Citation Nr: 23044729 Decision Date: 08/10/23 Archive Date: 08/10/23 DOCKET NO. 19-39 008 DATE: August 10, 2023 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder, to include PTSD is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran had active service from March 1970 to March 1972. This case comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a December 2017 rating decision issued by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). The Veteran testified before the undersigned in April 2022. The transcript has been associated with the record. In a September 2022 decision, the Board remanded for a VA examination and a medical opinion. The Board finds that the VA did not substantially comply with the remand directives. 1. Entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder, to include PTSD is remanded. During the April 2022 Board hearing, the Veteran reported that he was in fear for his life when he was in Da Nang and when he was on the U.S.S. Lofberg. He explained that he started drinking and acting up to cope with all the negative emotions. He furthered that he tried to go AWOL many times because of the fear surrounding his service. In the December 2017 VA examination, the examiner opined that the Veteran's dysthymia is unrelated to the reported military service-related stressors and were more likely related to his more current physical health problems and his adjustment to alcohol abstinence. The examiner did not address the significance of his pattern of misconduct during service and how it was related to his stressors and his current psychiatric disorders. Thus, another VA opinion must be obtained. A September 2022 internal memo shows the Veteran was scheduled for an examination. An October 28, 2022 letter sent to the Veteran states that his examination was scheduled for November 2022. A November 2022 internal memo stated that the examination was cancelled due to a no show. However, the Board notes that the Veteran was in communication with the RO during that time frame regarding other pending claims. The Board finds that record unclear whether contact was made with the Veteran regarding his examination. Additionally, the Board notes that the Veteran is not required to be in person for an examination for the examiner to render a new medical opinion. However, the Veteran is advised that the duty to assist is not a one-way street and that he has an obligation to cooperate with VA in ensuring that duty is satisfied. Kowalski v. Nicholson, 19 Vet. App. 171 (2005); Wood v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 190 (1991). Any failure to attend an examination, if determined by the examiner, without good cause may result in an adverse determination. 38 C.F.R. § 3.655. By this remand the Board makes no determination, expressed or implied, as to the credibility of any statements on file. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Acquire an addendum opinion regarding the Veteran's acquired psychiatric disorder. The examiner specifically shall review the claims file, to include this remand, and render an opinion as to whether it is at least as likely as that the Veteran's acquired psychiatric disorder had its onset during or is otherwise related to his service. If the examiner determines that an in-person examination is required to render an opinion, then schedule the Veteran for an in-person examination. A detailed explanation is required to support the opinion. This means that relevant medical principles and/or literature should be discussed as it related to facts specific to the Veteran, as shown by the medical and lay evidence. In particular, the examiner should address the Veteran's reported military stressors, his pattern of misconduct during service, and whether his depressive disorder is related to that. 2. Then readjudicate service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder. If it remains denied, follow established procedure for returning it to the Board. Thomas H. O'Shay Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board Clevenger, Gordanna A. 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.