Citation Nr: 22017609 Decision Date: 03/25/22 Archive Date: 03/25/22 DOCKET NO. 17-55 704 DATE: March 25, 2022 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection to an acquired psychiatric condition (claimed as post-traumatic stress disorder [PTSD] with drug addiction) is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Navy from November 1970 to November 1971. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a July 2016 rating decision of a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). Regarding the acquired psychiatric disability, the Board notes that the Veteran filed his initial service connection claim for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) with drug addiction; and the RO denied the claim as entitlement to service connection for PTSD with drug addiction. However, in Clemons v. Shinseki, the United States Court of Appeals for Veteran's Claims (Court) held that, in determining the scope of a claim, the Board must consider the claimant's description of the claim; symptoms described; and the information submitted or developed in support of the claim. Clemons v. Shinseki, 23 Vet. App. 1, 5 (2009). In light of the Court's decision in Clemons, the Board has re-characterized the issue on appeal as entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder. This will provide the most potentially favorable review of the Veteran's claim in keeping with the Court's holding in Clemons. Acquired Psychiatric Condition The Board is of the opinion that additional development is required before the issue on appeal is decided. The Veteran is seeking service connection for an acquired psychiatric disability. The Board notes that the Veteran's service treatment records (STRs) do not indicate that he was treated in service for a psychiatric condition. Additionally, the Veteran's VA treatment records indicate that he is diagnosed with several drug abuse related disabilities; however, the Board notes that service connection for the Veteran's drug use on a direct basis is precluded by law. 38 U.S.C. § 105(a); 38 C.F.R. § 3.1(m), 3.301(d). However, the Veteran has provided lay statements that his condition may have begun due to depression/stressors of working on a ship and sending other service-members to Vietnam. The evidence supports the fact that the Veteran served abroad the U.S.S. Denver while in service. Further, the Board notes that to date, the Veteran has not been afforded a VA examination to address the etiology of his claimed disabilities. As such, the Board finds examinations and medical opinions are necessary to determine whether the Veteran has any currently diagnosed psychiatric disabilities, to include PTSD, which were caused by, aggravated by, or otherwise etiologically related to his active military service. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: Afford the Veteran a VA examination by an examiner with sufficient expertise to address the etiology of the Veteran's claimed acquired psychiatric conditions. The electronic records should be made available to and reviewed by the examiner. All pertinent evidence of record must be made available to and reviewed by the examiner. Any indicated studies should be performed. Following a review of the relevant records and lay statements, the examiner should state an opinion as to the following: a) Whether the Veteran has any diagnosed acquired psychiatric conditions, to include PTSD, that at least as likely as not (a 50 percent probability or greater): originated during his period of active service or are otherwise etiologically related to his active service. b) Whether the Veteran's diagnosed drug abuse disorders are at least as likely as not (a 50 percent probability or greater) caused or aggravated by any diagnosed acquired psychiatric disabilities. The examiner must provide a complete rationale for all proffered opinions. In this regard, the examiner must discuss and consider the Veteran's competent lay statements. If an examiner is unable to provide any required opinion, he or she should explain why. If an examiner cannot provide an opinion without resorting to mere speculation, he or she shall provide a complete explanation as to why this is so. If the inability to provide a more definitive opinion is the result of a need for additional information, the examiner should identify the additional information that is needed. T. REYNOLDS Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board T. Gresham 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.