Citation Nr: 1328482 Decision Date: 09/06/13 Archive Date: 09/16/13 DOCKET NO. 10-45 568 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Nashville, Tennessee THE ISSUE Entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder, claimed as post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: Byron R. Simpson, Attorney WITNESSES AT HEARING ON APPEAL The Veteran and spouse ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD Christopher Maynard, Counsel INTRODUCTION The Veteran had active service from November 1992 to April 1993, and from February 27, to March 27, 1995. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a May 2009 decision by the RO which denied the benefits sought on appeal. A hearing at the RO before the undersigned was held in March 2012. The appeal is REMANDED to the RO via the Appeals Management Center (AMC), in Washington, DC. VA will notify the Veteran if further action is required. REMAND The Veteran contends that he has a psychiatric disorder due to several traumatic events that he experienced in service and believes that he is entitled to a grant of service- connected for PTSD. At the hearing in March 2012, the Veteran testified that three of the incidents occurred during basic training at Ft. Jackson in 1993, and that he has recurring nightmares of those events on a regular basis. Specifically, the Veteran testified that during a live fire exercise, the trainee in front of him "mangled" his foot in concertina wire and that there was blood everywhere. On another occasion, the Veteran was knocked backward from an explosion when another trainee dropped a hand grenade during a training exercise. Later that same day, a drill sergeant intentionally exploded a claymore mind to show the trainees what not to do, and that the explosion not only knocked him and a couple of other trainees to the ground but scared them so much that they almost wet their trousers. The Veteran testified that no one was injured from either explosion. Another stressor occurred while the Veteran was on medical hold waiting to be out processed from the Navy in March 1995. The Veteran testified that he was awakened when four soldiers attacked the soldier sleeping in the bunk below him because he was gay, and that they threatened to do the same to the Veteran if he told anyone. At the hearing, the attorney argued that the Veteran provided sufficient detailed information to confirm the alleged stressors and that the RO essentially ignored that information and made no attempt to confirm the Veteran's allegations. In order to establish service connection, there must be: (1) medical evidence of a current disability; (2) medical, or in certain circumstances, lay evidence of in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) medical evidence of a nexus between the claimed in-service disease or injury and the current disability. See Hickson v. West, 12 Vet. App. 247, 253 (1999). In this case, the evidentiary record shows that the Veteran was granted Social Security disability (SSD) in February 2009, due to PTSD, bipolar disorder, anxiety, depression and a psychotic disorder. The SSD decision indicated that the Veteran was treated by several private providers, including Plateau Mental Health Care (a member of Volunteer Behavior Health Care System) from May 2005 to March 2007, Peninsula Behavior Health in September 2008, and by Dr. Roy Nevils in June 2008. The evidence also includes a handwritten letter from a private doctor at Peninsula Behavior Health, dated in October 2008, which indicated that the Veteran was being treated for PTSD. Although the Veteran provided VA with authorization to obtain records from two other health care providers (Drs Shiloh and Trenham - those records have already been associated with the claims file), he has not authorized VA to obtain any records from the very providers whose diagnoses formed the basis for the grant of SSD. As these records are potentially relevant to the Veteran's claim, they should be obtained and associated with the claims file. Furthermore, no attempt has been made to obtain any records from the Social Security Administration. Therefore, on remand, the Veteran should be asked to provide VA with the names, addresses and dates of all medical treatment he received for any psychiatric problems since his discharge from service, and complete appropriate authorization for release of medical information forms, so that VA may attempt to assist him in the development of his claim. 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(c)(1). In light of the discussion above, and to ensure full compliance with due process requirements, it is the decision of the Board that further development is necessary prior to appellate review. Accordingly, the case is REMANDED for the following action: 1. The RO should take appropriate steps to obtain the names and addresses of all medical care providers who treated the Veteran for any psychiatric problems since service. The Veteran should provide VA with authorization to obtain all treatment records from Plateau Mental Health Care since May 2005, Peninsula Behavior Health since September 2008, and by Dr. Roy Nevils since June 2008. After securing the necessary releases, the RO should attempt to obtain copies of all medical records from the identified treatment sources, including any VA records, and associate them with the claims folder. All attempts to procure records should be documented in the file. 2. The RO should attempt to obtain from the SSA all records pertaining to the Veteran's award of Social Security disability in February 2009, including the administrative decision and the medical records relied upon concerning that claim. Any records received should be associated with the claims folder. 3. Thereafter, the RO should undertake any additional development deemed appropriate, based on the evidence obtained, including undertaking development to confirm any verifiable stressors and obtaining a VA psychiatric examination, if warranted by the evidence. 4. After all necessary development has been completed, the RO should readjudicate the claim. If the benefits sought on appeal remain denied, the Veteran and his attorney should be furnished a Supplemental Statement of the Case and given the opportunity to respond thereto. Thereafter, subject to current appellate procedures, the case should be returned to the Board for further appellate consideration, if in order. The Board intimates no opinion as to the ultimate outcome of this case. The Veteran need take no action unless otherwise notified. The Veteran 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). _________________________________________________ DEBORAH W. SINGLETON 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).