Citation Nr: 21015010 Decision Date: 03/16/21 Archive Date: 03/16/21 DOCKET NO. 18-28 078A DATE: March 16, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder, to include posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from June 1986 to June 1990. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a September 2017 rating decision. In April 2020, the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court), pursuant to a Joint Motion for Remand (JMR), vacated and remanded a July 2019 Board decision which denied entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder to include cannabis use disorder and PTSD. In August 2020, the Board issued a Remand to comply with the directives of the April 2020 JMR. The Veteran has reported multiple stressor events from his time in service. In the August 2020 Remand, the Board requested that the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ) attempt to corroborate six in-service stressors, to include contacting the Veteran to request additional information if additional details were needed. It also directed the AOJ to schedule a VA examination to determine the nature and etiology of any acquired psychiatric disorders, to include PTSD. Following the August 2020 Remand, the AOJ contacted the Veteran in August 2020 to obtain additional information about his stressors. The Veteran subsequently submitted detailed stressor statements, some of which contained dates, locations, and names. No additional stressor development was conducted by the AOJ; rather, a supplemental statement of the case continuing the denial of the Veteran’s claim was issued. The Board finds that with the information provided by the Veteran, the AOJ should attempt to corroborate the Veteran’s stressors. Once the stressor development has been completed, the AOJ should return the claims file to a qualified VA clinician, other than the one who conducted the October 2020 examination, to conduct a new VA examination. In this regard, the October 2020 VA examination did not adequately address whether the Veteran’s psychiatric disorder was at least as likely as not related to any of his six claimed stressors, to include his claimed military sexual trauma (MST). The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Provide the Veteran with the required notice regarding MST pursuant to 38 C.F.R. § 3.304(f)(5). 2. Conduct all development necessary to attempt to corroborate the Veteran’s stressors, as detailed in his statement submitted in September 2020. Requests should be sent to all appropriate agencies, including the Joint Services Records Research Center (JSRRC). Make as many requests as necessary to obtain any requested information. If more details are needed, contact the Veteran to request the information; any contact should be documented in the claims file. 3. After updating the file with any additional records or findings from above, send the claims file to an examiner other than the October 2020 examiner, to determine whether any currently diagnosed acquired psychiatric disorders, to include PTSD, had onset in, or are otherwise related to his military service. If an examination is deemed necessary, one should be scheduled. After review of the claims file, the examiner should provide an opinion as to whether the evidence indicates that an in-service personal assault(s) occurred, as the Veteran so describes. Then, the examiner should address the following: (a.) Clarify the Veteran’s acquired psychiatric disorders. In this regard, the record shows diagnoses of PTSD and adjustment disorder. If current diagnoses conflict with prior diagnoses, the examiner must reconcile his or her findings in that regard. If PTSD is diagnosed, the stressor(s) to support such diagnosis must be identified. (b.) With regard to any identified acquired psychiatric disorder, to include PTSD, is it at least as likely as not (a probability of 50 percent or greater) that such had onset in, or is otherwise related to, the Veteran’s period of active service? In offering any opinion, the examiner must consider the full record, to include the Veteran’s lay statements concerning the onset and progression of symptoms, as well as the private opinion and corresponding treatment records submitted from private therapist C.R.. The examiner should consider the Veteran’s reports of (1) unexplained deaths of fellow Marines that he knew of; (2) his claim that he was ambushed and threatened with death; (3) sexual harassment by a superior; (4) physical assault allegedly at a gun range; (5) witnessing assaults during service; and (6) an assault by citizens in Puerto Rico in 1988. The examiner should also consider whether any of the Veteran’s conditions are related to a June 1989 in-service car accident, as contended in December 2020 Attorney Correspondence. 4. After completing all requested development, the AOJ should readjudicate the service-connection claim for an acquired psychiatric disability. CHRISTOPHER A. WENDELL Acting Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board Polly Johnson, 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.