Citation Nr: 0513931 Decision Date: 05/20/05 Archive Date: 06/01/05 DOCKET NO. 02-13 935 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Winston- Salem, North Carolina THE ISSUE Entitlement to service connection for post-traumatic stress disorder. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: Daniel G. Krasnegor, Attorney WITNESSES AT HEARING ON APPEAL Appellant; appellant's spouse ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD F. Hoffman, Associate Counsel INTRODUCTION The veteran had active duty from August 1980 to April 1981. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) from a February 2004 United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court) Order granting a joint motion to vacate an April 2003 Board decision and remand the case for compliance with statutory law. This appeal originated from a January 2002 rating decision issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office in Winston-Salem, North Carolina (RO). This appeal is remanded to the RO via the Appeals Management Center in Washington, DC. REMAND Not withstanding the efforts undertaken to prepare this claim for appellate review, the Board finds that a remand is in order. On November 9, 2000, the Veterans Claims Assistance Act of 2000 (VCAA) was signed into law. See 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 5100, 5102, 5103, 5103A, 5106, 5107, 5126 (West 2002). VA has issued regulations to implement the provisions of the VCAA. See 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.156(a), 3.159, 3.326(a) (2004). The Board observes that it remanded this matter in August 2004, for compliance with the duty to notify and assist provisions of the VCAA, and all legal precedent interpreting VCAA. See generally 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 5100, 5102, 5103, 5103A, 5106, 5107, 5126; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.156(a), 3.159, 3.326(a). The Board observes that a September 2004 VCAA notification letter was sent to the veteran, in an attempt to fulfill the directives of the August 2004 Board remand. However, the veteran's claim of entitlement to service connection for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is claimed as due to in-service personal assault. Review of the claims file and the September 2004 VCAA notification letter reveals that the veteran was not sent a "stressor questionnaire," nor was he sent a sexual assault letter. Consequently, the veteran did not receive adequate notice, under VCAA, addressing the evidentiary requirements specific to PTSD, nor to PTSD as due to sexual assault. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.304(f)(3) (2004). Although the provisions of C.F.R. § 3.304 were included in the supplemental statement of the case dated in November 2004, the veteran was not provided the elements necessary to substantiate his claim based on sexual assault prior to the readjudication by the RO in the supplemental statement of the case. Charles v. Principi, 16 Vet. App. 370 (2002); Quartuccio v. Principi, 16 Vet. App. 183 (2002). The failure to comply fully with the Board's remand directives constitutes a Stegall violation, necessitating the instant remand. See Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268 (1998) (holding that a Board remand order confers on the veteran a right to compliance with the directives therein and imposes on VA a concomitant duty to ensure compliance with them). Accordingly, this case is remanded for the following action: 1. The RO must review the claims file and ensure that all notification and development action required by 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 5102, 5103, and 5103A (West 2002) are fully complied with and satisfied. See also 38 C.F.R. § 3.159 (2004). Specifically, the RO must ensure that the veteran is provided adequate notice with regard to the evidentiary requirements necessary to sustain a claim of entitlement to service connection for PTSD as due to personal assault, to include a PTSD "stressor questionnaire," a sexual assault letter, and other information as specified at 38 C.F.R. § 3.304(f)(3), and indicate which portion of any such information or evidence is to be provided by the veteran and which portion must be provided by VA. 2. Thereafter, the RO should review the claims file to ensure that the forgoing requested development has been completed. If the directives of this remand have not been complied with, the RO should implement corrective procedures at once. 3. After completing the above action, and any other development as may be indicated by any response received as a consequence of the actions taken in the paragraphs above, the claim should be readjudicated. If the claim remains denied, a supplemental statement of the case should be provided to the veteran and his representative. After the veteran and his representative have had an adequate opportunity to respond, the appeal must be returned to the Board for appellate review. No action is required by the veteran until he receives further notice; however, he may present additional evidence or argument while the case is in remand status at the RO. Kutscherousky v. West, 12 Vet. App. 369 (1999). JOY A. MCDONALD Veterans Law Judge, Board of Veterans' Appeals Under 38 U.S.C.A. § 7252 (West 2002), only a decision of the Board of Veterans' Appeals 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).