Citation Nr: 21028689 Decision Date: 05/11/21 Archive Date: 05/11/21 DOCKET NO. 11-19 320 DATE: May 11, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran had active military service from August 2005 to May 2006. This matter was originally on appeal from a July 2010 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), Regional Office (RO) in St. Paul, Minnesota. In August 2012, the Veteran testified at a videoconference hearing. A transcript of that hearing is included in the claims file. The issue of entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disability other than PTSD was previously before the Board. Following the Board's remand in March 2017, the RO issued a rating decision in July 2017, granting service connection for somatic symptom disorder with anxiety and depression, which constitutes a full award of the benefit sought on appeal with respect to that issue. AB v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 35, 39 (1993). Remand is required to obtain an adequate addendum opinion. Where VA provides the veteran with an examination in a service connection claim, the examination must be adequate. Barr v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 303, 311 (2007). The Board is obligated by law to ensure that the RO complies with its directives. Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268, 271 (1998). RO compliance with remand directives is not optional or discretionary and the Board errs as a matter of law when it fails to ensure remand compliance. Stegall, 11 Vet. App. at 271. This case was most previously before the Board in February 2018. In the February 2018 remand the Board directed the examiner to use the DSM-IV criteria in evaluating the Veteran. Although in April 2019 a VA PTSD examination was conducted, it appears that the examiner did not evaluate the Veteran using the criteria of DSM-IV. The Board therefore finds that the April 2019 opinion is inadequate to decide the claim. As such, a new VA opinion is required to determine if the Veteran has PTSD under the appropriate DSM-IV criteria. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain all VA treatment records for the Veteran dated from April 2019 to the present. 2. Contact the Veteran and afford him the opportunity to identify by name, address and dates of treatment or examination any relevant non-VA medical records. Subsequently, and after securing the proper authorizations where necessary, make arrangements to obtain all the records of treatment or examination from all the sources listed by the appellant which are not already on file. The RO must make two attempts to obtain any private records identified. If private records are identified, but not obtained, the RO must notify the Veteran of (1) the identity of the records sought, (2) the steps taken to obtain them, (3) that the claim will be adjudicated based on the evidence available, and (4) if the records are later obtained, the claim may be readjudicated. 3. After any additional records are associated with the claims file, schedule the Veteran for an examination by a psychiatrist or psychologist who has not been involved in this case previously, if possible. The examiner should be provided the claims file in conjunction with the examination. All pertinent symptomatology and findings should be reported in detail. The examiner must express an opinion as to whether the Veteran meets the criteria for PTSD. The examiner must utilize the DSM-IV rather than DSM-5 in making this determination. If the examiner finds that the Veteran meets such criteria, the examiner must identify the stressor that serves as the basis for the diagnosis. If PTSD is diagnosed, and a stressor is identified, the examiner is asked to provide an opinion as to whether it is at least as likely as not (a 50 percent probability or more) that PTSD began in service, was caused by service, or is otherwise related to service, to include related to the in-service stressor. ROBERT C. SCHARNBERGER Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board David Nelson 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.