Citation Nr: 21041502 Decision Date: 07/09/21 Archive Date: 07/09/21 DOCKET NO. 13-34 614 DATE: July 9, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder, to include alcohol disorder and schizoaffective disorder, depressive type is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Marine Corps from September 1973 to September 1977. This matter originally came before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from an August 2012 rating decision. This issue was remanded in a May 2016 Board decision. It returned to the Board and was denied in a February 2020 Board decision. The Veteran appealed the February 2020 Board decision to the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC). In April 2021, the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court) issued an Order granting an April 2021 Joint Motion for Partial Remand (JMR). Entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder, to include alcohol disorder and schizoaffective disorder, depressive type is remanded. The parties to the JMR found that the Board relied on an inadequate medical opinion that did not provide an adequate rationale for the opinion provided and did not comply with the May 2016 Board remand directives. In the June 2019 VA examination, the examiner "opined that Appellant's 'depressive symptoms appear secondary, at least in part, to chronic pain and diverticulosis,' but did not explain why or how she arrived at that conclusion." Additionally, she opined that, "it is 'certainly possible' that the Appellant was experiencing symptoms of depression during service, but indicated that 'this is speculative.'" The parties found the examiner "failed to explain the basis for the speculation, contrary to Jones and the Board's remand instructions." Thus, remand is warranted for a new medical opinion that provides an adequate rationale for the opinion provided. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain updated VA treatment records. 2. Thereafter, obtain an addendum opinion for the Veteran's acquired psychiatric disorder. The entire file should be made available to the examiner. The examiner is requested to review all pertinent records associated with the claims file, including the Veteran's service treatment records, post-service medical records, and assertions. The examiner must provide an opinion as to whether it is at least as likely as not (50 percent probability or greater) that the Veteran's acquired psychiatric disorder, or any diagnosed psychiatric disorder, to include alcohol disorder and schizoaffective disorder, depressive type had its clinical onset during active service or is related to any in-service disease, event, or injury, to include the Veteran's lay statements regarding his in-service onset and symptoms of his psychiatric disorder. The examiner must also consider and address: a) The Veteran's lay statements from February 2000 private treatment records, September 2010 VA treatment records, and the June 2019 VA examination, wherein he reports depression symptoms starting in 1975, racial prejudice, bullying, and verbal abuse in service, and homicidal ideation toward his drill sergeant due to abuse, b) Military personnel records regarding his discipline for unauthorized absences, disrespect of a superior, and two DUIs, and c) Service treatment records from October 1975, that report he was sprayed with mace by military police and came to the medical appointment intoxicated. The examiner is requested to provide a clear rationale and explain in detail the underlying reasoning for any opinions expressed. A discussion of the facts and medical principles involved would be of considerable assistance to the Board. If an examiner cannot provide the requested opinion without resorting to speculation, he or she should expressly indicate this and provide a supporting rationale as to why an opinion cannot be made without resorting to speculation. (continued on next page) TANYA SMITH Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board A. Papacalos, 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.