93 Decision Citation: BVA 93-17977 Y93 BOARD OF VETERANS' APPEALS WASHINGTON, D.C. 20420 DOCKET NO. 90-50 228 ) DATE ) ) ) THE ISSUE Entitlement to service connection for a nervous condition, secondary to the veteran's service-connected low back condition. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: AMVETS ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD Grace Jivens-McRae, Associate Counsel INTRODUCTION This matter came before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a rating decision of June 1989 from the Albuquerque, New Mexico, Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). The veteran served on active duty from March 1976 to September 1985. The notice of disagreement was received in August 1989. A statement of the case was issued in June 1990. The substantive appeal was received in June 1990. The appeal was docketed at the Board in November 1990. The veteran has been represented throughout her claim by AMVETS. That organization submitted additional written argument to the Board in May 1991. In August 1991, the Board remanded the instant claim for further development. A supplemental statement of the case was issued in February 1993. AMVETS submitted further argument in June 1993. The attention of the RO is directed to the issues referred to in a February 23, 1993 statement from the veteran. REMAND The veteran and her accredited representative assert, in essence, that the veteran has a neuropsychiatric disability which is secondary to her service-connected low back condition. In an August 1990 statement in support of her claim, the veteran also asserts, in the alternative, that she was sexually accosted during service and that that sexual assaulted plays a part in her psychiatric condition. The accredited representative maintains that the RO did not fully comply with the Board's August 1991 remand. The RO requested copies of marital and family counseling reports, relating to counseling the veteran received while on active duty, and outpatient treatment records from treatment she received at Williams Air Force Base, Arizona, but only under the veteran's present name of [redacted]. It is important to note that the veteran had three other names during her active duty service and at some point, from 1969 to the present, was a dependent wife, whose medical records would be associated with her husband's service number. The RO did not search for records under the veteran's husband's service number nor under the veteran's former last names. Additionally, a review of the record reveals that the veteran received psychiatric care for two months in May 1974 at the United States Air Force Hospital at George Air Force Base, California. At that time, she was the dependent wife of [redacted]. That mental health folder has not been associated with the claims folder. Further, a rating action of September 1992 indicated that the veteran's claims folder, which was not made available to the board of psychiatrists when they examined the veteran in December 1991, was to be made available to them at a later date to determine if any changes in their December 1991 report were indicated. There is no indication in the claims folder that the RO ever made the claims folder available to the psychiatric examiners. VA has a statutory duty to assist in the development of facts pertinent to the veteran's claim. 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107(a) (West 1991); 38 C.F.R. § 3.103 (1992). Since the veteran has served under three different names and has received treatment as a dependent wife under at least two different names, it is important that the records be searched to ensure that we obtain all of the veteran's medical records which may have a bearing on the claim. Additionally, the board of psychiatrists, who examined the veteran in December 1991, and who indicated that they had not been afforded an opportunity to review the veteran's claims file prior to their examination of the veteran, should be given the opportunity to review the veteran's claims folder to determine if any changes in their December 1991 report are indicated. If they have already reviewed the veteran's claims folder subsequent to their December 1991 examination report, a notation in the record should be made. Under the circumstances of this case, the Board finds that additional assistance is required. The case is REMANDED to the RO for the following: 1. The RO should request that the National Personnel Records Center make a search for the complete copies of marital and family counseling reports related to counseling the veteran received while on active duty at the United States Air Force Mental Health Clinic at the hospital in Bentwaters, England, from 1981 to 1983, using the veteran's correct Social Security Number of [redacted] and her correct name at that time of [redacted] [redacted], and if located, those records should be associated with the claims folder. 2. The veteran's available outpatient treatment records from the treatment she received at Williams Air Force Base, Arizona, under the name [redacted] [redacted], as both an active duty personnel and dependent wife (from September 1985 to mid-1988), should be obtained and associated with the claims folder. The RO needs to ascertain the service number/social security number of the veteran's ex-husband, [redacted] [redacted], in order to search for the veteran's dependent wife records. 3. The veteran's mental health treatment records from the treatment she received in 1974 at the United States Air Force Hospital, George Air Force Base, California, under the name [redacted] [redacted], as a dependent wife of [redacted] [redacted], ([redacted]), should be obtained and associated with the claims folder. 4. The RO should request that the appellant submit a statement in which she provides specific information about the sexual incident in service which she believes contributed to her current psychiatric difficulties. The RO should then undertake any necessary verification of the incident. 5. After this development has been completed, and all available records have been associated with the claims folder, the RO should make available the veteran's complete claims folder to the board of psychiatrists who evaluated him in December 1991 to determine if any changes in their December 1991 report are indicated. The examiners are specifically requested state whether any chronic psychiatric disorder was caused by the service-connected back disability. Following completion of these actions, the RO should review the evidence and determine whether the veteran's claim may now be granted. If not, the veteran and her representative should be provided an appropriate supplemental statement of the case and the case should be returned to the Board for further appellate consideration. BOARD OF VETERANS' APPEALS WASHINGTON, D.C. 20420 * NANCY I. PHILLIPS (MEMBER TEMPORARILY ABSENT) SAMUEL W. WARNER *38 U.S.C.A. § 7102(a)(2)(A) (West 1991) permits a Board of Veterans' Appeals Section, upon direction of the Chairman of the Board, to proceed with the transaction of business without awaiting assignment of an additional Member to the Section when the Section is composed of fewer than three Members due to absence of a Member, vacancy on the Board or inability of the Member assigned to the Section to serve on the panel. The Chairman has directed that the Section proceed with the transaction of business, including the issuance of decisions, without awaiting the assignment of a third Member. Under 38 U.S.C.A. § 7252 (West 1991), 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. 38 C.F.R. § 20.1100(b) (1992).