Citation Nr: 21008458 Decision Date: 02/17/21 Archive Date: 02/17/21 DOCKET NO. 17-17 085 DATE: February 17, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disability, to include posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from October 1965 to October 1967. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a March 2013 Notification Letter from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). This matter was previously before the Board in November 2019. The issues of entitlement to service connection service connection for an acquired psychiatric disability, among other claims, was denied. The Veteran appealed the November 2019 decision to the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC). In an August 2020 Order, the CAVC granted a Joint Motion for Partial Remand (“JMPR”), vacating and remanding the claim upon finding the Board failed to ensure VA satisfied the duty to assist to provide the Veteran with an adequate VA examination. The JMPR states, in part: Remand is warranted because the Board erred when it failed to ensure VA satisfied the duty to assist to provide Appellant with an adequate VA examination. See 38 U.S.C. § 5103A. The February 2013 VA examiner utilized the DSM-IV and, as such, the opinion did not conform to the DSM-5. (See R. at 1078 (1061-1078) (February 13, 2013, VA PTSD DBQ)); 38 C.F.R. § 4.125(a). The Board erred by relying, at least in part, on this February 2013 VA examination report. Therefore, remand is warranted for the Board to provide Appellant with a new examination or opinion that applies the DSM-5. See 38 C.F.R. § 4.125; Golden v. Shulkin, 29 Vet. App. 221, 225 (2018). In view of the JMPR’s findings, the Board finds a new VA examination is warranted for the service connection claim for an acquired psychiatric disability. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain any ongoing VA or private treatment records. Should they exist, associate them with the claims file. 2. Provide the Veteran with a VA compensation examination to ascertain the current nature and etiology of a current acquired psychiatric disability. The claims file should be made available to the examiner for review of the history in conjunction with the examination, and the examination report should reflect that such review was accomplished. The examination must comply with the DSM-5 criteria. The examiner shall provide an opinion as to the following question: Is it at least as likely as not (a fifty percent probability or greater) that the Veteran’s current psychiatric disability was incurred in or as a result of his period of active duty service? A detailed rationale supporting the examiner’s opinion should be provided. The rationale for any opinion expressed must be provided. Note that the lack of documented treatment in service, while probative, cannot serve as the sole basis for a negative finding. If an opinion cannot be made without resort to speculation, the examiner should so state and provide reasoning as to why a conclusion would be so outside the norm that such an opinion is not possible. Note: The examiner is reminded that the term “as likely as not” does not mean “within the realm of medical possibility,” but rather that the evidence of record is so evenly divided that, in the examiner’s expert opinion, it is as medically sound to find in favor of the proposition as against it. 3. Conduct any other development deemed necessary and then readjudicate the Veteran’s claim. The Board recognizes the practical difficulties of scheduling an examination in view of the COVID-19 epidemic, and requests flexibility and understanding in affording the Veteran an opportunity to report for an examination. To the extent that telehealth technology permits an alternative to an in-person examination, such opportunity is fully acceptable in lieu of an in-person examination. The Veteran has the right to submit additional evidence and argument on the matter that the Board has remanded. See Kutscherousky v. West, 12 Vet. App. 369, 372 (1999). This claim must be afforded expeditious treatment. The law requires that all claims that are remanded for additional development or other appropriate action by the Board or United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims must be handled in an expeditious manner. 38 U.S.C. §§ 5109B, 7112. JONATHAN B. KRAMER Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board B. Jackman, 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.