Citation Nr: 0810287 Decision Date: 03/28/08 Archive Date: 04/09/08 DOCKET NO. 05-01 082 ) 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 syndrome (PTSD). REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: The American Legion ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD S. Layton, Associate Counsel INTRODUCTION The appellant is a veteran who served on active duty from June 1964 to June 1967. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a March 2004 rating decision by the Winston-Salem, North Carolina Regional Office (RO) of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). The appeal is REMANDED to the RO via the Appeals Management Center (AMC), in Washington, DC. VA will notify you if further action is required on your part. REMAND The Veterans Claims Assistance Act of 2000 (VCAA) describes VA's duty to notify and assist claimants in substantiating a claim for VA benefits. 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 5100, 5102, 5103, 5103A, 5107, 5126 (West 2002 & Supp. 2007); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.156(a), 3.159, 3.326(a) (2007). A review of the record shows the veteran was notified of the evidence not of record that was necessary to substantiate his service connection claim and of which parties were expected to provide such evidence by correspondence dated September 2003, April 2004, and February 2005. The United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, in Dingess/Hartman v. Nicholson, 19 Vet. App. 473 (2006), held that the VCAA notice requirements applied to all elements of a claim. It was further noted that regarding the disability-rating element, in order to comply with section 5103(a), VA must notify the claimant of any information, and any medical or lay evidence, not previously provided, that is necessary to establish a disability rating for each of the disabilities contemplated by the claim and allowed under law and regulation. The Board finds appropriate action should be taken to ensure adequate VCAA notice as to all elements of the claims is provided. The revised VCAA duty to assist also requires that VA make reasonable efforts to assist the claimant in obtaining evidence necessary to substantiate a claim and in claims for disability compensation requires that VA provide medical examinations or obtain medical opinions when necessary for an adequate decision. 38 C.F.R. § 3.159. A medical examination or medical opinion is deemed to be necessary if the record does not contain sufficient competent medical evidence to decide the claim, but includes competent lay or medical evidence of a current diagnosed disability or persistent or recurrent symptoms of disability, establishes that the veteran suffered an event, injury, or disease in service, or has a disease or symptoms of a disease manifest during an applicable presumptive period, and indicates the claimed disability or symptoms may be associated with the established event, injury, or disease. 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(c)(4). In Pentecost v. Principi, 16 Vet. App. 124 (2002), the Court held that a veteran need not corroborate his actual physical proximity to (or firsthand experience with) and personal participation in rocket attacks while stationed in Vietnam. See also Suozzi v. Brown, 10 Vet. App. 307 (1997) (holding that "corroboration of every detail [of a claimed stressor] including the appellant's personal participation" is not required; rather an appellant only needs to offer independent evidence of a stressful event that is sufficient to imply his or her personal exposure). In this case, the veteran's service records show that he served in Vietnam from August 1965 to August 1966 with the 11th General Support Aviation Company of the 1st Cavalry Division. His military occupational specialty (MOS) was Turret Artillery Repairman. He did not receive any awards or medals which would independently verify his exposure to combat. He stated that his unit experienced incoming mortars on February 20, 1966 and in mid-April 1966 while at An Khe. There is no evidence of any attempt to verify his specific stressors. Reference is made to VA Training Letter (TL) 07-07 (March 7, 2007) which provides "guidance on basic steps in accessing VBA-sanctioned web sites for research on corroborating stressors in PTSD cases." In August 2007, VA added a Stressor Verification Site to the Job Rating Aids website. Information in that TL and on the website may provide some information regarding the veteran's claimed stressors. Therefore, the Board finds that the veteran's statement as to the events in February and April of 1966 require additional development prior to appellate review. Accordingly, the case is REMANDED for the following action: 1. The AMC/RO must review the claims file and ensure that all notification and development action required by the VCAA is completed. In particular, the AMC/RO should ensure that the notification requirements and development procedures contained in 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 5103, 5103A (West 2002 & Supp. 2007), 38 C.F.R. § 3.159 (2007), and Dingess/Hartman v. Nicholson, 19 Vet. App. 473 (2006) are fully complied with and satisfied. After the veteran and his representative have been given notice as required by 38 U.S.C.A. § 5103(a), 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(b), and Dingess/Hartman v. Nicholson, 19 Vet. App. 473 (2006), they should be given the opportunity to respond. 2. The AMC/RO is to compile all information, including any statements provided by the veteran and submit this information to the U.S. Army and Joint Services Records Research Center (JSRRC). JSRRC should be requested to make an attempt to verify events related to the veteran's claims that he experienced attacks. If unable to provide such information, they should be asked to identify the agency or department that may provide such information and follow- up inquiries should be conducted accordingly. 3. Thereafter, the record should be reviewed and specific determinations provided as to which specific stressor events, if any, have been verified. In reaching these determinations, any credibility questions raised by the record should be addressed. The veteran should be notified of these determinations and afforded the opportunity to respond. 4. If, and only if, a stressor is verified the veteran should be scheduled for examination by a psychiatrist for an opinion as to whether there is at least a 50 percent probability or greater that he has a present psychiatric disorder (under DSM-IV criteria) related to a verified event in service. The examining psychiatrist or psychologist should be informed as to which of the specific claimed stressor events have been verified. Prior to the examination, the claims folder must be made available to the examiner for review of the case. A notation to the effect that this record review took place should be included in the report. Opinions should be provided based on the results of examination, a review of the medical evidence of record, and sound medical principles. All examination findings, along with the complete rationale for the opinions expressed, should be set forth in the examination report. 5. The veteran must be given adequate notice of the date and place of any requested examination. A copy of all notifications, including the address where the notice was sent must be associated with the claims folder. The veteran is to be advised that failure to report for a scheduled VA examination without good cause shown may have adverse effects on his claim. 6. After completion of the above and any additional development deemed necessary, the issue on appeal should be reviewed with consideration of all applicable laws and regulations. If any benefit sought remains denied, the veteran should be furnished an appropriate supplemental statement of the case and be afforded the opportunity to respond. Thereafter, the case should be returned to the Board for appellate review. The appellant has the right to submit additional evidence and argument on the matter or matters the Board has remanded. Kutscherousky v. West, 12 Vet. App. 369 (1999). This claim must be afforded expeditious treatment. 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 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 5109B, 7112 (West Supp. 2005). _________________________________________________ RENÉE M. PELLETIER 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) (2007).