92 Decision Citation: BVA 92-17875 Y92 BOARD OF VETERANS' APPEALS WASHINGTON, D.C. 20420 DOCKET NO. 91-51 747 ) DATE ) ) ) THE ISSUE Entitlement to service connection for a psychiatric disorder. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: Disabled American Veterans WITNESS AT HEARING ON APPEAL The veteran ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD Jill L. Rygwalski, Associate Counsel INTRODUCTION This matter came to the Board of Veterans' Appeals (hereinafter Board) on appeal from a rating decision of the St. Petersburg, Florida, Regional Office (hereinafter RO). The veteran had peacetime service. Rating decisions dated in December 1990 and January 1991 denied the veteran's claim for service connection for a psychiatric disorder. The veteran filed a notice of disagreement in February 1991 and the statement of the case was issued later that month. The veteran filed his substantive appeal in April 1991. At the veteran's request, a hearing was held at the RO in June 1991. The case was received and docketed at the Board in December 1991. The veteran has been represented in his appeal by the Disabled American Veterans. That organization submitted written argument on behalf of the veteran in December 1991 and March 1992. REMAND We note that the RO developed for consideration by the Board the issue of "Newness and materiality of evidence to establish service connection for a nervous condition," on the basis that service connection for a nervous disorder had been denied by a rating decision dated in August 1985. On review of the claims file, we note, however, that the veteran was not notified in 1985 that service connection for a psychiatric disorder had been denied. Therefore, the veteran's claim must be adjudicated on a de novo basis. We also note that the veteran, at the time he filed his recent claim for entitlement to service connection for a psychiatric disorder, also raised a claim for entitlement to service connection for alcoholism. This claim has not been adjudicated by the RO. In light of the recent decisions of the United States Court of Veterans Appeals, including Harris v. Derwinski, U.S. Vet.App. No. 90-240 (March 6, 1991), EF v. Derwinski, U.S. Vet.App. No. 91-533 (June 21, 1991), and Payne v. Derwinski, U.S. Vet.App. No. 89-172 (November 19, 1991), the Board finds that the case should be returned to the RO so that the aforementioned issue can be adjudicated. In addition, we note that at the time of the veteran's hearing at the RO in June 1991, it was requested by the veteran and his representative that treatment records of the veteran be obtained from Dade County Detoxification Center, Broward County Alcohol Recovery Program and the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) medical center in Miami, Florida. Although not of record, the hearing transcript indicates that the veteran submitted authorization forms for the release of the aforementioned records. There is no indication from the record that the aforementioned treatment records were requested or obtained. In addition, a copy of the hearing officer's decision is not part of the claims folder. The veteran asserts that he currently experiences nervousness, anxiety and sleep disturbances. He testified at the hearing that he has been diagnosed as having manic depression and has been prescribed medication. He asserts that his symptoms began during service and continued after separation from service. We note that the veteran served on active duty from February 1976 to August 1979. Subsequent to service, the earliest treatment records which have been associated with the claims folder are from 1983. However, a letter dated in November 1990 from Talbot House Alcohol Crisis Center, indicates that the veteran received treatment 17 times during the period from April 1982 to September 1989. In light of the veteran's testimony and the clinical evidence currently of record, the Board believes that further medical development, as specified below, is warranted prior to reaching a decision in this case. Accordingly, the case is REMANDED to the RO for the following actions: 1. The RO should obtain copies of all treatment records of the veteran from the VA medical center in Miami, Florida, from September 1979 to the present. In addition, the RO should contact the veteran, through his representative, and request that he provide the names and addresses of all health care providers who have treated him for a psychiatric disorder and/or alcoholism, other than the VA medical center in Miami, Florida, Broward County Alcohol Recovery, Dade County Detoxification Center, and Talbot House Alcohol Crisis Center, from September 1979 to July 1983, as well as the approximate dates of treatment. Then, after any necessary authorization is obtained from the veteran, the RO should obtain and associate with the claims folder copies of all treatment records of the veteran from those health care providers identified by the veteran and from Broward County Alcohol Recovery, in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, from Dade County Detoxification Center, in Miami, Florida, and from Talbot House Alcohol Crisis Center, in Bohemia, New York, from September 1979 to the present. 2. The RO should arrange for a VA psychiatric examination of the veteran to determine the nature and extent of any psychiatric disorder currently present. The examiner should also offer his opinion as to whether alcoholism is a manifestation or consequence of any psychiatric disease shown to be present. All indicated studies should be performed, and the claims folder should be made available to the examiner prior to the examination. 3. The RO should attempt to obtain a copy of the hearing officer's decision. If a copy of the decision cannot be located, the veteran should be afforded an opportunity for another hearing before an RO hearing officer. 4. The RO should adjudicate the claim for service connection for alcoholism, and readjudicate the claim for service connection for a psychiatric disorder on a de novo basis, without regard to the rating decision dated in August 1985, and in light of the evidence obtained pursuant to the requested development. If the veteran disagrees with either of the decisions of the RO, and if otherwise appropriate, a supplemental statement of the case should be issued for all issues in appellate status, and the veteran and his representative should be provided an opportunity to respond. Then, the case should be returned to the Board for further consideration, if otherwise appropriate. By this REMAND, the Board intimates no opinion as to any of the final outcomes warranted. No action is required of the veteran until he is contacted by the RO. BOARD OF VETERANS' APPEALS WASHINGTON, D.C. 20420 JOHN J. CASTELLOT, SR., M.D. SHANE A. DURKIN ROBERT E. SULLIVAN Under 38 U.S.C. § 7252 (1992), only a decision of the Board of Veterans' Appeals is appealable to the United States Court of Veterans Appeals. 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.