Citation Nr: 0814376 Decision Date: 05/01/08 Archive Date: 05/12/08 DOCKET NO. 06-16 640 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs Medical and Regional Office Center in Wichita, Kansas THE ISSUE Entitlement to service connection for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: Disabled American Veterans WITNESSES AT HEARING ON APPEAL Appellant, Appellant's spouse ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD Jennifer Margulies, Associate Counsel INTRODUCTION The veteran served on active duty from December 1969 to June 1972. This case comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a October 2004 rating decision of the Wichita, Kansas, Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO), which denied the claim of entitlement to service connection for PTSD. The appeal is REMANDED to the RO via the Appeals Management Center (AMC), in Washington, DC. VA will notify the appellant if further action is required. REMAND Unfortunately, a remand is required in this case. Although the Board sincerely regrets the additional delay, it is necessary to ensure that there is a complete record upon which to decide the veteran's claim so that he is afforded every possible consideration. Service connection for PTSD requires medical evidence diagnosing the condition in accordance with 38 C.F.R. § 4.125(a); a link, established by medical evidence, between current symptoms and an in-service stressor; and credible supporting evidence that the claimed in-service stressor occurred. 38 C.F.R. § 3.304(f) (2007). On VA examination in March 2004, after reviewing the veteran's claims file and examining him, the examiner stated that there were no verified combat stressors for the veteran and rendered a diagnosis of PTSD (childhood sexual/physical abuse). However, a review of the veteran's records indicates that he served in the 1st Squadron, 1st Cavalry, 23rd Division and that he served in Vietnam from July 1971 through April 1972. In an October 7, 2004, United States Armed Services Center for Research of Unit Records (USASCRUR) reply, it was noted that the veteran's squadron received infantry training from November 1971-January 1972 and that the unit was primarily deployed in the lowland areas south of Da Nang. The Operational Report - Lessons Learned (OR-LL) documents a rocket attack at Da Nang on January 3, 1972, which resulted in two wounded in action (WIA) and Da Nang sustained another rocket attack on February 9, 1972, which resulted in fourteen US WIA. Although the reports did not confirm the veteran's alleged mining incident, it does confirm his exposure to several rocket attacks. Pentacost v. Principi, 16 Vet. App. 124 (2002) (If the veteran's presence in areas of documented combat can be verified, this would be sufficient to find that he was exposed to combat stressors, even without the explicit documentation of his participation in specific events.). Given the verification of an in-service stressor and the fact that the examiner did not have access to this information, as no verified combat stressors were noted, the Board finds that another VA examination is needed in order to determine whether the veteran's PTSD is related to his verified in- service stressor or more properly attributed to his childhood experiences. Accordingly, the case is REMANDED for the following action: 1. Afford the veteran a new VA examination to determine whether his current PTSD is related to his in-service exposure to rocket attacks. The claims file and a copy of this Remand must be made available to and reviewed by the examiner. The examiner should specifically address whether it is more likely than not (i.e., to a degree of probability greater than 50 percent), at least as likely as not (i.e., a probability of 50 percent), or unlikely (i.e., a probability of less than 50 percent) that the veteran's PTSD is a result of in-service exposure to rocket attacks or more properly attributable to his childhood experiences. The examiner is advised that only the events that have been verified may be considered for the purpose of determining whether an in-service stressor has resulted in current psychiatric symptoms, and whether the diagnostic criteria to support the diagnosis of PTSD have been satisfied. See DSM-IV. To the extent possible, the examiner is to reconcile any contradictory evidence regarding the etiology of the diagnosed psychiatric disorder. Rationale for any conclusion reached should be provided. 2. Thereafter, readjudicate the issue on appeal based on a review of the entire evidentiary record. If the desired benefit is not granted, a supplemental statement of the case should be furnished to the veteran and his representative. The case should then be returned to the Board, if otherwise in order. 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. 2007). _________________________________________________ C. CRAWFORD 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).