Citation Nr: 21042122 Decision Date: 07/12/21 Archive Date: 07/12/21 DOCKET NO. 18-08 644 DATE: July 12, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder, claimed as bipolar disorder, depression, anxiety, and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from September 1993 to February 1998. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a rating decision of a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). In March 2021, the Veteran testified before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge (VLJ). A hearing transcript is associated with the record. At that time, the Veteran waived consideration by the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ) in the first instance of any additional evidentiary submissions. The Board has recharacterized the Veteran's claim for bipolar disorder, depression, anxiety, and PTSD as a claim for an acquired psychiatric disorder, to include bipolar disorder, depression, anxiety, and PTSD, to more broadly reflect that the Veteran seeks service connection for symptoms regardless of how those symptoms are diagnosed or labeled. Clemons v. Shinseki, 23 Vet. App. 1 (2009). The Board observes that, in his June 2016, the Veteran contended that entitlement to a total disability rating based on individual unemployability due to service-connected disability (TDIU) was not considered. The Veteran is advised that all claims for benefits must be submitted on required forms. Effective on March 24, 2015, VA amended its rules as to what constitutes a claim for benefits; such now requires that claims be made on specific claim form prescribed by the Secretary and available online or at the local Regional Office. This provision effectively removed informal claims from VA's processes. It is noted that the issue before the Board is not a claim for increase and, therefore, a TDIU claim may not be inferred as raised part-and-parcel of this appeal. See Rice v. Shinseki, 22 Vet. App. 447 (2009). The Veteran contends that his current psychiatric disorders are due to witnessing a fellow Marine commit suicide during service. See Hearing Transcript at 5-6 (March 2021). The Board finds that remand is required to ensure that VA has met its duty to assist the Veteran by obtaining relevant outstanding records. 38 U.S.C. § 5103A(c); 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(c)(2). In a September 2017 statement, the Veteran reported in-service stressors involving him being forced to fight other Marines, witnessing a Marine commit suicide at a rifle marksmanship range, and that a Marine was murdered in his barracks without an arrest made. A report of investigation from the U.S. Naval Criminal Investigative Service shows that a Marine committed suicide at a firing range in September 1994 at Camp Hansen, Okinawa, Japan, and corroborates the Veteran's statement. Although the service records obtained show that the Veteran was awarded a rifle marksmanship badge and was assigned to Okinawa, Japan in June 1994, there is no indication in the record that VA attempted to verify whether the Veteran's unit was conducting rifle marksmanship training on the day of the suicide. A remand is required to allow VA to attempt to corroborate the Veteran's reported stressor. Additionally, the Veteran reported during his Board hearing that he received employee assistance for his psychiatric disorders while working for the U.S. Post Office. However, there is no indication that VA attempted to obtain these records. A remand is required to allow VA to attempt to obtain any available records in the custody of a Federal department or agency. The Board acknowledges that the Veteran's private treatment records show diagnoses of depression, anxiety, bipolar disorder, and PTSD. See Medical Treatment Record - Non-Government Facility (July 2016), (March 2021). Although the records indicate that the Veteran's PTSD is secondary to witnessing a suicide during service, this evidence is insufficient to award the benefit sought as the alleged stressor event underlying the diagnosis for PTSD has not been verified. In remanding this matter, the Board makes no finding, implicit or otherwise, as to the credibility of the Veteran's assertions. Neither the Veteran's credibility nor any lack thereof should be presumed in this remand. The matter is REMANDED for the following action: 1. Attempt to verify the Veteran's asserted in-service stressors. Requests for information pertaining to the Veteran's unit(s) of assignment in Okinawa, Japan, and the units utilizing the Camp Hansen rifle marksmanship range on September 2, 1994 should be sent to the National Personnel Service Records (NPRC), the Textual Records office at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), the U.S. Department of Army, Records Management and Declassification Agency (RMDA), and any other appropriate agency. If it is determined that the records do not exist or that further attempts to obtain the records would be futile, a formal finding should be entered into the record outlining the development taken and the Veteran should be notified and provided the opportunity to obtain and submit the evidence. 2. Obtain the Veteran's federal employment records from the U.S. Post Office. Document all requests for information as well as all responses in the claims file. If it is determined that the records do not exist or that further attempts to obtain the records would be futile, a formal finding should be entered into the record outlining the development taken and the Veteran should be notified and provided the opportunity to obtain and submit the evidence. 3. Conduct any other development deemed necessary, which may include obtaining a VA examination to address whether the Veteran has an acquired psychiatric disorder related to an in-service injury or disease if the alleged stressor event (or another in-service event/ injury) is verified or otherwise conceded. 4. Readjudicate. C.A. SKOW Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board Thaddaeus J. Cox, 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.