Citation Nr: 21009349 Decision Date: 02/22/21 Archive Date: 02/22/21 DOCKET NO. 16-44 972 DATE: February 22, 2021 REMANDED The claim of entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from January 1952 to May 1956. The U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) has determined that only the period of service between January 7, 1952 and January 6, 1954 is considered other than dishonorable. 38 C.F.R. § 3.12. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal of a September 2014 rating decision by a VA Regional Office (RO). The Veteran died in September 2016. The appellant is his surviving spouse and has been substituted into the claim on appeal. In April 2019, the appellant testified in a hearing before the Board. A transcript of the hearing has been included in the electronic claims file and has been reviewed. The claim on appeal has been remanded for medical inquiry twice, in June and December 2020. In response, VA medical opinions have been included in the claims file. Another remand is warranted for issuance of an addendum medical opinion. In the December 2020 VA opinion, the examiner found psychiatric disability unrelated to service and indicated that the Veteran may have had a depressive disorder prior to service. The examiner further stated, given Veteran’s reported childhood physical and sexual abuse, multiple psychosocial stressors and expressed concerns over heart related issues, prostate CA etc[.][,] it is not possible to rule out or assess to what extent Veteran’s military service might have had on Veteran’s functioning without resorting to mere speculation. This evidence suggests that a pre-service psychiatric disorder may have been aggravated by service. Nevertheless, because the enlistment report of medical examination is negative for a psychiatric disorder, it must be presumed that the Veteran entered service in sound condition. 38 U.S.C. § 1111; 38 C.F.R. § 3.304(b). The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. In remanding this case, the Board makes no credibility determination, expressed or implied, at this juncture. 2. Return the case to the VA examiner who issued the December 2020 opinion, or to a suitable substitute, for issuance of an addendum opinion. After reviewing the claims file, the examiner should address the following question(s). (1). Is it clear and unmistakable (i.e., undebatable) that the Veteran entered service in January 1952 with an acquired psychiatric disorder? (2). If so, is it also clear and unmistakable that the acquired psychiatric disorder WAS NOT aggravated (i.e., permanently worsened) by service? In other words, is it clear and unmistakable that any increase in severity of a pre-service psychiatric disorder during service between January 7, 1952 and January 6, 1954 was due to the natural progress of the disorder? (3). If you find under #1 that it is not clear and unmistakable that a psychiatric disorder existed prior to service: Is it at least as likely as not (i.e., probability of 50 percent or more) that a psychiatric disorder had its onset during service between January 7, 1952 and January 6, 1954, or is related to a disease, event, or injury during this period of service? If #3 is answered, it must be presumed that the Veteran did not have a psychiatric disorder prior to service entrance. Please explain in detail any opinion provided and the supporting rationale. In rendering the requested opinion, the examiner should note that laypersons are competent to attest to matters of first-hand knowledge, including observable symptomatology. If there is a basis to doubt the history provided by the Veteran and/or appellant, the examiner should indicate this in the examination report and provide a rationale for that determination. If the examiner cannot provide an opinion without resorting to mere speculation, he or she shall provide a complete explanation for why an opinion cannot be rendered. In so doing, the examiner shall explain whether the inability to provide a more definitive opinion is the result of a need for additional information, or that he or she has exhausted the limits of current medical knowledge in providing an answer to that particular question(s). G. A. WASIK Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board Christopher McEntee, 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.