Citation Nr: 1018367 Decision Date: 05/18/10 Archive Date: 06/04/10 DOCKET NO. 08-04 958 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Louisville, Kentucky THE ISSUE Entitlement to service connection for post-traumatic stress syndrome (PTSD). REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: Disabled American Veterans ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD C. Bruce, Associate Counsel INTRODUCTION The Veteran had active service from February 1970 to December 1971. This matter comes to the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a March 2006 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Louisville, Kentucky. 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 Board finds that additional development is required to fairly consider the Veteran's claim for service connection for PTSD. Service connection for PTSD can be awarded when the record contains (1) a current medical diagnosis of PTSD, (2) credible supporting evidence that the claimed in-service stressor actually occurred, and (3) medical evidence establishing a nexus between the claimed in-service stressor and the current symptomatology of the PTSD. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.304(f) (2008); see also Cohen v. Brown, 10 Vet. App. 128, 138 (1997), and Pentecost v. Principi, 16 Vet. App. 124, 129 (2002). The Veteran has claimed multiple stressors, however the Veteran has failed to provide the specific dates required in order for many of the stressors to be researched. The Veteran did however, provide two stressors that require additional development. The Veteran stated in his February 2005 statement that he was scared every time he had to climb a pole to repair radio wires. The Veteran's DD-214 states that his MOS was fixed station technical controller. Of record is notice of receipt of an Army Commendation Medal which notes the stress under which the Veteran had to work to keep the vital communications networks working while he was stationed at Ban Me Thout. The Veteran also stated that he was required to climb poles frequently as a part of his job and that he was often afraid while climbing the poles because of the possibility of sniper fire and the vulnerable position he was in while on the poles. The Board finds that is reasonable to believe that the Veteran would have had to climb poles to do his job in radio communications and therefore it should be determined if this task could have been a stressor causing the Veteran's PTSD. Additionally, the Veteran notes that while he was stationed in Vietnam, one of his best childhood friends died while stationed at Fort Bragg, Kentucky. The Veteran stated in his February 2005 statement that his friend joined the military when he discovered that the Veteran had been drafted. As a result, the Veteran considered him to be a true friend and feels responsible for the friend's death in that he would likely not have entered the military but for the Veteran. The Veteran has stated that he has felt guilty for not being able to attend the funeral and is reminded of it often because he frequently has to drive past where his friend's house is located. As such the Board finds that it is necessary to determine if there was a soldier, from Harold, Kentucky, that died at Fort Bragg in 1971 while the Veteran was on active duty in Vietnam. If it is determined that his best friend was killed at Fort Bragg while the Veteran was stationed in Vietnam, then a VA examination should be provided to determine if this incident could serve as a stressor for the Veteran's currently diagnosed PTSD. Finally, the Board recognizes a duty to provide a VA examination when the record lacks evidence to decide the Veteran's claim and there is evidence of (1) a current disability, (2) an in-service event, injury, or disease, and (3) some indication that the claimed disability may be associated with the established event, injury, or disease. 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(c)(4)(i) (2007); see also McLendon v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 79 (2006). The Board notes that the Veteran is currently diagnosed with PTSD according to the June 2004 VA comprehensive mental health assessment. As such, the Board finds that if the Veteran's stressor(s) is verified, then an examination is necessary to determine whether there is a nexus between any verified in-service stressor(s) and the current symptomatology of the PTSD. Accordingly, the case is REMANDED for the following action: 1. Review the file and prepare a summary of the stressors claimed by the Veteran including: climbing poles to repair and install radio communication lines, and the death of a friend at Fort Bragg while the Veteran was serving in Vietnam if the death of the friend is verified. 2. Send a letter to the Veteran requesting the he provide a three month period of time during which he believes his friend was killed at Fort Bragg, Kentucky. Additionally, request that the Veteran provide specific information regarding the circumstances of his friend's death. 3. Upon receipt of the approximate date of the death of the Veteran's friend and any other information provided, the RO should determine whether a soldier from Harold, Kentucky was killed during that time frame at Fort Bragg, Kentucky. All efforts to obtain these records should be documented in the claims folder. Requests must continue until the AOJ determines that the records sought do not exist or that further efforts to obtain those records would be futile. 4. Schedule the Veteran for a VA psychiatric examination to determine the nature and likely etiology of the Veteran's currently diagnosed PTSD. The claims file, including a copy of this REMAND, must be made available to the examiner for review, and the examination report should reflect that the claims folder was reviewed in connection with the examination. The examiner should provide an opinion as to whether the Veteran's (PTSD) is more likely than not (i.e., probability greater than 50 percent), at least as likely as not (i.e., probability of 50 percent), or less likely than not (i.e., probability less than 50 percent), etiologically related to any of the Veteran's verified stressor(s), including climbing utility poles in Vietnam and the death of a friend during service if that death is verified. A detailed rationale should be provided for all opinions. 5. After completion of the above, and any other development deemed necessary, review the expanded record and determine if the Veteran has submitted evidence sufficient to warrant entitlement to the benefits sought. Unless the benefits sought on appeal are granted, the Veteran and his representative, if any, should be furnished an appropriate supplemental statement of the case and afforded 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). _________________________________________________ MILO H. HAWLEY 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).