Citation Nr: 21015883 Decision Date: 03/18/21 Archive Date: 03/18/21 DOCKET NO. 18-16 906 DATE: March 18, 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 with the United States Army from September 1972 to December 1973. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from an October 2016 rating decision issued by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). The Veteran testified before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge (VLJ) at a hearing in November 2019. This case was previously before the Board in April 2020, when it was remanded for development. The case has been returned to the Board for further appellate review. Entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder, to include PTSD, is remanded. In its April 2020 remand, the Board noted there are no adequate opinions addressing all the psychiatric diagnoses in the record. In June 2020, the RO obtained an addendum opinion, in which the examiner opined that the Veteran’s symptoms are best accounted for by a diagnosis of “depressive disorder/mood disorder.” The examiner did not discuss the nature of this diagnosis in any detail. Further, the examiner opined that these disorders more likely than not had their onset after the Veteran’s military service; it appears the examiner based this conclusion on a lack of continuity of treatment between service and 2015, but did not offer any explicit explanation or rationale for the opinion. This addendum opinion is therefore inadequate, and another remand is necessary. See Barr v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 303, 311 (2007) (once VA undertakes to provide an examination, it must provide an adequate one); see also Buchanan v. Nicholson, 451 F.3d 1331, 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (that reports of symptomatology are not supported by contemporaneous clinical evidence does not render them inherently not credible). Also, the Board directed the RO attempt to obtain the Veteran’s treatment records from the Vet Center. The Veteran submitted his authorization for this request, but it appears the attempt to retrieve records was construed only as a request for VAMC records, and not Vet Center records. On remand, the RO should again attempt to obtain the Vet Center records. The matter is REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain any outstanding VA treatment records, as well as any outstanding treatment records from the Montgomery Vet Center, and associate them with the Veteran’s file. If the Veteran’s May 2020 authorization for Vet Center records has expired at the time of the request, obtain a new authorization from the Veteran. 2. Forward the claims file to an appropriate clinician to determine whether any current psychiatric disorder is related to the Veteran’s military service. If the examiner determines that an additional interview is required, one should be scheduled; please note, telehealth interview is an acceptable platform. Following review of the claims file and, if indicated, examination of the Veteran, the examiner should identify all psychiatric disorders currently found during the pendency of this claim (since approximately July 2016). In doing so, the clinician should address the various psychiatric diagnoses in the record, including, but not limited to, probable personality disorder, mood disorder, depressive disorder, and PTSD. If the clinician finds that any of these diagnoses do not apply, the clinician should opine whether the diagnosis was made in error, or whether the diagnosis has progressed or resolved, etc. If PTSD is diagnosed, the clinician must identify the stressor or stressors upon which the diagnosis is made. For each current psychiatric disorder identified at any time during the course of the appeal, the clinician should opine whether it is at least as likely as not (50 percent or greater probability) that the disorder began in or is otherwise caused by the Veteran’s active service. All findings must be reported in detail and all opinions must be accompanied by a clear rationale. If any of the above issues cannot be resolved without resorting to speculation, then a detailed medical explanation as to why this is so must be provided. M. HYLAND Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board K. Josey, 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.