Citation Nr: 21006551 Decision Date: 02/04/21 Archive Date: 02/04/21 DOCKET NO. 17-21 819 DATE: February 4, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disability, to include posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran had active service from September 1989 to February 1993. These matters come before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a January 2012 rating decision issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). The Board notes that the issue in the appeal has been characterized as a previously denied claim requiring new and material evidence to reopen. However, a review of the record shows that the Veteran was originally denied entitlement to service connection for dysthymia, alcohol abuse, and cannabis abuse (claimed as PTSD, anxiety, depression, sleep deprivation, and nervous condition) in a January 2012 rating decision. Within one year of that decision, the Veteran submitted additional evidence in support of his claim. As such, that decision did not become final, and the Board has recharacterized the issue accordingly. 38 C.F.R. § 3.156 (b) (2019). The Veteran testified at a videoconference hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge of the Board in July 2020. A transcript of the hearing has been associated with the claims file. Service Connection – Psychiatric Disability The Board finds that additional development is required before the claim on appeal is decided. The Veteran has contended that he has a psychiatric disability, to include PTSD, that is related to his experiences during Operation Desert Shield and Operation Desert Storm. In October 2010 and July 2011 statements, the Veteran stated that he was deployed with the 3rd Brigade of the 24th Infantry Division during Operation Desert Shield and Operation Desert Storm when he saw several dead enemy combatants, dead civilians, and experienced losing two fellow service members. The Veteran’s DD Form 214 reflects that he was awarded Southwest Asia Service Medal and Kuwait Liberation Medal. Additionally, his statements are corroborated by numerous statements submitted by his fellow service members. The Board finds that the Veteran’s reported stressors are consistent with the circumstances of his service. At a December 2011 VA examination, the examiner opined that the Veteran did not have a diagnosis of PTSD. The Board finds that the December 2011 VA examination is inadequate for adjudication purposes. In this regard, the examiner failed to consider the Veteran’s reported in-service stressor events. Therefore, the Veteran should be afforded a new VA examination to determine the nature and etiology of any currently present psychiatric disability. Additionally, attempts to identify and obtain any outstanding treatment records must be made before a decision is made in this case. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Identify and obtain any pertinent, outstanding VA and private treatment records, including the August 2013 VA examination report, and associate them with the claims file. 2. Then, schedule the Veteran for an examination by a psychiatrist or psychologist with sufficient expertise to determine the nature and etiology of any currently present psychiatric disability, to include PTSD. The claims file must be made available to, and reviewed by the examiner. Any indicated studies should be performed. Based on the examination results and the review of the record, the examiner should first identify all psychiatric disabilities present during the pendency of the claim, or proximate thereto. Then, for each psychiatric disability identified, the examiner should provide an opinion as to whether it is at least as likely as not (a 50 percent or better probability) that such disability had its onset during active service, or is otherwise etiologically related to such service, including as a result of his reported in-service stressors while serving in Southwest Asia. The examiner should presume that the Veteran as a reliable historian with regard to his fear of hostile military or terrorist activity and other experiences while serving in Southwest Asia. The rationale for all opinions expressed must be provided. 3. Confirm that the VA examination report and all medical opinions provided comport with this remand and undertake any other development determined to be warranted. (Continued on the next page)   4. Then, readjudicate the appeal. If the decision is adverse to the Veteran, issue a supplemental statement of the case and allow the appropriate time for response. Then, return the case to the Board. Kristin Haddock Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board I. Umez-Eronini, 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.