Citation Nr: 1007992 Decision Date: 03/03/10 Archive Date: 03/11/10 DOCKET NO. 98-10 167A ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Seattle, Washington THE ISSUE Entitlement to service connection for posttraumatic stress disorder. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States WITNESS AT HEARINGS ON APPEAL Appellant ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD B. Ogilvie, Associate Counsel INTRODUCTION The Veteran served on active duty from October 1969 to September 1971. The Veteran also had a subsequent period of unverified service in a Reserve component. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from an October 1997 rating decision by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Seattle, Washington, which denied the claim sought. In August 2003, the Veteran testified before a Decision Review Officer at the Seattle RO. In June 2005, the Veteran testified before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge at a Board hearing. Copies of both transcripts are of record. 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 alleges that his posttraumatic stress disorder is the result of, inter alia, being sexually assaulted by [redacted] and others in January 1971 at the Merrell Barracks in Nuremburg, Germany. In support of his claim, the Veteran submitted an October 1999 letter from Mr. [redacted] in which he appears to admit that he committed the assault against the appellant in Germany in approximately 1970 or 1971. VA treatment records since December 1996 show the Veteran being diagnosed with posttraumatic stress disorder based, at least on part, on a sexual assault. In September 2006, the claim was remanded for further development, including to request that the Veteran submit the original letter from [redacted], as well as the envelope and business card sent with the letter. The RO was also to obtain [redacted] personnel records to determine whether he was in close geographical proximity to Merrell Barracks in January 1971. The RO was finally asked to send the letter from Mr. [redacted] to the VA's Office of the Inspector General for a handwriting analysis to consider whether it was more likely than not that the hand-written signature found on the bottom of that letter was presented in the Veteran's own handwriting. The record shows that the RO requested that the Veteran submit the original letter, envelope, and business card, but the request was ignored by the appellant. The Office of the Inspector General additionally provided sample letters for the Veteran to sign in Mr. [redacted] name, but the appellant again, ignored that request. The appellant did, however, provide a statement in September 2009 in which he wrote the name of Mr. [redacted] several times. The RO also conducted extensive research into [redacted] [redacted] military history. Mr. [redacted] records were unavailable through the National Personnel Records Center, and a representative recommended that the RO research the Defense Personnel Records Information Retrieval System, which returned no result. The RO, however, mistyped Mr. [redacted] social security number into the search engine and searched an incorrect number. Thus, a new search is necessary. The RO also failed to submit the purported letter from Mr. [redacted] to the VA's Office of the Inspector General for a handwriting analysis. The Veteran provided handwriting samples that were adequate for analysis. The Board instructed the RO to submit this information regardless of whether or not the Veteran replied to the information request that he send the original letter. This was not accomplished. The United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims has held that the Board is obligated by law to ensure that the RO complies with its directives; and where the remand orders of the Board are not complied with, the Board errs as a matter of law when it fails to ensure compliance. Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268 (1998). Accordingly, the case is REMANDED for the following action: 1. VA must send the appellant's claims file, to include any and all copies of the purported letter from Mr. [redacted], and the appellant's September 2009 statement, to the Office of the Inspector General in order to obtain a handwriting analysis opining whether it is more likely than not (i.e., greater than a 50/50 chance) that the signature found on the bottom of that letter is in the Veteran's handwriting. 2. The RO should search the Defense Personnel Records Information Retrieval System under the correct social security number for [redacted] [redacted]. The RO should also search the alternative social security number that was provided for [redacted] [redacted] through BIRLS. Any relevant further development should be accomplished as deemed necessary. 3. Thereafter, the RO must readjudicate the Veteran's claim of entitlement to service connection for posttraumatic stress disorder. If the benefit is not granted, the Veteran and his representative should be furnished with a supplemental statement of the case and afforded an opportunity to respond before the file is returned to the Board for further appellate consideration. The appellant has the right to submit additional evidence and argument on the matter the Board has remanded. Kutscherousky v. West, 12 Vet. App. 369 (1999). _________________________________________________ DEREK R. BROWN 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).