Citation Nr: 21040888 Decision Date: 07/07/21 Archive Date: 07/07/21 DOCKET NO. 18-11 743 DATE: July 7, 2021 REMANDED Service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder (APD) is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from September 1974 to April 1975. In December 2019, the Veteran appeared and provided testimony at a hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge (VLJ). A transcript of the hearing is of record. Service connection for an APD is remanded. The Veteran asserts that his acquired psychiatric disorder is due to his active duty service. He testified at his December 2019 hearing that he joined the military because he wanted to fight. However, after he joined the military, he stated that all his fellow service members did was drink and smoke weed and that he did not want to go into a foxhole with them. He testified that he had to break command and get out of there. The Board notes that his service treatment records (STRs) are silent for any complaints, treatment, or diagnosis for any mental health disorders. This issue was previously before the Board in February 2020. The Board noted that the Veteran had been discharged from the military after seven months and remanded the issue because his claims file did not indicate a reason for his discharge and contained very few service personnel records. Since the February 2020 Board decision, the Veteran's outstanding personnel records have been associated with his claims file. An April 1975 Discharge Letter was contained in the personnel records. The letter stated that the Veteran's discharge was due to two absences without leave, where he did not show remorse. It was noted that his conduct and attitude had rapidly deteriorated and future disciplinary problems could only result from retaining him. In May 2020, the Veteran's sister, a registered nurse, provided a lay statement regarding the Veteran's mental health. She recalled that he went AWOL, while in the military, and that he reported that he did not want to go into the fox hole because he was fearful that he would not ever come out. She opined that in her professional opinion, his anxiety related back to his traumatic experience in the military. She also wrote a second letter in which she indicated that the Veteran had significant learning and cognitive problems his whole life. A review of the Veteran's post-service treatment records shows that he has been diagnosed with major depressive disorder (MDD). See VA Treatment Record dated October 16, 2015. The Board acknowledges that the Veteran's sister, as a registered nurse, is competent to provide a medical opinion. However, her medical opinion was not supported by a sufficient rationale, as there was no explanation as to why she believed his anxiety related back to his military service. Moreover, there is no indication that the Veteran's sister has specific psychiatric training. Here, the Board regrets that another remand will further delay a decision in this case. However, given that there is an indication, provided by a competent medical professional, that the Veteran's APD is due to his active duty service, the Board finds that remand is necessary to afford the Veteran a VA examination to determine the nature and etiology of his APD. McLendon v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 79 (2006). The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Schedule the Veteran for a VA examination, preferably with a psychiatrist or psychologist to determine the nature and etiology of his acquired psychiatric disorder (APD). The examiner should provide the following opinion: Is it at least as likely as not (50 percent or greater probability) that the Veteran's APD had its onset during the Veteran's active duty service, or is proximately due to or caused by the Veteran's active duty service? Why or why not? The examiner's attention is directed to the April 10, 1975 Discharge Letter, which discusses the reasons for his discharge and the Veteran's sister's (a registered nurse) May 26, 2020 Lay Statement, where she opined that his anxiety related back to his traumatic experience in the military, as well as her earlier statement that the Veteran had experienced cognitive difficulty his whole life (VA 21-4138 Statement In Support of Claim dated 5/26/2020). MATTHEW W. BLACKWELDER Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board E. Fu, Associate 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.