Citation Nr: 21012949 Decision Date: 03/08/21 Archive Date: 03/08/21 DOCKET NO. 16-41 494 DATE: March 8, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder, to include posttraumatic stress disorder and depression is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from February 1976 to April 1980. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal of a June 2014 rating decision by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). In a September 2019 decision, the Board denied entitlement to service connection an acquired psychiatric disorder. The Veteran appealed that decision and, in May 2020, the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court) granted a Joint Motion for Remand (JMR) of the September 2019 denial of those issues. The appeal is now again before the Board and is remanded for development consistent with the JMR. Acquired Psychiatric Disorder, To Include Depression & PTSD Also Claimed as Mental Health Condition is remanded. In its May 2020 Joint Motion for Remand, the parties to the appeal argued, in part, that the Board’s September 2019 decision was inadequate because the Board did not discuss whether the Veteran’s improved performance corroborated his claimed in-service sexual assault. More specifically, the Veteran argues that his improved performance demonstrates contemporaneous behavior changes which supports the occurrence of his claimed stressor. Following the Court order vacating and remanding the September 2019 Board decision, the Veteran submitted an October 2020 private evaluation wherein the evaluating clinical neuropsychologist, Dr. S.R., notes that the Veteran stated that he never reported his assault as he feared he would not be believed and that “[a]s a result, he threw himself into work, which is consistent with his Performance Records.” In Menegassi v. Shinseki, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit found that medical opinion evidence may be submitted in support of corroborating a claim based on personal assault. Menegassi, 638 F. 3d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2011). Here, the medical evaluation from Dr. S.R. is shown to repeat the Veteran’s assertion that his improved performance corroborated his claimed in-service stressor, and state that his performance improvement supports his assertion that he threw himself into his work. However, the medical opinion does not speak to whether the improvement was a behavioral change that corroborated the claimed stressor. A medical opinion which addresses this issue, along with the statements of the Veteran and his family members and a July 2015 pain psychology evaluation report, as well as the Veteran’s service treatment and personnel records, would be helpful in the Board’s determination. See Colvin v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 171 (1991). The Board by this remand makes no determination, expressed or implied, concerning the credibility of any statements on file. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain a medical opinion from a VA psychiatrist or psychologist, or a psychiatrist or psychologist with whom VA has contracted, regarding the etiologies of the Veteran's acquired psychiatric disorders. The entire claims file should be reviewed, and the examiner should consider all lay statements submitted by the Veteran. Thereafter, the examiner should: (a) Determine all acquired psychiatric disorders that the Veteran has or has had since filing a claim in May 2014. (b) For PTSD, state whether the Veteran's PTSD is related to military sexual trauma. The examiner is asked to specifically discuss the following evidence: i) Lay statements in support of the Veteran’s claim from the Veteran’s wife and sister. ii) The Veteran’s statements in support of his claim to include reports that he never left the base, showered late at night, avoided the cafeteria by eating at vending machines and lost weight during service due to his symptoms and fear of another assault. ii) The October 2020 report of Dr. S.R. iii) The July 2015 pain psychology evaluation. iv) The Veteran’s performance evaluations, demonstrating improvement during service. Specifically, the examiner is asked to address whether the Veteran’s improvement corroborates his claimed in-service personal assault, as he asserts that he threw himself into his work following the assault. (c)For any acquired psychiatric disorder other than PTSD, opine as to whether the disorder is at least as likely as not related to service. A complete rationale should be provided for any opinion rendered. 2. After the above development, and any additionally indicated development, has been completed, readjudicate the issue on appeal. If the benefit sought is not granted to the Veteran's satisfaction, send the Veteran and his representative a Supplemental Statement of the Case and provide an opportunity to respond. If necessary, return the case to the Board for further appellate review. KELLI A. KORDICH Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board G. Slovick, 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.