Citation Nr: 0814636 Decision Date: 05/02/08 Archive Date: 05/12/08 DOCKET NO. 07-09 592 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Newark, New Jersey THE ISSUE Entitlement to service connection for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: Disabled American Veterans WITNESS AT HEARING ON APPEAL The veteran ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD A.M. Ivory, Associate Counsel INTRODUCTION The veteran had active military service from March 1967 to March 1970. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a January 2006 rating decision by the Department of Veterans' Affairs (VA) Regional Office in Newark, New Jersey. The veteran testified before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge in January 2008 at the RO. The Board notes that at the January 2008 Board hearing the veteran withdrew the following issues that were on appeal: entitlement to service connection for hearing loss, entitlement to service connection for residuals of a right rib injury, entitlement to a higher initial rating for the service-connected diabetes mellitus, and entitlement to a higher initial rating for the service-connected tinnitus. At the Board hearing the veteran submitted additional evidence with a waiver of initial RO jurisdiction. The Board has accepted this additional evidence for inclusion into the record on appeal. See 38 C.F.R. § 20.800. The issue on 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 As noted at the November 2005 VA examination the veteran has a current diagnosis of PTSD. In addition, an April 2006 VA Initial Psychiatric Assessment stated that he had combat related PTSD and intrusive thoughts about in-service combat experiences. However, the Board notes that there is no current evidence that the veteran engaged in combat while in the Republic of Vietnam. After careful review of the veteran's testimony, November 2005 VA examination, and April 2006 VA Initial Psychiatric Assessment the Board notes that the veteran served in the Republic of Vietnam from October 1967 to December 1968 and was stationed at Camp Enari with the First Battalion Eighth Infantry Unit of HAC and the Fourth Infantry Division. It was also noted the veteran served in Pleiku, Play Ku, and Duck Tho. He testified that during the Tet Offensive his camp was almost ever run and they were directly hit with mortar rounds. The Board finds that the veteran has submitted enough information for possible verification by the U.S. Army and Joint Service Records Research Center (USA JSRRC), especially if his unit was under attack. VA is obligated to obtain relevant records pertaining to claimant's active military service that are held or maintained by a government entity, if the claimant furnished sufficient information to locate those records. 38 U.S.C.A. § 5103A(b)(3)(c)(1). In August 2007 the veteran submitted a Buddy statement that asserted that there was an attempted infaltritation of the permiter of Camp Enari in April or May 1968; however, the Board notes that this statement does not address if the veteran was there. To ensure that all due process requirements are met the RO should also give the veteran opportunity to present any additional information and/or evidence pertinent to the claims on appeal that is not already of record. The RO should also invite the veteran to submit all evidence in his possession that is not already of record, and ensure that its notice to the veteran meets the requirements of the recent decision in Dingess/Hartman v. Nicholson, 19 Vet. App. 473 (2006), as appropriate. After providing the appropriate notice, the RO should attempt to obtain any additional evidence for which the veteran provides sufficient information and authorization, following the current procedures prescribed in 38 C.F.R. § 3.159 (2007). In addition to the actions requested hereinabove, the RO should also undertake any other development and/or notification action deemed warranted by VCAA prior to adjudicating the claim on appeal. Accordingly, this matter is hereby REMANDED to the RO for the following actions: 1. The RO should take appropriate steps to contact the veteran by letter and request that the veteran provide sufficient information, and if necessary authorization, to enable the RO to obtain any additional pertinent treatment records not currently of record. The veteran also should be informed that he may submit evidence to support his claim. The RO's letter should invite the veteran to furnish all evidence in his possession, and identify what evidence is ultimately his responsibility to obtain. The RO should ensure that its letter meets the requirements of the recent decision in Dingess/Hartman v. Nicholson, cited to above, as appropriate. 2. If the veteran responds, the RO should assist him in obtaining any additional evidence identified by following the current procedures set forth in 38 C.F.R. § 3.159. All records/responses received should be associated with the claims file. If any records sought are not obtained, the RO should notify the veteran of the records that were not obtained, explain the efforts taken to obtain them, and describe further action to be taken. 3. The RO should undertake all indicated action in order to verify the claimed stressors with USA JSRRC, i.e. the attack on Camp Enari. 4. After completing the requested actions, and any additional notification and/or development deemed warranted, the issus of service connection should be reviewed in light of all the evidence of record. If any benefit sought on appeal remains denied, the RO should furnish to the veteran and his representative an appropriate Supplemental Statement of the Case (SSOC) that includes clear reasons and bases for all determinations, and afford them the appropriate time period for response. Thereafter, if indicated, the case should be returned to the Board for the purpose of appellate disposition. The veteran may furnish additional evidence and/or argument during the appropriate time period. See Kutscherousky v. West, 12 Vet. App. 369 (1999); Colon v. Brown, 9 Vet. App. 104, 108 (1996); Booth v. Brown, 8 Vet. App. 109 (1995); Quarles v. Derwinski, 3 Vet. App. 129, 41 (1992). 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). _________________________________________________ CHERYL L. MASON 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).