Citation Nr: 0814579 Decision Date: 05/02/08 Archive Date: 05/12/08 DOCKET NO. 06-31 159 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Winston- Salem, North Carolina THE ISSUES 1. Entitlement to service connection for a back disability with arthritis. 2. Entitlement to service connection for a neck disability with arthritis. 3. Entitlement to service connection for a bilateral foot disability with arthritis. 4. Entitlement to service connection for chronic herpetic neuritis/ganglionitis (claimed as a bilateral leg condition and arthritis). 5. Entitlement to service connection for residuals of a head injury. 6. Entitlement to service connection for cortically based visual field loss and cataracts, to include as secondary to an in-service head injury. 7. Entitlement to service connection for seizures, to include as secondary to an in-service head injury. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: The American Legion WITNESS AT HEARING ON APPEAL Appellant and his wife ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD Elizabeth Jalley, Associate Counsel INTRODUCTION The veteran served on active duty from November 1964 to November 1966 with the Army and served additional duty with the National Guard. This case comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a July 2005 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Winston- Salem, North Carolina. In March 2008, a Travel Board hearing was held before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge at the Winston-Salem RO. A transcript of the hearing is of record. The record reflects that the veteran submitted additional evidence to the Board accompanied by a waiver of initial review by the agency of original jurisdiction. See 38 C.F.R. § 20.1304. 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 The veteran is claiming entitlement to service connection for multiple disabilities that he states resulted from an in- service tank accident. Specifically, the veteran describes this accident as having occurred in Spring 1966 while he was stationed with the Second Armored Cavalry in Germany. He states that the tank he was riding in ran off the road and into a deep creek, and he was knocked unconscious. He indicates he was initially treated in a field hospital and assigned to barracks duty, but he was eventually sent back to the United States on an early release due to his injuries. VA treatment records do reflect that the veteran has reported that the disabilities started as a result on injuries sustained when he was in the accident in service, and, in an August 2004 clinical note, a VA examiner specifically opined that he had visual field loss and decreased vision most likely secondary to a head trauma received in the 1960's. In March 2008, the veteran testified that his hospitalization in Germany lasted for more than a couple of weeks, but he was unable to identify the specific hospital in which he was treated. The record reflects that the RO has attempt to obtain records of treatment that the veteran reported receiving for seizures at Fort Bragg, North Carolina, while in the U.S. Army Reserves. However, VA has not attempted to obtain treatment records from the veteran's hospitalization in Germany. The Board notes that among the veteran's service medical records is a September/October 1966 record reflecting outpatient treatment at a US Army Dispensary in Bamberg, Germany. The Board also notes that, prior to closing in 2007, the U.S. Army Hospital in Wuerzburg, Germany provided inpatient care services for soldiers stationed at Warner Barracks, which is the principal military installation in Bamberg, Germany. See Dan Cragg, Guide to Military Installations, (Stackpole Books, 2001) 6th Edition. On remand, the AMC should determine the appropriate source for obtaining records from the now-closed U.S. Army Hospital in Wuerzburg, and the AMC should ask if they have records of the veteran having received inpatient treatment at that facility. In addition, the AMC should obtain the veteran's complete service personnel file from his period of active duty, as it may indicate another potential facility in Germany at which the veteran may have been hospitalized. The veteran's personnel records may also be able to verify that he was involved in a tank accident during service, as the veteran has indicated that there were administrative consequences to this accident. Accordingly, the case is REMANDED for the following action: 1. The AMC should request all available service personnel records from the National Personnel Records Center. 2. The AMC should attempt to obtain records from the Army Hospital in Wuerzburg, Germany at which the veteran may have been treated. If such efforts prove unsuccessful, documentation to that effect should be added to the claims file. 3. After the above has been completed, and after any other development that is deemed appropriate, the AMC should readjudicate the issues on appeal. If any issue on appeal continues to be denied, the veteran and his representative should be provided a supplemental statement of the case. The veteran should then be given an appropriate 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. 2007). _________________________________________________ MICHAEL LANE 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).