Citation Nr: 23023979 Decision Date: 04/26/23 Archive Date: 04/26/23 DOCKET NO. 19-11 595 DATE: April 26, 2023 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for an acquired mental health disability is remanded. (The issue of entitlement to an initial compensable rating for allergic rhinitis will be the subject of a separate Board decision under the Appeals Modernization Act.) REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran had active service from August 1981 to July 1986. On last review of this case the Board remanded it to the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ) for additional development. See 08/27/2019 BVA Decision. The AOJ endeavored to complete the additional development and returned the case to the Board for further appellate review. See 07/20/2020 SSOC. As discussed below, however, the Board finds less than substantial compliance. See Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268, 271 (1998). In the 2019 review of this case the Board noted that in opining on whether it was at least as likely as not that the Veteran's currently diagnosed mental disorder is causally related to his active service, the medical examiner improperly applied a more rigorous standard. The addendum report (01/14/2020 C&P Exam, 2nd Entry) reflects that the same clinician noted the correct legal standard of at least as likely as not. Nonetheless, the Board notes further that the clinician continued to use terms such as "no clear indication of any nexus," and "there does not seem to be any clear link between the behavioral markers contributing to his eventual service discharge." Id. P. 6. Further, there is no indication that the VA clinician considered the November 2019 non-VA psychological evaluation (11/07/2019 DBQ), which was of record. Hence, the Board finds that the medical opinion was based on less than a complete record. An AOJ June 2018 email notes that the Veteran had identified by name the fellow soldier whom he claimed had a hand injured or blown off by an ammunition blast and asked that the incident be researched for verification. See 06/29/2018 Email Correspondence. The Board finds no indication in the claim file that the Veteran's claimed stressor was researched. This must be completed. Although there are some five volumes of the Veteran's military personnel records (MPR) in the claim file, the Board notes that there are hardly any from the Veteran's tour in Germany (GE), where he served 14 to 15 months. The Veteran bases on his claim on events that he asserts occurred during that tour. Accordingly, the Board finds that a request to search for additional MPRs from GE is indicated. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Ask the NPRC to search for additional personnel records extant related to the Veteran for A CO 78th Engr BN (C), APO NY 09351 [identify the unit exactly as shown] for the period June 1983 to August 1984. Document all efforts to obtain the records. 2. Execute the research action noted in the June 2018 email or if done, add the results to the claim file. 3. After the above is complete, arrange a review of the claim file by a clinician other than the one who performed the 2018 and 2020 examinations and rendered the nexus opinions. Ask the clinician to review the claim file and then, 1) identify all acquired mental disorders shown by the evidence of record; 2) then opine on whether it is approximately at least as likely as not that either or all had onset in active service or is otherwise causally related to active service. Inform the clinician that all opinions, to include the number of mental disorders shown by the evidence, must be fully explain. Further, a full explanation must include a discussion of the 2019 DBQ completed by Owen A. Biller, Ed.D., and his psychological evaluation of the Veteran. The VA mental health clinician must indicate agreement or disagreement with Dr. Biller and the reasons why. Inform the clinician further that the Board has not made a credibility determination on the Veteran's lay reports. Hence, the clinician should assess the record of the Veteran's lay reports in light of the objective evidence of record. If the clinician advises that an examination is needed to provide the requested opinion, the AOJ shall arrange the examination. 4. Upon completion of the above, readjudicate the claim as appropriate. Eric S. Leboff Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board Snyder, William T. 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.