Citation Nr: 22046745 Decision Date: 08/17/22 Archive Date: 08/17/22 DOCKET NO. 19-35 974A DATE: August 17, 2022 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Navy from March 1995 to March 1998. This matter comes before the Board on appeal from an August 2018 rating decision issued by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). The Veteran filed a claim seeking service connection for depression in June 2018. In Clemons v. Shinseki, 23 Vet. App. 1 (2009), the Court held that a claimant seeks service connection for the symptoms of a disability, regardless of how those symptoms are diagnosed or labeled. Therefore, the claim has been recharacterized as one of entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder. The Veteran was provided a Board hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge in February 2022. A transcript of the hearing testimony has been associated with the record. 1. Entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder is remanded. The Veteran contends that his acquired psychiatric disorder is the result of his service. See June 2018 Application for Disability Compensation and Related Compensation Benefits (VA Form 21-526EZ). At his February 2022 Board hearing, the Veteran testified that his present acquired psychiatric disorder was the result of suffering traumatic events in-service, to including being nearly blown off a United states Navy vessel. Additionally, the Veteran has submitted a medical surveillance report that lists the potential hazards onboard the vessel on which the Veteran was assigned to work. The named hazards include being "blown over the side" of the ship. A September 2018 VA mental disorders Disability Benefits Questionnaire (DBQ) report reflected diagnoses of severe alcohol use disorder and adjustment disorder with depressed mood. The September 2018 VA examiner provided an etiology opinion as to secondary service connection only; direct service connection was not addressed. An August 2018 VA examiner diagnosed the Veteran with an other specified trauma and stressor related disorder and provided an etiology opinion as to secondary service connection; again, direct service connection was not addressed. Upon review, the Board finds that remand is warranted to allow for an etiology opinion that addresses direct service connection. Further, the opinion should also address the medical surveillance report that specifically mentions being blown over the side of the ship as a potential hazard. On remand, these contentions should be addressed with an adequate rationale provided. See Barr v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 303 (2007). The matter is REMANDED for the following action: 1. The Veteran should be given the opportunity to identify any outstanding private or VA treatment records relevant to the claim on appeal. After obtaining any necessary authorization from the Veteran, all outstanding records should be obtained, to include updated VA treatment records. For private treatment records, make at least two (2) attempts to obtain records from any identified sources. If any such records are unavailable, inform the Veteran and his representative and afford him an opportunity to submit any copies in their possession. For federal records, all reasonable attempts should be made to obtain such records. If any records cannot be obtained after reasonable efforts have been made, issue a formal determination that such records do not exist or that further efforts to obtain such records would be futile, which should be documented in the claims file. The Veteran must be notified of the attempts made and why further attempts would be futile, and allowed the opportunity to provide such records, as provided in 38 U.S.C. § 5103A(b)(2) and 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(e). 2. Following the receipt of outstanding records, forward the Veteran's claims file, to include a copy of this remand, to an appropriate medical professional for a VA examination and opinion regarding the etiology of the Veteran's acquired psychiatric disorder. The record, including a complete copy of this remand, must be made available for review in connection with the examination, and all indicated tests should be performed. All necessary tests and studies should be conducted. The need for further in-person examination is left to the discretion of the examiner. The examiner should respond to the following question: Is it at least as likely as not (approximately a 50 percent probability or greater) that the Veteran's acquired psychiatric disorder is the result of his service? The examiner should particularly address the Veteran's reported in-service stressors and the service medical surveillance report mentioning potential hazards, including being blown off the ship. A rationale should be provided for any opinion offered. If it is not possible to provide a specific opinion regarding the above questions, the examiner must state whether the need to speculate is due to a deficiency in the state of general medical knowledge (no one could respond given medical science and the known facts), a deficiency in the record (additional facts are required), or the examiner (does not have the knowledge or training). The medical opinion must support the conclusions reached with an analysis that is adequate to consider and weigh against other evidence of record; medical opinions must contain not only clear conclusions with supporting data, but also a reasoned medical explanation connecting the two. If an opinion cannot be expressed without resort to speculation, ensure that the clinician so indicates and discusses why an opinion is not possible, to include whether there is additional evidence that could enable an opinion to be provided, or whether the inability to provide the opinion is based on the limits of medical knowledge. KRISTY L. ZADORA Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board Kashif I. Ali, Associate 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.