92 Decision Citation: BVA 92-16114 Y92 BOARD OF VETERANS' APPEALS WASHINGTON, D.C. 20420 DOCKET NO. 92-53 530 ) DATE ) ) ) THE ISSUE Entitlement to service connection for post-traumatic stress disorder WITNESS AT HEARING ON APPEAL Appellant REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: Disabled American Veterans ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD J. Andrew Ahlberg, Associate Counsel INTRODUCTION This appeal is from a May 1991 rating decision of the Boston, Massachusetts, Regional Office (hereinafter RO). The appellant had active service from May 1964 to March 1967. The notice of disagreement was received in June 1991. The statement of the case was issued in July 1991. The substantive appeal was received in October 1991. A hearing was held at the RO in October 1991 at which the appellant personally appeared. The hearing officer denied service connection for post-traumatic stress disorder in December 1991. The case was received at the Board and docketed in January 1992. A statement from a representative of the Disabled American Veterans was received in April 1992. REMAND After a careful review of the record, this section of the Board is of the opinion that further evidentiary development is required. Establishing service connection for post-traumatic stress disorder usually requires some corroboration of an objective nature of the alleged in-service stressors. In this case, the appellant claims service connection for post-traumatic stress disorder stemming from stressors associated with his tour of duty in Vietnam in 1965 and 1966. Consistent references to these stressors are found in the clinical evidence from the appellant's examination at the National Center for Post-traumatic Stress Disorder at the Boston, MA, Department of Veterans Affairs (hereinafter VA) Medical Center, in a written statement of the appellant which was received by the RO in March 1991 and through the appellant's sworn testimony at the October 1991 hearing. In our opinion, these accounts do not contain sufficiently specific information to permit objective verification of the alleged stressors. Further evidence from the appellant is vital because the more specific the information is concerning these stressors, the more likely it will be that the incidents claimed will be satisfactorily corroborated. The VA has a duty to assist the appellant in developing the relevant facts of his claim pursuant to 38 U.S.C. § 5107(a). In order to satisfy this requirement, this case is REMANDED to the RO for the following action: 1. The RO should again ask the appellant to provide specific information regarding the alleged stressors, to include the dates, the units to which he was assigned, the location, the times and the identities of those individuals that the appellant witnessed being killed, if possible. This information, along with copies of appellant's DD Form 214 and copies of his military personnel records; copies of pages 2 and 3 of the June 1990 VA examination report which set forth his military history; and the transcript from the October 1991 hearing should be forwarded to the United States Army and Joint Services Environmental Support Group (ESG), Building 247, Stop No. 387, Fort Belvoir, Virginia 22060 for verification of the alleged stressors. 2. The RO should take the necessary steps to obtain all records of the appellant's treatment at the Boston VA Medical Center; records from appel- lant's treatment in 1974 at the Togus, Maine, VA Medical Center; and records of treatment at the Spoffard Rehabili- tation Center in 1991. In addition, any records from an outreach program or other treatment provided at the Boston Vet Center should be obtained. In this regard, we note that the appellant reports that he has been counseled at the Vet Center by Dr. Haskell, Ron Lembo and Patricia Flynn. 3. The appellant should be afforded a VA psychiatric examination in order to determine what, if any, acquired psychiatric disorders may be present. If the examiner believes that post- traumatic stress disorder is present, the examiner should identify the stressors that caused this disorder and specify the evidence relied upon to determine the existence of the stressors. When the requested development is completed, the case should be reviewed by the RO. If the claim for service connection is not granted, the appellant and his representative should be furnished a supplemental statement of the case and afforded a reasonable time to reply. Thereafter, the case should be returned to the Board for further appellate consideration. No action is required of the appellant until he receives further notice. BOARD OF VETERANS' APPEALS WASHINGTON, D.C. 20420 * (Member Temporarily Absent) H. STERLING, M.D. GARY L. GICK (CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE) *38 U.S.C. § 7102(a)(2)(A) (1992) permits a Board of Veterans' Appeals Section, upon direction of the Chairman of the Board, to proceed with the transaction of business without awaiting assignment of an additional Member to the Section when the Section is composed of fewer than three Members due to absence of a Member, vacancy on the Board or inability of the Member assigned to the Section to serve on the panel. The Chairman has directed that the Section proceed with the transaction of business, including the issuance of decisions, without awaiting the assignment of a third Member. 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.