Citation Nr: 1329553 Decision Date: 09/16/13 Archive Date: 09/20/13 DOCKET NO. 11-01 179 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Indianapolis, Indiana THE ISSUE Entitlement to service connection for a psychiatric disorder, to include posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: Disabled American Veterans WITNESS AT HEARING ON APPEAL Appellant ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD M. G. Mazzucchelli, Counsel INTRODUCTION The Veteran had active military service from May 1968 to June 1969. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a November 2009 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Indianapolis, Indiana. The Veteran provided testimony at a Travel Board hearing before the undersigned in Indianapolis, Indiana, in May 2011; a transcript of that hearing is of record. The November 2009 rating decision on appeal, in pertinent part, denied service connection for a mental condition. The issue on appeal has been recharacterized to better reflect the Veteran's contentions and changes in case law. See Clemons v. Shinseki, 23 Vet. App. 1 (2009). At the hearing, the Veteran confirmed that the only issue he was pursuing on appeal was the claim for service connection for a psychiatric disorder. 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 Veteran contends that he has a psychiatric disability, possibly including PTSD, that he believes is related to his period of active service in Vietnam. He contends that he began experiencing symptoms of anxiety and suicidal ideation in Vietnam. The service treatment records do not show any complaints or findings of a psychiatric nature, and the earliest psychiatric treatment shown in the record is in July 1982 when the Veteran was seen with atypical anxiety disorder. The record contains subsequent diagnoses of panic disorder, adjustment disorder, alcohol dependence, major depressive disorder, and generalized anxiety disorder. In a March 2011 letter, the Veteran noted that he was scheduled for an appointment with a VA mental health care on May 24, 2011, to discuss PTSD. At his hearing before the undersigned on May 5, 2011, the Veteran confirmed that this appointment was scheduled, and that he would submit records of that appointment/treatment. While the Veteran subsequently submitted additional evidence, no records from the New Albany Clinic from May 2011 were included. Because VA is on notice that there are additional records that may be applicable to the Veteran's claim and because these records may be of use in deciding the claim, these records are relevant and should be obtained. Bell v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 611 (1992). The Veteran underwent a VA psychiatric examination in June 2010. If additional evidence is obtained that warrants another examination, it should be scheduled. Accordingly, the case is REMANDED for the following action: 1. The RO/AMC must obtain all outstanding VA treatment, examination and/or hospitalization records, related to the Veteran's psychiatric disorder(s) from the Louisville VAMC and New Albany VA Clinic, to specifically include records related to treatment at New Albany Clinic on May 24, 2011. Any negative response should be in writing, and associated with the claims folder. 2. If additional records are obtained that show treatment for a psychiatric disability, then schedule the Veteran for a VA psychiatric examination to determine the nature and etiology of any psychiatric disorder, to include PTSD. The claim file, including any records obtained pursuant to this remand, should be made available to and reviewed by the examiner prior to the examination. All necessary tests should be conducted. a). The examiner is to provide an opinion as to whether it is at least as likely as not (a 50 percent or greater probability) that any psychiatric disorder found on examination is related to service. b). The examiner must specifically state whether the Veteran meets the diagnostic criteria for PTSD. With respect to the claimed stressor related to the Veteran's fear of hostile military activity, specifically while on duty as a driver in Vietnam, the examiner must state whether the stressor is adequate to support a diagnosis of PTSD and whether the Veteran's symptoms are related to the alleged stressor. Fear of hostile military activity means that the Veteran experienced, witnessed, or was confronted with an event or circumstance that involved actual or threatened death or serious injury, or a threat to the physical integrity of the Veteran or others, and the Veteran's response to the event or circumstance involved a psychological or psycho-physiological state of fear, helplessness, or horror. c). The rationale for all opinions expressed must be provided. If the examiner cannot respond without resorting to speculation, the examiner should explain why a response would be speculative and indicate whether there is additional research or evidence that would enable him or her to provide the necessary opinion. 3. Then, readjudicate the claim. If the benefit sought remains denied, issue a supplemental statement of the case and return the case to the Board. The appellant 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 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). _________________________________________________ C. CRAWFORD 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).