Citation Nr: 21022129 Decision Date: 04/14/21 Archive Date: 04/14/21 DOCKET NO. 17-01 297 DATE: April 14, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder, to include posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), schizophrenia, and a bipolar disorder, is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran had active service from March 1998 to March 2001. For the period of service from October 2002 to August 2003, the Veteran’s character of discharge is in dispute, as discussed below. Whether he has an acquired psychiatric disability related to his service is not in question. What is in dispute is the character of service during which the psychiatric disability was acquired. As an initial matter, the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) notes that, in Clemons v. Shinseki, 23 Vet. App. 1 (2009), the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court) held that claims for service connection for PTSD also encompass claims for service connection for all psychiatric disabilities afflicting a veteran based on a review of the medical evidence. The medical evidence indicates that the Veteran has been diagnosed as having a schizoaffective disorder and a bipolar disorder. Thus, his claim for service connection for PTSD has been recharacterized as is defined above to reflect better the medical evidence of record. By way of background, this case originates following a severance of service connection for PTSD due to the Veteran’s “stressor” incident occurring during a period of service for which he was separated with an “other than honorable” discharge. Because his service was considered other than honorable, he is barred from VA benefits stemming from injuries or events occurring during that period of service. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.12. Service connection for PTSD was severed effective March 1, 2012. The Veteran did not appeal. Thereafter, in October 2013, the Veteran filed a new claim for service connection of PTSD. That claim was denied because his PTSD was incurred during a period of service considered to be dishonorable for VA purposes. In April 2014, the Veteran filed a new claim for service connection for PTSD and bipolar disorder and, in so doing, maintained that the conditions were incurred during his previous period of honorable active service. The claim was denied, and he appealed. During the course of the current appeal, the Veteran submitted a Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty (DD214) for the service period of October 2002 to August 2003 which described his service for this period as “honorable.” This document contradicts the previously available separation documents listing this period of service as “other than honorable.” In its April 2019 denial of service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder, to include PTSD, a schizoaffective disorder, and a bipolar disorder, the Board confirmed the AOJ denial of this service connection claim based on the character of the Veteran’s service for the period during which his psychiatric disorders were incurred. That Board decision also states that the Veteran did not contend that his character of discharge was honorable or was not “other than honorable,” for the period in question. The Veteran appealed the Board’s April 2019 decision to the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC). CAVC granted a Joint Motion for Remand (JMR) in which the parties agreed that the Board erred in failing to consider the Veteran’s argument (and his submitted DD214 as evidence) that his service for the period of October 2002 to August 2003 was honorable. The April 2019 Board decision and the January 2020 JMR are incorporated herein by reference. Personnel documents of record indicate that, during the period of service in question, the Veteran was stationed as a prison guard at the U.S. Naval Station at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. During that assignment, an incident occurred in March 2003 involving an inmate that led to the Veteran being disciplined, returned to his National Guard Unit in South Carolina, and eventually discharged. The March 2003 incident is also the in-service “stressor” leading to his PTSD diagnosis and the initial grant of service connection for PTSD. In order to properly adjudicate this claim, the Veteran’s service records must be reconciled to determine the appropriate character of discharge during the time of his stressor incident. As mentioned above, in 2018, the Veteran submitted a DD214 issued by the Army stating that his period of service from October 2002 to August 2003 was honorable. Alternatively, the Veteran’s separation documents from the South Carolina Army National Guard characterize his service from November 2001 to August 2003 as under other than honorable conditions. Unfortunately, a remand is necessary in order for this evidence to be reconciled and considered by the AOJ. Accordingly, this matter is REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain any outstanding personnel records for this Veteran, specifically for the period of service from October 2002 to August 2003 concerning his discharge from active duty. Records should be requested from any sources with information pertaining this period of service. 2. Obtain any outstanding medical records for the period in question, specifically, any records concerning the incident that took place in March 2003 leading to his discharge, and any other mental health service treatment records available. 3. Then, reconcile the available records to determine the appropriate character of discharge for this Veteran for the period of service from October 2002 to August 2003. No action is required of the Veteran until he is notified by VA. However, he is advised of his obligation to cooperate in ensuring the duty to assist is satisfied. Kowalski v. Nicholson, 19 Vet. App. 171 (2005). He is also advised that he has the right to submit additional evidence and argument with respect to this matter. Kutscherousky v. West, 12 Vet. App. 369 (1999). This appeal must be afforded prompt treatment. THERESA M. CATINO Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board M.E. Lee 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.