Citation Nr: 23019489 Decision Date: 03/29/23 Archive Date: 03/29/23 DOCKET NO. 19-00 991 DATE: March 29, 2023 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder, to include posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), major depressive disorder (MDD), and dysthymic disorder, is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from May 1987 to April 1991. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a December 2016 rating decision by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office. In June 2022, following notice of the Veteran's death, the Board dismissed the case due to lack of jurisdiction. However, following the acceptance of the appellant as the substitute claimant, the appeal has been returned to the Board for further appellate consideration. The Board has broadened and recharacterized the Veteran's (now the appellant's) claim for PTSD as a claim for an acquired psychiatric disorder, to include PTSD, MDD, and dysthymic disorder. Clemons v. Shinseki, 23 Vet. App. 1, 5 (2009). Entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder, to include PTSD, MDD, and dysthymic disorder. The Board notes that the Veteran's DD-214 confirmed his service aboard the USS Theodore Roosevelt. The Board also notes that the Agency of Original Jurisdiction conceded the Veteran's in-service stressor. See September 2016 VA 21-2507a Request for Physical Examination. The Veteran underwent an examination in November 2016, in which the examiner diagnosed the Veteran with unspecified trauma and stressor, alcohol use disorder, and cannabis use disorder. The examiner opined that the Veteran's unspecified trauma and stressor "seems less likely than not" due to events that may have occurred in or caused by his direct service. The Board notes that the examiner did not provide any rationale to support this conclusion. The Veteran underwent a PTSD examination in December 2018. Upon examination, the examiner diagnosed the Veteran with PTSD, MDD, and a dysthymic disorder. The examiner concluded that the Veteran's psychiatric disabilities were more likely than not caused by, secondary to, or related to his military service. However, he did not provide any rationale to support this conclusion. See April 2019 VA examination. The Board finds the November 2016 and December 2018 nexus opinions to be inadequate. In both opinions, the examiners did not provide a sufficient medical rationale to support their findings for the Veteran's diagnosed acquired psychiatric disabilities. See Nieves-Rodriguez v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 295, 302-04 (2008). In light of the above deficiencies, the Board finds that a new VA opinion is warranted to address whether any psychiatric disorder diagnosed during the Veteran's lifetime and rendered during the course of the appeal is related to the Veteran's verified in-service stressor or is otherwise attributable to his active-duty service. See Barr v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 303, 311 (2007). The matter is REMANDED for the following action: Schedule a review of the record by a psychiatrist or psychologist to determine the nature and etiology of any diagnosed acquired psychiatric disorder. The Veteran's entire claims file, to include a copy of this Remand, should be provided to the examiner. Following a complete review of the record, the examiner is asked to provide the following opinion: (A) With respect to any acquired psychiatric disorder diagnosed during the Veteran's lifetime, to include MDD and dysthymic disorder, please state whether it is at least as likely as not such had its onset in service or is related to service. (B) With respect to any diagnosis of PTSD, if rendered, please provide an opinion as to whether it is at least as likely as not that such is related to a verified in-service stressor, to include that identified in a September 2016 VA 21-2507a Request for Physical Examination. In addressing the above, the examiner is asked to consider and discuss all pertinent medical and lay evidence of record, to specifically include the findings of the November 2016 and December 2018 examinations. It is not sufficient to base an opinion on a mere lack of documentation of complaints in the service or post-service treatment records. A rationale must be provided for each opinion offered. M. M. Celli Acting Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board Hammad Rasul, 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.