Citation Nr: 1320762 Decision Date: 06/27/13 Archive Date: 07/05/13 DOCKET NO. 12-18 864 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Muskogee, Oklahoma THE ISSUES 1. Entitlement to service connection for the cause of the Veteran's death. 2. Entitlement to Dependency and Indemnity Compensation (DIC) benefits. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD Saira Spicknall, Counsel INTRODUCTION The Veteran served on active duty from June 1943 to February 1946. This matter comes to the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a May 2011 rating decision of the St. Paul, Minnesota Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). Jurisdiction remains with the Muskogee, Oklahoma RO. A review of the Virtual VA paperless claims processing system reflects that additional records have not been added to the present appeal. 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 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 has alleged that the Veteran was a prisoner of war. The Veteran's service personnel records are not available. After a complete search at the National Personnel Records Center (NPRC), the NPRC reported, in January 2012, that the record was fire-related and they were unable to provide any POW dates. The NPRC also informed VA that if the Appellant could furnish the confining country, the dates captured and returned to military control, and the unit attached to when captured and when returned to military control, it would attempt to do a search of the morning reports. However, the record contains a photocopy of what appears to be a VA identification card, with a photo of the Veteran. Beneath the Veteran's photograph is the annotation "SERVICE CONNECTED FORMER POW," followed by the Veteran's name. In March 2012, the RO advised the Appellant that it had received the photocopied card, and stated "[f]rom the picture you attached, we can see this was a VA Medical Center issued card. However, there is no indication in the record of the source of the card; or of the photo, or whether the RO contacted the VA Medical Center that may have issued the card. The undersigned is cognizant that the RO attempted to clarify the Veteran's status by research with the National Archives and the National Personnel Records Center; and that the claims file does not otherwise suggest that the Veteran was a prisoner of war. However, the fact that the Appellant produced such a photocopy of the card to the RO and that the source of the card is confusing, given all other research efforts. The law requires that VA fully investigate all relevant issues involving the identification of claimants. Sarimiento v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 80 (1994); Duro v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 530 (1992). The Board will therefore remand the appeal. THE APPELLANT-WIDOW IS ADVISED THAT SHE MUST COMPLY WITH THE RO/AMC'S EFFORTS DIRECTED BELOW. The duty to assist in the development and the adjudication of a claim is not a one-way street. Wamhoff v. Brown, 8 Vet. App. 517 (1996); Zarycki v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 91 (1993); Wood v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 190, 193 (1991). Further under the law, a claimant has a responsibility to present and support a claim for benefits under laws administered by the VA. 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107(a). 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. The RO/AMC will request that the Appellant-widow PRODUCE THE ORIGINAL IDENTIFICATION CARD, a copy of which she submitted in October 2011. Upon receipt of the ORIGINAL IDENFICATION CARD, the RO/AMC will contact the Veterans Health Administration "VHA," and determine if the card is an authentic issuance. The VHA will be requested to: (1) validate that it issued the card, and; (2) if it issued the card, upon what basis or bases or documentation it determined that the Veteran was a former POW. THE APPELLANT IS PRESENTLY ADVISED THAT ANOTHER PHOTOCOPY OF THE SUBMITTED CARD IS NOT SUFFICIENT TO COMPLY WITH THIS REQUEST. 2. If the Appellant does not comply with this request, the RO/AMC will nonetheless contact the VHA and attempt to determine the facts and circumstances of the issue of the card in question. 3. Following completion of the actions above, the RO/AMC will readjudicate the claims, and all further appellate proceedings should be conducted including the issuance of a Supplemental Statement of the Case 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). _________________________________________________ Vito A. Clementi 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).