Citation Nr: 22010540 Decision Date: 02/24/22 Archive Date: 02/23/22 DOCKET NO. 17-53 496 DATE: February 24, 2022 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Navy from May 1987 to August 1987 and in the United States Air Force from November 2001 to June 2002. The Veteran also had additional periods of Reserve service. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from the July 2017 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). The Veteran's appeal stems from her January 2015 (dental) and May 2015 (psychiatric) service connection claims. While the RO initially denied service connection for dental and psychiatric disorders in a May 2015 rating decision, such decision was not mailed to the address then of record and was returned to sender. As noted in the Board's 2019 remand, the Veteran was not properly notified of the May 2015 decision, and therefore it did not become final. See 38 C.F.R. § 20.1103. As such, the Veteran's initial service connection claims were not adjudicated until the July 2017 decision on appeal. In a December 2019 decision, the Board remanded the claim to obtain an examination and medical opinion. In February 2021, the Board denied the claims for service connection for a dental disorder and an acquired psychiatric disorder. The Veteran appealed this decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans' Claims (Court). In October 2021, the Court granted the Parties' Joint Motion for Partial Remand (JMPR), which vacated part of the February 2021 Board decision and remanded the matter to the Board. In the JMPR, the parties agreed, as did the Court, that the Board failed to ensure substantial compliance with the December 2019 remand instructions related to the psychiatric claim; specifically, the Board's December 2019 remand directives requested the examiner to "acknowledge and discuss the competent September 2017 lay statements submitted by the Veteran's brother and sister that state that the Veteran has psychiatric problems related to service and that may have had their onset while she was on active duty." However, neither the VA examination nor the addendum discussed the September 2017 lay statements. Accordingly, the Board must remand the claim for compliance with the JMPR. The Veteran did not challenge the portion of the Board's decision denying entitlement to service connection for a dental disorder. The matter is REMANDED for the following action: 1. Ensure all outstanding VA treatment records are associated with the claims file. 2. Obtain another medical opinion from a qualified clinician to determine the nature and etiology of her acquired psychiatric disorder, to include persistent depressive disorder. The need for an examination is left to the discretion of the examiner. The claims file and a copy of this remand must be made available to the examiner for review, and the examiner must specifically acknowledge receipt and review of these materials in any reports generated. After a review of the claims file, the examiner is asked to respond to the following: (a) Provide an opinion as to whether it is at least as likely as not (50 percent or greater probability) that the acquired psychiatric disorder, to include persistent depressive disorder, had its onset in service or is otherwise related to service. * In responding to these questions, the examiner must acknowledge and discuss: (1) the competent September 2017 lay statements submitted by the Veteran's brother and sister that state that the Veteran has psychiatric problems related to service and that may have had their onset while she was on active duty; and (2) the January 2022 lay statement from the Veteran, dated December 20, 2021, regarding the nature of her psychiatric disability. A complete rationale for all opinions must be provided. 3. Thereafter, after ensuring that the examiner discussed the lay statements as requested above, readjudicate the remanded claim. S. B. MAYS Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board M. Moldawer, 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.