Citation Nr: 21022635 Decision Date: 04/16/21 Archive Date: 04/16/21 DOCKET NO. 16-36 326 DATE: April 16, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder, to include posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) due to military sexual trauma (MST), is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from March 1958 to February 1962. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from April 2015 and May 2015 rating decisions. The issue of service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder was remanded by the Board in August 2018 for further development. The issue of service connection for PTSD due to MST was referred to the agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ) for development and adjudication. These matters will be discussed in further detail below. In his July 2016 appeal to the Board, the Veteran requested a Board videoconference hearing. Subsequently, in February 2018, a Board videoconference hearing was held with the Veteran’s attorney present and participating and the Veteran testifying before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge (VLJ). A transcript of that hearing has been associated with the claim file. In June 2020, the Veteran’s new attorney, from the same law firm as his prior attorney, requested another Board hearing. The Board notes that all the relevant regulatory provisions clearly and plainly discuss the Veteran’s right to a hearing. See, e.g., 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.103 (c), 20.700, 20.702, 20.703, 20.1304. As noted above, the Veteran had a Board hearing in February 2018. Other than situations in which hearings have already been conducted before more than one VLJ, there is nothing in the statutory framework, regulatory provisions, or case law related to hearings that requires multiple hearings before the Board in connection with a claim. See 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.103 (c), 20.700-20.717; see also 38 U.S.C. § 7107. The Board notes that the Veteran is not entitled to more than one Board hearing as a matter of right, unless specific exceptions apply, which are not shown here. For example, if a Board decision has been appealed to the Court of Appeal for Veterans Claims (Court) and is then returned to VA from the Court, another hearing could be requested at that time. A second hearing could also be requested if the VLJ that conducted the first hearing was no longer available to decide the case. Neither of those scenarios are present here. The Board will treat the request as a motion for an additional hearing. A motion requesting relief from the usual rules regarding hearing requests, such as the request for a second Board hearing, must be accompanied by an explanation of the justification for the request. The Veteran’s attorney did not indicate why a second Board hearing was necessary, merely requesting that a Board hearing be scheduled. Here, the record reflects that the Veteran already provided testimony on the present matter and has had ample opportunity to submit evidence and argument subsequent to the hearing. The desire to provide additional testimony alone does not constitute good cause for another Board hearing. As discussed above, a hearing transcript is of record. This is not a situation where a second hearing is needed before a panel member; rather, the same VLJ who presided over the most recent hearing remains available to decide his appeal. Because neither the Veteran nor his representative have provided good cause supporting his request for a second Board hearing on this matter, an additional hearing will not be afforded. Service Connection for Acquired Psychiatric Disorder As noted at the outset, a claim of service connection for PTSD, to include MST, was referred to the AOJ for development and adjudication in August 2018. At that time, the Board determined that the Veteran had set forth multiple theories of entitlement for the issue of service connection for acquired psychiatric disorder, to include PTSD based on MST, and some of those theories overlapped. In Clemons v. Shinseki, 23 Vet. App. 1 (2009), the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court) held that the scope of a mental health disability claim includes any mental disability that may reasonably be encompassed by the claimant’s reported symptoms and other information of record. Thus, on further review the Board has recharacterized the issue on appeal. However, the Board previously found that the adjudication of the claim for an acquired psychiatric disorder could be impacted by the development of the claim seeking PTSD due to MST. The Board then instructed the AOJ, in pertinent part, to develop the claim for PTSD due to MST. To date this has not been accomplished and the matter must once again be remanded. Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268, 271 (1998). The matter is REMANDED for the following action: 1. The AOJ must develop the claim of service connection for PTSD due to MST. Thereafter, the AOJ must readjudicate the issue of service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder, to include PTSD due to MST, in light of the evidence of record. 2. If upon completion of the above action, the issue remains denied, the case should be returned to the Board   after compliance with appellate procedures. E. I. VELEZ Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board K. L. Wallin, 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.