92 Decision Citation: BVA 92-09953 Y92 BOARD OF VETERANS' APPEALS WASHINGTON, D.C. 20420 DOCKET NO. 91-37 884 ) DATE ) ) ) THE ISSUES 1. Service connection for post-traumatic stress disorder. 2. Whether new and material evidence sufficient to reopen a claim for service connection for chronic chest wall disorder, to include myofibrositis, has been submitted. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: The American Legion ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD Thomas M. O'Driscoll, Associate counsel INTRODUCTION The appellant served on active duty from August 1968 to July 1970. This matter came before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from the May 1990 rating decision of the Winston-Salem, North Carolina VA Regional Office (hereinafter VARO). In that rating decision VARO denied service connection for post-traumatic stress disorder and found that new and material evidence sufficient to reopen a claim for a chronic chest wall disorder had not been submitted. The Board had denied the veteran's original claim for service connection for a chronic chest wall disorder, to include myofibrositis, in its September 1987 decision. The veteran was notified of that denial together with his appellate rights. He did not timely appeal that decision and it became final. As to the most recently filed claim, the appellant's notice of disagreement was received on July 26, 1990. A statement of the case was issued on September 14, 1990. The appellant's substantive appeal was received on October 22, 1990. A hearing before a hearing officer at VARO took place on June 6, 1991. The hearing officer's decision confirmed the prior denial of the claims. A supplemental statement of the case was issued on June 18, 1991. The appeal was received at the Board on July 25, 1991. The appellant is represented by the American Legion, which organization provided the Board with an informal hearing presentation on March 2, 1992. REMAND In connection with the appellant's claim for service connection for post-traumatic stress disorder, VARO, in its February 26, 1990 letter, requested that the appellant furnish information concerning the details of any stressors he may have been exposed to during service. The appellant responded by submitting a statement in support of his claim in which he described performing duty at a base subjected to constant rocket and mortar attacks while assigned to the 27th Maintenance Battalion, 1st Calvary Division, at Tay Ninh, Vietnam, during 1970. His service personnel records indicate that the appellant was assigned to units of the 27th Maintenance Battalion from March 1970 to July 1970. At the hearing, the appellant gave testimony to the same effect. We note that the stressors themselves and the appellant's actions at the time are not described in sufficient detail. In June 1989, the appellant reported that he had observed a helicopter blow up. VA outpatient records related to therapy that the appellant has been receiving for psychiatric symptoms do not include a diagnostic impression of post-traumatic stress disorder. A psychological summary narrative recorded in VA outpatient treatment notes dated in October 1989, concerning the appellant's symptomatology stated that the appellant's therapy was changed because of a likely connection between Vietnam "traumata" and his psychiatric symptoms. There is no evidence in the record that the appellant has been accorded a VA psychiatric examination. It is the Department of Veterans Affairs' affirmative duty to develop the medical record incident to claims for benefits. 38 U.S.C. § 5107(a); Schafrath v Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 589, 593 (1991). The duty to assist includes the duty to provide a comprehensive and thorough VA examination. Littke v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 90, 92 (1990). The Board is of the opinion that the record is not yet adequately developed for a decision in this matter. Based on the record before us, no effort has been undertaken to develop supportive evidence of combat stressors through the U.S. Army and Joint Services Environmental Support Group as provided in Department of Veterans' Affairs Adjudication Procedure Manual, M 21-1, para. 50.45(e). Wood v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 190, 192 (1991). Accordingly, the case is REMANDED for the following actions: 1. VARO should assist the appellant by attempting to obtain development of evidence reasonably supportive of stressors alleged during service in Vietnam by requesting such development from the U.S. Army & Joint Service Environment Support Group, (ESG), Building 247, Stop #387, Fort Belvoir, VA 22060, in accordance with paragraph 50.45(d), VA Manual M 21-1. The ESG should be furnished with all detailed information available from the record as provided in VA Manual M21-1. The appellant and his representative should be contacted to furnish additional details if necessary or if warranted by the response from ESG. Any unsuccessful efforts to obtain some corroboration of the alleged stressors during service should be documented in detail with the reasons therefor. All factual development obtained will be associated with the claims folder. 2. Thereafter, the appellant should be scheduled for a VA psychiatric examination to determine the nature and etiology of any psychiatric disorders he may now have. The examiner is requested to provide an opinion as to whether the appellant has a post-traumatic stress disorder related to service in Vietnam. The claims folder should be provided to the examiner prior to the examination for this purpose. The report of the examiner should be associated with the claims folder. 3. Thereafter, VARO should adjudicate all pending claims. If any of the benefits sought are denied, the appellant and his representative should be furnished a supplemental statement of the case, which should include information as to the additional factual development undertaken. The appellant and his representative should be afforded an opportunity to respond to the supplemental statement of the case. The record should be returned to the Board for further appellate consideration, if in order. The purpose of this REMAND is to procure clarifying data and to accord due process. The Board intimates no opinion as to the ultimate conclusion warranted, pending completion of the requested development. No action by the appellant or his representative is required until further notice is received. BOARD OF VETERANS' APPEALS WASHINGTON, D.C. 20420 BETTINA S. CALLAWAY MATTHEW J. GORMLEY, III KENNETH R. ANDREWS, JR. Under 38 U.S.C. § 7252 (1992), only a decision of the Board of Veterans' Appeals is appealable to the United States Court of Veterans Appeals. 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.