Citation Nr: 1318554 Decision Date: 06/06/13 Archive Date: 06/11/13 DOCKET NO. 09-13 816 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Los Angeles, California THE ISSUE Entitlement to service connection for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: California Department of Veterans Affairs ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD J. Chapman, Associate Counsel INTRODUCTION The Veteran served on active duty from February 1967 to February 1969. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from an October 2007 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO), which denied the benefits sought on appeal. This matter was previously remanded by the Board in March 2012 and December 2012 for additional 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 This matter has been remanded twice previously by the Board to schedule the Veteran for another VA examination to determine whether a diagnosis of PTSD is warranted. Specifically, in the Board's December 2012 remand, the Board directed that should the Veteran fail to report for this examination, the claims file should nevertheless by forwarded to a VA psychiatrist or psychologist, or a psychiatrist or psychologist with whom VA had contracted for review and a response to whether a diagnosis of PTSD is warranted, and if a diagnosis is made, whether it is at least as likely as not that the PTSD is related to fear of hostile military activity during the Veteran's service. Here, the claims file has been returned to the Board without a medical opinion. Under the circumstances, the case must be returned for further action. See Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268 (1998). Moreover, a May 2013 letter from the Veteran indicated that he has been in contact with the RO. He explained that when he was scheduled for an examination in January 2013, he called to advise that he would be on vacation and also that Fresno, California (where the examination was scheduled for) is three hours each way by car. He stated that when he returned from vacation, he phoned and was told that he had missed the evaluation appointment. The Veteran then requested he be scheduled in San Luis Obispo, California, which is only 30 minutes from his home. He stated that he was told he would be scheduled at this location, but has never heard since. The Veteran then stated that he called the VA in April 2013 and was told he did not show up for the appointment in Fresno, but was advised that he would be scheduled for an appointment in San Luis Obispo. The Board notes that the correspondence indicated by the Veteran is not of record, except for a March 2013 correspondence with the Veteran in which he stated that he would be in South America and the RO advised him that he would be scheduled for an examination once more and also confirmed that his address had not changed. The Veteran was scheduled for a VA examination in March 2013, but he failed to report. The Board notes that the Veteran has also been scheduled for VA examinations in March 2012, December 2012, and January 2013. However, in view of the above history and the Veteran's recent expression of a willingness to undergo examination, the Board believes it appropriate to afford him another opportunity to report for examination. Accordingly, the case is REMANDED for the following actions: 1. The Veteran should be scheduled for a VA PTSD examination (by a VA psychiatrist or psychologist, or a psychiatrist or psychologist with whom VA had contracted) to include (if possible) specialized psychological testing for PTSD as well as clinical examination. It is imperative that the claims file be made available to and be reviewed by the examiner in connection with the examination. After reviewing the claims file, reviewing the results of any psychological testing, and clinically examining the Veteran, the examiner should clearly report whether it is at least as likely as not (a 50 % or higher degree or probability) that a diagnosis of PTSD is warranted. If a diagnosis of PTSD is made, the examiner should offer an opinion as to whether it is at least as likely as not (a 50% or higher degree or probability) that the PTSD is related to fear of hostile military activity during the Veteran's service. In the event the Veteran fails to report for the examination, the claims file should nevertheless be forwarded to a VA psychiatrist or psychologist, or a psychiatrist or psychologist with whom VA had contracted, for review and a response to the above posed questions. 2. After completion of the above, the RO should review the expanded record and determine if service connection for PTSD is warranted. If the benefit remains denied, the Veteran and his representative should be furnished an appropriate supplemental statement of the case and be afforded an opportunity to respond. The case should then be returned to the Board for appellate 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. 2012). _________________________________________________ ALAN S. PEEVY 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) (2012).