Citation Nr: 21041442 Decision Date: 07/09/21 Archive Date: 07/09/21 DOCKET NO. 17-46 718 DATE: July 9, 2021 REMANDED Service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from April 1977 to October 1977 and had additional service in the National Guard until 2003. The Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) denied service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder, to include posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and bipolar disorder with symptoms of depression and anxiety, in an October 2019 decision. In January 2021, the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims granted a joint motion to remand the claim to the Board for further development and readjudication. The parties to the joint motion agreed that remand was necessary, in part, because the Board failed to address the adequacy of the April 2018 VA examination and opinion. The parties noted that the 2018 examiner indicated she reviewed only the "VA claims file (hard paper copy C-file)" despite instructions to "review the Veteran's electronic folder(s) and state that it was reviewed in [the] report." Thus, it is unclear whether the examiner's opinion was based on a complete and accurate review of all available records. In May 2021, the Veteran submitted additional argument regarding the examiner's opinion. The Veteran asserts that it was inadequate because the examiner did not address the onset of her psychiatric disorder(s) and relevant VA treatment records. One such record from May 2005 shows that she reported attempting suicide in 1977; another from March 2010 show that she reported having several episodes of hypomania in her 20s and 30s. The Veteran also contends that her claim should include a cognitive disorder and/or psychiatric residuals of a traumatic brain injury (TBI). See Clemons v. Shinseki, 23 Vet. App. 1, 5 (2009). VA treatment records from March 2015 show that she reported memory problems and a history of TBI in the military. In December 2016, a VA neuropsychologist diagnosed her with major neurocognitive disorder. In a July 2017 statement, the Veteran suggested that her cognitive problems may be due to hitting her head on a railroad tie during active duty for training; service treatment records document a May 1998 line of duty injury involving a railroad tie. Based on the above, the Board finds that remand to the agency of original jurisdiction for a new examination and opinion is warranted. The Board by this remand makes no determination, expressed or implied, concerning the credibility of any statements on file. The matter is REMANDED for the following action: 1. Schedule the Veteran for a mental health examination with an appropriate clinician. After reviewing the claims file, including this remand, the examiner should provide an opinion on the following: With respect to any psychiatric disorder diagnosed, is it at least as likely as not (50 percent or greater probability) that the disorder is etiologically related to service, or that it manifested within one year of discharge from service? If the examiner diagnoses PTSD, the specific stressor on which that diagnosis is based must be identified. In particular, the examiner should discuss the evidence identified in the Board's remand, including the May 2005 VA treatment record noting a reported suicide attempt in 1977; the March 2010 VA treatment record noting reported episodes of hypomania in the Veteran's 20s and 30s; the March 2015 VA treatment record noting a reported history of TBI in the military; and the Veteran's July 2017 lay statement about hitting her head on a railroad tie during active duty for training. 2. Review the medical opinion above to ensure substantial compliance with the Board's directives. Take any necessary corrective action. 3. Readjudicate the claim in a supplemental statement of the case, and allow the Veteran and her representative the opportunity to respond. Then return to the Board for further appellate review. KELLI A. KORDICH Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board D.Z. Wall, 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.