Citation Nr: 9918869 Decision Date: 07/09/99 Archive Date: 07/20/99 DOCKET NO. 94-28 251 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Detroit, Michigan THE ISSUE Entitlement to service connection for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: Military Order of the Purple Heart WITNESS AT HEARING ON APPEAL Appellant ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD Thomas A. Yeager, Associate Counsel INTRODUCTION The veteran had active naval service from December 1966 to September 1968. This appeal arises from a December 1993 rating decision by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Detroit, Michigan, which denied service connection for PTSD. The case is before the Board for the second time, having been once previously remanded in January 1997 for additional evidentiary development. REMAND In its January 1997 remand, the Board directed that the RO provide the veteran's claimed stressor information to the United States Army and Joint Services Environmental Support Group (ESG, now the United States Armed Services Center for Research of Unit Records (CRUR)) for verification. If any of the claimed stressors were verified, "then and only then," the RO was to schedule a psychiatric examination to determined whether a PTSD diagnosis was appropriate in the veteran's case. In April 1997, the RO did submit the veteran's statement and DD Form 214 to the CRUR. In May 1998, the CRUR responded by providing command histories for Naval Air Station (NAS) Whiting Field, Florida, for 1967 and 1968. The CRUR further indicated that specific dates, full names and/or social security or service numbers would be required to locate additional information regarding the reported deaths of individuals who were in-service acquaintances of the veteran. The Board notes that the veteran's DD-214 (and other service record material) indicates that he was not assigned to NAS Whiting Field, but, rather, to Navy Training Squadron TWO (TRARON TWO or VT-2), based at Whiting Field. This is a significant distinction and, as a result, the claim must be returned for a further attempt at verification. In addition, although no verification of the veteran's stressors had been obtained, the RO scheduled the veteran for a VA PTSD examination, which was conducted at the Allen Park VA Medical Center (VAMC) in August 1998. The examiner noted in his report that "[t]he Department of Army could not verify these [stressor] incidences and the veteran does not have the full-blown symptoms to make a diagnosis of [PTSD]." In addition to possibly incomplete stressor information, it appears that the VA psychiatrist did not have the veteran's claims file available during his examination, since he reviewed psychiatric treatment and evaluation dating from July 1982 and observed that the veteran "was not treated at any of those times for [PTSD]," but failed to discuss an April-May 1996 hospitalization at the Montrose, New York, VAMC, which noted "severe PTSD symptoms," and related these to his claimed in-service stressors. It also appears that the veteran was directed to obtain post-hospitalization follow-up treatment at the Mental Hygiene Clinic at the VAMC in Saginaw, Michigan. If such treatment was obtained, the records are not associated with the claims file. Accordingly, the veteran's case is REMANDED to the RO for completion of the following actions: 1. The RO should obtain any medical records pertaining to treatment of the veteran for PTSD at a VA facility subsequent to May 1996 and associate them with the claims file. 2. The RO should resubmit the veteran's stressor statement and all military personnel records contained in the file to the U.S. Armed Services Center for Research of Unit Records, 7798 Cissna Road, Suite 101, Springfield, VA 22150- 3197. The RO should request that the CRUR obtain the command histories from for U. S. Navy Training Squadron TWO (TRARON TWO or VT-2) for 1967 and 1968 from the Naval Historical Center, Naval Aviation History Branch, 805 Kidder Breese SE, Washington Navy Yard, Washington, D.C. 20374-5060. In addition, the CRUR should be asked to obtain the 1967 command history of the Recruit Training Command (RTC), U.S. Naval Training Center (NTC), Great Lakes, Illinois, from the Naval Historical Center, Operational Archives Branch, 805 Kidder Breese SE, Washington Navy Yard, Washington, D.C. 20374-5060. Finally, the CRUR should be asked to contact the Office of the Navy Judge Advocate General, Investigations Branch (Code 35), Washington Navy Yard, 1322 Patterson Ave., S.E., Suite 300, Washington, DC 20374-5066, and request that they attempt to determine whether any Judge Advocate Manual (JAGMAN) investigation was prepared by RTC or NTC Great Lakes, pertaining to the suicide of a recruit under training at that location during the period from December 27, 1966 to March 14, 1967. If so, a copy of the report should be obtained. 3. Following the receipt of a response from the CRUR, the RO should prepare a report detailing the nature of any stressor which it has determined is established by the record. If no stressor has been verified, the RO should so state in its report. This report is then to be added to the claims folder. 4. After completing the above actions, if and only if a claimed stressor has been verified, the veteran should be afforded a psychiatric examination to determine the diagnosis of any and all psychiatric disorders which may be present. All indicated studies, tests and evaluations deemed necessary should be performed. The RO must provide the examiner the summary of any stressors described above, and the examiner must be instructed that only these events may be considered for the purpose of determining whether exposure to an in-service stressor may have resulted in current psychiatric symptoms. The examiner should also determine whether the diagnostic criteria to support the diagnosis of PTSD have been satisfied. If the PTSD diagnosis is deemed appropriate, the examiner should comment upon the link between the current symptomatology and one or more of the in- service stressors found to be established by the RO. The report of examination should include the complete rationale for all opinions expressed. Since it is important "that each disability be viewed in relation to its history[,]" 38 C.F.R. § 4.1 (1998), copies of all pertinent records in the veteran's claims file or, in the alternative, the claims file itself, must be made available to the examiner at all times pertinent to his evaluation. This specifically should include VA medical records documenting the veteran's hospitalization for PTSD at the Montrose VAMC in April and May 1996, and any records obtained by the RO of subsequent treatment for PTSD at the Saginaw VAMC Mental Hygiene Clinic. 5. After the development requested above has been completed to the extent possible, the RO should again review the record. If any benefit sought on appeal, for which a notice of disagreement has been filed, remains denied, the appellant and representative, if any, should be furnished a supplemental statement of the case and given the opportunity to respond thereto. The purpose of this REMAND is to obtain additional development, and the Board does not intimate any opinion as to the merits of the case, either favorable or unfavorable, at this time. The appellant is free to submit any additional evidence he desires to have considered in connection with his current appeal. No action is required of the appellant until he is notified. A remand by the Board confers on the veteran, as a matter of law, the right to compliance with the remand orders. Stegall v. West, 11 Vet.App. 268, 271 (1998). This claim must be afforded expeditious treatment by the RO. The law requires that all claims that are remanded by the Board of Veterans' Appeals or by the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims for additional development or other appropriate action must be handled in an expeditious manner. See The Veterans' Benefits Improvements Act of 1994, Pub. L. No. 103-446, § 302, 108 Stat. 4645, 4658 (1994), 38 U.S.C.A. § 5101 (West Supp. 1999) (Historical and Statutory Notes). In addition, VBA's Adjudication Procedure Manual, M21-1, Part IV, directs the ROs to provide expeditious handling of all cases that have been remanded by the Board and the Court. See M21-1, Part IV, paras. 8.44- 8.45 and 38.02-38.03. CONSTANCE B. TOBIAS Member, Board of Veterans' Appeals Under 38 U.S.C.A. § 7252 (West 1991& Supp. 1999), 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) (1998).