Citation Nr: 1320316 Decision Date: 06/24/13 Archive Date: 07/02/13 DOCKET NO. 06-03 779A ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Oakland, California THE ISSUE Entitlement to service connection for a psychiatric disorder, to include posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: Disabled American Veterans ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD M. Peters, Associate Counsel INTRODUCTION The Veteran had active duty service from March 1971 to December 1972, including from August 1971 to April 1972. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a January 2005 rating decision by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO), which denied reopening a claim of service connection for PTSD. The Veteran timely appealed that decision. The case was before the Board in June 2010, when the Board reopened that claim and remanded it for further development. The case was returned to the Board in January 2013, and again it was remanded for further development. Unfortunately, the Board must again REMAND this case to the RO via the Appeals Management Center (AMC), in Washington, DC. VA will notify the appellant if further action is required. REMAND In the January 2013 remand, the Board asked that an investigation be completed regarding whether the Veteran served with Bill Barker during his service in the Republic of Vietnam. It does not appear that the RO/AMC asked the Joint Services Records Research Center (JSRRC) for a manifest of the Veteran's unit while in Vietnam, to include whether his unit included a person identified as Bill Barker, and if so, whether he was killed in action (KIA) or otherwise died while in the Republic of Vietnam while serving with the Veteran. The Board notes that a February 2013 formal finding of unavailability was done with regards to whether enough information existed to submit a stressor to JSRRC. However, at minimum, the RO/AMC should have attempted to obtain a unit roster from the Veteran's assigned unit while in the Republic of Vietnam, and attempted to identify whether Bill Barker was a member of the Veteran's unit. Therefore, the Board finds that a remand is again necessary in order for such development to take place. See Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268 (1998) (A remand by the Board confers upon the claimant, as a matter of law, the right to compliance with the remand order). Additionally, as previously noted in the Board's January 2013 remand, the Board conceded that the Veteran was credible when he stated that he witnessed dead bodies. Given this, the RO should consider the Veteran's claim under the recent amendments to 38 C.F.R. § 3.304(f). Moreover, the examination development in the prior remand requested that the examiner discuss other non-PTSD disorders in addition to PTSD, as a stressor is not necessary for those disorders. This instruction was not complied with. Consequently, another examination is required. Accordingly, the case is REMANDED for the following action: 1. Attempt to obtain any information from the Veteran regarding his in-service stressors, which are not already of record. The Veteran should provide the name, rank, places and exact dates-to the best of his ability-of any person killed or any other stressful event during service. 2. The RO/AMC should attempt to obtain copies of the Veteran's unit roster for his entire time in the Republic of Vietnam and determine whether the Veteran served with a Bill Barker. If so, the RO/AMC should use all appropriate official sources to determine whether Bill Barker died while the Veteran served with him in the Republic of Vietnam. 3. Investigate through official sources, including with JSRRC if appropriate, any other stressor that the Veteran may submit. If enough information does not exist in order to corroborate any non-combat stressor, such should be noted in a formal finding of unavailability and associated with the claims file; the Veteran should also be notified. 4. Regardless of the above development, schedule the Veteran for a VA psychiatric examination to determine whether any current psychiatric disorder is related to service. The claims file must be made available to and be reviewed by the examiner in conjunction with the examination. All tests deemed necessary should be conducted and the results reported in detail. Following review of the claims file and examination of the Veteran, the examiner should identify all psychiatric disorders found, including depression or a mood disorder; the examiner should also specifically determine whether the Veteran meets the diagnostic criteria for PTSD under the DSM-IV as noted by 38 C.F.R. § 4.125. Next, the examiner should opine as to the following: (a) Only if PTSD is diagnosed, the examiner should opine whether the Veteran's PTSD is more likely, less likely or at least as likely as not (50 percent probability or greater) began in or was caused by his military service, to include his period in the Republic of Vietnam. The examiner should specifically address whether any diagnosis of PTSD is based on the fear of hostile military activity. The examiner should only discuss the Veteran's lay evidence regarding being in combat if such is corroborated by the development ordered in the above remand instructions. (b) For any other diagnosed psychiatric disorder, including a mood disorder or depression, the examiner is asked to opine whether such diagnosed psychiatric disorder more likely, less likely or at least as likely as not (50 percent probability or greater) began in or is the result of military service, to include his service in the Republic of Vietnam. All opinions must be accompanied by a clear rationale. If the examiner opines that any of the above questions cannot be resolved without resorting to speculation, then a detailed medical explanation as to why this is so must be provided. 5. Following the above development, the originating agency should review the claims file and readjudicate the Veteran's claim of service connection for a psychiatric disorder, to include PTSD. If any benefit sought remains denied, the Veteran and his representative should be furnished a supplemental statement of the case and given the opportunity to respond thereto before the case is returned to the Board. 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). _________________________________________________ THOMAS H. O'SHAY 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) (2012).