Citation Nr: 1322788 Decision Date: 07/17/13 Archive Date: 07/24/13 DOCKET NO. 09-32 327 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Indianapolis, Indiana THE ISSUE Entitlement to service connection for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: Vietnam Veterans of America WITNESS AT HEARING ON APPEAL Appellant ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD K. R. Fletcher, Counsel INTRODUCTION The Veteran had active service from March 1966 to March 1968. This matter is before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a September 2008 rating decision by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Indianapolis, Indiana. This issue was before the Board in April 2011 when it was remanded for additional development. The issues of entitlement to service connection for a bilateral ear disability manifested by dizziness and ear aches; hypertension; and a disability manifested by abnormal blood sugar and entitlement to a compensable rating for bilateral hearing loss have been raised by the record, but have not been adjudicated by the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ). The Board does not have jurisdiction over these issues, and they are referred to the AOJ for appropriate action. For the reasons set for the below, the appeal is REMANDED to the RO via the Appeals Management Center (AMC), in Washington, DC. VA will notify the Veteran if further action on his part is required. REMAND The Veteran maintains that he has PTSD related to in-service personal assault during his basic training. In the April 2011 remand, the Board instructed the AOJ (in pertinent part) to inform the Veteran of the alternative sources to corroborate his purported in-service assault as provided in 38 C.F.R. § 3.304(f). In addition, the AOJ was to obtain and associate with the claims folder all available service personnel records. In a February 2013 statement, the Veteran's representative requested remand, arguing that the AMC failed to comply with the Board's remand instructions. Specifically, the Veteran's representative stated that, although the AMC sent the Veteran a corrective the Veterans Claims Assistance Act of 2000 (VCAA) letter in April 2011, this letter did not inform the Veteran of the personal assault provisions of 38 C.F.R. § 3.304(f), to include the evidence that may be submitted to establish the occurrence of the alleged in-service personal assault. Moreover, the Veteran's representative stated that there was no indication that the AMC attempted to obtain any additional service personnel records on behalf of the Veteran. A remand by the Board confers on the appellant, as a matter of law, the right to compliance with the remand orders. Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268, 271 (1998). Given that the AMC did not fully comply with the Board's remand instructions, and because the Veteran, through his representative, has requested remand, the Board finds no alternative to this further remand. Accordingly, the case is REMANDED for the following action: 1. Issue a VCAA letter to the Veteran informing him of the provisions of 38 C.F.R. § 3.304(f)(5) and describing the evidence that may be submitted to establish the occurrence of the alleged in-service personal assault. Specifically, he should be advised of the various ways in which personal assault may be corroborated. Such alternative forms of evidence include, but are not limited to: behavior and/or performance changes; records from law enforcement authorities, mental health counseling centers, hospitals, or physicians; statements from family members, fellow service members, or clergy; deterioration in work performance; substance abuse; episodes of depression, panic attacks, or anxiety without an identifiable cause; or unexplained economic or social behavior changes. 2. Complete all appropriate development-based on the Veteran's response, if any, to the paragraph 1 instructions. 3. Obtain and associate with the claims folder all of the Veteran's available service personnel records. The extent of the efforts to procure such records should be documented in the claims folder. 4. If, and only if, new records are obtained as a result of the action taken in paragraphs 1 and 3 above, arrangements should be made for the Veteran to undergo an examination to determine the nature, extent, and etiology of his psychiatric symptomatology. The claims folder must be made available to the examiner in conjunction with the examination. A notation should be made in the evaluation report that such review has taken place. All indicated studies should be conducted. All pertinent psychiatric pathology should be noted in the examination report. If PTSD or any other psychiatric disorder is diagnosed, the examiner should state whether a verified in-service personal assault was sufficient to produce a diagnosis of PTSD or other psychiatric disorder and whether there is a link such personal assault and the Veteran's current symptomatology. Complete rationale should be given for all opinions reached. 5. After the requested development has been completed, readjudicate the merits of the claim for service connection for PTSD based on all the evidence of record and all governing legal authority, including the VCAA and implementing regulations, and any additional information obtained as a result of this remand. If this 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. By this remand, the Board intimates no opinion as to any final outcome warranted. 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 claim 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 (Court) 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). _________________________________________________ THERESA M. CATINO 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 Court. 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).