Citation Nr: 21031820 Decision Date: 05/24/21 Archive Date: 05/24/21 DOCKET NO. 18-31 610 DATE: May 24, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disability is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty in the U.S. Navy from September 2011 to September 2015. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a November 2016 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) regional office (RO) which denied entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disability. The Veteran timely appealed. The Veteran testified in a Board videoconference hearing before a Veterans Law Judge who is no longer with the Board in June 2020. A copy of the hearing transcript is of record. In March 2021, the Veteran was notified that the VLJ who conducted the hearing is no longer with the Board and was offered the opportunity for another hearing. He was also advised that if he did not respond within 30 days, the Board would assume he did not want to have another hearing and it would proceed accordingly. The Veteran did not request another hearing within 30 days of this notice. As such, the Board has appropriately proceeded with the adjudication of his appeal. Entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disability is remanded. In August 2020, the Board remanded the matter on appeal for additional evidentiary development. Included in the remand was the directive that a VA examiner should consider and address all medical and other objective evidence of record, to include the June 2015 service treatment record documenting the Veteran's reports of increased depression and excessive worry. The Veteran was provided a VA examination where a diagnosis of major depressive disorder with anxious distress and psychotic features was confirmed. The VA examiner determined that the claimed condition was less likely than not incurred in or caused by service, reasoning that no service treatment records referencing mental health issues were seen in service and describing instances of inconsistent statements made by the Veteran throughout his post-service history of mental health treatment. However, the VA examiner failed to address the June 2015 service treatment record and the Veteran's lay assertions regarding continuity of symptomatology since that time as requested in the August 2020 remand directives. As the RO did not substantially comply with the mandates of the Board's August 2020 remand order, the claim must be remanded to ensure such compliance. See Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268 (1998) (finding that where the remand orders of the Board are not substantially complied with, the Board errs as a matter of law when it fails to ensure such compliance). The matters are REMANDED for the following action: Obtain an addendum opinion from an appropriate clinician regarding whether the Veteran's major depressive disorder with anxious distress and psychotic features at least as likely as not (i.e. a 50 percent or greater probability) had its onset during service or is otherwise related to service, to include psychiatric symptoms reportedly experienced therein. In addressing the above, the clinician must consider and address all medical and other objective evidence of record, to include the June 2015 STR documenting the Veteran's report of symptoms of increased depression and excessive worry. The clinician must also consider and discuss all lay assertions, to include the Veteran's assertions as to the nature, onset, and continuity of symptoms, to include depression. The clinician is advised that the Veteran is competent to report his symptoms and history, and his assertions in this regard must be specifically considered in formulating the requested opinion(s). If lay assertions in any regard are discounted, the clinician should clearly so state, and explain why. Complete, clearly stated rationale for the conclusions reached must be provided. JENNIFER HWA Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board L. Bush 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.