BVA9400578 DOCKET NO. 91-42 468 ) DATE ) ) ) THE ISSUE Entitlement to service connection for post traumatic stress disorder. REPRESENTATION Veteran represented by: Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD J.R. King, Associate Counsel INTRODUCTION The veteran served on active duty from September 1964 to July 1968. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (hereinafter Board) on appeal from a July 1990 rating determination of the Department of Veterans Affairs (hereinafter VA) Regional Office (hereinafter VA) located in Seattle, Washington, which denied the veteran's claim of entitlement to service connection for post traumatic stress disorder. The notice of disagreement was received in January 1991. The statement of the case was furnished in February 1991. The RO issued a supplemental statement of the case in August 1991 after entering a rating decision in the preceding month. The substantive appeal was received in August 1991. The case was received and docketed by the Board in September 1991. In March 1992, the Board remanded the case for further factual development. After additional evidence was obtained, including a report of a VA examination, in May 1992, a supplemental statement of the case was furnished in October 1992. The case was returned to the Board in April 1993 and docketed in May 1993. The representative, Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States, submitted additional argument into the record in June 1993. REMAND The veteran has indicated that he was deployed from George Air Force Base (AFB) in Victorville, California, and that he served in Thailand from July 1966 to July 1967 with the 435th Tactical Fighter Squadron (TFS) stationed at Royal Thai AFB, Udorn, Thailand. He also states, and service administrative records confirm, that he subsequently served in the Republic of Vietnam with the 308th TFS from July 1967 to July 1968. His representative has asked that the information recorded in the veteran's statement of October 1992 be verified. In statements associated with his medical history, as well as statement made during the course of his appeal, the veteran has recounted events which he claims constitute "stressors". He reports that his responsibilities as a weapons mechanic included loading ammunition onto airplanes stationed with the 435 TFS. An incident reportedly occurred in April 1967 involving a F-104 with a damaged wing serviced by his unit. He stated that he took responsibility for the evaluation of the repair of the wing and that the wiring on this wing was improperly assembled, resulting in the accidental firing of a pod containing 19 rockets. He reports that two Air Force personnel were severely burned and many Thai civilians were killed. He states he participated in recovering their remains. Pursuant to the Board's remand, the veteran was examined in May 1992 by two VA physicians, both of whom diagnosed post-traumatic stress disorder. We note that the United States Army and Joint Services Environmental Support Group (ESG), in response to an RO request, performed a search of the available 8th Tactical Fighter Wing (TFW) unit histories and was unable to confirm the accidental death of 19 Thai civilian workers, an incident claimed as a significant stressor by the veteran and cited by the examiners as the "stressor" supporting the diganosis of PTSD. In July 1991 correspondence, the ESG stated that Air Force records are often incomplete and more specific information should be obtained from the veteran concerning the name, rank and unit attachment so that a complete search of casualty report information may be made by the Air Force Military Personnel Center at Randolph AFB, Texas. During the May 1992 VA psychiatric examination, the veteran indicated that he currently receives Social Security disability due, in part, to having psychiatric abnormalities, but the medical records upon which that decision was based are not on file. The Board is of the opinion that these records should be obtained and associated with the file. Murincsak v. Derwinski, 2 Vet.App. 363 (1992) VA has a duty to assist the veteran in the development of facts pertinent to his claim. 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107(a) (West 1991). See Littke v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 90, 92 (1990). This includes the duty to obtain both VA and non-VA medical records. Ferraro v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 326, 334 (1991). Accordingly, the case is REMANDED to the RO for the following actions: 1. As suggested by the ESG correspondence of July 1991, the veteran should be contacted to provide more specific information about the names, ranks and unit attachments of the servicemen who were injured in the incident claimed as the significant stressor in his claim. The RO should then contact the Air Force Office of History, AF/CHO, Bolling Air Force Base, Washington, D.C. 20332, for information concerning the quartarly history reports in question. The RO should forward this information to the ESG and request that it search all Air Force Quarterly Historical Reports in the functional areas of aircraft maintenance, personnel and safety for the period dating from April 1967 through July 1968. The RO should then request that an additional search for the same period of Air Force casualty records be made by the Air Force Military Personnel Center at Randolph AFB, Texas. 2. The RO should request and secure the medical records upon which the Social Security Administration decision was based when it granted the veteran Social Security benefits. All records obtained should be associated with the claims file. Murincsak v. Derwinski, 2 Vet.App. 363 (1992) Following completion of these actions, the RO should review the evidence and determine whether the veteran's claim may now be granted. If not, he and his representative should be furnished a supplemental statement of the case and an opportunity to respond, if appropriate. The case should then be returned to the Board for further appellate consideration. BOARD OF VETERANS' APPEALS WASHINGTON, D.C. 20420 * MEMBER TEMPORARILY ABSENT M. CHEEK RICHARD B. FRANK *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).