Citation Nr: 22043945 Decision Date: 08/02/22 Archive Date: 08/02/22 DOCKET NO. 13-21 572 DATE: August 2, 2022 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder, including posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) due to military sexual trauma (MST), is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran had active service from September 1977 to March 1979. In December 2017, the Veteran testified before the undersigned at a videoconference hearing. A transcript of the hearing has been associated with the Veteran's claims file. In a February 2018 decision, the Board found that new and material evidence had been received to reopen the previously denied claim of service connection for PTSD. The Board then remanded the issue of service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder, to include PTSD, for further development of the evidence. Specifically, in the February 2018 remand, the Board requested that the Veteran be scheduled for a VA examination with an appropriate medical examiner to determine if his acquired psychiatric disorder was etiologically related to his military service. The examiner was to provide a detailed review of the Veteran's pertinent psychiatric history, current complaints, and the nature and extent of any disability, and should then should (1) identify for the record all of the Veteran's current psychiatric diagnoses, to include whether he had PTSD, and then (2) provide an opinion as to whether it was at least as likely as not that any of the Veteran's current psychiatric diagnoses had its onset in service, was due to an event or injury during service or was otherwise etiologically related to his active duty service. The examiner was to specifically address the issue of MST or personal assault raised by the record and as documented in the service treatment records (STR) dated in August 1978 as well as the diagnosis of depression in the separation examination in the March 1979. A review of the record shows that, pursuant to the Board's February 2018 remand, an examination was requested in February 2020. The Veteran was notified by letter in March 2020 that an examination had been requested through a private medical facility and that the private medical facility would notify him of the date, time, and place of the examination. However, in April 2020, the requested examination was cancelled due to the coronavirus pandemic and the Veteran's case was held in suspension until another examination could be rescheduled. In December 2020, the Veteran was again notified by letter that an examination had been requested through a private medical facility and that the private medical facility would notify him of the date, time, and place of the examination. No further information was received regarding this examination until February 2022, when a follow-up inquiry was made with the private medical facility. The private medical facility advised VA that the examination request was still pending as they had been unable to contact the Veteran but would continue to try and contact the Veteran. See February 2022 VA Form 27-0820 Report of General Information. In April 2022, VA received notification that an examination had been scheduled for that month and the Veteran failed to report. The claims file does not, however, include a copy of any notice letter that was sent to the Veteran informing him of the scheduled examination. In the absence of any notice letters, the Board cannot be certain the Veteran was aware of the date, time, and location of the scheduled VA examination. Importantly, the record reflects the Veteran experiences chronic homelessness and treatment records show difficulty in contacting the Veteran for medications and other treatment modalities. See, e.g., VA treatment records (documenting homelessness, difficulty sending medications to the Veteran, and that he was under court commitment in September 2021 and was released to inpatient care thereafter). The record also reflects that there have been several change of address notifications submitted by the Veteran that appear to continue the same address that had already been utilized by VA for all of the prior correspondence. Thus, given the Veteran's psychiatric diagnoses, an attempt to verify his correct address should be undertaken. Finally, the record does not demonstrate that the Veteran was sent a letter advising him that VA had been attempting to reach him about the recently cancelled VA examination appointment and his willingness to attend a VA examination. There is also no indication that he was advised that if VA did not hear from him, a decision might be made on his claim, until the supplemental statement of the case issued in June 2022. Despite the effort that the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ) has taken to schedule the Veteran for a VA examination in this case, the Board finds that remand is warranted for another attempt to schedule the Veteran for a VA examination. In remanding this claim again, the Board acknowledges that VA's duty to assist is not a one-way street, and a claimant cannot stand idle when the duty to assist is invoked by failing to provide important information or otherwise failing to cooperate. Wood v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 190, 193 (1991)). Additionally, it is the burden of the Veteran to keep VA apprised of his whereabouts and if he does not keep VA informed, "there is no duty on the part of the VA to turn up heaven and earth" to find him. Hyson v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 262, 265 (1993). However, given the lack of clarity in this case as to whether the Veteran was properly notified of the scheduled VA examination, and the indications in the record that the Veteran may no longer be residing at his last known address, the Board finds another attempt should be made to schedule the Veteran for a VA examination after verifying his current address. For any examination scheduled, a copy of the notice letter should be associated with the claims file and if an in-person VA examination is unable to be completed, the requested medical opinion should still be obtained based upon a review of the claims file. The matter is REMANDED for the following actions: 1. Attempt to verify the Veteran's current contact information and mailing address. 2. After completing the above, schedule the Veteran for an appropriate VA examination with an appropriate medical examiner to determine if his acquired psychiatric disorder is etiologically related to his military service. The examiner is to be provided access to the complete claims folder and a copy of this remand. The examiner is to provide a detailed review of the Veteran's pertinent psychiatric history, current complaints, and the nature and extent of any disability. Thereafter, the examiner should (1) identify for the record all of the Veteran's current psychiatric diagnoses, to include whether he has PTSD, and then (2) provide an opinion as to whether it is at least as likely as not (a 50 percent probability or greater) that any of the Veteran's current psychiatric diagnoses had its onset in service, is due to an event or injury during service or is otherwise etiologically related to his active duty service. The examiner should specifically address the issue of MST or personal assault raised by the record and as documented in the STR dated in August 1978 in the opinion. The examiner should also specifically address the diagnosis of depression in the separation examination in the March 1979. The examiner should also specifically address the lay statement of the Veteran's father contained in correspondence dated July 1983 as well as the Veteran's statement dated December 1993 and offer an opinion as to whether the medical evidence of record in the Veteran's claims file supports a diagnosis of psychosis as defined in 38 C.F.R. § 3.384 during his active duty service or within one year of separation. The examiner must provide a complete rationale in support of any opinions proffered. If the examiner is unable to provide any requested opinion, he or she must explain why such an opinion would be speculative. A. ISHIZAWAR Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board Joseph P. Gervasio 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.