Citation Nr: 0814809 Decision Date: 05/05/08 Archive Date: 05/12/08 DOCKET NO. 06-28 922 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Cleveland, Ohio THE ISSUES 1. Entitlement to service connection for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). 2. Entitlement to service connection for a heart condition. 3. Entitlement to service connection for seizures. 4. Entitlement to service connection for bilateral tinnitus. 5. Entitlement to service connection for a lung disorder. 6. Entitlement to service connection for diabetes mellitus. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States WITNESS AT HEARINGS ON APPEAL Appellant ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD K.A. Kennerly, Associate Counsel INTRODUCTION The veteran served on active duty from September 1955 to August 1957 and had unsubstantiated National Guard service thereafter. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a January 2006 rating decision of the Cleveland, Ohio, Regional Office (RO) of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), which denied the veteran's claims. The veteran participated in a RO hearing in May 2006 and a Board video conference hearing with the undersigned Veterans Law Judge in February 2008. Transcripts of those proceedings have been associated with the veteran's claims file. 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 on his part. REMAND After a thorough review of the veteran's claims file, the Board has determined that additional development must be completed prior to the adjudication of the veteran's claims. The Board notes that the January 2006 rating decision denied the veteran's claim of entitlement to service connection for diabetes mellitus due to the lack of new and material evidence. Review of the veteran's claims file did not reveal a prior denial of diabetes mellitus; therefore the Board is unsure why the RO adjudicated the veteran's claim on this basis. This claim must be returned to the RO/AMC for an explanation in this regard or for adjudication on the merits. During the veteran's February 2008 Board video conference hearing, the veteran stated that after discharge from active duty service in 1957, he then joined the National Guard. There is no indication in the claims file that the RO attempted to verify this service nor were any medical records from this period requested. Additionally, the veteran indicated that he had received continuous treatment at the VA medical facilities in Wade Park, Brecksville, Clarksville and the McCathy Clinic since 1957. It appears that the RO requested medical records from the Wade Park facility dated from 1957 to 1959 only. The RO/AMC must obtain any available treatment records from the aforementioned facilities from 1957 to the present. The veteran also indicated that his insurance carrier, Kaiser Permanente, may have additional medical records. It does not appear that the RO attempted to obtain these records. Accordingly, the case is REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain any available medical treatment records for the veteran from the VA facilities in Wade Park, Brecksville, Clarksville and the McCarthy Clinic from 1957 to the present. If no records are available, this should be memorialized in the veteran's claims file. 2. Obtain any available medical treatment records from Kaiser Permanente from 1957 to the present. If no records are available, this should also be memorialized in the veteran's claims file. 3. After completing the above action and any other development as may be indicated by any response received as a consequence of the actions taken in the paragraphs above, the claims should be readjudicated. Specifically, the veteran's claim of entitlement to service connection for diabetes mellitus should be adjudicated on the merits, unless the record includes a final rating decision which denied the claim. If the claims remain denied, a supplemental statement of the case should be provided to the veteran and his representative. After they have had an adequate opportunity to respond, the issues should be returned to the Board for further 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). _________________________________________________ BARBARA B. COPELAND 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).