that he has specialized training sufficient to render such an opinion as to the etiology of psychiatric disorders. See Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372, 1376-77 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (noting general competence to testify as to symptoms but not to provide medical diagnosis). In this regard, psychiatric disorders require examination by trained professionals to diagnose and can arise from many different causes, thereby requiring medical expertise to determine the etiology. Accordingly, his opinion as to the etiology of the disorder is not competent medical evidence. Given the above, the preponderance of the evidence is against the Veteran’s claim, and it must be denied. As the preponderance of the evidence is against the Veteran’s claim, the benefit of the doubt doctrine is not applicable in the instant appeal. See 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b); Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49 (1990). A. C. MACKENZIE Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board A-L Evans, 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.