Citation Nr: 23045461 Decision Date: 08/16/23 Archive Date: 08/16/23 DOCKET NO. 18-23 965 DATE: August 16, 2023 REMANDED Entitlement to an acquired psychiatric disorder, to include posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from September 1987 to September 1995. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a September 2016 rating decision issued by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). Entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder, to include PTSD, is remanded. The Veteran contends that he has an acquired psychiatric disorder, including PTSD, which he attributes to service. He appeared for a hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge in May 2023. During the hearing, he testified that he continued to receive treatment at a VA medical facility relative to his acquired psychiatric disorder, including PTSD. A review of the file reveals that no VA medical records after 2017 are present. The Veteran also has not been afforded a VA examination. VA must provide a medical examination when there is (1) competent evidence of a current disability or persistent or recurrent symptoms of a disability, (2) evidence establishing that an event, injury, or disease occurred in service, or establishing certain diseases manifesting during an applicable presumptive period for which the claimant qualifies, and (3) an indication that the disability or persistent or recurrent symptoms of a disability may be associated with the veteran's service, but (4) there is insufficient competent medical evidence on file for the Secretary to make a decision on the claim. McLendon v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 79 (2006). The Veteran's VA medical records include a diagnosis of an acquired psychiatric disorder, the Veteran has provided statements regarding his in-service PTSD stressor, he has sought follow up treatment for his disability and there is insufficient competent medical evidence on file for the Board to make a decision on the claim. Additional development is needed to determine the etiology of the Veteran's acquired psychiatric disorder. McClendon v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 79, 81 (2006). Thus, a VA examination is needed. The Board emphasizes that it is not determining whether or not the Veteran's statements that he was experiencing psychiatric symptoms following active duty service are credible, as the additional development set forth in the directives below could impact that determination. Although the Board is requesting medical opinions regarding the Veteran's assertions, this is for thoroughness and not based on a finding that the Veteran's contentions are credible. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain all updated VA medical records and associate them with the claims file. If the records are unavailable or none exist, the Veteran should be notified. 2. Schedule the Veteran for a VA examination to determine the nature and etiology of any diagnosed acquired psychiatric disorders. The entire claims file and a copy of this remand must be made available to the clinician to review. Although an independent review of the claims file is required, the Board calls the examiner's attention to the Veteran's testimony during the May 2023 Board hearing; the Veteran's February 2016 VA mental health initial evaluation; and the Veteran's July 2016 Statement that his stressors include being locked in a small, enclosed space by his shipmates and fear of a potential explosion. The clinician is asked to determine whether any acquired psychiatric disorders had their onset in and/or are otherwise etiologically related to his period of active service. The clinician is advised that an opinion based solely on lack of documentation in service and following is not sufficient. The clinician must provide a complete rationale for his or her opinion(s) in the examination report. If any of the above-requested opinions cannot be made without resorting to speculation, the clinician must state this and provide a rationale for such a conclusion. 3. Readjudicate the claim. If any decision is adverse to the Veteran, issue a supplemental statement of the case, and allow the applicable time for response. Once completed, return the case to the Board. D. Martz Ames Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board Sanders, Danielle 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.