Citation Nr: 21041261 Decision Date: 07/08/21 Archive Date: 07/08/21 DOCKET NO. 16-54 141 DATE: July 8, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder, to include posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from January 1979 to July 1983. This appeal comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) from a March 2016 rating decision by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in St. Louis, Missouri. In September 2019, the Veteran testified before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge (VLJ). A hearing transcript is associated with the record. A December 2019 Board decision denied the Veteran's claim for service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder, to include PTSD. The Veteran appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court). The parties submitted a Joint Motion for Remand (Joint Motion) and, in a March 2021 Court Order, the Court granted the Joint Motion, partially vacating the Board's December 2019 decision and remanding the matter for compliance with the Joint Motion. Entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder, to include PTSD, is remanded. The Veteran, and his representative, contends that his acquired psychiatric disorder is related to his military service in Korea. Specifically, the representative argues that it stems from the Veteran witnessing a fellow servicemember's accidental shooting death prior to engaging in "war games." See Brief (October 2019); see also Hearing Transcript (September 2019). For reasons explained below, the Board finds that remand is necessary. In August 2015, the Veteran reported that while having breakfast with a fellow servicemember in Korea, he witnessed a training serviceman accidently shoot and kill the servicemember. The Veteran additionally identified the specific month and year of the alleged incident, and the unit assignment during the incident. The agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ), in March 2016, issued a formal finding of a lack of information to corroborate the stressor. The formal finding, however, has the deceased servicemember's name incorrectly misspelled. Moreover, it is unclear whether the AOJ submitted a request for records to the U. S. Army and Joint Services Records Research Center (JSRRC) based on this information, or whether the AOJ solely reviewed the 2006 JSRRC Stressor Verification Guide without requesting records. The Board observes that there has been a recent regulatory amendment removing the reference to the JSSRC in 38 C.F.R. § 3.156(c)(2). The Federal Register explained that the JSRRC no longer exists, but that the military records themselves previously researched by the JSRRC remain available for research by VA as an official source of records. Nevertheless, the Board finds that remand is necessary for further development of the Veteran's alleged in-service stressor. 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(c)(2). The matter is REMANDED for the following actions: 1. Ask the Veteran to complete a VA Form 21-4142 for all non-VA medical providers seen for symptoms and treatment of his acquired psychiatric disorder. Make two requests for the authorized records from all identified sources, unless it is clear after the first request that a second request would be futile 2. Attempt to corroborate the Veteran's in-service stressor. If more details are needed, contact the Veteran to request the information. Issue a Formal Finding outlining the steps taken to assist the Veteran and notify the Veteran of VA's inability to verify the in-service stressor. 3. Obtain the Veteran's VA treatment records for the period from May 2021 to the Present. 4. After completing any additional development deemed necessary, readjudicate the claim. 5. If the benefit sought remains denied, provide a supplemental statement of the case to the Veteran and his representative and afford them an opportunity to respond. C.A. SKOW Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board A. Griffey, 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.