Citation Nr: 1032015 Decision Date: 08/25/10 Archive Date: 09/01/10 DOCKET NO. 08-23 124 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania THE ISSUE Entitlement to service connection for a psychiatric disability. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: Disabled American Veterans WITNESS AT HEARING ON APPEAL The Veteran ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD M. McPhaull, Counsel INTRODUCTION The appellant is a Veteran who served on active duty from April 1974 to February 1978. This matter is before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from rating decisions by the Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). In January 2009, a Travel Board hearing was held before the undersigned. A transcript of that hearing is associated with the claims file. At the hearing, the Veteran submitted additional evidence with a waiver of RO initial consideration. In May 2009 this matter was remanded for additional development. The appeal is REMANDED to the RO via the Appeals Management Center (AMC), in Washington, DC. VA will notify the Veteran if any action on his part is required. REMAND As was noted in the May 2009 remand, in a September 2006 statement in support of his claim, the Veteran reported that in 1976 he was admitted to the Philadelphia Naval Hospital Psychiatric Unit. He stated that he was told that he was delusional and violent and was given massive doses of Thorazine and hospitalized for 30 to 40 days. The RO noted that his service treatment records (STRs) showed no mention of such hospitalization. At the January 2009 Travel Board hearing, the Veteran submitted service personnel records which reflect that he indeed was a patient at the Naval Regional Medical Center (NRMC) from December 1976 to February 1977. The RO was instructed to arrange for exhaustive development to secure complete clinical records of the Veteran's hospitalization from the National Personnel Records Center (NPRC). The search was to encompass contacting any and all records storage facilities to which records from NRMC may have been retired including when that facility was decommissioned (should NPRC not have such records). Notably, the RO submitted such request to NPRC in September 2009. In October 2009 NPRC responded the following: "Searched Philadelphia Naval Regional Medical Center during the year 1977. Search produced no record." The RO sent notice to the Veteran in January 2010 and subsequently issued a supplemental statement of the case (SSOC) in May 2010. Inasmuch as the record shows that the Veteran was hospitalized beginning in December 1976, the search should have included for records from that month. As was noted, records of such hospitalization may be critical evidence in the matter at hand (as they are alleged to show onset of the claimed disability in service) and are constructively of record. Because action ordered in the Board's May 2009 Remand was not completed in its entirety, this matter must be remanded, once again, for more complete development and adjudicatory action. See Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268 (1998)(a remand by the Board confers on the appellant, as a matter of law, the right to compliance with the remand orders). Accordingly, the case is REMANDED for the following: 1. The RO should arrange for exhaustive development to secure complete clinical records of the Veteran's hospitalization at NRMC from December 1976 to February 1977. If they are not located, the RO should conclusively ascertain whether or not there are any alternate storage facilities to which records from NRMC may have been forwarded or retired. If any such facility is identified, the RO should arrange for a records search at that facility. If the records cannot be located because they are irretrievably lost, or have been destroyed, it should be so annotated in the claims file (along with a description of the extent of the search for the records)(and the Veteran should be notified that the records are unavailable). 2. The RO should arrange for any further development suggested by any additional records located (e.g., a nexus examination). 3. The RO should then readjudicate this claim. If it remains denied, the Veteran and his representative should be furnished an appropriate SSOC and afforded the opportunity to respond. The case should then be returned to the Board, if in order, for further review. 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). This claim must be afforded expeditious treatment. The law requires that all claims that are remanded by the Board 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). _________________________________________________ GEORGE R. SENYK 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).