Citation Nr: 21006984 Decision Date: 02/08/21 Archive Date: 02/08/21 DOCKET NO. 14-41 230A DATE: February 8, 2021 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder, to include major depression, unspecified mood disorder, and generalized anxiety disorder (GAD), is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served in the United States Navy from June 1968 to March 1970. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from an August 2013 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs’ (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Decatur, Georgia, denying to reopen the Veteran’s claim for service connection for depression. In June 2014 the Veteran submitted a notice of disagreement (NOD) and in October 2014 the RO issued a statement of the case (SOC). In December 2014, the Veteran timely submitted a substantive appeal and requested a video conference hearing. In September 2018, the Veteran testified before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge (VLJ) at a videoconference hearing. A transcript of the hearing has been associated with the Veteran’s electronic claims file. In June 2019, the Board remanded the issue for additional development. Unfortunately, the requested development was not substantially completed. See Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268 (1998). 1. Entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder, to include major depression, unspecified mood disorder, and GAD, is remanded. The Veteran is seeking service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder. Specifically, he contends that his psychiatric disorder is probably related to being shot at while hauling supplies from his ship in the Republic of Vietnam, and exposure to guns and the loud sounds of the gun on his ship during service. The Veteran’s wife also asserted that he hasn’t been the same since he left service. In addition, the Veteran contends that when he was admitted to a hospital in 1973 for chronic anxiety, he was told he had a nerves condition, but they didn’t assist him. See September 2018 Board Hearing. As noted above, this issue was remanded in June 2019 for additional development. Specifically, the Board noted that the Veteran had not been provided a VA examination for his mental health conditions. Pursuant to the remand instructions, in December 2019, the Veteran was afforded a VA behavioral health examination. The Veteran was diagnosed with generalized anxiety disorder. The examiner opined that the Veteran’s mental disability is less likely than not due to military service. The examiner also opined that the Veteran’s condition clearly and unmistakably existed prior to service and clearly and unmistakably was not aggravated by service. He explained that the Veteran failed to report mental health issues during service and there is no evidence that the Veteran’s symptoms began within one year of service. Furthermore, there is no evidence in the Veteran’s STRs of his 1973 hospitalization for a nervous condition. The Board finds the December 2019 VA opinion of record to be inadequate for adjudicative purposes. Nieves-Rodriguez v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 295 (2008). Specifically, the examiner fails to consider the Veteran’s consistent and competent lay assertions regarding exposure to loud guns and being shot at during service. He also fails to address the Veteran’s lay assertions, and those of his wife that the symptoms have continued service. The opinion is also based upon a lack of available service treatment records to confirm hospitalization in 1973, three years after service, for a chronic anxiety condition. Such treatment records have since been added to the claims file. In addition, the examiner does not provide an opinion regarding the Veteran’s major depressive disorder. As such, remand is warranted for an addendum medical opinion. The matter is REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain all relevant outstanding VA treatment records, and any private treatment records identified by the Veteran. All records and/or responses received should be associated with the claims file. 2. After all outstanding treatment records have been associated with the claims file, schedule an examination with an appropriate VA examiner to determine the nature and etiology of the Veteran’s psychiatric disorders, to include major depressive disorder, unspecified mood disorder, and GAD. The record, to include a copy of this Remand, must be made available to and be reviewed by the examiner, and the examination report should note that review. The VA examiner/clinician should address the following: (A) Identify any psychiatric disability diagnosed during the pendency of the appeal. (B) For any/each identified psychiatric disorder, determine whether it is at least as likely as not (i.e. a 50 percent probability or greater) that the disorder began during or is due to military service. In doing so the examiner should specifically address the October 1973 VA Treatment record (added to the claims file December 2, 2020) noting Veteran reports of being tense, nervous, and having headaches since discharge and diagnosis of chronic anxiety disorder. The examiner should also address the Veteran’s and his wife’s lay assertions in his October 2018 Board hearing, indicating that the Veteran changed following service. The examination report must include a complete rationale for all opinions provided. If the examiner cannot provide the requested opinion(s) without resorting to speculation, the report should expressly indicate this, and the examiner should explain why an opinion cannot be provided without resorting to speculation. 3. After completing the requested actions, and any additional notification and/or development deemed warranted, readjudicate the issues on appeal. If the benefit sought on appeal remains denied, furnish to the Veteran and his representative an appropriate supplemental statement of the case (SSOC) that includes clear reasons and bases for all determinations, and afford them the appropriate time period for response before the claims file is returned to the Board for further appellate consideration. KRISTI L. GUNN Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board M. Kaufer, 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.