Citation Nr: 22018488 Decision Date: 03/29/22 Archive Date: 03/29/22 DOCKET NO. 14-35 568A DATE: March 29, 2022 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder, to include posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from September 1983 to July 1986. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) from a July 2012 rating decision of a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). In December 2020, the Veteran testified before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge by virtual hearing. A transcript of the hearing is of record. In a March 2021 decision, the Board denied the Veteran's claim. The Veteran subsequently appealed the decision to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court). In December 2021, the Court granted a Joint Motion for Remand (JMR) that vacated and remanded the Board's March 2021 decision. Entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder, to include PTSD, is remanded. In the JMR, the parties agreed that the Board erred by failing to ensure VA satisfied the duty to assist in verifying the Veteran's stressors. They noted that the Veteran identified two potential stressors related to his PTSD: (1) his time working in the arms room and (2) a plane crash that killed 248 people from his post. See Statement in Support of Claim for Service Connection for PTSD, received July 2011); Letter from Veteran submitted with PTSD statement, received July 2011; December 2020 Board Hearing Transcript. As to the Veteran's time working in the arms room, he identified that he worked in the arms room from March 1984 to July 1986. He indicated that the location of the arms room was "HQ Lea, Ft. Campbell, KY," and that he was assigned to the "HQ law enforcement activity" unit. The Veteran also further named multiple persons whom he worked with. As to the plane crash, the Veteran provided the name of his friend that took his place, the date of the crash, the fact that the plane was carrying the 101st Airborne back to Fort Campbell, KY, from Egypt, and the location of the crash in Canada. The JMR indicates that the Board failed to comply with the duty to assist regarding corroborating the Veteran's stressors, despite him providing specific details regarding the claimed stressors. The appeal is remanded for this to occur. Additionally, in January 2022, the Veteran requested that the case be remanded for the RO to review additional evidence he submitted. This included a statement from a mental health professional diagnosing persistent complex bereavement disorder. Following the stressor development, the Veteran should be scheduled for a VA psychiatric examination to determine the nature and etiology of any acquired psychiatric disorder. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Attempt to corroborate the Veteran's in-service stressors for the PTSD claim to include his assertions summarized in the JMR and reproduced above in this Remand. If more details are needed, contact the Veteran to request the information. 2. After stressor development has been completed, schedule the Veteran for an examination with an appropriate clinician to determine the nature and etiology of any acquired psychiatric disorder. The examiner must review the claims file, the evidence submitted by the Veteran subsequent to the JMR, and a copy of this remand. a) If the Veteran is diagnosed with PTSD, the examiner must explain how the diagnostic criteria are met and opine whether it is at least as likely as not related to a verified in-service stressor. b) If any other acquired psychiatric disorders are diagnosed, the examiner must opine whether each diagnosed disorder is at least as likely as not related to an in-service injury, event, or disease. The examiner must provide a rationale in support of all opinions provided. D. JOHNSON Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board M. G. Mazzucchelli, 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.