Citation Nr: 1037397 Decision Date: 10/01/10 Archive Date: 10/12/10 DOCKET NO. 09-03 301 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in St. Paul, Minnesota THE ISSUE Entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder. ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD K. Neilson, Counsel INTRODUCTION The Veteran served on active duty from July 1963 to July 1967. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from an October 2008 rating decision by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in St. Paul, Minnesota. The Board notes that on August 12, 2009, the RO denied entitlement to service connection for a skin disability of the face, jaw line, and ears. The Veteran filed a notice of disagreement, and a statement of the case was issued in September 2009. It does not appear from the claims file that a substantive appeal was filed. Thus, that claim is not before the Board. REMAND Generally, service connection may be established for disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by active military service. 38 U.S.C.A. § 1110 (West 2002); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303, 3.304 (2009). Establishing service connection for PTSD specifically requires medical evidence diagnosing the condition in accordance with 38 C.F.R. § 4.125(a) (2009); a link, established by medical evidence, between current symptoms and an in-service stressor; and credible supporting evidence that the claimed in-service stressor actually occurred. 38 C.F.R. § 3.304(f). Section 4.125(a) requires the diagnosis to conform to the fourth edition of the American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM- IV). In May 2008, the Veteran submitted to a private psychological evaluation. During that examination, he reported that in 1966, while standing on the flight line in Taiwan, he heard someone screaming for help and saw a man on the ground who had been run over by a large machine and had blood coming out of his mouth. He also reported that while swimming in Cam Ranh Bay, Vietnam, in June or July 1966, he and some fellow servicemen were caught in an undertow. He stated that T.J., a fellow serviceman, likely drowned in the incident. He further reported knifing a Vietnamese man who had held a gun to his head. The Veteran stated that he was involved in the removal of bodies from Vietnam and indicated that he was charged with setting up racks used to hold body bags. He noted that some of the bags would have blood dripping from loose zippers. He also stated that he was required to transport Agent Orange. The private psychologist recorded a diagnosis of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and depressive disorder, not otherwise specified. The examiner said the Veteran was referred for psychological evaluation secondary to his period of military service in Vietnam. The examiner said that the Veteran's symptoms were service connected and severe. In June 2008, the Veteran filed a claim for VA disability compensation, seeking service connection for a psychiatric disability. In support of his claim, he submitted a VA Form 21- 0781, Statement in Support of Claim for Service Connection for Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). The Veteran reported that in August or September of 1966, a C-130 aircraft flew into the side of a mountain in Vietnam, killing the entire crew, including the crew chief whom the Veteran knew well. The Veteran stated that at the time of the incident he was assigned to the Headquarters Company, 6217th Combat Support Group (CSG), and indicated that the aircraft in question was "one of our C130's." He stated his belief that the crew chief was named J.J., but noted difficulty in remembering the exact name given the passage of time. The Veteran also reported flying into Vietnam and coming under small arms fire when taking off and landing. He alleged having to haul bloody body bags, Agent Orange, and bombs. He also reported the drowning of T.J., a fellow serviceman from his unit. The Veteran's Air Force Form 7, Airman Military Record, was received in August 2008. The record contains basic service information for the Veteran to include his dates of service, assignments, and military awards and decorations. The record reflects that he had overseas service in Japan from November 1965 to March 1966 and in Taiwan from March 1966 to February 1967. The record also documents that he served on temporary duty (TDY) in Southeast Asia from January 13, 1966, to February 19, 1966. There is no evidence indicating the Veteran's exact whereabouts during his period of TDY. However, the record does show that he received a bronze service star for his participation in the Vietnam Defense Campaign in Vietnam from January 13, 1966, to January 30, 1966. This is recorded in block 14 of the AF Form 7. The entry also denotes "Vietnam" without further information. The Board notes that the U.S. Department of Defense Manual lists the dates of the Vietnam Defense Campaign as March 8, 1965, through December 24, 1965. The RO requested from the Veteran more specific information regarding his alleged in-service stressors. He responded that he had served in Vietnam from January 13, 1966, to January 30, 1966, and was later assigned to the 6217th CSG from May 1966 to December 1966. He reiterated that in June or July of 1966 T.J. drowned in Cam Ranh Bay, that he knew the crew chief who was killed when a C-130 aircraft flew into the side of a mountain in Vietnam, that he was involved in hauling bodies and Agent Orange, and that he came under small arms fire while taking off from and landing in Vietnam. He submitted a page from his AF Form 7 showing participation in the Vietnam Defense Campaign in January 1966. In September 2008, the RO determined that the information required to corroborate the events as described by the Veteran was insufficient to send a request for verification to the U.S. Army and Joint Service Research Center (JSRRC) and/or to allow for a meaningful search of the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) records. It was noted that a search of a list of names inscribed on the wall at the Vietnam Veterans Memorial failed to yield any results for the names provided by the Veteran. Although the majority of the information is general in nature, it appears to the Board that the Veteran has described events that may be able to be corroborated with additional investigation. The Veteran needs to provide additional information in regard to the several stressors identified by the record. The action paragraphs of the remand provide specific instruction for the AOJ to assist in developing information and/or evidence from the Veteran. The Board does note that if the Veteran desires to include his physical altercation where he knifed a Vietnamese man, he must provide additional information. His allegation, without additional details of his reporting the incident to authorities or to a buddy who can now provide a statement, or of a letter home at the time, or similar evidence prohibits any attempt to corroborate the stressor. Moreover, as the circumstances of this stressor are not related to his military duties, it would not be something that could be conceded under 38 U.S.C.A. § 1154(a). The Veteran is reminded that the duty to assist is not a one-way street. Wood v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 190, 193 (1991). He must provide as detailed information as possible regarding his claimed stressors. Accordingly, the case is REMANDED for the following action: 1. The AOJ must review the claims folder and ensure that all notification and development action required by 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 5102, 5103, 5103A (West 2002 & Supp. 2010) and 38 C.F.R. § 3.159 are complied with and satisfied. The Veteran should be notified of how to substantiate a claim for service connection for PTSD. 2. The Veteran has listed several events that he has alleged as stressor events in regard to his PTSD claim. Additional information and/or development are required to corroborate those claimed stressors. The Veteran should be advised that if he is not able to provide the information requested, it may not be possible to corroborate his claimed stressors. The Veteran related his observation of an individual being run over by a large machine, or tug, on a runway in Taiwan. He has not provided any additional information in regard to this incident. The Veteran should be asked to provide the location of the incident, the date as specific as possible, and the unit for the injured individual, if known. The Veteran has alleged that he was involved in setting up body racks on aircraft and the transportation of remains in body bags. He has also said that aircraft that he flew in took enemy fire on take offs and landings. He has not provided any amplifying information as to these events. He must be asked to identify his unit when he made the flights, the type of aircraft he flew in, where the events took place, and the dates, as specific as he can recall. The Veteran related a stressor of a C- 130 aircraft crashing into a mountain in Vietnam and that he knew the crew chief. He did not specifically identify the unit for the C-130 but said it was "one of our C130's"; he listed his unit as "HQ 6217th CSG." He listed his dates of assignment as from May 1966 to December 1966. However, the Veteran's official record does not reflect assignment to this unit at any time. The Veteran must identify the unit of the C-130 that crashed, location of the crash, and as specific a date for the crash as possible. The Veteran said that his friend, T.J., drowned or almost drowned, while swimming in the area of Cam Ranh Bay. The Veteran said that T.J. was a member of his unit but, as noted with the airplane crash, the Veteran identified a unit that is not shown in his available personnel records. The Veteran should be asked to identify his, and T.J.'s, unit, and the date of the incident as specifically as possible to allow for a record search. The Veteran should be asked for more information about the incident when he stabbed another man. He should identify any civilian or military authority to which he made a report about the incident. He should be asked to provide a statement from any friend or associate who can attest to the event, or some other evidence aside from his lay statements. All attempts to obtain this data, and any responses received, should be documented in the claims folder. 3. The Veteran has related that he was involved in flights that transported Agent Orange or empty barrels that had contained Agent Orange. The AOJ should contact the service department to determine if the Veteran's assigned units were involved in such operations. 4. The Veteran's personnel records do not reflect a permanent assignment to Vietnam. However, they do show that he served in a TDY status in Southeast Asia from January 13, 1966, to February 19, 1996, and then reported for a permanent assignment at Ching Chuan Kang Air Force Base, Taiwan. His records show his assignment to two separate units during his service on Taiwan and his transfer to the United States in February 1967. The records also reflect that he received the Vietnam Service Medal. There is no specific indication of service in Vietnam, Thailand, Laos, or Cambodia. The records also show that the Veteran received a bronze service star for participation in the Vietnam Defense Campaign. The dates of January 13, 1966, to January 30, 1966, are listed. The word "Vietnam" is also included. The Veteran's complete personnel file, to include his performance evaluation records, should be obtained. If the records confirm his presence in Vietnam, the specific dates should be noted, as the Veteran has alleged multiple stressors as involving his presence in Vietnam. 5. If the Veteran provides additional information in regard to his claimed stressors, the AOJ should conduct additional development as necessary. This would include obtaining unit records for casualty information as appropriate. This would relate to the individual who was run over, the air crash, and drowning. The AOJ should also obtain unit reports to show that the Veteran engaged in, or may have engaged in flights in and from Vietnam that involved transportation of casualties, and unit records to show whether the Veteran' aircraft was fired upon during any missions in Vietnam (if such are established). 6. Upon completion of the above development, the AOJ should arrange for the Veteran to be scheduled for a psychiatric examination. The claims folder, and a copy of this remand, must be provided to and reviewed by the examiner as part of the overall examination. Psychological testing with a view toward determining whether the Veteran experiences PTSD should be conducted. All other studies, tests and evaluations should be performed as deemed necessary by the examiner. The results of any testing must be included in the examination report. If a diagnosis of PTSD is made, the examiner should specify the stressor, or stressors, relied on in making the diagnosis of PTSD. For any psychiatric diagnosis the examiner should provide an opinion as to whether there is a 50 percent probability or greater that the current disorder began during the Veteran's active military service or is otherwise related to an event of such service. The report of examination must include the complete rationale for all opinions expressed. 7. After undertaking any other development deemed appropriate, the AOJ should re-adjudicate the issue on appeal. If the benefit sought is not granted, the Veteran should be furnished with a supplemental statement of the case and afforded an opportunity to respond before the record is returned to the Board for further review. Thereafter, the case should be returned to the Board for further appellate review. By this remand, the Board intimates no opinion as to any final outcome warranted. No action is required of the appellant until he is notified. The Veteran 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 case must be afforded expeditious treatment. The law requires that all claims that are remanded by the Board 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. 2010). ________________________________ MARK F. HALSEY Veterans Law Judge, Board of Veterans' Appeals Under 38 U.S.C.A. § 7252 (West 2002), only a decision of the Board 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).