Citation Nr: 21040910 Decision Date: 07/07/21 Archive Date: 07/07/21 DOCKET NO. 16-63 191 DATE: July 7, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), for substitution purposes, is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from October 1961 to September 1965. The Veteran died in September 2015. The Appellant is his surviving spouse. This appeal arose from an October 2014 rating decision by the Department of Veteran Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). In October 2019, the Board remanded the claim for further evidentiary development. After a thorough review of the evidence, regrettably, the Board finds that another remand is necessary prior to the adjudication of the Appellant's claim. The Appellant is seeking entitlement to service connection for the Veteran's PTSD. The Appellant asserted that the Veteran developed PTSD due to witnessing a helicopter crash during his service, which resulted in the deaths of three fellow soldiers. Initially, the Veteran stated that the crashed occurred in February or March of 1965. Then, the Veteran received details regarding the crash from the acting Director of Safety at Camp Pendleton. The Veteran stated that the helicopter crash occurred on December 26, 1964. He also provided the bureau and squadron number. See December 2013 VA Form 21-0958 (Notice of Disagreement). As outlined in the October 2019 Board Remand, the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ) contacted the Marine Corps Archives and Special Collections, Naval Safety Center, Naval History and Heritage Command (Archives Branch), U.S. Marine Corp History Division, and National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). In those requests, the AOJ requested documentation regarding the helicopter crash occurring February or March of 1965. Those agencies responded that they were not in possession of those records. Additionally, the Marine Corp History Division advised the AOJ to directly contact the legal department of the Navel Safety Center regarding any investigations regarding a helicopter crash. In the October 2019 Board remand, the Board directed the AOJ to contact the Director of Safety at Camp Pendleton and the legal department of the Navel Safety Center to verify the helicopter crash using the details provided by the Veteran in the December 2013 VA Form 21-0958. The AOJ's subsequent development included contacting the Marine Corps Historical Center. In those requests, the AOJ used the February/March 1965 date. The AOJ did not provide the details provided by the Veteran from the Director of Safety regarding the December 1964 date of the crash or the bureau or squadron number. More importantly, the evidence does not show that the AOJ contacted the Director of Safety at Camp Pendleton or the legal department of the Navel Safety Center regarding the details of the December 1964 helicopter crash. As stated before, the Board specifically directed the AOJ to contact these entities. See Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268, 271 (1998). Furthermore, in the November 2013 correspondence, the readjustment counselor, who provided treatment to the Veteran, stated that he experienced symptoms that met the diagnostic criteria for PTSD as a result of traumatic military experiences Another stressor involving witnessing the suicide of another solder was also provided in that correspondence. In March 2020, the VA examiner opined that it was at least as likely as not that the Veteran had a diagnosis of PTSD in 2013. There has been no development to verify this alleged stressor. Accordingly, the Board finds that another remand is necessary in order for the AOJ to follow the prior Board's directives regarding verification of the December 1964 helicopter crash, in addition to conducting development, to the best possible extent, regarding witnessing the suicide of another soldier. The matter is REMANDED for the following action: 1. The AOJ must contact the Director of Safety at Camp Pendleton and the legal department at the Naval Safety Center, requesting to provide any documentation and information verifying the December 1964 helicopter crash detailed by the Veteran. In the requests, the AOJ must provide the December 1964 date (December 26, 1964), the bureau number, and the squadron number provided by the Veteran in December 2013. See December 2013 VA Form 21-0958 (Notice of Disagreement). 2. To the best extent possible, the AOJ should request from the Appellant, or the readjustment counselor who provided treatment for the Veteran, additional information and evidence relevant to stressor involving witnessing the suicide of another soldier. Should the Appellant or his treating counselor provide sufficient information regarding this claimed stressor, request that the United States Army and Joint Services Records Research Center (JSRRC) provide any available information which might corroborate the Veteran's alleged in-service stressor. Forward a copy of the Veteran's DD Form 214, together with any new stressor information that has been obtained, to the JSRRC for an attempt at stressor verification. The JSRRC should be asked to provide any additional information that might corroborate this stressor. If the search for corroborating information regarding any of the stressors leads to negative results, the AOJ must notify the Appellant and her representative of this fact, explain the efforts taken to obtain this information, and describe any further action to be taken. If the described stressors lack sufficient information for verification, such should be noted in a formal finding. 3. After the development directed above has been completed to the extent possible, to include obtaining a medical opinion if deemed warranted by the AOJ, the case should again be reviewed by the AOJ on the basis of all of the evidence on the record. If any benefit sought remains denied, furnish to the Appellant and her representative an appropriate supplemental statement of the case (SSOC). The Appellant and her representative should be afforded the appropriate time period to respond. Thereafter, if indicated, the case should be returned to the Board for the purpose of appellate disposition. No action is required of the Appellant until she is notified by VA. However, she is advised of his obligation to cooperate in ensuring the duty to assist is satisfied. Kowalski v. Nicholson, 19 Vet. App. 171 (2005). The Appellant also is advised that she has the right to submit additional evidence and argument with respect to this matter. Kutscherousky v. West, 12 Vet. App. 369 (1999). This appeal must be afforded prompt treatment. Timothy Berryman Acting Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board T. Berryman, 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.