Citation Nr: 0510222 Decision Date: 04/08/05 Archive Date: 04/21/05 DOCKET NO. 97-34 193 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Baltimore, Maryland THE ISSUE Entitlement to service connection for a post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: Disabled American Veterans WITNESS AT HEARING ON APPEAL Appellant ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD Carole R. Kammel, Counsel INTRODUCTION The veteran served on active duty from June 1965 to May 1967. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a September 1997 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Baltimore, Maryland, wherein the RO denied service connection for PTSD. The record reflects, however, that the veteran had initially filed a claim for service connecting for PTSD in October 1991, and service connection was denied by the RO in a May 1992 rating action. An application to reopen the claim for service connection for PTSD was received in May 1997. In a May 2000 decision, the Board determined that new and material evidence had been received to reopen the claim for service connection for PTSD and remanded the claim to the RO for additional development. Thereafter, in June 2002, the Board sent the veteran's case to its Evidence Development Unit, to undertake development specific to the claim. In July 2003, the Board remanded the veteran's claim to the RO for additional development. REMAND The veteran contends that he has PTSD as a result of recovering corpses while on a search and rescue mission (SAR) while serving in the United States Coast Guard (USCG) in 1965 or 1966. Originally, the veteran contended that the stressful incident occurred in the vicinity of Thomas Point Lighthouse in the Chesapeake Bay, near Annapolis, Maryland, and involved three bodies. Later, he specifically identified two of the victims as [redacted] and [redacted]. He submitted a copy of a death certificate for an individual named [redacted], who died on May [redacted], 1966. (An autopsy report, dated August 29, 1966, reflects that [redacted] died as a result of drowning in a roadside puddle). The veteran also named [redacted] as another individual whom he recovered as a result of drowning after he jumped from a bridge. (An August 12, 1966 news article reflects that the USCG had searched for a man named "[redacted]" who had jumped off a boat in or near the Baltimore Harbor. The article did not report the recovery of a body.) In the June 2002 development request, the Board requested from the USCG any maintenance records in their possession on CG 40478, specifically whether the records showed the vessel to have been located at Curtis Bay, Maryland, or Baltimore Station, Maryland, during the period from 1965 to 1967. In a September 2003 letter to the veteran, the USCG indicated that they had reviewed their files and the files of Maintenance Logistics Command Atlantic, Maintenance Logistics Command Pacific and Engineering Logistics Center in Baltimore, Maryland and that none of the maintenance records requested on CG 40478 had been located. However, USCG informed the veteran that the maintenance records of CG 40478 could be obtained from the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). A review of the claims files does not reflect that the RO subsequently contacted NARA to request any maintenance records of CG 40478. (The NARA had previously indicated in October 2001 that it did not have log books for the time period in question, but maintenance records were apparently not researched.) The Board also notes that the VA physician, M.A.K., M.D., who has diagnosed the veteran with PTSD has specifically linked the disability to the episode of May 1966 where the veteran pulled Mr. [redacted] body from the water. Now that there is evidence that Mr. [redacted] died from falling into a puddle of water along a roadway, not from drowning in deep water as the veteran claimed, the Board believes that further medical opinion evidence on the question of whether the veteran in fact experiences PTSD should be obtained. Finally, a review of the claims files reflects that that veteran is receiving Social Security Administration disability benefits (see June 1991 Social Security Administration award letter.) Thus, VA must attempt to obtain the records of a Social Security disability determination when they could be relevant to a claim. See Murincsak v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 363 (1992). In this case, such records could be relevant to the veteran's claim of entitlement to service connection for PTSD. Accordingly, the veteran's case is REMANDED to the RO for the following actions: 1. The RO should contact the NARA and request all maintenance records of CG 40478 from 1965 to 1967. Any forthcoming records must associated with the claims files. If any of the requested records can not be located, documentation as to efforts to obtain the records must be recorded in the claims files. 2. The RO should attempt to obtain from the Social Security Administration medical records used in making their June 1991 decision. If these records cannot be obtained, documentation as to their absence must be noted in the claims files. 3. The veteran should then be afforded a VA psychiatric examination to determine if he has PTSD. The examiner should be made aware of the circumstances surrounding Mr. [redacted] death as shown by the autopsy report. Psychological testing with a view toward determining whether the veteran indeed has PTSD should be conducted. The psychiatrist should be asked to explain whether the veteran currently meets the diagnostic criteria for PTSD. If PTSD is identified, the precipitating stressor(s) should be fully described. The physician should note whether any of the claimed in-service stressors, singly or taken together, are linked to the veteran's current symptomatology. The examiner should provide a thorough explanation for the conclusions reached. The claims files must be made available to the examiner for review. 4. After the above-requested development has been completed, and after giving the appellant an opportunity to supplement the record, the RO should review the case and assure that all requested actions are accomplished. The RO should then re- adjudicate the issue of entitlement to service connection for PTSD. If the determination remains adverse to the veteran, he and his representative should be furnished a supplemental statement of the case and afforded an opportunity to respond. Thereafter, the case should be returned to the Board for further appellate review, if in order. By this remand, the Board intimates no opinion as to any final outcome warranted. No action is required of the veteran until he is notified by the RO. The veteran has the right to submit additional evidence and argument on the matter the Board has remanded to the RO. Kutscherousky v. West, 12 Vet. App. 369 (1999). This case must be afforded expeditious treatment by the RO. See 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 5109B, 7112 (West Supp. 2004). ________________________________ MARK F. HALSEY Veterans Law Judge, Board of Veterans' Appeals Under 38 U.S.C.A. § 7252 (West 2002), only a decision of the Board is appealable to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. This remand is in the nature of a preliminary order and does not constitute a decision of the Board on the merits of your appeal. 38 C.F.R. § 20.1100(b) (2004).