Citation Nr: A25036167 Decision Date: 04/21/25 Archive Date: 04/21/25 DOCKET NO. 240614-448868 DATE: April 21, 2025 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for alcohol abuse is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for hypertension is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active-duty service from March 2008 to September 2010. In the June 2024 VA Form 10182, Decision Review Request: Board Appeal (Notice of Disagreement), the Veteran elected the Direct Submission docket. Therefore, the Board may only consider the evidence of record at the time of the April 2024 agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ) decision on appeal. 38 C.F.R. § 20.301. Any evidence submitted after the AOJ decision on appeal cannot be considered by the Board. 38 C.F.R. §§ 20.300, 20.301, 20.801. If the Veteran would like VA to consider any evidence that was submitted that the Board could not consider, the Veteran may file a Supplemental Claim (VA Form 20-0995) and submit or identify this evidence. 38 C.F.R. § 3.2501. If the evidence is new and relevant, VA will issue another decision on the claim[s], considering the new evidence in addition to the evidence previously considered. Id. Specific instructions for filing a Supplemental Claim are included with this decision. However, because the Board is remanding the Veteran's claims, any evidence the Board could not consider will be considered by the AOJ in the adjudication of those claims. 38 C.F.R. § 3.103(c)(2)(ii). 1. Entitlement to service connection for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is remanded. 2. Entitlement to service connection for alcohol abuse is remanded. 3. Entitlement to service connection for hypertension is remanded. The Veteran seeks service connection for PTSD, alcohol abuse, and hypertension. The Board observes that it has been conceded that the Veteran participated in toxic risk exposure activities (TERA). After a review of the evidence of record, the Board finds that the AOJ committed pre-decisional duty to assist errors requiring the claims to be remanded. At issue is the conclusions reached by the examiners of record. Examinations were provided in January and March 2024. The examiners concluded that the Veteran's claimed disorders were less likely than not related to active-duty service, including via TERA for hypertension, relying upon silence in the Veteran's service-treatment records and the gap in time between service and diagnosis. These are inadequate bases for such opinions and as such render the opinions and examinations inadequate. The failure of the AOJ to ensure that adequate examinations and opinions were provided is a pre-decisional duty to assist error. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Schedule the Veteran for new examinations, with an appropriate clinician, excluding the January and March 2024 examiners to the extent possible, to determine the nature, extent, onset, and etiology of his PTSD, alcohol abuse, and hypertension. The complete claims file should be made available to the examiner(s). The examiner(s) should provide opinions as to whether it is at least as likely as not that his PTSD, alcohol abuse, and hypertension are etiologically related to the Veteran's period of service, including via conceded TERA, or to another diagnosed disorder, to include via any prescribed medications. The examiner(s) is reminded that the secondary service connection opinions must discuss both causation and aggravation (beyond a natural course) separately. All opinions must include a discussion of the Veteran's lay statements. All opinions should be accompanied by adequate reasons and bases. If the examiner(s) cannot provide the requested opinion without resorting to mere speculation, they should provide a complete explanation stating why this is so. (Continued on the next page) ? In so doing, the examiner(s) should explain whether the inability to provide a more definitive opinion is the result of a need for additional information or that they have exhausted the limits of current medical knowledge in providing an answer to that particular question(s). JIMMY L. BARDIN Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board Q. Hernan, 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.