Citation Nr: 21025167 Decision Date: 04/27/21 Archive Date: 04/27/21 DOCKET NO. 18-42 412 DATE: April 27, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from April 1961 to September 1965.  This matter is before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a November 2017 rating decision issued by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO).  The Veteran testified at a hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge (VLJ) in March 2020. A transcript of the hearing is associated with the electronic claims file.  The Board issued a prior remand on this claim in June 2020. 1. Entitlement to service connection for PTSD is remanded. The Veteran has listed several in-service stressors related to his PTSD. In the July 2018 statement of the case, the RO noted that research of the Veteran’s available unit history “was negative and did not report on an F-100 aircraft fuel system explosion or a catastrophic ground mishap at Homestead AFB during the period April 1963 to June 1963.” However, in February 2019 and January 2020 correspondence, as well as at his March 2020 hearing, the Veteran contended that the dates used for such research were incorrect. Specifically, the Veteran wrote that the dates searched should have been between October 31, 1962 and March 31, 1964 for “The test bounces the F-100 around jarring the throttle outboard engaging the afterburner operation. The result is a thunderous explosion that was heard all over Homestead AFB.” The Veteran also provided a list of personnel that responded to the trim pad, as well as pictures and a map. Based on this information, the Board remanded the claim for further development of the Veteran’s alleged stressors in June 2020. A review of the record shows that a veteran’s service representative (VSR) from the RO sent out several requests regarding information between the dates of October 14-18, 1962; April to June 1963; and October 1962. In November 2020 the VSR got a response from a historian at the Aviano AB, Italy that no records of the incidents mentioned during the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962 were found, that the July-Dec 1962 history only included two unrelated incidents, and that the Jan-June 1963 records only included three unrelated incidents. The historian noted that both of the histories listed has been declassified and the VSR could request copies from the Air Force Historical Research Agency at Maxwell AFB. Finally, the historian noted “For your reference, I’ve attached scans of the covers of both reports.” The Board notes that no such scans are in the Veteran’s electronic claims file. Also in November 2020 a separate response was received from the Air Force Historical Research Agency stating “Thank you for your inquiry, it is our number 76136. Unfortunately, our backlog is quite large and it may take a few months before we can provide you with an official response. Your patience is appreciated.” Despite no further correspondence, in January 2021 the RO issued a supplemental statement of the case continuing to deny the claim based on the findings received from the AFHRA. The Board again notes that in the Veteran’s January 2020 notice of disagreement he specifically wrote “The following was sent to me in your report which has some errors. The dates are wrong: period April 1963 to June 1963. What I sent you was the following: October 31, 1962 to March 31, 1964. The cause of the explosion is wrong: aircraft fuel system or catastrophic ground mishap. What I sent you was the following: The test bounces the F-100 around jarring the throttle outboard engaging the afterburner operation. The result is a thunderous explosion that was hear all over Homestead AFB.” Despite the above noted requests from the RO’s VSR, the Board finds this research to be incomplete. First, incorrect dates were again used. In the prior remand, the Board instructed the RO to attempt the Veteran’s reported in-service stressors from October 31, 1962 to March 31, 1964, no such effort was undertaken. Moreover, neither of the above received responses are complete, the first is missing noted scans of the covers of the discussed reports and the second has not yet even provided an official response. Accordingly, the Board finds that another remand is warranted. See Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268, 271 (1998) (holding remand by the Board confers on the claimant the right to compliance with the remand requests). The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Update the electronic file with any new VA treatment records and private treatment records. 2. Attempt to verify the Veteran’s reported in-service PTSD stressors between the period of October 31, 1962 to March 31, 1964 as explained in the Veteran’s January 2020 notice of disagreement correspondence and at his March 2020 hearing, including the breaking of tied down cables and F-100 test bounces. Such development in multiple requests to cover the period in question may be necessary. See Gagne v. McDonald, 27 Vet. App. 397 (2015) (providing that VA’s duty to assist is not bound by the Joint Services Records Research Center’s 60-day limitation for stressor verification requests). The RO should document any efforts to verify such stressors in the Veteran’s electronic claims file. 3. While the claim is in remand status the RO should also consider and address the additional evidence provided by the Veteran in March 2021. TANYA SMITH Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board K. Ruiz, Associate Attorney The Board’s decision in this case is binding only with respect to the instant matter decided. This decision is not precedential and does not establish VA policies or interpretations of general applicability. 38 C.F.R. § 20.1303.