Citation Nr: A25035408 Decision Date: 04/17/25 Archive Date: 04/17/25 DOCKET NO. 240413-432662 DATE: April 17, 2025 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder (claimed as posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD)/depression) is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from August 1977 to March 1983. He had subsequent service in the United States Army Reserve from 1983 to 2004. This case comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from an April 2024 rating decision. The agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ) denied the above claim (then characterized as two separate issues) in a November 2021 rating decision based on a supplemental claim filed in response to the initial denial filed that same month. See also August 2021 rating decision and October 2021 higher-level review rating decision based on September 2019 original compensation claim; Terry v. McDonough, 37 Vet. App. 1 (2023). The Veteran submitted a VA Form 20-0996 and requested a higher-level review of that decision in February 2022. In a February 2022 higher-level review rating decision, the AOJ identified a duty to assist error. Therefore, the claim was transferred to the supplemental claim lane and later denied in the April 2024 rating decision. The Veteran filed a VA Form 10182 in April 2024 and elected the direct review docket. Therefore, the Board may only consider the evidence of record at the time of the April 2024 AOJ decision. The Veteran also listed the 2021 rating decisions in that submission. However, notwithstanding any timeliness question for those decisions, the Board finds that no further clarification is needed for the appeal given the Veteran's choice to challenge the AOJ's most recent decision on the claim (that includes all the evidence until that time). If evidence was submitted during the time period after the AOJ issued that decision, the Board did not consider it in its decision. 38 C.F.R. §§ 20.300, 20.301, 20.801. However, the AOJ will be able to consider any additional evidence that the Board could not consider because the case is being remanded. 38 C.F.R. § 3.103(c)(2)(ii). The Veteran indicated in a November 2022 written statement that he had a representative. Nevertheless, a VA Form 21-22 or VA Form 21-22a is not of record. The Veteran also left the representative's name box blank on the April 2024 VA Form 10182, and he has not otherwise identified a representative, including after the Board's April 2024 docketing letter advising him how to appoint a representative. On review, the Board finds that additional development is necessary to correct pre-decisional duty to assist errors. Specifically, it appears that there may be outstanding service treatment records and non-VA treatment records, as detailed in the directives below. In addition, the Veteran has contended that he developed his currently diagnosed mental health disorder in significant part due to an October 1987 incident in which he was shot by an unknown assailant while in the Reserves, waiting for a ride to a drill weekend. The record contains police incident reports documenting the occurrence of that event and medical evidence indicating a nexus between the event and a current mental health diagnosis; however, the record does not provide details about the Veteran's duty status on that day. See, e.g., historical and current VA treatment records from August 2017, July 2019, August 2019, February 2022, and June 2023; September 2019 written statement; 1987 Boston Police Incident Reports received in December 2019 (show same location as Veteran's home address in Reserve service personnel records around that time); March 2024 VA examination report. Therefore, the Board finds that verification of his service for that day was needed. The case is REMANDED for the following actions: 1. The AOJ should contact the Army Records Processing Center/National Personnel Records Center, the Veteran's Army Reserve units, or any other appropriate unit or facility to attempt to secure any additional service treatment records as detailed below. The record contains development in this regard, but it appears the following requests remain pending: " Contact the Army Records Processing Center to clarify whether the Veteran has any electronic service treatment records. The Service Treatment Record Certification form received with January 2024 3101 PIES response (RV1) states "The bulk of the STR is electronic. There is minimal paper in the STR," but there does not appear to be any corresponding electronic service treatment records in the claims file. " 195th Supply Company request - November 2022 to February 2023 requests sent without response and no determination that further efforts would be futile " 167th Support Group (next higher command of 411th Quartermaster Company that has since deactivated or moved) request - March 2023 request sent and May 2023 letter to Veteran suggesting negative response received, but no actual response in the claims file " 368th Engineer Combat Battalion request - November 2022 response from Veteran with address provided for unit (replying to request for additional information that same month), no further action taken All attempts and responses should be documented in the claims file. If the search for such records has negative results, the claims file should be properly documented as to the unavailability of those records. 2. The AOJ should take appropriate steps to verify the Veteran's duty status, including whether he was on active duty, active duty for training (ACDUTRA), or inactive duty for training (INACDUTRA) on October 23, 1987. The Veteran has contended that he was shot while waiting for a ride to a Reserve drill weekend on that day and that he developed his currently diagnosed mental health disorder in significant part due to that event, as detailed in the remand body above. In attempting to obtain this information, the AOJ should contact the Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS) or any other appropriate facility and consider the information obtained in readjudicating the claim. All attempts and responses should be documented in the claims file. 3. The AOJ should request that the Veteran provide the names and addresses of any and all health care providers who have provided treatment for his mental health and following his October 1987 injury as related to his claim. After acquiring this information and obtaining any necessary authorization, the AOJ should obtain and associate these records with the claims file. The record shows that the Veteran submitted facility-specific authorization forms (rather than VA authorization forms) for Boston Medical Center and Good Samaritan Medical Center in October 2019 in connection with his initial claim. It does not appear that action or follow-up was taken related to those submissions, and as such, he should be provided another opportunity to submit or request that VA attempt to obtain those records with current authorization. J.W. ZISSIMOS Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board M. Postek, 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.