Citation Nr: 22015392 Decision Date: 03/17/22 Archive Date: 03/17/22 DOCKET NO. 19-21 419 DATE: March 17, 2022 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for acquired psychiatric disorder, to include posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), as due to military sexual trauma (MST) is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty for 24 days in July 1972. In April 2021, the Veteran testified at a hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge (VLJ). A transcript of that hearing is associated with the record. The issues before the Board have been recharacterized as stated above to better reflect the Veteran's claim. Clemons v. Shinseki, 23 Vet. App. 1 (2009). Entitlement to service connection for acquired psychiatric disorder, to include PTSD as due to military sexual trauma is remanded. The claim must be remanded to obtain a medical opinion that addresses the likelihood of a nexus between the Veteran's current psychiatric disorder and an MST incident the Veteran states occurred during his active service. The Veteran testified that the MST incident occurred during boot camp and when he reported it to his commander he was discharged as unfit for military service. The Veteran was not in service long enough to establish markers to support his MST claim as he only had 24 days of active duty prior to his discharge. However, a July 1972 "Aptitude Board Report" noted that the Veteran's established pattern of reacting to emotional stress by walking in his sleep would prevent him being a suitable member of the Navy. Yet, despite, the Veteran's presumption of soundness at entrance to active service, there is no medical opinion that addresses whether the Veteran's emotional stress could have been from the claimed MST incident. Therefore, on remand a nexus medical opinion addressing whether the Veteran's emotional stress during service could be a marker of an MST incident during service. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: Schedule the Veteran for a VA examination (or tele-health interview, review of the record, etc., if an in-person examination is not feasible) with an appropriate VA examiner, to determine service connection for his psychological disorder. Copies of all pertinent records must be made available to the examiner. After reviewing record, to include the Reasons For Remand section above, the examiner is asked to answer the following questions: (a) Does the evidence of record clearly and unmistakably (i.e. it is undebatable) show that the Veteran had a psychological disorder disability that existed prior to his entry onto active duty for either period? (b) If the answer is yes, does the evidence of record clearly and unmistakably (i.e. it is undebatable) show that any psychological disorder was not aggravated by service or that any increase in disability was due to the natural progression of the disease? The examiner is informed that aggravation is defined for legal purposes as a chronic worsening of the underlying condition versus a temporary flare-up of symptoms beyond its natural progression (c) If the answer to either (b) or (c) is no, is it at least as likely as not (i.e., 50 percent or greater probability) that any currently diagnosed psychological disorder had its clinical onset in service or is otherwise related to service? The examiner is asked to review and discuss (i) the Veteran's April 2021 Board testimony describing being the victim of an MST during active service, and the July 1972 report that the Veteran's sleepwalking was a result of exposure to emotional stress, and (ii) whether it is more likely than not that the Veteran's emotional stress is a marker of his reported MST? The examiner is advised that the Veteran is competent to provide evidence of symptomatology readily apparent to him, regardless of whether the symptoms are noted in the service medical records or on the date of examination. The examiner may NOT rely on the absence of a medical record or evidence of medical treatment as the sole rationale for any negative medical nexus opinion. A complete rationale must be provided for all opinions. If the examiner cannot provide an opinion without resort to speculation, the examiner must state whether the need to speculate is due to a deficiency in the state of general medical knowledge; the examiner's own expertise, or; whether additional facts are required and note what, if any, additional evidence would permit such an opinion to be made. M.E. Larkin Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board M. G. Perkins, 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.