Citation Nr: 18158393
Decision Date: 12/14/18	Archive Date: 12/14/18

DOCKET NO. 16-62 711
DATE:	December 14, 2018
REMANDED
Entitlement to service connection for sinusitis is remanded.
Entitlement to service connection for scar, upper lip is remanded.
Entitlement to service connection for a head injury is remanded.
Entitlement to service connection for headaches is remanded.
Entitlement to service connection for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is remanded.
REASONS FOR REMAND
The Veteran served on active duty in the Army from August 1982 to August 1985.
This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a February 2015 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in New York, New York (Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ)).
Regrettably, a remand is necessary to ensure that due process is followed and that there is a complete record upon which to decide the issues on appeal, in order to afford the Veteran every possible consideration.

1. Entitlement to service connection for sinusitis is remanded.
2. Entitlement to service connection for scar, upper lip is remanded.
3. Entitlement to service connection for a head injury is remanded.
4. Entitlement to service connection for headaches is remanded.
5. Entitlement to service connection for PTSD is remanded.
The record reflects that additional development is required.  A printout of prior VA treatment appointments reflects that a psychological evaluation was performed at Sing Sing Correctional Facility on August 15, 1997.  The first available treatment record associated the claims folder is dated in 1999.  The case must be remanded to obtain all available VA treatment records as they are deemed to be constructively of record.  Bell v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 611, 613 (1992).
The Veteran also asserts that he manifests PTSD and several disabilities due to an attack by a Korean national.  He reports treatment which included stitches, and that the incident was recorded in a blotter report.  The Board finds that an inquiry should be made for any available blotter report.
The Board defers consideration of any additional development pending the receipt of additional records. See generally Kahana v. Shinseki, 24 Vet. App. 428 (2011) (discussing the “chicken-or-egg” dilemma faced by VA when requesting opinions and making credibility determinations with an undeveloped record, and recognizing that fact-finding is a responsibility that is ultimately committed to the Board and not a VA medical examiner).
The matters are REMANDED for the following action:
1. Associate all available VA clinic records since August 15, 1997 as well as any available treatment records with Sing Sing Correctional Facility, as well as updated records since November 2016 to the present.
2. Request Army Military Police and/or Staff Duty Logs from Camp Giant and/or U.S. Forces Korea Army Military Police for any records of a civilian attack involving the Veteran between April 1983 to October 1983.
3. Contact the Veteran and request him to specify the name of the installation which reportedly performed stitches of his upper lip.  If properly identified, the AOJ should make a direct search for records from this facility.
4. Thereafter, readjudicate the claim. If any benefit sought on appeal remains denied, furnish the Veteran and his representative, if any, a supplemental statement of the case and an appropriate period of time to respond.
 
T. MAINELLI
Veterans Law Judge
Board of Veterans’ Appeals
ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD	Victoria A. Narducci, Associate Counsel