Citation Nr: 21007975 Decision Date: 02/11/21 Archive Date: 02/11/21 DOCKET NO. 15-22 519 DATE: February 11, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder, to include posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from August 1977 to November 1977. This matter returns to the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a July 2013 rating decision issued by the Department of Veterans’ Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Manchester, New Hampshire. By way of background, this matter has been remanded by the Board in February 2019, March 2020, and July 2020. Unfortunately, as will be discussed in more detail below, the Board finds another remand is necessary because substantial compliance with the July 2020 remand directives has not been met. See Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268, 271 (1998). Entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder, to include PTSD, is remanded. As previously mentioned, the Board remanded this claim most recently in July 2020 for additional development. When a remand is issued, the Veteran is entitled, as a matter of law, the right to compliance with the remanded order. Stegall, 11 Vet. App. at 271. Substantial compliance, not strict, with the terms of the remanded order is required under Stegall. D’Aries v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 97, 105 (2008). The Board notes the Veteran has a history of different addresses and periods of homelessness. In fact, the record has two recent copies of returned mail, one of which is the previous July 2020 Board remand. The Veteran’s treatment records reference completion of a rehabilitation program following which a different cell phone number was provided than the VA has on file. The Board recognizes the VA’s multiple attempts to afford the Veteran a VA examination in association with his claim. In light of the many attempts to afford the Veteran a VA examination, the Board included in the July 2020 remand specific directives for the RO to provide the Veteran’s representative notice of any scheduled VA examination and associate any communications with the Veteran and the Veteran’s representative regarding the scheduling of a VA examination with the claims file. The VA attempted to contact the Veteran to schedule a VA examination but indicated that he was unable to be contacted. See September 2020 VA Form 21-2507a. Of note, the Veteran’s treatment records reference a potentially different contact number than that on file with the VA. See May 2020 VA treatment records. Regardless, however, the record lacks any documentation of these attempted contacts with the Veteran. Additionally, the record lacks any communication or record of contact with the Veteran’s representative regarding the scheduling of a VA examination for the Veteran. The Veteran’s representative has previously conveyed to the Board and to VA his ability to contact the Veteran regarding a scheduled appointment to ensure attendance. To date, however, the Veteran and his representative have not been given this opportunity despite the Board’s specific July 2020 remand directives. Rather, the VA attempted to schedule the Veteran for an examination through directly contacting the Veteran. When he was unable to be reached for scheduling, the VA obtained an opinion based solely on review of the Veteran’s claims file rather than scheduling an examination and providing the details. Thus, the Board finds substantial compliance with the July 2020 remand directives has not been met. Consequently, this matter must be remanded to the RO again. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Schedule the Veteran for an examination by an appropriate examiner to determine the nature and etiology of any acquired psychiatric disorder, to include PTSD. The RO must ensure that the Veteran and the Veteran’s representative are provided with notice of any scheduled VA examination. Said notices should be associated with the claims file. If the Veteran cannot be reached by phone to schedule an examination, the appointment shall be scheduled with notice being sent to the Veteran and his representative. The examiner shall be provided with a copy of this remand as well as the entire claims file for review. Following examination, the examiner shall determine whether the Veteran has an acquired psychiatric disorder, including, but not limited to, PTSD. The examiner must opine whether there is clear and unmistakable evidence that any identified psychiatric disorder existed prior to service. The examiner is directed to address the Veteran’s treatment records referencing PTSD as a result of childhood trauma. If the condition(s) preexisted service, the examiner must opine whether it is at least as likely as not (50 percent or greater probability) said condition(s) increased in severity during service and, if so, whether any increase in severity was clearly and unmistakably due to the natural progress of the condition(s). If the condition(s) did not preexist service, the examiner must opine whether it is at least as likely as not that the Veteran’s condition(s) was caused by or incurred during service. The examiner must provide a complete rationale for any opinion expressed, based on the examiner’s clinical and medical expertise; established medical principles; and references to the evidence of record, as appropriate. If any opinion cannot be expressed without resort to speculation, ensure that the examiner so indicates and discusses why an opinion is not possible, to include whether there is additional evidence that could enable an opinion to be provided, or whether the inability to provide the opinion is based on the limits of medical knowledge. 2. After the above development, and any other development deemed necessary, readjudicate the claims. Shereen M. Marcus Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board A.C. Allen, 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.