Citation Nr: 1007374 Decision Date: 03/01/10 Archive Date: 03/11/10 DOCKET NO. 06-35 304 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Des Moines, Iowa THE ISSUE Entitlement to service connection for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). REPRESENTATION Veteran represented by: Vietnam Veterans of America WITNESS AT HEARING ON APPEAL The Veteran ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD K. M. Schaefer, Associate Counsel INTRODUCTION The Veteran served on active duty from November 1968 to July 1970. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans Appeals (Board) on appeal from a rating decision issued in March 2004 by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Des Moines, Iowa. In November 2009, the Veteran testified at a hearing before the undersigned, via video-conference, and in October 2005, he testified before a Decision Review Officer (DRO), sitting at the RO. Transcripts of these hearings are associated with the claims file. The Board notes that the undersigned, at the Veteran's request, allowed 30 days from the date of his hearing for him to submit additional evidence. To this date, no further evidence has been received. 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 Although cognizant of the delay that will result, the Board finds that a remand is necessary for further development of the claim. Specifically, the Board determines that further efforts should be made to verify the Veteran's claimed stressors. The Veteran's administrative personnel records show that he was stationed in Vietnam between July 1969 and November 1969 and then transferred to Japan. Although the Veteran has stated he was eligible for the Purple Heart, the Board observes that the Veteran's service records are devoid of award or recognition related to combat experience. However, at his November 2009 hearing, he testified that he was at a fire base in Cho Lon between September and November 1969 and that the base received mortar shells in early September 1969, after a cease fire. He also stated that the base received incoming fire twice with American and South Vietnamese sustaining wounds in the attacks during his time there. Prior to certification, the RO reviewed and summarized the Veteran's stressors and determined that the detail provided by the Veteran was insufficient to allow for formulation of a request for corroboration by the U.S. Army and Joint Services Records Research Center (JSRRC, formerly CURR, Center for Unit Records Research). However, the Veteran's testimony supplies a narrow enough time frame to allow unit records to be searched for verification of the attacks he described. Additionally, although administrative records for the Veteran's service have been obtained, his complete service personnel file would be helpful in ascertaining his duties while stationed in Vietnam. Therefore, a remand is required so that VA may fulfill its duty to assist in obtaining outstanding, relevant records. Finally, the Veteran should be afforded a VA examination in order to assess the appropriate diagnoses for his psychiatric symptoms and whether his symptoms, regardless of associated diagnosis, are a result of any verified stressor or are otherwise related to his military service. See Clemons v. Shinseki, 23 Vet. App. 1 (2009) (per curiam) (holding that when a claimant makes a claim, he is seeking service connection for symptoms regardless of how those symptoms are diagnosed or labeled). Accordingly, the case is REMANDED for the following actions: 1. Request the Veteran's complete service personnel file from all appropriate sources. 2. Review the Veteran's claimed statements and testimony for details of claimed stressors and request corroborating information from JSRRC, to the extent possible, based on that review. 3. All requests and responses to the above requests, positive and negative, should be associated with the claims file. 4. Schedule the Veteran for a VA examination in order to ascertain the existence and etiology of any acquired psychiatric disorder. The claims file should be available for review by the examiner, and the examination report should reflect that such review occurred. Upon review of the record and examination of the Veteran, the examiner should opine as to the following: Is it at least as likely as not that any diagnosed acquired psychiatric disorder is a result of a verified in- service stressor or is otherwise a result of the Veteran's military service? A rationale for any opinion advanced should be provided. The examiner should also state what sources were consulted in forming the opinion. 5. After completing the above actions and any other development as may be indicated by any response received as a consequence of the actions taken in the preceding paragraphs, the Veteran's service connection claim should be readjudicated, to include all evidence received since the May 2009 supplemental statement of the case. If the claim remains denied, the Veteran and his representative should be issued another supplemental statement of the case. An appropriate period of time should be allowed for response. The Veteran has the right to submit additional evidence and argument on the matter 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). _________________________________________________ JASON R. DAVITIAN Acting 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).