Citation Nr: 21039722 Decision Date: 07/01/21 Archive Date: 07/01/21 DOCKET NO. 16-44 601 DATE: July 1, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for posttraumatic stress disorder is remanded. Entitlement to a rating higher than 30 percent for anxiety disorder is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from January 2008 to May 2012. These matters come before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a June 2015 rating decision of a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). The Board remanded the matters for further development in December 2019. 1. Entitlement to service connection for posttraumatic stress disorder is remanded. 2. Entitlement to a rating higher than 30 percent for anxiety disorder is remanded. The Board regrets the delay in rendering a decision in these matters, but finds that further development is necessary to ensure that the Veteran's claims are afforded every due consideration. The record reflects that the Veteran has received psychotherapy at the Vet Center in Saginaw. See March 2016 Notice of Disagreement; see also September 2015, May 2017, and May 2018 VA Treatment Records. His Vet Center records have not been obtained. As these records are relevant to whether he has a diagnosis of PTSD related to an in-service stressor, and to the evaluation of the severity of his service-connected anxiety disorder, they must be obtained and added to the file. In addition, the October 2020 VA medical opinion is not sufficient to make an informed decision. The examiner concluded that the Veteran did not have PTSD, but only addressed one of his stressors vis-à-vis his symptoms and functional impairment. The examiner did not address the others, including experiencing rocket attacks when he was serving in Iraq. See February 2012 VA Examination Report; April 2015 Correspondence. The Board observes that the record is replete with diagnoses of PTSD, both during and after the Veteran's service. For example, an April 2011 service treatment record reflects a diagnosis of combat related PTSD. Most mental health professionals who have treated the Veteran since service, including psychiatrists, have also diagnosed him with PTSD. See, e.g., September 2017 VA Treatment Record. Moreover, the opinion is mostly composed of a collage of quotations from the medical records, with a paucity of comment. The examiner wrote that the diagnoses of PTSD in the records were reviewed, and that while the diagnosis is "equipoise mandated," the examiner is not "mandated to acquiesce [in] another professional's opinion." The examiner added that he had "already opined upon service connection" in the March 2015 examination, and that "[r]epetition of same would be moot." That discussion does not comply with the Board's remand directives to obtain a new medical opinion. Accordingly, the Board finds that a new VA medical opinion must be obtained that complies with its prior remand directives. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain the Veteran's Saginaw Vet Center records dated from 2015 forward. 2. Obtain a new VA medical opinion by a VA psychologist or psychiatrist as to whether the criteria for a PTSD diagnosis are met, and if so, whether it is related to an established in-service stressor, including experiencing rocket attacks. See February 2012 VA Examination Report; April 2015 Correspondence. To ensure neutrality, the opinion should not be provided by the examiner who rendered the previous opinions. If the psychologist or psychiatrist finds that another examination is necessary in order to render the opinion, then one should be arranged. The entire claims file must be made available to the examiner for review. A complete explanation must be provided that accounts for the in-service and post-service diagnoses of PTSD. P.M. DILORENZO Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board J. Rutkin, 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.