Citation Nr: 21007635 Decision Date: 02/10/21 Archive Date: 02/10/21 DOCKET NO. 14-39 000 DATE: February 10, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder, to include post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran had active service from April 1983 to June 1983. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from an April 2013 rating decision by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). The Veteran requested hearings in January 2017, in March 2017, and in September 2017. Through timely correspondence and a showing of good cause, he postponed the first of these hearings, which was scheduled for February 2017. However, he failed to appear, or to show good cause for not appearing, at the April 2017 RO formal hearing that was scheduled pursuant to his March 2017 request. Most recently, he failed to appear, or to show good cause for not appearing, at the November 2017 Travel Board hearing that was scheduled pursuant to his September 2017 request. As such, the Board considers the Veteran’s request for a Board hearing withdrawn pursuant to 38 C.F.R. § 20.702(e). The Board previously remanded this appeal in October 2018. Entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder, to include PTSD is remanded. Unfortunately, there has not been substantial compliance with the Board’s previous remand directives. Another remand is required. Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268, 271 (1998). The October 2018 Remand instructed the agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ) to obtain an opinion concerning a relationship between the Veteran’s PTSD and active service. Notably, the Board did not request that the AOJ conduct an examination of the Veteran prior to obtaining such opinion. However, the AOJ attempted to schedule the Veteran for an examination. Because the Veteran refused to report for the examination, the AOJ continued the previous denial of his claim. On remand, the AOJ must obtain an opinion regarding the nature and etiology of the Veteran’s claimed acquired psychiatric disorder, to include PTSD. An examination of the Veteran is not necessary. The matter is REMANDED for the following action: 1. Forward the Veteran’s claims file to an appropriate VA mental health examiner for review to obtain an opinion concerning a relationship, if any, between the Veteran’s PTSD and active service. The examiner should review all the evidence of record and indicate that such review has taken place in the body of the report. The examiner should reference specific evidence of record when rendering any opinion. The Board directs the examiner’s attention to the Veteran’s statement of May 2011 as well as the private mental treatment records of Dr. M. and Dr. D. If the reviewing examiner concludes that PTSD, as noted in these documents, was as likely as not an etiological factor in post-service “aggravation,” the examiner should provide an opinion as to whether PTSD clearly and unmistakably existed prior to the Veteran’s entry into service. If the examiner concludes that PTSD clearly and unmistakably existed prior to service, the examiner should provide an opinion as to whether there is clear and unmistakable evidence that PTSD was not aggravated to a permanent degree in service beyond that which would be due to the natural progression of the disorder. The examiner’s report should provide a complete rationale for any opinion expressed. A discussion of the psychiatric principles involved would be of considerable assistance to the Board. If the examiner is unable to reach an opinion as to any of the information requested above without resorting to speculation, the examiner should explain the reasons for such inability, and comment on whether any further evidence or information would be useful in rendering the opinion being sought. (Continued on the next page)   2. After completing the development requested above, and any other development deemed necessary, re-adjudicate the issue on appeal. If any benefit sought is not granted in full, the AOJ should furnish the Veteran and his representative with a Supplemental Statement of the Case and afford an opportunity to respond. The claims file should then be returned to the Board for further appellate review. Kristin Haddock Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board Roya Bahrami, 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.