Citation Nr: 22015488 Decision Date: 03/17/22 Archive Date: 03/17/22 DOCKET NO. 16-49 352 DATE: March 17, 2022 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder, to include posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), mood disorder with anxious and depressive features, also claimed as mental illness, is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran had active service from August 1972 to August 1973. This matter is before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) rating decision dated in June 2013. The Veteran testified before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge (VLJ) in a March 2019 Board Hearing. The claims file contains a transcript of the hearing. Most recently, the Board denied the above-listed claim in a May 2021 Board Decision. The Veteran appealed that decision to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC), and the CAVC issued an order granting the parties' January 2022 Joint Motion for Remand (JMR) to vacate the decision and remanded the case back to the Board for compliance with the JMR. In the January 2022 JMR, the parties agreed that the May 2021 Board decision was inadequate in two respects. First, the parties agreed that the Board had failed to provide an adequate statement of reasons and bases for its credibility determination with respect to the Veteran's reports of harassment by a sergeant during his service. Because the matter must be remanded for other reasons, the Board is not making any final credibility determinations at this time. However, the Veteran should understand that the Board may determine that his reports of being harassed during his active service and that this harassment caused his current acquired psychiatric disorder are not credible or are otherwise not entitled to probative weight. See Smith v. Wilkie, 32 Vet. App. 332, 334 (Apr. 27, 2020) ("the principles of fair process require the Board to provide claimants notice and an opportunity to respond when it purports to reverse prior assertions that evidence is credible or otherwise satisfactory to establish a fact necessary to the claim"). Therefore, the Veteran should submit additional evidence or argument on that issue as he and his representatives deem appropriate. Second, the parties agreed that the record did not contain an adequate opinion regarding whether the Veteran's current acquired psychiatric disorder(s) is (are) related to his active service. See January 2022 JMR (noting the 2016 and 2020 VA examiner's opinions were contradictory and the 2020 VA examiner's opinion was internally inconsistent). Because the record does not include an adequate opinion addressing the determinative issue in this matter, remand is required. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain the Veteran's VA treatment records for the period from July 2020 to the Present. 2. Schedule the Veteran for a psychiatric examination. Following the examination, the examiner should opine as to whether any diagnosed psychiatric disorder is at least as likely as not related to his active service, particularly including in-service documentation of "character and behavior disorders" (see August 1973 Memo re Discharge; July 1973 Psychiatric Evaluation) and alleged harassment by a sergeant. Provide a rationale to support the opinion(s). In providing the requested opinion, consider the Veteran's description of his/her in-service harassment and symptoms as well as his post-service symptoms. If there is any medical reason to accept or reject the proposition that the Veteran's reported in-service harassment and symptoms in service and thereafter represented the onset of his/her current disability, this should be noted. Stated another way, do the Veteran's reports about his symptoms align with how the currently diagnosed disability is known to develop or are the Veteran's reports generally inconsistent with medical knowledge or implausible? 3. If the Veteran fails to report for the examination, the RO should still forward the claims file for the above opinion. MICHELLE L. KANE Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board Kerry Hubers 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.