93 Decision Citation: BVA 93-12405 Y93 BOARD OF VETERANS' APPEALS WASHINGTON, D.C. 20420 DOCKET NO. 92-13 347 ) DATE ) ) ) THE ISSUE An increased rating for paranoid schizophrenia, currently evaluated as 30 percent disabling. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: Disabled American Veterans ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD J.D. Hunter, Associate Counsel INTRODUCTION The appellant served on active duty from May 1942 to October 1951. This matter came before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (the Board) from a decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office (VARO) in Newark, New Jersey, on July 3, 1991, which denied the appellant's claim filed in April 1991. The appellant was notified of the denial on July 15, 1991. His notice of disagreement was received at VARO in January 1992. The statement of the case was issued on February 5, 1992. A February 27, 1992 rating decision confirmed and continued the denial. A supplemental statement of the case was issued on March 9, 1992. The substantive appeal was received at VARO on March 17, 1992. Appellant, through his accredited representative, requested a personal hearing on June 24, 1992. A statement was received from the appellant's accredited representative in July 1992. The appeal was received and docketed at the Board in August 1992. The representative submitted an informal presentation in November 1992. REMAND The appellant is claiming entitlement to an increased disability rating for his service connected schizophrenia, paranoid type, currently evaluated as 30 percent disabling. The Board finds that the June 1991 VA examination, upon which the July 1991 rating decision was based, was not thorough and complete. A detailed history of the appellant's psychiatric disorder was not available for review by the examining physician. The Board bases its finding on the fact that the appellant's claims file does not contain all of his service medical records and that, at the time of the June 1991 VA examination, appellant's claims file was not provided to the examining physician. Also considered in reaching this finding was the examining physician's statement that the appellant could not recall any details of his treatment for a psychiatric disorder while in service. A VARO rating decision dated January 1952 noted that the appellant had six months of hospitalization during service. Appellant reported in his original claim for service connection, received at VARO in November 1951, that he received treatment for his nervous condition at several service hospitals. A list of those hospitals was provided. VARO should obtain and consider this evidence, if available. The VA has a statutory duty to assist the appellant in obtaining records pertinent to his claim, both Government and civilian. 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107(a) (West 1991); Murphy v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 78 (1990). After all of the appellant's available service medical records have been included in his claims folder, the VA must conduct a thorough and contemporaneous medical evaluation of the claimant. Green v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 121 (1991); Akles v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 118 (1991). The appellant should be accorded a psychiatric examination, including appropriate testing, to determine the nature and severity of his psychiatric disorder. As part of such examination it is necessary to consider the total history of the disability in question, including, but not limited to, the origin of the disability. Schafrath v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 589 (1991). After completing the above development, VARO must clarify what the appellant wants as to a hearing and respond accordingly. Appellant, through his representative, requested a hearing on June 24, 1992. The claims folder was not received at the Board until August 1992. Pursuant to 38 C.F.R. § 3.103(c) (1992), a claimant is entitled to a hearing. All reasonably raised issues should be adjudicated by VARO before appellate review. Myers v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 127 (1991). The VA has a statutory duty to assist in developing issues raised in all documents submitted prior to a Board decision. E.F. v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 324 (1991); 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107(a) (West 1991). Accordingly, the case is REMANDED to the agency of original jurisdiction for the following: 1. VARO should obtain all available service medical records for the appellant's periods of service. 2. VARO should also obtain all available clinical records pertaining to treatment for the appellant's nervous condition, including his treatment at the U.S. Naval Hospital, Yokosuka, Japan, on April 8, 1951; then at the U.S. Naval Hospital, Oakland, California, on April 28, 1951; then at the U.S. Naval Hospital, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, from May 8, 1951 to October 31, 1951. M21-1, Part III, Chapter 4, para. 4.02(h) and 4.04(c)(2). 3. After obtaining all available service medical records, VARO should afford the appellant a psychiatric examination, including appropriate testing, to determine the nature and severity of his psychiatric disorder. The examining physician must consider the total history of the disability in question, including, but not limited to, the origin of the disability. The examining physician is referred to the Physician's Guide for Disability Examinations, Chapter 1, Par. 1.12 and 1.13, Chapter 14 and Chapter 20 to assist in articulating the full history of disability, including the military history. For completion of this examination, the claims folder must be provided to the examining physician. 4. After completing the above, VARO should clarify whether the appellant wants a hearing, and if so, schedule the type of hearing selected. If the claim remains denied, the case should be returned to the Board after compliance with all requisite appellate procedure. The purpose of this REMAND is to procure clarifying data and satisfy due process requirements. The Board intimates no opinion as to the ultimate conclusion warranted, pending completion of the requested development. No action is necessary on the appellant's part until he receives further notice. BOARD OF VETERANS' APPEALS WASHINGTON, D.C. 20420 BETTINA S. CALLAWAY MATTHEW J. GORMLEY, III KENNETH R. ANDREWS, JR. Under 38 U.S.C.A. § 7252 (West 1991), 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.