Citation Nr: 1329407 Decision Date: 09/13/13 Archive Date: 09/20/13 DOCKET NO. 11-02 007 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Louisville, Kentucky THE ISSUE Entitlement to service connection for a disorder manifested by loss of memory and slow thought. WITNESS AT HEARING ON APPEAL Appellant ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD A. Fagan, Associate Counsel INTRODUCTION The Appellant served on active duty from July 1980 to December 1980. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a July 2010 rating decision by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). In October 2011, the appellant testified at a Video Conference hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge. A transcript of this hearing is associated with the claims file. The Board notes that, in addition to the paper claims file, there is a paperless, electronic claims file associated with the appellant's claim. A review of the documents in such file reveals that they are either duplicative of the evidence in the paper claims file or are irrelevant to the issue on appeal. 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 After a review of the record, the Board observes that further development is required prior to adjudicating the appellant's claim of entitlement to service connection for a disorder manifested by memory loss and slow thought. The appellant claims to have memory loss and slow thought due to drinking polluted water during active service. In a March 2010 written statement and in October 2011 hearing testimony, the appellant asserted that as a result of drinking polluted water during service, he was hospitalized at "Omar Bradley Hospital," and was possibly in a coma. Service treatment records show that the appellant was admitted in July 1980 to William Beaumont Army Hospital for symptoms inducing disorientation, seizures, impaired vision, and dizziness. The assessment was probable pharyngitis. Subsequent service treatment records show that the appellant underwent inpatient hospitalization for alcoholism in September or October 1980. However, inpatient treatment records from the second hospitalization have not been associated with the claims file. Such hospitalization records should be requested on remand. The Board finds that his service personnel records should also be requested as they may contain relevant information concerning this claim. It also appears that VA and private treatment records remain outstanding. In this regard October and November 2006 private treatment records indicate that the appellant was seeing Dr. Reed, a licensed psychologist practitioner, for spatial issues, paranoia, and delusions. They further show a diagnosis of reactive depression and "insomnia disorder related to another mental disorder." It does not appear that records from Dr. Reed have been requested. Additionally, a June 2010 VA examiner noted a review of VA treatment records from the Cincinnati VA Medical Center. However, no VA treatment records have been associated with either the appellant's paper claims file or electronic VA file. Accordingly, remand is necessary to obtain outstanding VA and private treatment records to ensure a complete record on which to adjudicate the Appellant's claim. 38 U.S.C.A. § 5103A(c) (West 2002); see also Bell v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 611 (1992) (VA medical records are in constructive possession of the agency, and must be obtained if the material could be determinative of the claim). Finally, although the appellant was afforded a VA examination in June 2010, the Board notes the June 2010 examination was a neurological examination and did not address potential psychiatric origins for the appellant's claimed memory loss and slow thought. Although the VA examiner noted generally that the appellant's psychiatric history is not related in any way to his military service, a rationale for that conclusion was not provided. Accordingly, the appellant should be afforded a new VA examination. Accordingly, the case is REMANDED for the following action: 1. Ask the appellant to provide the names, addresses, and approximate dates of treatment of all health care providers, both VA and private, who have treated him for his memory loss and slow thought at any time. In particular, the appellant should be asked to provide a release form for the private psychologist, Dr. Reed, who treated him in 2006 so that the medical records can be requested. After securing any necessary releases, the RO/AMC should request any records identified which are not duplicates of those contained in the claims file. If any requested records are unavailable, then the file should be annotated as such and the appellant should be so notified. In addition, obtain all outstanding relevant VA treatment records from the VA Medical Center in Cincinnati, Ohio. 2. Request from appropriate sources the Veteran's complete service personnel records. In addition, request the inpatient treatment records from the Veteran's hospitalization in September or October 1980 for alcohol abuse treatment. If the requested records are unavailable, then notify the appellant of this fact. 3. Schedule the appellant for a VA psychiatric examination to obtain a medical opinion as to whether he suffers from any psychiatric disorder manifested by memory loss and slow thought, and whether any such disorder is possibly related to his period of service. The claims file must be provided to and be reviewed by the examiner in conjunction with the examination. Any tests or studies deemed necessary should be conducted, and the results should be reported in detail. The examiner should provide an opinion as to whether it is at least as likely as not (50 percent probability or greater) that any current disorder manifested by memory loss and slow thought arose during his service from July 1980 to December 1980 or is otherwise related to any incident of that period of service, to include drinking polluted water. The examiner should explain the medical basis for the conclusions reached. 4. After the development requested above as well as any additional development deemed necessary has been completed, the record should again be reviewed. If the benefits sought on appeal remain denied, then the appellant and, if applicable, his representative should be furnished with a supplemental statement of the case and be given the opportunity to respond thereto. The case should then be returned to the Board for further appellate consideration, if in order. 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). _________________________________________________ K. A. BANFIELD 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).