Citation Nr: 21007875 Decision Date: 02/11/21 Archive Date: 02/11/21 DOCKET NO. 17-01 908 DATE: February 11, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric condition is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Army National Guard and the Reserves. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a September 2015 rating decision from a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). The Board notes that the Veteran was scheduled for an April 2020 videoconference hearing, however, this hearing was postponed due to Covid-19. The Veteran was then scheduled for a January 2021 virtual hearing. However, the Veteran was deemed a no-show for this hearing. To date, as of his no-show in January 2021, the Veteran has not requested that his hearing be rescheduled. As such, the Board finds that the Veteran’s hearing request is deemed withdrawn. 38 C.F.R. § 20.704(d). Remand The Board is of the opinion that additional development is required before the remaining issue on appeal is decided. Service Personnel Records The Veteran’s Army National Guard service personnel records were received by the RO from the Defense Personnel Records Image Retrieval System (DPRIS) in July 2015 and indicate that the Veteran served in the Army National Guard from 2005 through 2008. These records also contain information noting whether the Veteran’s service was as a “Army National Guard Unit Member” or as “Army National Guard Mobilized Service.” There is no information which indicates the specific dates that the Veteran’s service was characterized as active duty for training (ACDUTRA) or inactive duty for training (INACDUTRA). However, there is an additional record in the file, dated July 2015, which notes that the Veteran had active Guard member service from February 2005 to August 2005 and June 2006 to July 2006. In addition to disabilities resulting from active duty service, service connection may also be established for a disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated in the line of duty during a period of ACDUTRA service or for disability resulting from an injury incurred in or aggravated in the line of duty during a period of INACDUTRA service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 101, 1110, 1131; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.6, 3.303, 3.304. Accordingly, on remand, the RO must review the Veteran’s service personnel records and compile a list of the dates of the Veteran’s ACDUTRA and INACDUTRA periods of service. Acquired Psychiatric Condition The Veteran is seeking service connection for an acquired psychiatric disability. The Board notes that the Veteran’s available service treatment records (STRs) do not indicate that he was treated in service for a psychiatric condition. In June 2006 pre-deployment health assessments, the Veteran was noted to be deployable with no significant health conditions noted. However, a June 2007 medical evaluation board noted that the Veteran was activated in anticipation of deployment in July 2006 when he was admitted to a hospital for two-and-one-half weeks. The hospital discharge summary noted he was admitted for “bizarre behavior,” a one month history of social withdrawal, and a decrease in his activities of daily living. The Veteran was diagnosed with paranoid type schizophrenia and cocaine and marijuana abuse disorders. An April 2007 fit for duty evaluation noted that the Veteran’s unit was mobilized in the summer of 2006, but after he was seen by behavioral health the Veteran was sent back to his unit with no diagnosis. The fit for duty evaluation further noted that the Veteran needed to have a 24/7 buddy from his unit to help him. The Veteran’s mother indicated that the Veteran had been seen for behavioral health issues in the past but there was no further elaboration. When the Veteran was returned to his unit in June 2006, he did not drill with them at the unit’s request. Further, the Board notes that to date, the Veteran has not been afforded a VA examination to address the etiology of his claimed disabilities. As such, given the above noted information, the Board finds an examination and medical opinion is necessary to determine whether the Veteran’s currently diagnosed acquired psychiatric conditions were caused by, aggravated by, or otherwise etiologically related to his active military service. Specifically, a medical opinion must be obtained addressing whether the Veteran’s acquired psychiatric disability was the result of a disease or injury incurred in or aggravated in the line of duty during ACDUTRA service or is the result of an injury incurred in or aggravated in the line of duty during INACDUTRA service. The matter is REMANDED for the following action: 1. The RO must review the Veteran’s Army National Guard service personnel records (located in VBMS with a receipt date of July 29, 2015) and compile a list of the dates of the Veteran’s ACDUTRA and INACDUTRA periods of service. 2. Then, afford the Veteran a VA examination by an examiner with sufficient expertise to address the etiology of the Veteran’s claimed acquired psychiatric conditions. The medical professional providing the below requested opinions must also be provided a list of the Veteran’s periods of ACDUTRA and INACDUTRA service. Following a thorough review of the record, and with consideration of the Veteran’s lay statements, the medical professional should address the following: Whether the Veteran’s acquired psychiatric conditions at least as likely as not (a 50 percent probability or greater) originated in, or is the result of a disease or injury incurred in, or aggravated in, the line of duty during ACDUTRA service or is the result of an injury incurred in or aggravated in the line of duty during INACDUTRA service. The examiner must provide a complete rationale for all proffered opinions. In this regard, the examiner must discuss and consider the Veteran’s competent lay statements. If the examiner cannot provide the required opinion without resorting to speculation, he or she shall provide a complete explanation as to why that is the case. (Continued on the next page) Further, the examiner must state whether the inability to provide the required opinions is based on a personal limitation or on a lack of knowledge among the medical community at large. T. REYNOLDS Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board T. Gresham 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.