Entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder, to include posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), mood disorder, and/or schizoaffective disorder, is remanded.

Citation Nr: 26001444 Decision Date: 01/30/26 Archive Date: 01/30/26 DOCKET NO. 14-04 899 DATE: January 30, 2026 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder, to include posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), mood disorder, and/or schizoaffective disorder, is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for a substance and/or alcohol use disorder, as secondary to an acquired psychiatric disorder, is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Marine Corps from August 1971 to August 1975, to include at least 30 days of service at Camp Lejeune. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from an April 2013 rating decision by an Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ) of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). In October 2015, the Veteran testified at a videoconference hearing before the undersigned. In April 2016, October 2018, March 2021, and December 2021, the Board remanded this matter for additional development. In September 2022, the Board denied entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder other than a substance use and/or alcohol use disorder, to include PTSD, mood disorder, and/or schizoaffective disorder, as well as entitlement to service connection for a substance use and/or alcohol use disorder. The Veteran appealed the September 2022 Board decision to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC). In June 2023, the CAVC granted a Joint Motion for Remand (JMR) submitted by the Veteran and the Secretary of VA, vacated the September 2022 Board decision, and remanded the matter to the Board for compliance with the JMR instructions. The Secretary and the Veteran agreed that the Board erred when it failed to address whether VA satisfied the duty to assist the Veteran in obtaining private in-patient substance abuse treatment records. See JMR at 2-3. The Secretary and the Veteran also agreed that the Board erred insofar as it failed to provide adequate reasons and bases regarding the Veteran's claimed stressors, to include the Veteran's report of nine days of temporary duty at Nam Phang, Thailand, sometime between July 1973 and July 1974. See JMR at 3-4. In January 2024 and July 2024, the Board remanded this matter to achieve substantial compliance with the June 2023 JMR directives. In January 2025, the Veteran appointed a different Veteran Service Organization (VSO) as his representative in this matter, which automatically revoked his prior representation. 38 C.F.R. §§ 14.631(f)(1)(the receipt of a new power of attorney executed by the claimant and the organization or individual providing representation shall constitute a revocation of an existing power of attorney). That same day, the VSO requested to rescind representation, as it did not know that the Veteran had an active Board remand and its bylaws prohibited from accepting representation at such a time. See January 2025 Correspondence. The Board finds this is good cause to withdraw from representation. 38 C.F.R. § 20.6(a)(2). The VSO requested to reinstate the prior VSO as the Veteran's representative, if possible. Id. The Board advised the Veteran of these circumstances, as well as his right to representation in this matter. See November 2025 BVA Letter. However, the Veteran has not appointed a new representative and is proceeding pro se in this matter. Substantial Compliance The AOJ achieved substantial compliance with some, but not all, of the Board's remand directives. The AOJ substantially complied with the Board's first two remand directives. In this regard, it obtained outstanding VA treatment records and attempted to obtain any records relating to the Veteran being struck by a vehicle in 1979, as well as records from Ingalls Hospital. See, e.g., July 2024 Subsequent Development Letter; August 2024 Subsequent Development Letter. Although the Veteran provided a release for records from Ingalls Hospital and VA attempted to obtain these records, VA was informed that the hospital did not possess any of the Veteran's records. See, e.g., August 2025 Third Party Correspondence. However, the AOJ did not substantially comply with the Board's third and fourth remand directives. Specifically, the Board directed the AOJ to attempt to verify the Veteran's report of eight or nine days of temporary duty at Nam Phong, Thailand, aka the "Rose Garden," in July 1973. The Board also directed the AOJ to attempt to verify the Veteran's report that another member of his unit, Lance Corporal Cheer, had a possibly fatal overdose while serving at Nam Phong during this timeframe. See July 2024 Board Remand at 7-8. In August 2025, the AOJ made a formal finding that the Veteran's claimed stressors could not be conceded. The AOJ found that it had "the information [Research and Records (RAR)] requires to verify the Veteran's claimed stressors in Thailand" and that the "RAR Response showed that there was not enough evidence to support that the stressor did occur during the Veteran's tour of duty with his unit." See August 2025 Formal Finding. The formal finding explained that the Command Chronologies of the Veteran's unit from July 1973 to December 1973 and January 1974 to June 1974 showed that the Veteran's unit was stationed at Camp Foster, Okinawa and Camp Lejeune, North Carolina. Id. The AOJ's formal finding is not adequate. The formal finding accurately stated that the Veteran's unit, the 3rd Force Service Regiment, was stationed in Okinawa from July 1973 to December 1973. However, the AOJ did not address the Logistic Support Group deployed at Nam Phong that was deactivated and returned in August 1973. See July 1973 - December 1973 Command Chronology at 6. The Board explicitly advised the AOJ that the 3rd Force Service Regiment Command Chronology referenced the return of this deployed Logistic Support Group from Nam Phong, as well as four deaths occurring in the unit during this period. See July 2024 Board Remand at 7. 1. Entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder, to include PTSD, mood disorder, and/or schizoaffective disorder, is remanded. 2. Entitlement to service connection for a substance and/or alcohol use disorder, as secondary to an acquired psychiatric disorder, is remanded. As noted above, the AOJ failed to achieve substantial compliance with the Board's remand directives. The Board takes notice that Task Force Delta was the command at Nam Phong during the relevant timeframe. See, e.g., Command Chronology at 6 (referencing return of "Logistic Support Group - Delta" from deployment at Nam Phong). See Monzingo v. Shinseki, 26 Vet. App. 97, 103 (2012) (allowing for taking of judicial notice of facts of universal notoriety that are not subject to reasonable dispute); Smith (Brady) v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 235, 238 (1991) (citing Fed. R. Evid. 201(b)). On remand, the AOJ should attempt to obtain the Command Chronology for the Logistic Support Group, Task Force Delta, covering the period beginning July 1973. If this is particular Command Chronology cannot be obtained, the AOJ should attempt to obtain other records that relevant to Nam Phong during this timeframe, such as the Command Chronology for Task Force Delta for period beginning July 1973. Once the AOJ has obtained the records identified above, an addendum opinion should be secured addressing the nature and etiology of the Veteran's claimed psychiatric disorders. Updated VA treatment records and any outstanding relevant private treatment records should also be secured. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Secure updated VA treatment records. 2. With any necessary assistance from the Veteran, secure any outstanding relevant private treatment records. 3. Obtain records relating to the Veteran's report of serving in Nam Phong, Thailand for eight or nine days in late July or early August 1973. Specifically, the AOJ should attempt to obtain the Command Chronology for the Logistic Support Group, Task Force Delta, a sub-unit of the 3rd Force Service Regiment, for period commencing July 1973. If the above Command Chronology cannot be obtained, the AOJ should attempt to obtain the Command Chronology for Task Force Delta for the period from July 1, 1973 to September 21, 1973, or other records addressing Nam Phong, Thailand (the "Rose Garden") during July 1973 and August 1973. 4. If and only if additional records are obtained after completing directives #1, #2, and #3, refer the claims file to an examiner for preparation of an addendum opinion. No further examination of the Veteran is necessary unless the examiner determines otherwise. The examiner should address the following: (a) Diagnose all acquired psychiatric disorders present since March 2013, to include schizoaffective disorder and mood disorder, even if subsequently resolved. (b) For each disorder diagnosed in subpart (a) other than a substance use disorder, opine as to whether it is at least as likely as not (approximately 50 percent probability or nearly 50 percent probability) than such disorder had its onset during or is otherwise etiologically related to service. In addressing subpart (b), the examiner should address any stressor(s) conceded by the AOJ. A complete rationale for the examiner's opinion should be provided, citing to specific evidence of record, as necessary.? If the examiner cannot provide an opinion without resort to speculation, the examiner must state whether the need to speculate is due to a deficiency in the state of general medical knowledge (no one could respond given medical science and the known facts), a deficiency in the record (additional facts are required), or the examiner (does not have the knowledge or training). If the inability to provide an opinion without resorting to speculation is due to a deficiency in the record (additional facts are required), the AOJ should develop the claim to the extent it is necessary to cure any such deficiency. If the inability to provide an opinion is due to the examiner's lack of requisite knowledge or training, then the AOJ should obtain an opinion from a medical professional who has the knowledge and training needed to render such an opinion. S. BUSH Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board Badaczewski, Donald M. 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.