Citation Nr: 1008087 Decision Date: 03/04/10 Archive Date: 03/11/10 DOCKET NO. 08-34 125 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in New York, New York THE ISSUE Entitlement to service connection for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: The American Legion WITNESS AT HEARING ON APPEAL Veteran ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD J. T. Sprague, Associate Counsel INTRODUCTION The Veteran had active service in the United States Air Force from September 1970 to May 1974. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a December 2004 rating decision issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in New York, New York. The Veteran appeared at a Travel Board Hearing in December 2009. A transcript is associated with the 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. REMAND The Veteran in this case alleges that he developed PTSD as a result of exposure to traumatic events occurring during his service in the U.S. Air Force. Specifically, the Veteran alleges being in the Republic of Vietnam as an aircraft crewman, where he asserts being a witness to rocket fire and to casualties. Additionally, the Veteran states that he was present at Clark Air Base (AB) in the Philippines during two catastrophic typhoons, and that his unit was called into action to help the local populace deal with the devastation of the storms. Regarding service in Vietnam, although the Board notes that the Veteran did serve as an air cargo technician, there is no indication that the Veteran served in Vietnam at any point during his service. Indeed, the Veteran was not awarded the Vietnam Service Medal (VSM), and his service personnel records do not reflect assignment to any unit within the borders of the Republic of Vietnam. In addition to this lack of evidence, the Board must also note that the Veteran has a clinical history of exaggerating his alleged wartime experiences. That is, an April 2007 VA mental health clinical note reveals that the Veteran had been dishonest about reporting war trauma, and he admitted to relaying a story about witnessing a dead civilian to VA, even though that story was based on the experience of another Veteran in his mental health group. There are thus credibility issues with regards to the alleged service in Vietnam, and the Board cannot conclude that the Veteran ever had any service in that country. Despite the Veteran's suspect credibility with regard to his alleged Vietnam stressors, it is noted that there is a diagnosis of PTSD made several times in the record. Additionally, although there is no evidence of Vietnam service, there is affirmative evidence of the Veteran being stationed at Clark AB in the Philippines during the time of a catastrophic typhoon. Indeed, the Veteran has submitted a newspaper article which shows that the Philippines was hit with a typhoon during the Veteran's assignment at Clark, and that there were over 100 casualties associated with the storm. As the Veteran was in airlift operations, it is not unreasonable to assume that in addition to his exposure to the storm, he might have had duties which required him to provide humanitarian aid to those affected by the natural disaster. Given the above, the Veteran should be afforded a comprehensive VA examination to determine if his diagnosed PTSD is related to the in-service stressors associated with the typhoons witnessed at Clark AB. See McLendon v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 79, 81( 2006). The examiner should note that any alleged service in Vietnam is unsubstantiated, and that the Veteran has had credibility issues when attesting to this alleged period of service. Thus, in the examination report, the examiner should ascertain expressly if the PTSD is related to the confirmed noncombat service in the Philippines during 1972 typhoons. Accordingly, the case is REMANDED for the following action: 1. Ensure that all notification and development actions required by 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 5102, 5103, and 5103A (West 2002) are fully satisfied. 2. The Veteran should be afforded a VA psychiatric examination to determine the nature, approximate onset date or etiology of PTSD, or any other acquired psychiatric disorder, which may currently be present. Following a review of the relevant medical evidence in the claims file, the clinical evaluation, and any tests that are deemed necessary, the examiners are asked to provide an opinion as to whether it is at least as likely as not (50 percent or greater probability) that PTSD or any other acquired psychiatric disability began during service or is otherwise linked to any stressful incident of service, to include service as an air cargo technician assigned to Clark AB in the Philippines during typhoons occurring in 1972. 3. After completion to the extent possible of the directed development, re- adjudicate the Veteran's claim. If the claim remains denied, issue an appropriate supplemental statement of the case and forward the case to the Board for final adjudication. 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). _________________________________________________ James L. March 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).