Citation Nr: 21011035 Decision Date: 02/26/21 Archive Date: 02/26/21 DOCKET NO. 16-15 266 DATE: February 26, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to an effective date earlier than July 14, 2009 for the grant of service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder, to include anxiety disorder and posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), is remanded. Entitlement to an effective date earlier than July 14, 2009 for the grant of a total disability rating based on individual unemployability (TDIU) is remanded. Entitlement to an effective date earlier than July 14, 2009 for the grant of eligibility to Dependents' Education Assistance (DEA) benefits is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran had active service from March 1969 to January 1974. Following a lengthy procedural history, an October 2019 Board decision remanded the issues on appeal for further development. As detailed below, that development has not been accomplished, further action is needed. Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268 (1998). 1. Entitlement to an effective date earlier than July 14, 2009 for the grant of service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder, to include anxiety disorder and posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), is remanded. The October 2019 Board remand detailed that the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ) was to undertake any development deemed necessary to properly reconsider the Veteran’s claim of entitlement to an effective date earlier than July 14, 2009 for the grant of service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder under 38 U.S.C. § 3.156(c). In turn, the AOJ ordered a retrospective medical opinion to determine the earliest date the Veteran’s PTSD symptoms first manifested and entitlement to service connection arose. After two addendum opinions were returned for clarification, the August 2020 examiner confusingly continued to opine only that the Veteran was misdiagnosed with schizophrenia, did not meet the full criteria for PTSD but met most of the criteria, and that providers have confirmed anxiety condition related to combat that were misdiagnosed as early as 1977. The Board notes that the record contains several diagnoses of PTSD at various times since the Veteran’s initial 1981 claim. As this addendum opinion fails to state when the Veteran’s PTSD symptoms first manifested and at what date entitlement to PTSD arose, as originally directed, the Board finds this opinion inadequate. See Buchannan v. Nicholson, 451 F.3d 1331, 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2006); Stegall, 11 Vet. App. 268. Though the Board sincerely regrets the further delay, remand confers upon the Veteran the right to compliance with that order. Id. As such, an additional addendum opinion is required. 2. Entitlement to an effective date earlier than July 14, 2009 for the grant of a total disability rating based on individual unemployability (TDIU) is remanded. 3. Entitlement to an effective date earlier than July 14, 2009 for the grant of eligibility to Dependents' Education Assistance (DEA) benefits is remanded. As the claims for an earlier effective date for the grant of a TDIU and eligibility of DEA benefits are inextricably intertwined with the claim for an effective date earlier than June 14, 2009 for the grant of service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder, to include anxiety disorder and posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), they are deferred pending resolution of the latter claim. See Harris v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 180 (1991). The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Forward a copy of this remand to an appropriate VA examiner (other than the examiner who provided the August 2020 addendum opinion) for preparation of the requested retrospective opinion. The examiner should determine based on the Veteran’s military, medical, and psychiatric history, whether a PTSD diagnosis according to the DSM criteria in effect from 1981 to 2009 had become manifest any earlier than June 2009. If so, the examiner should identify when the diagnosis was first present, the severity of his symptoms, and the impact of the symptoms on employability. A complete rationale for all conclusions must be included in the report provided. If the examiner is unable to provide this retrospective opinion without resort to speculation, the examiner should explain why this is the case in as much detail as possible. The examiner is also to address the August 2016 private opinion submitted by Dr. JM in determining the earliest possible PTSD diagnosis according to the applicable DSM criteria. (continued on next page) 2. Thereafter, readjudicate the Veteran’s claims, to include the claims of entitlement to an earlier effective date for a TDIU and DEA benefits. If any benefit sought on appeal is not granted in full, the Veteran should be issued a supplemental statement of the case and provided an opportunity to respond. The case should then be returned to the Board for further appellate consideration, if otherwise in order. Thomas H. O'Shay Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board N. Peden 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.