Citation Nr: 1007193 Decision Date: 02/26/10 Archive Date: 03/05/10 DOCKET NO. 08-20 054 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in St. Petersburg, Florida THE ISSUE Entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric condition. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: Florida Department of Veterans Affairs WITNESSES AT HEARING ON APPEAL Appellant and spouse ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD J. W. Kim, Counsel INTRODUCTION The Veteran had active service from August 1973 to April 1974. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a May 2007 rating decision issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in St. Petersburg, Florida. In November 2009, the Veteran testified during a hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge at the RO. A transcript of that hearing is of record. The record was held open for 30 days for submission of additional information and evidence. In December 2009, the Veteran submitted additional evidence with a waiver of RO review. The Board accepts this evidence for inclusion in the record on appeal. The appeal is REMANDED to the RO via the Appeals Management Center (AMC), in Washington, DC. VA will notify the Veteran if further action is required. REMAND The Veteran's service treatment records show that he was seen for complaints of nervousness and tension a month prior to discharge. He stated that he had joined the Navy because of problems with his father. He admitted to using illicit drugs while on leave as well as marijuana and noted that he would continue to use them if available. He then stated that he wanted to leave the Navy. He was prescribed Valium and referred for evaluation for drug rehabilitation and discharge. He subsequently complained of being unable to adapt to the pressures of Navy life, noting his pre-service problems with his father, his realization that joining the Navy was a mistake, and his use of illicit drugs in service. He was diagnosed with anxiety neurosis and situational adjustment reaction to adult life. The Veteran underwent a VA examination in May 2007. He reported receiving outpatient psychiatric care for over 10 years. The examiner diagnosed him with a mood disorder, not otherwise specified, noting opioid, cannabis, and nicotine dependence, all in full sustained remission. The examiner also diagnosed cluster C personality traits of avoidance and dependence. The examiner noted that the Veteran has been diagnosed with bipolar affective disorder but stated that the diagnosis was originally given when he was intoxicated and withdrawing from multiple illicit drugs. The examiner opined that the Veteran had a poor adjustment to the military which was more likely than not related to his personality style, and the illicit drug use in service likely contributed to his mood problems at that time. The Veteran underwent a second VA examination in March 2008. He reported receiving ongoing outpatient treatment since 1974. The examiner noted that there were no past treatment reports of record for review or verification. The examiner diagnosed him with alcohol dependence, anxiolytic dependence, cannabis dependence, opioid dependence in remission, substance-induced anxiety disorder, and substance-induced mood disorder. The examiner also diagnosed a personality disorder not otherwise specified with avoidant, paranoid, borderline, and obsessive features. The examiner opined that none of the diagnosed conditions was caused or aggravated by military service. The examiner stated that the issues treated in the Navy were secondary to substance use at the time as well as the Veteran's personality characteristics. Thereafter, medical evidence of psychiatric treatment since March 1976 was associated with the claims file. As the above medical opinions were provided prior to the association of this medical evidence with the claims file, a supplemental opinion considering this evidence should be obtained. Also, during the May 2007 VA examination, the Veteran noted receiving disability benefits for bipolar disorder since the 1990s. Similarly, during his Board hearing, he indicated that he has been receiving disability benefits for a mental disorder from the Social Security Administration (SSA). There is no indication in the claims file that the records associated with the SSA disability application were requested or any effort was made to obtain them. The application and associated records may bear directly upon the issue currently before the Board and must be obtained. Accordingly, the case is REMANDED for the following actions: 1. The RO should request from the SSA complete copies of any disability determination(s) it has made concerning the Veteran, as well as copies of the medical records that served as the basis for any such decision(s). All attempts to fulfill this development must be documented in the claims file. If the search for any such records yields negative results, that fact should be clearly noted, with the RO either documenting for the file that such records do not exist or that further efforts to obtain them would be futile, and the Veteran should be informed in writing. 2. The RO should then arrange for the Veteran's claims file to be reviewed by the examiner who prepared the March 2008 VA examination report (or a suitable substitute if that examiner is unavailable) for the purpose of obtaining a supplemental opinion that addresses the nature and etiology of the Veteran's psychiatric condition in light of the additional medical evidence. The examiner should provide an opinion on whether it is at least as likely as not (50 percent or greater probability) that the Veteran's psychiatric condition had its onset in service or within one year thereafter or is otherwise related to service. A complete rationale should be given for all opinions and conclusions. 3. Thereafter, the RO should readjudicate the claim. If any benefit sought on appeal remains denied, the Veteran and his representative should be provided a supplemental statement of the case and given an opportunity to respond. 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. 2009). _________________________________________________ DEBORAH W. SINGLETON 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) (2009).