Citation Nr: 0811462 Decision Date: 04/07/08 Archive Date: 04/23/08 DOCKET NO. 03-26 168 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Seattle, Washington THE ISSUE Entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder, to include post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), depression, and anxiety. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States. WITNESS AT HEARING ON APPEAL Appellant ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD C. Hancock, Counsel INTRODUCTION The veteran served on active duty from May 1969 to January 1972. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from an October 2002 rating decision issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Seattle, Washington. The Board remanded this matter in February 2007 so that additional evidence could be developed. For the reasons outlined below, this appeal is REMANDED to the RO via the Appeals Management Center (AMC) in Washington, D.C. Consistent with the instructions below, VA will notify the veteran of any further action required on his part. REMAND The veteran claims entitlement to service connection for a psychiatric disorder, to include PTSD, depression, and anxiety. He alleges that he acquired his claimed psychiatric disorder as a result of being exposed to traumatic events while serving in Vietnam . The veteran served in Vietnam from November 1969 to October 1970. The "inservice stressors" are detailed in a "Stressor Details" document submitted by the veteran in June 2002, and include an assertion that he was subjected to enemy mortar and sniper fire. As indicated in the Introduction, this claim was remanded in February 2007. Unfortunately, some of the ordered development remains to be completed. Accordingly, remand is mandatory. Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268 (1998). In this regard, in the February 2007 remand, the RO was instructed to seek to obtain certain medical records from the United States Army Hospital at Fort Benning, Georgia, and from the base hospital and mental health facility at Fort Benning, Georgia. Attempts were made to secure both. An April 2007 letter from the Martin Army Community Hospital , located at Fort Benning, informed VA that "[t]here is no record for the above mentioned patient [veteran]." Other records, however, were obtained, and associated with the claims file in April 2007. These records appear to have been obtained from the base hospital and mental health facility at Fort Benning , Georgia . Review of these records, dated between September and November 1971, show that the veteran was seen by Mental Hygiene and Consultation Services. While these records do not contain a diagnosis of a psychiatric disorder, they do show that the veteran indicated a desire to always wear his "field jacket." The September consultation sheet includes a note suggesting that the veteran's affect was "way off." The appellant requested a profile to allow him to wear always wear his field jacket. Notably, this unusual request following his service in Vietnam . The Board's February 2007 remand indicated that "[i]f, and only if, any additional psychiatric service medical records are located, then the RO should schedule the for a new VA psychiatric examination." While, additional psychiatric medical records were obtained a new VA psychiatric examination was not scheduled or conducted. Both the veteran's local representative as part of a February 2008 VA Form 646 as well as his national representative in a March 2008 Informal Brief Presentation observed that a VA examination had not been scheduled. A remand confers, as a matter of law, the right to compliance with the remand orders. Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268 (1998). Consequently, further development is necessary. Therefore, the case is REMANDED for the following action: 1. The RO must schedule the veteran for a new VA psychiatric examination by a physician with appropriate expertise. All indicated studies must be performed, and all findings should be reported in detail. In accordance with the latest AMIE worksheets for psychiatric disorders the examiner is to provide a detailed review of the veteran's pertinent medical history, current complaints, and the nature and etiology of any diagnosed psychiatric disorder. With respect to each diagnosed psychiatric disorder the examiner must indicate whether it is at least as likely as not that such disorder either began or was aggravated during the veteran's active duty service. The examiner should also address whether it is at least as likely as not that the veteran presented the prodromal signs of any currently diagnosed psychiatric disorder during his period of active service. The rationale for all opinions expressed should be provided. The claims file, including a copy of this remand and the newly secured inservice records, must be made available to the examiner for review. 2. The veteran is hereby notified that it is his responsibility to report for a VA examination (if ordered) and to cooperate in the development of the claim. The consequences for failure to report for a VA examination without good cause may include denial of the claim. 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.158, 3.655 (2007). In the event that the veteran does not report for the scheduled examination, documentation should be obtained which shows that notice scheduling the examination was sent to the last known address. It should also be indicated whether any notice that was sent was returned as undeliverable. 3. The RO should ensure that the requested action has been accomplished (to the extent possible) in compliance with this REMAND. If the ordered action has not been undertaken or is deficient in any manner, the RO must take appropriate corrective action. Stegall. 4. Thereafter, the RO should readjudicate the appealed issue. If the benefit sought on appeal remains adverse to the veteran, he and his representative should be provided a supplemental statement of the case which includes a summary of any additional evidence submitted, applicable laws and regulations, and the reasons for the decision. They should then be afforded an applicable time to respond. The purpose of this REMAND is to ensure due process. The Board does not intimate any opinion as to the merits of the case, either favorable or unfavorable, at this time. No action is required of the appellant until he is notified. The appellant has the right to submit additional evidence and argument on the matter the Board have remanded to the RO. 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 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. 2007). _________________________________________________ DEREK R. BROWN 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).