Citation Nr: 21009612 Decision Date: 02/23/21 Archive Date: 02/22/21 DOCKET NO. 15-21 529 DATE: February 23, 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 February 1999 to November 2010. This appeal before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) arose from a February 2015 rating decision which, in pertinent part, declined to reopen the Veteran’s previously denied service connection claim for PTSD on the basis that new and material evidence had not been received. As an initial matter, the Board notes that the Veteran’s claim was initially adjudicated in an August 2013 rating decision. Additional evidence was received within one year and in a May 2014 rating decision, VA reconsidered the Veteran’s claim, but continued to deny the claim on the basis that the Veteran did not have a current diagnosis. In November 2014, the Veteran submitted a letter from his treating VA clinician indicating the Veteran was being treated for PTSD. As additional evidence was resubmitted within one year of the May 2014 rating decision, new and material evidence is not required. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.156(b). Entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disability, to include posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), is remanded. The Board’s review of the claims file reveals that further Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ) action on the service connection claim for an acquired psychiatric disorder, to include PTSD, prior to appellate consideration, is warranted. Here, the Veteran has primarily alleged that his PTSD is related to combat-related stressors while he was deployed to Kuwait in 2003 before the U.S. invasion of Iraq. He specifically alleged that he witnessed an Iraqi Scud missile fired at his air base as well as a vehicle accident where a civilian cook was struck by an Army truck due to a sandstorm. While a July 2013 VA PTSD examination report reflects the Veteran did not meet the criteria for a diagnosis of PTSD, the Veteran’s treating VA clinician indicated in a November 2014 letter that the Veteran was being treated for PTSD and VA treatment records as recently as April 2019 reflect that the Veteran has a diagnosis of PTSD. However, it is not clear whether the Veteran meets the DSM-5 criteria for a diagnosis of PTSD. Given the VA treatment records indicating that the Veteran has symptoms consistent with a PTSD diagnosis, a new VA examination is warranted. The matter is REMANDED for the following actions: 1. Obtain the Veteran’s VA treatment records from July 2019 to present. 2. Schedule the Veteran for a psychiatric examination to determine the nature and etiology of any posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). If the Veteran is diagnosed with PTSD, the examiner must explain how the diagnostic criteria are met and opine whether it is at least as likely as not related to a verified in-service stressor. The examiner is advised that a current psychiatric disability includes any clinical diagnosis since the date of the current claim or any diagnosis that appears during this time frame, even if it resolved. If any other acquired psychiatric disorders, other than PTSD or unspecified depressive disorder with anxious distress, are diagnosed, the examiner must opine whether each diagnosed disorder is at least as likely as not related to an in-service injury, event, or disease, to include the Veteran’s reported stressors. All examination findings and results, along with complete, clearly stated rationale for the conclusions reached, must be provided. The examiner must specifically address the treating clinician’s November 2014 letter and VA treatment records relating to a PTSD diagnosis, and the Veteran’s reports about the circumstances of his service. 3. After completing the above, and any other development as may be indicated, the Veteran’s claim should be readjudicated based on the entirety of the evidence. If the claim remains denied, the Veteran and his representative should be issued a supplemental statement of the case (SSOC). (Continued on next page)   An appropriate period of time should be allowed for response. Thereafter, the case should be returned to the Board for further appellate consideration, if otherwise in order. Stephanie M. Owen Acting Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board S. Owen, 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.