Citation Nr: 22018369 Decision Date: 03/29/22 Archive Date: 03/29/22 DOCKET NO. 10-09 715 DATE: March 29, 2022 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder, to include posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and depression is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from March 1980 to March 1984. He died in January 2018. The appellant is the Veteran's mother. This matter is before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from an August 2009 rating decision. In September 2013 and May 2016, the matter was remanded for additional development. In September 2017 the Board denied the claim. An August 2019 U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claim memorandum decision set aside the September 2017 Board decision and remanded the matter for additional development. In June 2020 the Board remanded the matter for additional development. Entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder, to include PTSD and depression The Veteran's claim for a psychiatric disorder has been developed based on a stressor statement provided by the Veteran that he witnessed a fellow servicemembers death by suicide in March 1984 while on board the USS Worden while stationed in Pearl Harbor, HI. See March 2009 VA 21-0781 Statement in Support of Claim for PTSD. He identified the shipmate as in the gunner's mate rating. A June 2009 Casualty File notes self-infliction deaths from January 24, 1984, through March 20, 1984. See SHARE Print Screens Receipt date June 18, 2009. A July 2009 Joint Service Record Research Center (no longer in existence) memorandum notes efforts to verify the Veteran's stressor had been made. The memorandum referenced the casualty file which noted a servicemember with a similar name to who the Veteran identified in his stressor statement had died by self-infliction in March 1984. See July 2009 VA Memo. However, the March 1984 Report of Casualty notes the servicemember who died by self-infliction on March 6, 1984, died of asphyxiation in Green Cove Springs, FL. See July 2009 Military Personnel Record. The report also indicated that this servicemember was in an aviation rating and was enroute to an assignment at a Naval Air Station in Florida but had been incarcerated in a county jail since August 1983. In an electronic message from the Naval History and Heritage Command, a representative reported that a search of the USS Worden (CG-18) Command History Reports and Deck Logs from January 1 to March 22, 1984, contained no mention of a suicide by gunshot. Given the totality of the evidence, the Board is unable to conclude that the Veteran's in-service stressor occurred. See 3.304(f). Accordingly, medical opinions offered based on such incident are not probative. See March 2020 Private Medical Opinion. The Veteran had offered an alternate theory of causation of his psychiatric disabilities. The Veteran indicated that he felt he was unfairly disciplined in service, and that such action led to his issues after service. See March 2009 Correspondence. He later stated that he believed his anger began in service and continued after service. See September 2010 Correspondence. Notably, the Veteran's record contains occasional incidents of disciplinary action taken against the Veteran. See Military Personnel Record Receipt date September 29, 2008. The offenses ranged from short periods of unauthorized absence, to disrespect to a superior petty officer, to housebreaking. The latter resulted in a suspended bad conduct discharge, and the Veteran was ultimately awarded a general discharge under honorable conditions. Whether such behavior was a manifestation of mental disability is a medical question. In a March 2020 letter, a consulting private psychologist noted a review of some records provided by the appellant and interviewed the appellant. The psychologist diagnosed PTSD and attributed the cause to the Veteran's witnessing of a suicide of a friend and an unspecified incident of racism in service and that the disorder manifested from 1988 to the date of death. The psychologist did not note the specifics of the events or that she reviewed the service records. In November 2021, a doctoral level psychologist noted a review of the entire claims file including the private psychologist's letter and provided a retrospective opinion. The file contains a large number of VA outpatient treatment records since 2006. There were multiple screenings that were negative for PTSD symptoms or diagnoses yet he did participate in a mental health therapy program. However, the psychologist noted that the Veteran had been diagnosed with PTSD on several occasions but that the etiology was not consistent among the records. The psychologist cited one note from VA records in March 2008 that referred to an incident with VA police as the onset of PTSD symptoms and only that he had similar incidences in service, presumably interactions with law enforcement or other authority. This psychologist was not able to provide an opinion. Accordingly, a medical opinion which addresses such question is necessary. The matter is REMANDED for the following action: Arrange for a psychiatric opinion to ascertain the nature and etiology of the Veteran's diagnosed psychiatric disability/ies. The Veteran's record (to include this remand and the Veteran's Military Personnel Records) must be reviewed. Upon review of the record, the clinician should respond to the following: (a.) Identify (by medical diagnosis) each acquired psychiatric disability shown by the record. (b.) Identify the likely etiology for each acquired psychiatric disability. Specifically, is it at least as likely as not (a 50 percent probability or greater) that such is caused by the Veteran's service? Please identify when the diagnosed psychiatric disability was first diagnosed. (The response to this request must include comment on whether the Veteran's disciplinary problems during service early manifestations were or causes of a later diagnosed psychiatric disability). The clinician must provide a complete rationale for all findings and opinions, and a discussion of the facts and medical principles involved would be of considerable assistance to the Board. J.W. FRANCIS Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board N. Staskowski, 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.