Citation Nr: 1035519 Decision Date: 09/20/10 Archive Date: 09/28/10 DOCKET NO. 06-16 681 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Hartford, Connecticut THE ISSUE Entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder, including schizoaffective disorder. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: Disabled American Veterans WITNESS AT HEARING ON APPEAL Appellant ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD E. I. Velez, Counsel INTRODUCTION The appellant had active service with the United States Air Force from April 1968 to November 1968. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a November 2004 decision by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Hartford, Connecticut. The appellant testified at an August 2006 hearing before a Decision Review Officer (DRO) at the RO. A transcript of the hearing has been associated with the claim file. In June 2009, the Board remanded the claim for further development. 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 appellant is seeking service connection for an acquire psychiatric disorder. After a review of the record, the Board finds that unfortunately, the claim must again be remanded. A remand by the Board imposes upon VA a duty to ensure compliance with the terms of the remand. Where the remand orders of the Board are not complied with, the Board errs in failing to insure compliance. Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268 (1998). The June 2009 Board remand directed VA to obtain Vet Center records for 2005 treatment reported by the Veteran. There is no indication that VA took any action to implement this directive. While a July 2009 letter to the Veteran asked him to identify care providers and either submit records or a properly executed release form, the letter failed to specify that VA was seeking Vet Center records. These records are considered VA records, not private records, and they must be obtained or all reasonable efforts exhausted. On remand, VA must make a concerted and documented request for Vet Center records. The June 2009 remand also directed VA to provide a VA examination to clarify the current psychiatric diagnosis and obtain an opinion regarding the etiology of such. While VA did schedule that examination, it appears the Veteran failed to report. No official notice of that failure is reflected in the record, but several reports of contact indicate the RO/AMC contacted the medical center and they discussed the failure to report. However, the Veteran asserted in a July 2010 telephone contact with VA that he had missed his appointment because he was unaware of it; he never received notification. The file reflect that there are several addresses of record for the Veteran. It is unclear which was accurate at the time the examination notice was sent, but the address to which the notice was sent is not currently correct. The Board accepts the allegation that proper notice was not provided due to the apparent relocation of the Veteran. As he has now requested rescheduling and expresses a willingness to report, he must be afforded such opportunity. Accordingly, the case is REMANDED for the following action: 1. Take appropriate steps, to include contacting the Veteran, to obtain all Vet Center treatment records for the appellant from 2005 to the present. 2. After the above development has been completed, schedule the appellant for a VA psychiatric examination. The claims file must be reviewed in conjunction with the examination. The examiner should specifically state any currently found psychiatric disorder(s). The examiner should provide an opinion as to whether it is at least as likely as not that any current psychiatric diagnosis was incurred in, caused by, or permanently aggravated by service. The examiner should specifically address the September 1968 hospitalization, and provide an opinion as to whether the appellant's symptoms in service were the early manifestations of any currently diagnosed psychiatric disorder. A complete rationale for any opinion rendered should be provided. If the examiner feels that the requested opinion cannot be rendered without resorting to speculation, the examiner should state whether the need to speculate is caused by a deficiency in the state of general medical knowledge (i.e. no one could respond given medical science and the known facts) or by a deficiency in the record or the examiner (i.e. additional facts are required, or the examiner does not have the needed knowledge or training). 3. Review the claims file to ensure that the foregoing requested development is completed, and arrange for any additional development indicated. Then, readjudicate the claim on appeal. If the benefit sought remains denied, issue an appropriate SSOC and provide the Veteran and his representative the requisite time period to respond. The case should then be returned to the Board for further appellate review, if otherwise in order. No action is required of the appellant unless he is notified. 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 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). _________________________________________________ WILLIAM H. DONNELLY 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).