Citation Nr: 21022821 Decision Date: 04/19/21 Archive Date: 04/19/21 DOCKET NO. 16-46 991 DATE: April 19, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) as due to military sexual assault (MST) is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from February 1965 to July 1966. The Veteran testified at a Board video conference hearing in August 2019 before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge; a transcript of the hearing has been associated with the record. In a November 2019 decision, the Board denied the issue on appeal. The Veteran appealed this decision to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court). In an August 2020 Order, the Court granted a Joint Motion for Remand (JMR) of the Veteran and the Secretary of Veterans Affairs (the Parties) to vacate and remand the Board decision. Entitlement to service connection for PTSD as due to MST is remanded. The JMR found that the Veteran had not been provided notice relevant to PTSD claims based on MST under 38 C.F. R. § 3.304(f)(5). As such, this case must be returned to the agency of original jurisdiction to provide such notice. Further, the JMR indicated that the Board had not provided adequate reasons and bases for denying the Veteran’s claim. Specifically, the Board failed to address evidence that may have corroborated the instance of personal assault. In this regard, a May 1966 service record indicates that the Veteran had a period of unexcused absence from his duties for about four days. The record also includes a March 1966 service treatment record showing that the Veteran reported a rash on his testicles. Finally, although not clearly documented in the military personnel records, the JMR noted that the record does include the Veteran’s April 2015 report that he did request a transfer in his duty assignment. The Veteran was afforded a VA examination in September 2015. The VA examiner found that the Veteran’s symptoms did not meet the diagnostic criteria for PTSD under DSM-5 criteria. The examiner also indicated that the Veteran’s account of the in-service MST was not credible as the two sexual acts with other males appeared consensual/experimental. Nevertheless, the examiner did not appear to consider the possible markers of MST discussed above. As such, the Board finds that the Veteran should be afforded another VA examination with opinion. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Send the Veteran notice required for PTSD claims under 38 C.F.R. § 3.304(f)(5) based on personal assaults and allow time for a response. Ask the Veteran to provide specific information concerning in-service personal assaults. Then, based on the information provided, if possible, attempt to corroborate the Veteran's in-service stressor based on personal assault. 2. Schedule the Veteran for an appropriate VA examination conducted by a psychologist or psychiatrist in order to determine the current nature and etiology of any acquired psychiatric disorder, to include PTSD. The examiner should identify all of the Veteran’s acquired psychiatric disorders and specifically indicate whether the Veteran meets the diagnostic criteria for PTSD. The examiner must determine whether the evidence indicates that an MST occurred during the Veteran’s active service. In making this finding, the examiner must consider the following: the May 1966 period of unexcused absence from his duties during his service; the March 1966 treatment for a rash on his testicles; and the Veteran’s reports that he did request a transfer in his duty assignment. If the examiner finds that evidence indicates that an MST occurred during the Veteran’s active service, the examiner must opine whether any PTSD is at least as likely as not related to that in-service MST. For each currently diagnosed acquired psychiatric disorder other than PTSD, the examiner should offer an opinion as to whether it is at least as likely as not that any such disorder is related to the Veteran’s military service. A detailed rationale for all opinions expressed should be provided. L. M. BARNARD Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board J.N. Moats 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.