Citation Nr: 0813996 Decision Date: 04/29/08 Archive Date: 05/08/08 DOCKET NO. 04-41 451 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in San Diego, California THE ISSUES 1. Entitlement to service connection for explosive personality disorder. 2. Entitlement to service connection for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). 3. Entitlement to service connection for residuals of a right middle finger fracture. 4. Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss. 5. Entitlement to service connection for an equilibrium disorder. 6. Entitlement to service connection for residuals of head trauma. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: Disabled American Veterans WITNESS AT HEARING ON APPEAL Appellant ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD S. Coyle, Associate Counsel INTRODUCTION The veteran had honorable active service from September 1975 to October 1979. These matters come before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from December 2003 and June 2006 rating decisions by the San Diego, California, Regional Office (RO) of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), which denied entitlement to the benefits currently sought on appeal. A hearing on these matters was held before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge sitting at the RO on February 13, 2008. A copy of the hearing transcript has been associated with the file. A review of the record reflects that the veteran also perfected an appeal for service connection for left wrist ganglion cyst. Service connection for that disorder was granted by rating decision dated July 2006, which is a substantial grant of the benefit sought. The issues of entitlement to service connection for PTSD, residuals of a right middle finger fracture, bilateral hearing loss, an equilibrium disorder, and residuals of head trauma are addressed in the REMAND portion of the decision below and are REMANDED to the RO via the Appeals Management Center (AMC), in Washington, DC. FINDING OF FACT The veteran exhibited an explosive personality disorder in service. CONCLUSION OF LAW An explosive personality disorder is not a disease or injury for compensation purposes. 38 U.S.C.A. § 1110 (West 2002); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(c) (2007). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION Duties to Notify and Assist In correspondence dated September 2003, the RO satisfied its duty to notify the veteran under 38 U.S.C.A. § 5103(a) and 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(b). Specifically, the RO notified the veteran of: information and evidence necessary to substantiate the claim for service connection; information and evidence that VA would seek to provide; and information and evidence that the veteran was expected to provide. The veteran was essentially instructed to submit any evidence in his possession that pertained to his claim. Additionally, in March 2006, the veteran was notified of the way initial disability ratings and effective dates are established. VA has done everything reasonably possible to assist the veteran with respect to his claim for benefits in accordance with 38 U.S.C.A. § 5103A and 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(c). Service medical records have been associated with the claims file. All identified and available treatment records have been secured. Although the veteran has not been medically evaluated in conjunction with his claim, an examination is not necessary as service connection for explosive personality disorder is precluded as a matter of law. See Smith v. Gober, 14 Vet. App. 227, 230 (2000). The Board is satisfied that the duties to notify and assist have been met. Service Connection In general, service connection will be granted for disability resulting from injury or disease incurred in or aggravated by active military service. 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 1110, 1131; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. If a condition noted during service is not determined to be chronic, then generally a showing of continuity of symptomatology after service is required for service connection. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(b). Service connection may also be granted for any disease diagnosed after discharge when all the evidence, including that pertinent to service, establishes that the disease was incurred in service. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(d). There must be medical evidence of a current disability, medical or lay evidence of in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury, and medical evidence linking the current disability to that in-service disease or injury. Pond v. West, 12 Vet. App. 341, 346 (1999); Hickson v. West, 12 Vet. App. 247, 253 (1999). The veteran was diagnosed with explosive personality disorder while in active service in May 1978, and administrative separation was urged on that basis. The veteran was honorably discharged from the United States Marine Corps in October 1979. In November 1979, the veteran joined the United States Navy, but was administratively separated in October 1980 under other than honorable conditions. An April 1981 VA determination concluded that the veteran was barred from VA benefits for this second period of service. Post-service medical records indicate that the veteran was diagnosed with panic disorder and impulse control disorder by a private physician in December 2004. The veteran was prescribed Paxil for his symptoms. In October 2005, the veteran received a mental health intake interview at VA Medical Center San Diego. Diagnoses included explosive disorder. The veteran continued to receive treatment for intermittent explosive disorder throughout 2006. On review, the Board finds that service connection for intermittent explosive disorder is not warranted. Personality disorders are not diseases or injuries within the meaning of applicable legislation. Thus, service connection for intermittent explosive disorder may not be granted. 38 U.S.C.A. § 1110 (West 2002); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(c) (2007). ORDER Service connection for intermittent explosive disorder is denied. REMAND The record reflects that the veteran served in the United States Navy from November 1979 to December 1980. No efforts were made to obtain the veteran's service medical records and personnel file from that period of service. Upon remand, a request for those records should be made. VA's duty to assist includes a duty to provide a medical examination or obtain a medical opinion when it is deemed necessary to make a decision on the claim. 38 U.S.C.A. § 5103A(d); 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(c)(4); see also Robinette v. Brown, 8 Vet. App. 69, 76 (1995). The veteran has attributed his bilateral hearing loss, PTSD, equilibrium disorder and head trauma to an April 1979 fight with fellow servicemembers at Camp Wilson. He has also attributed his head trauma to a July 1978 motor vehicle accident. Service medical records have confirmed that both the fight and the motor vehicle accident occurred while the veteran was in active service. In addition, medical evidence has shown that the veteran has some limitation of motion in the right middle finger, and there is evidence of an April 1977 in-service injury to the right middle finger. The duty to assist requires that the veteran be afforded VA examinations to determine the etiology of his bilateral hearing loss, PTSD, equilibrium disorder, head trauma, and finger injury. Accordingly, the case is REMANDED for the following action: 1. Request that the National Personnel Records Center provide the veteran's Navy service medical records and personnel file from November 1979 to December 1980. If the requested records are unavailable, a negative reply should be obtained. 2. Schedule the veteran for an appropriate VA examination to determine the nature and etiology of his equilibrium disorder. The claims file must be made available to and be reviewed by the examiner in conjunction with the examination. The examination report must indicate that the claims file was reviewed. For any equilibrium disorder found, the examiner should provide an opinion as to whether there is a 50 percent probability or greater that it had its onset in service, specifically to the April 1979 fight at Camp Wilson, or is otherwise related to the veteran's periods of active service. The examiner should provide a rationale for any opinion provided. Attention is invited to the service medical record referring to an April 1979 fight and to the November 2005 report suggesting vestibular pathology. 3. Schedule the veteran for a VA audiological examination to determine the etiology of his bilateral hearing loss. The claims file must be made available to and be reviewed by the examiner in conjunction with the examination. The examination report must indicate that the claims file was reviewed. For any hearing loss found, the examiner should provide an opinion as to whether there is a 50 percent probability or greater that it had its onset in service, specifically to the April 1979 fight at Camp Wilson, or is otherwise related to the veteran's periods of active service. The examiner should provide a rationale for any opinion provided. Attention is invited to the April 1979 service medical record referring to a fight and to the November 2005 diagnosis of sensorineural hearing loss. 4. Schedule the veteran for a VA psychiatric examination to determine whether he meets the DSM-IV criteria for PTSD. The examination report should reflect review of the entire claims folder, including the October 2005 VA mental health intake summary. The veteran has attributed PTSD to the April 1979 fight at Camp Wilson. Service medical records have confirmed that the veteran was in a fight at that particular time and that he received facial injuries. If a diagnosis of PTSD is made, the examiner should specify whether the fight was sufficient to produce PTSD and whether there is a link between the in-service stressor and the veteran's diagnosis. The examination report should include a complete rationale for all opinions expressed. All necessary special studies or tests, to include psychological testing and evaluation, such as the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory, should be accomplished. 5. Schedule the veteran for a VA neurological examination to determine the nature and etiology of head trauma residuals. The claims file must be made available to and be reviewed by the examiner in conjunction with the examination. The examination report must indicate that the claims file was reviewed. For any residuals found, the examiner should provide an opinion as to whether there is a 50 percent probability or greater that it had its onset in service, specifically to a July 1978 motor vehicle accident in which the veteran fractured his nose, or to the April 1979 fight at Camp Wilson during which the veteran received injuries to the face, or is otherwise related to the veteran's period of active service. The examiner should provide a rationale for any opinion provided. Attention is invited to the July 1978 and April 1979 service medical records referring to facial trauma. 6. Schedule the veteran for a VA orthopedic examination to determine the nature and etiology of his right middle finger disability. The claims file must be made available to and be reviewed by the examiner in conjunction with the examination. The examination report must indicate that the claims file was reviewed. For any right middle finger disorder found, the examiner should provide an opinion as to whether there is a 50 percent probability or greater that it had its onset in service, specifically to the April 1977 report of a right middle finger injury, or is otherwise related to the veteran's period of active service. The examiner should provide a rationale for any opinion provided. Attention is invited to the April 1977 service medical record referring to a finger injury and to the September 2003 diagnosis of chronic injury to the right middle finger with limitation of motion. 7. After the above has been completed, readjudicate the issues on appeal, taking into consideration all evidence added to the file since the most recent VA adjudication. If the issue on appeal continues to be denied, the veteran and his representative must be provided a supplemental statement of the case. The veteran must then be given an appropriate opportunity to respond. Thereafter, the case must be returned to the Board for appellate review. The appellant has the right to submit additional evidence and argument on the matters the Board has remanded. Kutscherousky v. West, 12 Vet. App. 369 (1999). These claims 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. 2007). ______________________________________________ THOMAS J. DANNAHER Veterans Law Judge, Board of Veterans' Appeals Department of Veterans Affairs