Citation Nr: 1320506 Decision Date: 06/26/13 Archive Date: 07/05/13 DOCKET NO. 09-00 788 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Winston-Salem, North Carolina THE ISSUES 1. Entitlement to service connection for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). 2. Entitlement to service connection for peripheral vascular disease (PVD). 3. Entitlement to service connection for peripheral neuropathy. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: Jan Dils, Attorney at Law WITNESSES AT HEARING ON APPEAL Appellant and spouse ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD Tresa M. Schlecht, Counsel INTRODUCTION Please note this appeal has been advanced on the Board's docket pursuant to 38 C.F.R. § 20.900(c) (2012). 38 U.S.C.A. § 7107(a)(2) (West 2002). The veteran had active service from May 1951 to March 1953, including service in Korea from November 1951 to February 1953, and from August 1953 to February 1954. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a rating decision prepared in September 2007 by the Winston-Salem, North Carolina, Regional Office (RO) of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), and issued to the Veteran in October 2007 (hereinafter, October 2007 rating decision). The veteran submitted additional evidence pertinent to the appeal. Pertinent evidence submitted by an appellant must be referred to the agency of original jurisdiction for review and preparation of a SSOC unless this procedural right is waived in writing by the appellant. 38 C.F.R. §§ 19.37, 20.1304 (2013). The appellant provided a written waiver of review by the agency of original jurisdiction. The veteran requested a hearing before the Board via Videoconference. The requested hearing was conducted by the undersigned in May 2013. 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 Although the Veteran did not return a PTSD stressor development questionnaire, he provided testimony at his May 2013 Videoconference hearing regarding alleged exposure to combat. The available service treatment records and service personal records do not confirm where the Veteran's unit was located in Korea, except to the extent that the records show that the Veteran received mail through APO 301; and the Veteran's DA 20, "Soldier's Qualification Card," shows that the Veteran was a dump truck driver or light vehicle driver for Company C, 430th E[ngineer] C[onstruction] B[attalion] in Korea from November 1951 to July 1952, then a general construction worker and light vehicle driver in Korea until February 1953. In view of the Veteran's testimony and to fulfill VA's obligations to exhaust reasonable efforts to assist the Veteran in substantiating his claims, further development is required. Under the circumstances, searches for evidence through alternative sources, such as the U.S. Army and Joint Services Records Research Center (JSRRC), is warranted. The Board notes issuance of the amended 38 C.F.R. § 3.304(f)(3), which relaxes the evidentiary standard for establishing in-service stressors in claims for PTSD, during the pendency of this claim. This revision adds to the types of PTSD claims that VA will accept through credible lay testimony alone as being sufficient to establish occurrence of an in-service stressor without undertaking other development to verify the Veteran's account. The primary effect of the amendment of 38 C.F.R. § 3.304(f) is the elimination of the requirement for corroborating evidence of a claimed in-service stressor if it is related to the Veteran's "fear of hostile military or terrorist activity" and provided that the claimed stressor(s) is(are) consistent with the places, types, and circumstances of the Veteran's service. In place of corroborating reported stressors, a medical opinion must instead be obtained from a VA, or VA contracted, psychiatrist or psychologist. The Veteran also testified that he was exposed to extremely cold weather each of the two winters he was stationed in Korea, and has testified to his belief that exposure to cold weather caused his current PVD and peripheral neuropathy. The private and VA clinical records demonstrate that peripheral neuropathy and PVD are present. See November 1998 private clinical notes; November 2006 private operative note. Further development of the medical evidence may be required to address the Veteran's contentions that these current disorders are linked to his service, after the dates and locations of the Veteran's service in Korea have been confirmed or a factual finding is made. In this regard, to the extent the Veteran may have been exposed to combat, VA may be able to afford the Veteran certain presumptions related to cold weather exposure. See 38 U.S.C.A. § 1154(b). Accordingly, the case is REMANDED for the following action: (Please note, this appeal has been advanced on the Board's docket pursuant to 38 C.F.R. § 20.900(c) (2012). Expedited handling is requested.) 1. Afford the Veteran an opportunity to identify any clinical records which may provide relevant evidence, to include evidence of recent or remote treatment for a claimed disorder. In particular, the Veteran should be asked to identify records which may include evidence relevant to 1957 treatment, possibly reported as treatment for residual of exposure to cold or peripheral vascular disease. If the Veteran's 1957 treatment was at a VA facility, the Veteran should identify the location of the VA treatment. The Veteran should be asked to identify records which may include evidence relevant to 1969 treatment for PVD. If the Veteran's 1969 treatment was at a VA facility, the Veteran should identify the location of the VA treatment. Afford the Veteran an opportunity to provide any available medical evidence pertinent to his incurrence of PVD. 2. The Veteran should be advised that employment clinical records, pharmacy records, reports of radiologic examinations, reports of examinations for insurance purposes, reports of emergency treatment, reports of individuals who observed the Veteran or knew his medical history, and similar clinical or non-clinical records, could be relevant to his claims. 3. The Veteran should be advised that he may identify or submit any available evidence regarding his service in Korea-letters home, pictures, letters from fellow former service members, company or base newsletters, other keepsakes, might be relevant to assist to establish the dates and locations of his service in Korea. 4. Request that the U.S. Army and Joint Services Records Research Center (JSRRC) search for records which would show where Co. C., 430th ECB, was stationed during the relevant period (November 1951 to February 1953), to include whether Company C, or the base at which it was located, or its higher command, worked under combat conditions, whether the base came under enemy fire, and whether vehicle drivers assigned to that company delivered supplies to troops who were engaging the enemy. Information about where the Veteran's unit was located, what activities the unit performed, whether the unit was responsible for delivering supplies to combat troops, the circumstances on the base, such as the amount of ammunition used at the base, or other similar information that may serve to confirm the Veteran's testimony, should be sought. 5. If no information about the duties or location of the Veteran's unit or his base is obtained from the JSRRC, the agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ) should obtain information from whatever other appropriate alternative sources there may be concerning the Veteran's service, including the Korean War Project, which shows that the 430th ECB had several casualties in Korea during the period when the Veteran was stationed in Korea. 6. Associate the Veteran's current VA treatment records with the claims files or electronic file (Virtual VA) available for appellate review. 7. The AOJ should make a finding of fact, based on review of the Veteran's available personnel records, his hearing testimony, the information obtained from the JSRRC and/or elsewhere on Remand, and other available information, as to whether the Veteran served in combat or in an environment that exposed the Veteran to hostile forces. 8. After the above is completed, the AOJ shall determine whether a medical examination and/or opinion is required to determine whether the Veteran has the claimed disabilities sought on appeal; and if so, whether such disabilities are related to service. 9. After completing the directed actions, and any additional notification and/or development deemed warranted, readjudicate the appeal. If any benefit sought on appeal remains denied, furnish the Veteran and his representative an appropriate supplemental statement of the case and give them an appropriate time period in which to respond. The, return the appeal to the Board, if appropriate. The appellant has the right to submit additional evidence and argument on the matter or matters 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. 2012). _________________________________________________ JONATHAN B. KRAMER 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).